Saint Sun — a myth

One day, a young prince died in the city of Unch in the Indian subcontinent. The boy had had great respect and love for a Shia Ismaili Pir Shams. (Pir means saint and Shams means Sun – Saint Sun.) The king was devastated; he ordered his magistrates and jurists to get a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad because only he could revive the prince. Failure to do so would result in severe punishment for them and their families. They went to Pir Shams and begged him to come because otherwise they would be victims of the king’s wrath.

Pir Shams came to the palace and, without invoking Allah, held the prince by arm who then came back to life. The prince recognized Pir Shams and they both left the palace. The nonbelievers were stunned. They shamed Pir Shams and charged him with acting like God. Pir Shams and the boy left the town. When it dawned upon Pir Shams, while he was meditating, that he had played the role of God, he removed his skin from head to toe as penalty. He, with the boy, returned to the city and gave his skin to the people.

Pir Shams and the boy were hungry but no one wanted to give or sell them food. Eventually, Pir Shams was able to get raw mutton, but was unable to get fire to cook it, so he prompted the Sun to descend and thus was able to cook the mutton.

The people were terrified by the heat and started burning, and they thought the Day of Judgement had arrived.

Once the mutton was cooked, the Sun went back to its celestial abode.

(This Ismaili saint Pir Shams — died 1356 CE — should not be confused with Mawlana Rumi’s spiritual mentor Shams Tabrizi — 1185–1248 CE).

The People’s Sun — today’s reality

• 350,000 people are homeless in NYC as of April 2025.
• 53% of New Yorkers’ debt has gone up due to high food costs. The number is 62% for New Yorkers, with children, who are under more debt.
• $4200 is the rent New Yorkers pay for 1 bedroom apartment — the highest in the country.
• 123 billionaires with total net worth of $759 billion belong to NYC, the most of any city in the world.
• …

Prior to losing the Democratic primary for NYC mayor in June 2025, Andrew Cuomo had been governor of New York state from 2011 to 2021. He was accused of cheating and screwing immigrant workers who cleaned the subways during the COVID 19 pandemic.

The people of New York City, when Cuomo was governor, suffered many cuts in Medicaid, public schools weren’t provided enough money because of austerity measures, and it was the same with the New York City’s subway system.

Corruption, inequality, injustice, police brutality, unemployment, underpaid, overworked, frustrated New Yorkers screamed enough is enough. They brought Zohran (means Sun) on the NYC mayoral platform making so many people happy. Zohran Kwame Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Democratic Party was also supported by the Working Families Party. He won the primary.

Zohran Mubarak

Zohran Mubarak to the US ruling class.

The word “mubarak” is of Arabic origin but is also used in many non-Arab countries and means “auspicious, blessed, lucky propitious, happy.” It is used in greetings such as Eid Mubarak,” “Diwali Mubarak,” Christmas Mubarak,” Wedding Mubarak,” “Ramzan Mubarak,” etc.

Gheraoe-d (Encircled or Besieged)

“We were gheraoed by every Age,
No one ever came to our rescue!
Then, one day, we gheraoed them,
And every tyrant shouted his rage.
No reason to worry:
We shall rise soon despite the pain.
And every city which is now dark
Will see the light once again.”

Revolutionary Pakistani poet Habib Jalib- Tariq Ali’s translation.

Jalib wrote the poem in solidarity with Indian workers.

The rise of a people’s Sun burned the tyrants badly. The tyrants — the elites, racists, and moneyed class of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; the Israeli Lobby; Israeli assets; Israeli agents; the billionaires; the media moguls; corporate bosses; Modi’s Hindutva supporters; and so many others shouted their rage.

Mamdani’s parents Mira Nair, a filmmaker, and Mehmood Mamdani, an academic, are Indians. So why are Modi’s supporters opposing Mamdani? Well, answering a question, Mamdani uttered the truth: like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a “war criminal” too.

Mamdani besieged

“A 100% Communist Lunatic” is what President Donald Trump called Mamdani.

Trump is 50% wrong, Mamdani is not a communist otherwise he would have said: “Let’s nationalize all industries; tech companies; universities; pharmaceutical companies; all financial institutes, including banks; Trump Towers, and so on and make common people’s life easy and give each family a house, free education, free healthcare, 10 hour work week, etc.”

Trump is 50% correct on the lunatic thing. Mamdani is a lunatic because:

• Only a lunatic would think about providing free bus service for the common people.
• Only a lunatic would criticize the 24/7/365 Israeli genocide of Palestinians, and risk losing easy-election-campaign money and support from the Israel Lobby to win the New York Mayor’s election with free trips to Israel.
• Only a lunatic like Mamdani would refuse to be an Israeli asset. He could have become one of the Israeli assets like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, and uncountable others in the Congress, US government, state governments, news media, universities, corporations, armed forces, and so many other organizations. Don’t be surprised, Israel is over the entire US body — like an end-of-life stage of cancer. Only people like Mamdani can save this sick state of affairs and people like Kshama Sawant and her Workers Strike Back can make it alive again.

In the first week of November 2026, Trump will most probably see 100% lunatic in the US House with the name of Kshama Sawant. The US desperately needs her, and many more like her.

“Zohran the Destroyer” is the title given by Fox TV’ reporter. Zohran is the destroyer, indeed. New York City is stinking with the Farts Of Xenophobes which he is going to eliminate and make it a nice smelling city.

“Civilised people in America don’t eat like this,” says US House representative Brandon Gill (Republican from Texas). He was criticizing Mamdani for eating with hands rather than fork, knife, and spoon. A photo of Gill’s father-in-law Dinesh D’Souza, of Indian origin had been posted eating with his hands.

The “civilized people” use hands to accumulate all the money for themselves, to send arms and ammunition to Israel and other countries to kill people, to sign bills cutting Medicaid, etc., and so on.

Many more such criticisms have been hurled, suffice it to say much hatred has been spewed against Mamdani.

Interrogation by US-based Israeli agents

“Do you recognize Israel as a state? Does it have a right to exist?” and six other questions asked by Politico’s Jason Beeferman and Jeff Coltin were all related to Israel and antisemitism.

“Does the State of Israel have the right to exist?” was the question Steven Colbert asked on his show.

“The first foreign visit by a mayor of New York is always considered significant. Where would you go first?” was one of the questions asked by one of the moderators David Ushery during the June 4, 2025, NBC Democratic mayoral primary debate.

Mamdani’s reply: “I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five Burroughs and focus on that.”

“Mr. Mamdani, can I just jump in? Would you visit Israel as mayor?” was the question by the Israeli agent Melissa Russo, pretending to be another moderator, who just couldn’t accept Mamdani’s concern for New Yorkers.

Mamdani’s reply: “I’ve said in a UJA [United Jewish Appeal? – Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc.] questionnaire that I believe that you need not travel to Israel to stand up for Jewish New Yorkers. And that is what I will be doing as the mayor. I’ll be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers and I’ll be meeting them wherever they are across the five Burroughs, whether that’s in their synagogues and temples or at their homes or at the subway platform because ultimately we need to focus on delivering on their concerns.”

Agent Russo was mad: “Answer just yes or no. Do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?”

Mamdani: “I believe Israel has the right to exist …”

Agent Russo jumped in: “As a Jewish state?”

Mamdani:: “As a state with equal rights.”

Now Mamdani was attacked by Cuomo, an Israeli asset running for NYC mayor. Watch the entire video of this exchange after 1:56 here.

Israel has occupied Palestine and has been existing, expanding, and executing Palestinians regularly. So the question wasn’t: As a mayor, will you stop the genocide and end Palestinians’ misery?

The battle begins

All the forces arrayed against Mamdani are going to use full power with all means, right or wrong, available at their disposal to defeat Mamdani in the election. They’ll go to any extreme because, this time it’s a people’s candidate and not a billionaires’ candidate — which is never acceptable in the US.

Mamdani should counter his opponents as he did during the June 12 second and final debate. When Cuomo, whose PACs received $25 million from billionaires, went after Mamdani’s inexperience, Mamdani shot back:

“To Mr. Cuomo, I have never had to resign in disgrace, I’ve never cut medicaid, I’ve never stolen 100s of millions of dollars from the MTA, I’ve never hounded the 13 women who have credibly accused me of sexual harassment, I’ve never sued for their gynecological records, and I have not done those things because I am not you Mr. Cuomo. And further more the name is Mamdani, m-a-m-d-a-n-i, learn to get it right.”

Mamdani has a once in the US lifetime chance to change things, if not in the country, then at least in the most populated city.

The country’s major newspaper, the New York Times, during the 2024 presidential election, refused to publish hacked information on Donald Trump and his VP candidate JD Vance, but in case of Mamdani, it didn’t hold off on publishing hacked information, supplied by one “who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race.” The info was about Mamdani’s 2009 college admission form. The paper had stopped endorsing any candidates except presidential but it criticized Mamdani in an editorial which “effectively served as an anti-endorsement,” Gabe Whisnant noted in Newsweek.

Mamdani should always remember his middle name Kwame, named after independent Ghana’s first Prime Minister and then President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, “Pan-Africanist visionary” who was voted as “Africa’s Man of the Millennium.” By the grace of Uncle Sam, in the form of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Nkrumah was overthrown, like many others before and after him, while he was on a state visit to China and Vietnam in February 1966.

Nkrumah wrote in his book Dark Days in Ghana what methods the US uses in ousting foreign leaders:

“It has been one of the tasks of the CIA and other similar organizations to discover … potential quislings and traitors in our midst, and to encourage them, by bribery and the promise of political power, to destroy the constitutional government of their countries.”

Former Reps. Cori Bush of Missouri and Jamaal Bowman of New York lost in 2024 when the AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee) poured in $20 million to help their opponents. Bush and Bowman had called for ceasefire in Gaza.

This happens regularly to many candidates. Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard were the victims too. More than two decades back, Alexander Cockburn pointed out,

“Don’t you think that if Arab-American groups or African-American groups targeted an incumbent white liberal, maybe Jewish, congressperson, and shipped in money by the truckload to oust the incumbent, the rafters would shake with bellows of outrage.”

Mamdani should also stay away from the “Black Misleadership Class,” as Black Agenda Report constantly reminds us.

Professor Hamid Dabashi has a warning too:

“All the powers of predatory capitalism, militarised fascism and genocidal Zionism have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre.”

Don’t be Obama or Sanders

As President, Barack Obama had a great opportunity to change the course of ruthless capitalism that it has been on for many decades. He and his advisors instead strengthened those very forces who were responsible for the 2007-2008 financial crisis by bailing them out.

But the Obama team did not rescue the victims of those monster-sized companies: more than 16% of the homeowners lost their houses via foreclosure or some other method, that is, approximately ten million families were forced to vacate their houses.

Almost all the criminal bankers went scot-free.

Multimillionaire Obama is a system’s man who is making millions and is ever ready to protect it when he senses even slight danger as he did it in 2020 when it seemed Bernie Sanders might overtake Joe Biden.

Bernie Sanders, an independent (but works with the Democratic Party), had twice, in 2016 and 2020, a chance to form a third party when he lost the presidential candidacy to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, respectively. His supporters were crazy for him and he could have changed the course of history. But no, he betrayed his cause and his supporters, and supported Hillary and Biden, instead.

So Zohran, don’t be like Obama or Sanders. If the anti-people-forces succeed in derailing your pursuit, join hands with Kshama Sawant and Jill Stein to form a third party. If Elon Musk with his hundreds of billions could make a third party, America Party, you could do too with your millions of voters, as the following video of yours acknowledges the voting power of people. Even if you’re elected, the Israel Lobby, the New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and all others will try to make your victory as miserable as they can as Cuomo had done with former mayor Bill de Blasio during his 2014 – 2021 rule.

Let the battle begin. May the good for the people triumph this time.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by B.R. Gowani.

Yet concrete action to end this calamity is hard to organize. How does a genocide end? And specifically, how do people of conscience, acting with majority support of the US public, organize to end it?

The lack of true democracy in the United States, so evident in domestic policy on many issues, is even worse in terms of foreign policy, especially regarding the mostly ironclad support for Israel. However, cracks are showing, and they must be exploited quickly.

Earlier this week, US Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) brought his S. Res. 224, calling for an end to the humanitarian blockade on Gaza, to the Senate floor. The resolution had the support of all Democrats, except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME).

The resolution was predictably blocked from getting a vote by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair James Risch (R-ID), but was significant as no other legislative measure in the year and half since the war on Gaza began has garnered such widespread, albeit partisan support (no Republicans supported it, nor have any called for a ceasefire or cutting off US weapons to Israel).

A companion resolution in the House of Representatives will be introduced very soon, and while both would be non-binding, they represent progress in the long struggle to exert pressure on Israel, and Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are keenly aware of US political developments. Additionally, the Senate will likely soon vote on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) to stop specific US weapons transfers to Israel. Sen. Sanders forced such votes twice since November, and while they failed, the upcoming votes should attract more support, and add to the pressure on the Israeli government, which of course is opposed by most Israelis.

Legislative initiatives are far from the only strategies and tactics being employed by peace and human rights activists. Other recent and upcoming events and opportunities include the following:

Activists led by Montgomery County, Maryland Peace Action showed up at new US Senator Angela Alsobrooks’ “Sick of It” rally protesting the Trump/Musk cuts to health programs, and had a strong showing about also being sick of the Gaza genocide, including confronting the senator. It may have had some impact, as she later signed onto Sen. Welch’s resolution, after having been largely silent on the genocide in Gaza, and voting against Sen. Sanders’ most recent JRDs.

The impressive anti-genocide commencement speech by George Washington University student Cecelia Culver has received significant media coverage. She is now shamefully being investigated by the university. Similarly, New York University student Logan Rozos condemned the Gaza genocide in his commencement speech, and the university is withholding his diploma. Both students, along with other students similarly persecuted for speaking out for an end to the horrors in Gaza, deserve support and solidarity.

Reprising and expanding an effort from last year, New Hampshire peace activist Bob Sanders is conducting a cross country bike ride to raise awareness of the dire situation in Gaza.

Veterans for Peace and other allies are supporting a 40 day fast for Peace in Gaza.

Groups in the Philadelphia will hold a People’s War Crimes Tribunal on May 31, building on the difficult but necessary advocacy aimed at Sen. Fetterman.

Lastly, Do Not Turn on Us is a new initiative calling on military and National Guard personnel to refuse unlawful, fascist orders. While more aimed at stopping fascism in the United States, it certainly is a contribution to the overall movement to establish peace, human rights and the rule of law, domestically and internationally.

Will any of these efforts, along with many others, overcome powerful political forces that perpetuate genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid against the Palestinian people? No one can know for sure, but all are worthy of support and persistence. As Ms. Culver stated, none of us are free until Palestine is free.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kevin Martin.

In early February, a few weeks into this time of testing, I identified our objectives over the next two years as “making as many advances as we can on local and state levels while preventing as much damage as possible to the primary MAGA targets: US democracy, human and civil rights, including internationally, organized labor and programs that benefit low- and moderate-income working people, and the natural environment on which all life depends.” I put forward five areas of focus, five tactics, that I thought were critical for successful resistance: street heat, local/state/federal government, courts, media and publicity, and outreach.

I think the most important development over these months has been the emergence of massive, repeated, and geographically widespread street heat, millions of us demonstrating in state capitols, in DC, at Tesla dealerships, in thousands of towns in every single state. The high point so far was three and a half million of us in the streets for the April 5 “Hands Off” actions, but the many other national days of action, beginning with 50501’s February 5 mobilization, have all been critical to building a widespread spirit of resistance.

June 14, No Kings Day, is the next major nationwide action, and with 880  actions already on the calendar, there is reason to believe this will be bigger than April 5. We should all do whatever we can to make it so!

These actions have undoubtedly strengthened those of us taking part in them and others: law firms, Harvard and other major universities, judges, media figures, faith leaders, and more. Indeed, courage is contagious, and on that front, we should feel good about what we have accomplished so far.

As far as the courts, according to the Associated Press, as of today, 158 Trump executive orders, or 76% of them, have either been blocked or are pending, with 49, or 24%, taking effect. These are not good numbers for the Trumpfascists and a sign that they are going to have a hard time doing all that they want to do.

It’s also significant that the Supreme Court has, in several cases, refused to do Trump’s bidding. There are clear signs that not just the three liberal judges but also some conservatives, especially Roberts and Barrett, have substantial concerns about Trump’s efforts to dominate both Congress and the courts.

What about Congress? As I write, the Republicans who run the House of Representatives with a tiny majority struggle to pass the reconciliation bill, ridiculously named the “Big Beautiful Bill,” they have been working on for months. If eventually passed, and that’s a definite “if,” the Republican-run Senate is by no means ready to approve what the House comes up with. There are many internal differences, some strongly felt, both within the overall House and on the part of more than a few Senators in relation to how and what the House is doing.

That is why many groups, right now, are organizing to mobilize massive pressure on members of the House. All of us should be flooding House members demanding, if Democrats, that they speak out and do whatever they can to frustrate MAGA plans. Even more important, pressure is needed on Republicans, especially those who are in Congressional districts that are expected to be competitive in 2026.

As far as media and publicity, our actions in the streets and the growing willingness of people and organized groups from a broad mix of backgrounds to speak up and resist have had an impact on more than the usual progressive media sources. The Wall Street Journal (!), as one big example, has been very critical of Trump, mainly for his poor leadership when it comes to the economy, especially the tariff debacle. Every once in a while, Fox News people have had specific criticisms of what the Trump Administration is doing. Overall, in no way has the mass media, and certainly not progressive media, including social media, been cowed into silence and submission.

There are other indicators that the progressive resistance should take heart and keep on with our absolutely essential work:

-Where have the MAGAs been when we have demonstrated repeatedly in the streets, including the streets in deep red states? I’ve heard of very, very few instances of any substantive, MAGA, in-person street opposition. This has to be in part because, as polls have shown, there is a lot of discontent among a significant percentage of Trump voters about his handling of the economy, particularly the tariff debacle.

-Bernie Sanders and AOC deserve a loud shout-out for the leadership they gave with their Fight Oligarchy tour of mainly red states, drawing thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of people to their rallies. That’s a huge example of the kind of outreach much needed over the coming months and years.

There is something special about this demonstration of the power of age and youth joining together, which has also been reflected in many of the street actions. Bernie and AOC are showing in action how to take on the MAGAs in a way that also builds a strong, independent people’s movement not controlled by the corporate-friendly wing of the Democratic Party.

-And what about Pope Leo 14? The Catholic Church, as male-dominated and hierarchical as it still is, has decided to continue the more progressive direction that the late Pope Francis worked to advance. We now have a new Pope from Chicago, an American who has already made clear he will speak out for those whom the Trumpists are demonizing and deporting, criminalizing, and hurting. For those who believe in a higher power, it could be seen as a sign that, despite Trump, despite Gaza, despite so many reasons not to have hope, there is hope.

It really is true that there ain’t no power like the power of the people, organized, and the power of the people doesn’t stop.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ted Glick.

Like the proverbial spark that ignited a prairie fire, the Occupy movement that began on September 17, 2011, in New York City went viral. Rallying around the slogan, “We are the 99%,” the movement initially mobilized large numbers of what might be called the newly dispossessed. They were looking for remedies to a neoliberal order which was not working for them.

Elements of this same constituency of the dispossessed today are in the Trump camp in part due to the failure of the Democrats to embrace and address their issues. Trump, if there is any upside, presents an opportunity to organize against an increasingly exposed imperial/neoliberal order. Popular protests are called for on April 5. But will they speak to the causes and not just the symptoms, repeating the mistakes of the Occupy movement?

Occupy swept the nation

At its peak in fall 2011, hundreds of thousands participated in Occupy rallies, marches, and encampments across the US.

By early October 2011, Occupy reached the San Francisco Bay Area, where I participated. On October 5, a rally was held at the Federal Reserve Building in San Francisco. Just five days later, protesters demonstrated at Oscar Grant Plaza (so renamed by the protesters after a Black victim of police violence) in Oakland, soon to become an epicenter of militance.

As a handmade sign under the “official” tree of Oakland declared: “An oak tree is just a little nut that decided to hold its ground.”

By October 25, Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen was injured by police at a demonstration in Oakland, generating more publicity and support for the movement. A massive “general strike” on November 2 brought out tens of thousands and temporarily shut down the huge Port of Oakland.

The children’s brigade calls for a general strike, Oakland Occupy.

Baby boomer leftists, such as myself, were beside ourselves. It looked like the glory days of the anti-Vietnam War movement had returned. We had seen a temporary resurgence of anti-system sentiment eight years before with opposition to the Iraq War runup. Back then, on February 15, 2003, we had marched in the largest international anti-war demonstration in history.

When that supposed apostle of hope Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush, the latter’s secretary of war Robert Gates continued and so did the Iraq War. Overnight, the Democrats became the party of war, and the peace movement dissipated. But we’re getting ahead of the story.

Returning to the euphoria of the early Occupy Days, I went to rallies and chatted people up. What I discovered was that very few of the newly mobilized had ever been in an anti-Iraq War demonstration, let alone marched against the US military in Vietnam. This younger cohort did not even identify with the former protest movements. But they were angry.

These were folks who were under- or unemployed. Who had lost their homes, their jobs, or their health insurance. They had dependents they could not care for.

And they were resentful. The signs proliferated: “Banks get bailed out, we get sold out.” Or “Trickledown economics is a fancy way for to describe the rich pissing on the poor.” In short, “the system is not broken, it’s fixed.”

While the rich and privileged – the so-called 1% – were the main target of this upwelling of mass antipathy, other culprits were identified. In my mixing with the multitudes, I also heard another undercurrent. This was resentment of immigrants, expressed not only by middle-income Anglos but by people of color of lesser means, including immigrants themselves.

The genius of the Trump phenomenon is that it has been able to opportunistically scapegoat anti-immigrant resentment, thereby assuming the mantle of populism. At the same time, ironies of ironies, the reactionaries are represented by literally the 1% of the 1% in the form of Elon Musk.

Eclipse of Occupy

Failing to address the concerns of the dispossessed, Occupy faded into a historical footnote in less than one year. The anarchist-infused zeitgeist of Occupy was both its great strength and its ultimate fatal flaw. Horizontal decision-making and consensus-based assemblies were appealing and, initially, the participatory spaces filled.

The innovative call-and-response “mic-check” amplified voices where sound equipment was banned. However, “mic check” was fetishized. Slow and inefficient, it favored slogans over examination of complex subjects, leading to frustration. Confident speakers with loud voices were privileged. What was meant to be inclusive reinforced subtle exclusions.

In prefiguring the future, Occupy became untethered from the immediate needs of the present.

Living in a tent camp or even sitting on cold concrete through marathon meetings limited the participatory pool. Folks had jobs they had to go to and dependents to care for.

Most lethal of the deadly faults was avoidance of specific demands. The theory was that making demands of a corrupt system would legitimize that system. Prefiguring the future was counterposed to addressing immediate concerns.

The prevailing mistrust of reforms characterizing the Occupy movement lacked the strategic sophistication of, say, Lenin who explained: “We support every revolutionary movement against the existing order of things… we must work for reforms and use them to prepare for revolution.”

Occupy became plagued by a lack of strategic focus. This refusal to issue concrete demands alienated those dispossessed by the prevailing order who had concrete problems. People, especially those who had never protested before, got disillusioned and drifted away.

Yes, the coercive arm of the state also contributed to the demise of Occupy. But the violent clearance of the encampments, in my experience, came after the tide had ebbed.

The Black Bloc or Antifa (short for anti-fascist) elements, at least in Oakland, also contributed to the expiration of Occupy by driving away supporters who had no interest or ability to militarily skirmish with the police. Occupy’s shunning of designated leaders left the Antifa unaccountable even when the confrontations that they provoked were used as an excuse by the state to shut Occupy down.

Fighting Oligarchy and Hands Off initiatives

With its preoccupation with prefiguring the future, the fundamental failing of Occupy was its inability to address the immediate concerns of the working class. More recently, in the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election, Bernie Sanders gathered attention with a similar observation regarding his political affiliation: “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

This discovery of the class loyalties of the Democrats is correct, though not exactly a revelation to many of us.

Sanders, accompanied by congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been drawing larger crowds than his previous presidential campaigns on a Fighting Oligarchy tour. This is a positive indication of mass discontent with the slash and burn tactics of the present US administration.

Similar to the earlier Occupy movement, the Fighting Oligarchy tour opposes authoritarianism, in the present case, in the form of Trump. Their focus on the current occupant in the White House, however, suggests that a mere change of personnel is the solution to a far more systematic degeneration.

Like Occupy, they are short on advocating for hard-hitting specifics such as repeal of Taft Hartley, issues that would materially appeal to and benefit working people. Unlike Occupy, they are not in the least bit concerned about cooption. Quite the opposite for this pair, who the Black Agenda Report calls “sheepdogs” for the Democratic Party. Herding disaffected voters back into their party is their mission.

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, along with a broad mélange of anti-Trump interests, are organizing for nationwide “Hands Off” protests on April 5. Among the leading groups making the dump-Trump call are MoveOn, Indivisible, and the Working Families Party. These well-funded 501(c)(4) NGOs, while posing as grassroots, are appendages of the Democratic Party, albeit mostly with its “progressive” wing.

The explicitly anti-billionaire initiative accepts funds only from supposedly nice billionaires like George Soros and not nasty ones. An earlier anti-Trump initiative, Families Over Billionaires, also part of the present Hands Off coalition, also received substantial billionaire funding. Their ad hominem critiques of extreme wealth focus on the personal characteristics of the exploiters and not on the neoliberal system (the current form of capitalism) which produces great inequities.

While the Hands Off coalition primarily addresses domestic issues, key among the Democrats’ demands is full reinstatement of military aid to Ukraine. However, waving the Ukrainian flag while suppressing the Palestinian one is not exactly a winning formula for appealing to a polity that just gave the Republicans a trifecta of the White House and both chambers of congress on the (insincere) platform of ending endless wars.

With record low public approval ratings, the Democrats are also promoting restoring USAID regime-change programs. And when they dare murmur a critical comment about Israel, it is about the person of Netanyahu and not about the Zionist enterprise.

Reflecting genuine grassroots peace sentiment, an entirely different coalition will also be in Washington on April 5. The Palestinian Youth Movement, the ANSWER Coalition, Jewish Voice for Peace, and others will be demonstrating against genocide in Palestine and for a US arms embargo of Israel.

The time is ripe to regroup and reorganize a counter movement to the prevailing order. The signs paraded by the Occupy movement are ever relevant today: “Imperialist America is [still] humanity’s number one enemy.”

On the march to close the Port of Oakland.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Roger D. Harris.

The criteria for winning a presidential debate is very simple: the candidate who fumbles less, makes less mistakes, avoids too many verbal gaffes, etc., who is able to present a rosy picture for the future, and, who believes in people’s “ambition, the aspirations, [and] the dreams,” is the winner — provided all bullshitting is done with a serious face.

However, it’s entirely a different matter whether that person has any genuine solutions to the problems majority of the people face.

Exactly eight years ago, first time in US history of 240 years, a woman had a chance to reach the highest office — Hillary Clinton won popular votes by almost 3 million votes, but that rare opportunity was snatched away by the Electoral College. The victory went to Donald Trump, a slowly evolving fascist. It is to be remembered that Clinton was not that woman progressives have been waiting for.

This time, another woman, Kamala Harris, is in the race for presidency. Her opponent is none other than Trump. Harris was not in the competition but got her opportunity when the Democratic establishment realized, after the Biden/Trump debate, that the horse they have been trying to steady for three and a half years cannot any more stand on its own, and could give up any moment.

Thus, Joe Biden was pushed aside with a tribute that he left the race for a second term out of patriotic duty. Everyone knows that almost no one gives up power, whether s/he is an authoritarian or a “democrat,” without a rough push.

Kamala is the in-girl

Kamala is the in-girl — so many love and support her, not only most of the Democrats but also some prominent Republicans! Within 36 hours of Biden’s decision not to run, and his nominating of Harris as his successor, Harris campaign raised $100 million that jumped to $310 in less than two weeks, with new donors contributing two-thirds of the amount. By September 6, the number had nearly doubled to $615 million. Andrew Byrnes, a tech policy strategist and Harris fundraiser, said the amount he raised for Kamala in one week was double the amount he raised for Biden in a whole year.

In two months, the amount rose to $1 billion. No other presidential candidate has accumulated such a huge amount in such a short period!

Trump is no match for Harris in fundraising despite the fact that his campaign received $100 million from Miriam Adelson who likes Trump so much that she said “Book of Trump”¹ should be added to the Bible, i.e. the Old Testament. Trump allied PAC also got $150 million from Timothy Mellon. Trump’s equally nasty buddy Elon Musk has contributed $76 million.

Trump is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party. Most Democrats never tire of ridiculing him. This enables them and the Democrat-leaning news media to keep their supporters busy in Trump’s antics and eccentricities and thus saves the party from answering hard questions.

MSNBC is also known as MSDNC or Democratic National Committee mouthpiece. MSNBC is a cheerleader for the Democrats. Biden and Harris regularly watch MSNBC’s Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. “A Jacobin analysis of six months of its Gaza coverage reveals an unflagging role cheering on Israel’s genocide.”

Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder and billionaire, is backing Kamala because he wants to get rid of Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Billionaire Mark Cuban endorsed Harris too for the same reason: dump Khan.

Sheryl Sandberg is “thrilled to support” Kamala,² because

She is an accomplished leader, a fierce advocate of abortion rights, and the strongest candidate to lead our country forward.

Ron Conway, a billionaire, has asked tech community to join hands to salvage “our democracy” by getting behind Kamala, whom he has known “for decades” to prevent Trump’s reentry into White House. Conway says she is an “advocate for the tech ecosystem since the day we met.”

Melinda French Gates ($13 million), Reed Hastings (Netflix), George Soros and Alex Soros, Vinod Khosla, Jeffrey Katzenberg (former president of Walt Disney Studios), Bill Gates ($50 million), and other billionaires numbering 81 (or more) have joined the Kamala bandwagon, whereas, Trump has 52 billionaires with him.

Billionaires’ bribes count. Harris, who was with Biden’s plan of raising capital gains tax from 23.8% to 44.6%, opted for 33%, instead.

More than 90 business leaders, including over a dozen billionaires, wrote and signed an endorsement letter to Harris.

“Her election is the best way to support the continued strength, security, and reliability of our democracy and economy. … [She] ensure[s] American businesses can compete and win in the global market. … she will strive to give every American the opportunity to pursue the American dream.”

These billionaire and multimillionaire business people have nothing to do with democracy. The main thrust of the letter is US “businesses can compete and win in the global market,” under Harris, that is, the US government either diplomatically or through military force opens up foreign markets for them like US Commodore Matthew Perry forced Japan to open up for business in 1853. The other fallacy is that Kamala will try to provide people with “the opportunity to pursue the American dream.”

A few corporations are controlling most businesses in US. People are free to dream but whose dreams get realized is decided by the people in power.

Many US presidents, have warned about the increasing corporate power and its harmful effect on country. Thomas Jefferson had hoped in 1816 to “crush” the corporate power which was challenging government and defying laws. Instead the corporations crushed the government power and as journalist and novelist Theodore Dreiser puts it, “the corporations are the government.” (China is a capitalist country but the government controls the capitalists; this is anathema to the US; it wants China to go the US way.)

Women are elated with Harris entering the race for two main reasons: one is that someone from their gender has a chance to win and the other is Harris’ support for abortion. Sadly, most of these women have no Palestinian and Lebanese women and children on their mind.

Porn actors, some of them, are spending over $100,000 in seven swing states in support of Harris because they fear Trump presidency and Project 2025 will ban the porn industry. Harris should thank them but should ask them to stop violence and degradation of women in many of their videos.

Jeff Bridges extended his support to Kamala who is “just so certainly our girl.” He proudly proclaimed: “I’m white, I’m a dude, and I’m for Harris.” Bridges was a part of White Dudes for Harris Zoom call; over 180,000 joined in and raised about $4 million for her campaign. The invitation to join in was based on: “Are you a white guy who believes in science, human rights, and democracy?”

There have been several similar events: such as Latinas for Harris; White Women: Answer the Call; the Black Women Zoom; Caribbean-Americans for Harris; South Asian Women for Harris; Disabled Voters for Harris; Black Men for Harris; Win With Black Women; and South Asian Men for Harris.

Salman Rushdie, an author, joined the South Asian Men for Harris virtual meet and declared he’s in for Harris “1,000 per cent.”³ One could understand Rushdie’s worry as a writer because if Trump wins and turns dictator, of which there are great chances, then he and his ministers, like Elon Musk, won’t tolerate any kind of criticism. The Kamala government would let them write in small publications and press which have limited reach and do not disturb or threaten the ruling class and the system.

Singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is for Kamala too because “She is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”

Billionaire Swift resides in her own bubble and is unaware that, until now the US has been led by calm leaders, but most people have achieved nothing but decline.

In 1982, when the Forbes 400 list was initiated, one could join the list with $100 million ($300 million in today’s money). There were only 13 billionaires then. Today, you need eleven times that amount or $3.3 billion to be one of 400 wealthy in US. So, 400 billionaires made it to the list but 415 individuals couldn’t make it, including Oprah Winfrey who has $3 billion, less than the required $3.3 billion.

What about the rest of the people? A whopping 37% of people in US have less than $400 in savings!

Singer-songwriter Beyonce joined Kamala at a rally in Houston to extend her support. Many celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen, Patti LaBelle, Jennifer Lopez, Jamie Lee Curtis, George Clooney,⁴ and Sarah Jessica Parker (who is voting for Kamala for 31 things, including “For our military, past and currently serving” but not for peace or ceasefire in Gaza).

Dick Cheney, the Vice President in George W. Bush regime and one of the major architects of the Iraq War, a Republican, has also announced that he’ll vote for Kamala Harris.

“[There had] never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump”

“He [Trump] tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.” “He can never be trusted with power again.”

“As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our constitution.” “That is why I will be casting my vote for Vice-President Kamala Harris.”

Liz Cheney, a Republican and Dick Cheney’s daughter, supports Harris too, and joined her campaign events thrice in early October. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the progressive supporters and Democrats like Harris, are campaigning for her but have not been invited to appear with Harris, as yet.

Liz Cheney criticized Trump: “He is petty, he is vindictive, and he is cruel.” If she had not mentioned Trump’s name, one would have assumed she was talking about her dad Dick Cheney who is not any better, in any respect, but is worst than Trump –until now. Liz Cheney also added: “Violence does not and must never determine who rules us. Voters do.”

Trump called Dick Cheney (whose approval rating, when he left office, was mere 13%) a “King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars,” and blasted both father- daughter duo on his TruthSocial account.

“… Her father, Dick, was a leader of our ridiculous journey into the Middle East, where Trillions of Dollars were spent, millions of people were killed – and for what? NOTHING! Well, today, these two fools, because the Republican Party no longer wants them, endorsed the most Liberal Senator in U.S. Senate, further Left than even Pocahontas or Crazy Bernie Sanders – Lyin’ Kamala Harris. What a pathetic couple that is, both suffering gravely from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Good Luck to them both!!!”

Trump is correct about Dick Cheney. He was George H.W. Bush’s Defense Secretary when US went to war against Iraq and destroyed that country. Dick Cheney was Vice President of Bush Jr., when US devastated Afghanistan in 2001, and again went to war against Iraq, in 2003.

Trump lies a great deal but then every now and then he also shows a mirror of the US empire, and its imperialist crimes. Trump once told Bill O’Reilly, “We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent?” Or just recently he said: Trillions of Dollars were spent, millions of people were killed. Now this kind of talk can’t be conducive to people running the empire because they suffer from spectrophobia.

238 staffers from four previous Republican governments and many more, including John Negroponte, one of the criminal minds of US imperialism, endorsed Kamala. Barbara Pierce Bush (daughter of former Republican president George W. Bush) is supporting Kamala with the hope the US moves “forward and protect women’s rights.”

Why so many wealthy and powerful people have gotten behind Kamala? The reasons, as we have seen vary, but the most important one is that Kamala will maintain the statue quo. She’s not going to make any drastic changes, but just the cosmetic type.

On the other hand, many rich, and not very rich, in the ruling class are scared of Trump’s unpredictable nature. The wealthy class may benefit much more under Trump than under Harris. In 2017, Trump lowered the corporate tax rate from (Obama government’s) 35% to 21% and corporations benefited a lot. (Biden raised it to 28% and not the 35% it used to be during his vice presidency.)

Trump may concentrate on domestic issues rather than waging foreign wars; but, then if something triggers him, or he is incited by his aides, or perceives a threat from foreign leader(s), then he may go unhinged.

Biden praised Liz Cheney’s “courage” to appear with Harris. “I admire her. Her dad and I worked together a long, long time.” Biden, like Cheneys, loves violence and war. Republicans and Democrats working together can screw the people within and without the US. It becomes so much easier to wage a war against “foreign enemy” when both parties are working together.

Trump will probably do within the US, what the US has been doing to the world for several decades. He will unleash the army on his opponents and critics. Here is Trump:

“The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within, Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”⁵

Irony

In 2021, Trump’s vice presidential candidate, J.D. Vance had portrayed Vice President Kamala Harris and other women Democrats as, “a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives.”

During the presidential debate in September 2024, Trump falsely charged Haitians residing in Springfield, Ohio, of “eating the dogs … the cats … the pets of the people that live there.”

On October 31, Trump said “Well, I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not. I am going to protect them.”

On October 27, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made racist fun of Latino people by saying “These Latinos, they love making babies,” he called Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage,” and repeated the lie about Haitians eating pets.

Donald Trump and his team, it seems, is striving to lose the election. Despite that, the polls show a tight race between Trump and Harris.

On Harris’ side, she is careful but had to distance herself from Biden telling Latinos “The only garbage I see floating out there is his [Trump] supporters — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.” Harris has yet to comment on former president Bill Clinton‘s “racist Michigan speech” as Sanjana Karanth puts it. Bill Clinton said:

“I understand why young Palestinian and Arab Americans in Michigan think too many people have died — I get that, but…” “Hamas makes sure that they’re shielded by civilians, they’ll force you to kill civilians, if you want to defend yourself.”

Harris is very popular, was able to amass great amount of money, got lot of support but somehow the polls — which may be wrong , as often happens — are not favoring her. Who knows, as investigative reporter Dave Lindorff points out, Harris could win if she gets “secret women’s vote” in rural Pennsylvania similar to what happened in Kansas in 2022 regarding the banning of abortion referendum. Julia Roberts encouraged women to exercise their right to choose, within the privacy of the election booth:

This is an election where voters will decide between possible drastic changes that result in fascism, versus, maintaining the unjust pro-war inegalitarian status quo.

However, those who are fed up with the two main lesser and greater evils, there are two other candidates to choose from who are anti-war and pro-common people: Jill Stein of Green Party and Claudia De la Cruz of Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL).⁶

ENDNOTES:

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by B.R. Gowani.

A quote, wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln, reads:

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Well, that may be true but what is also true is that you can fool most of the people (followers of politicians, political parties, religions, celebrities, stars, social media influencers, businesspersons, and so on) most of the time because followers place blind trust in their heroes, heroines, religious leaders, influencers, etc.

This was visible during the quadrennial spectacles called Republican National Convention (July 15 to July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin) and Democratic National Convention (August 19 to August 22, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois).

Of course, there is a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party: the Republicans are overtly hostile and will screw you unashamedly in broad day light without any kind of lubrication or apology.

The Democrats are, in that respect, a bit less rough. They’ll beg your pardon; would plead with you to understand the criticality of the situation; but will screw you, nonetheless — of course, in a dim light with a bit of lubricant.

Both the conventions took place during the ongoing Israeli slaughter, displacements, starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza since October 12, 2023. Both parties have supported the Israeli carnage. There is a division in the Democratic Party about supporting Israel, but the strong voices are few and many a times become victims of the Israel Lobby. One of the powerful group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has spent more than $100 million in the 2024 election campaign: $15 million was spent to defeat US House Representatives Jamal Bowman who was critical of Israeli genocide of Gazans and $9 million to oust Cori Bush, another critic of Israeli war.

Danaka Katovich, National Co-Director CodePink, describes how a woman outside the convention center calling out the names of the children killed in Gaza was ignored and laughed at.

“There was a young woman that sat outside the exit of the Democratic National Convention on its third night reading the names of the children Israel has killed in the last ten months. She did it for hours, until her speaker battery died. She did it alone, taking care to pronounce every child’s name correctly and to say their age at the time of their murder. Without her, many of the DNC guests wouldn’t necessarily be confronted with the carnage members of their party is carrying out.

“Outside the gates of the DNC I saw a young woman making sure the children of Palestine weren’t just numbers, and I saw people laughing at her for doing so. They laughed loudly and mocked her voice. They mocked the names of the dead babies. They yelled at her to leave them alone. They left the coronation ceremony livid that they had to even hear about Gaza.”

Things were not too different inside the convention center, either.

The DNC allowed the parents of one of the hostages held by Hamas to speak and highlight their plight but no Palestinian was permitted to talk about the killing of over 41,000 [1] Palestinians (33% of them children and 18.4% women) and about ceasefire. Even a speech which included support for Kamala Harris was disallowed.

The speakers who did talk about Gaza and Palestine knew very well that their speeches were not going to make any difference.

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez):

“She [Vice President Kamala Harris] is working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bringing hostages home.”

After five and a half years in the US Congress and as an active member of the Democratic Party, progressive AOC [2] knows damn well that no efforts on part of Kamala or Biden administration is needed to secure a ceasefire — the US just has to stop money and arms flow to Israel and that’s it.

On August 21, AOC posted on X:

“Just as we must honor the humanity of hostages, so too must we center the humanity of the 40,000 Palestinians killed under Israeli bombardment. To deny that story is to participate in the dehumanization of Palestinians. The @DNC must change course and affirm our shared humanity.

Bernie Sanders:

“We must end this horrific war in Gaza. Bring home the hostages and demand an immediate ceasefire.”

Two progressive members devoted a total of 31 words to the more than 10 month old continuing tragedy without mentioning the over 41,000 Palestinians killed!

Senator Raphael Warnock (Georgia) talked about children’s (including Gaza’s) safety.

“I need all of my neighbors’ children to be okay — poor inner-city children in Atlanta and poor children in Appalachia.” “I need the poor children of Israel and the poor children of Gaza, I need Israelis and Palestinians, I need those in the Congo, those in Haiti, those in Ukraine. I need American children on both sides of the tracks to be OK. Because we are all God’s children.”

The speakers, including (Barack Obama), touched on various topics, but as Lorraine Ali in Los Angeles Times observed,

“But little was said about Gaza or Israel, and the silence spoke volumes. Let’s talk about everything but that war.”

When hawkish Harris opened her mouth she roared about defending the security of the most powerful and technologically advanced country, Israel, against the broken Palestinians.

“With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock because now is the time to get a hostage deal and cease-fire done.

“Let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organization Hamas caused on Oct. 7.

“Including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again.

“The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that – Israel is secure – the hostages are released – the suffering in Gaza ends – and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity.”

Hamas of the Israeli occupied Gaza is a “terrorist organization” but there is no mention of who caused the loss of “so many innocent lives” or who is making “desperate, hungry people” flee for “safety, over and over again.”
No mention of Israel. This, from one who is the would-be next President of the US.

She said she and Biden are “working around the clock.” The clock must be out of order. The war will only stop when the US decides to halt its support.

Back in July, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress. Many Democrats abstained, Harris included. But then the very next day, she met Netanyahu in private. Her facial expressions didn’t show she was angry in any manner. Now look at Obama’s picture with Netanyahu where Obama’s displeasure is visible. Netanyahu was trying to undermine Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

The statement by Harris after her meeting with Netanyahu was the same diplomatic bullshit. [3]

The conventions are basically a feel good exercise to create excitement and hope among supporters and to denigrate and make fun of the opposition. The Democrats did exactly that; made fun of former president and the current Republican Party presidential candidate, Donald Trump and frightened, rightly so, their followers/die hard supporters with fascism replacing “democracy” if Trump gets reelected.

The Democrats, however, didn’t remind their supporters that they (the Democrats), when in power, do act in a fascist manner overseas with their wars, sanctions, embargoes, blockades, seizing money and gold belonging to countries they don’t like.

On domestic issues the Democrats and Republicans differ on certain issues but both support capitalism and get plenty of money from the corporations. The hands of both parties are drenched with blood of foreigners, including children and women. Even within the US, the Democrats are cruel with many segments of the society. Republicans are openly cruel.

Notes

[1] After every Israeli deadly crime, the usual statement, actually a warning, from its major supporter, the United States, is,

“We are engaged in intense diplomacy pretty much around the clock, with a very simple message: All parties must refrain from escalation.”

That is, Israel’s murderous act should remain unpunished or else we’ll jump in to defend Israel. The above warning was for Iran to refrain from any retaliation against Israel which had assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had also ordered killing of Lebanese militia group Hezbollah’s commander Fuad Shukr.

[2] The Democratic leadership was using one of their presidents’ tactic by inviting AOC to speak and thus mainstreaming her but also blunting her voice. President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908 – 1973) said the following about FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

“It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”

[3] A couple of paragraphs from Harris’ statement;

“I also expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians.  And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there, with over 2 million people facing high levels of food insecurity and half a million people facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity.

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating — the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time.  We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies.  We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering.  And I will not be silent.”

Lip service completed, let the one-sided hostilities continue …

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by B.R. Gowani.

New York Times deputy opinion editor Patrick Healy (8/20/24) described Sen. Bernie Sanders’ speech to the Democratic National Convention as an attempt to “make policy proposals that put [Kamala] Harris in a big-government vise, binding (or pushing) her in a direction that a lot of moderates do not want to go.”

Healy depicted Sanders as

grasp[ing] the lectern with both hands as he unfurled one massive government program idea after another in a progressive policy reverie that must have been music to the ears of every democratic socialist at the United Center.

New York Times deputy opinion editor Patrick Healey (8/20/24): “On Tuesday night, Sanders put Harris on the hot seat.”

Healey followed the standard New York Times line (FAIR.org, 7/26/24) that progressive candidates need to move to the right to win—and scorned Sanders for ignoring that advice: “Harris needs some of those swing-state moderates if she’s going to win the presidency, but the electoral math didn’t seem to be on Sanders’s mind.”

Strangely, though, the specific policies that Healey mentioned Sanders as promoting don’t seem to be particularly unpopular, with moderates or anyone else. Rather, opinion polls find them to be supported by broad majorities:

• “Overturning Citizens United“: Three-fourths of survey respondents (Center for Public Integrity, 5/10/18) say that they support a constitutional amendment t0 overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows the wealthy to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. In the same survey, 60% said reducing the influence of big campaign donors is “very important.” According to the Pew Research Center (5/8/18), 77% of the public says “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns.
• “Making healthcare ‘a human right’ for all Americans”: A 2020 Pew Research Center poll (9/29/20) found that “63% of US adults say the government has the responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for all.” Another Pew poll (1/23/23) reported 57% agreeing that it’s “the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
• “Raising the minimum wage to a ‘living wage’”: According to the Pew Research Center (4/22/21), 62% of Americans want the federal minimum wage raised to $15 an hour. (Most of the remainder wanted the minimum wage increased by a lesser amount.) According to the think tank Data for Progress (4/26/24), 86% of likely voters do not think the current federal minimum wage is enough for a decent quality of life.
• “Raising teachers’ salaries”: The 2023 PDK poll found that 67% of respondents support increasing local teacher salaries by raising property taxes. The AP/NORC poll (4/18) reported that “78% of Americans say teachers in this country are underpaid.”
• “Cutting prescription drug costs in half”: A poll from 2023 by Data for Progress found that 73% of all likely voters supported Biden administration initiatives allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs. Health policy organization KFF (8/21/23) reported that 88% of adults support “limiting how much drug companies can increase the price for prescription drugs each year to no more than the rate of inflation.”

Back in 2015, when Sanders was running for president, Healy co-wrote an article for the Times (5/31/15; Extra!, 7–8/15) that declared him “unelectable,” in part because he supported “far higher taxes on the wealthy.” But raising taxes on the rich turns out to be consistently popular in opinion polls (FAIR.org, 4/20/15).

What we’re learning is that progressive policy proposals are deeply unpopular—with the New York Times‘ deputy opinion editor.

ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Elsie Carson-Holt.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday night spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the student protests taking place on college campuses across the country, and the ongoing, horrific humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

Sanders’ remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched live here:

President, some of us have been out of school for awhile and we may have forgotten our American history. But I did want to take a moment to remind some of my colleagues about a document called the U.S. Constitution and, specifically, the First Amendment of that Constitution.

For those that may have forgotten, here is what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Let me also take this opportunity to remember our late colleague, the former congressman John Lewis for his heroic role in the Civil Rights Movement.

I know it’s very easy to heap praise on Congressman Lewis and many others decades after they did what they did, but, I would remind my colleagues them that Mr. Lewis was arrested 45 times for participating in sit-ins, occupations, and protests – 45 times – for protesting segregation and racism.

I would also remind my colleagues that the Lunch Counter protest at Woolworths and elsewhere desegregating the South were in fact sit-ins and occupations where young Black and white Americans bravely took up space in private businesses, demanding an end to racism and segregation that existed at that time.

I find it incomprehensible that members of Congress are spending their time attacking the protestors rather than the Netanyahu government which brought about these protests and has created this horrific situation.

Further, as I hope everybody knows, we have also seen in recent decades protests — some of them massive protests — against sexism, homophobia, and the need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels in order to save this planet.

In other words, protesting injustice and expressing our opinions is part of our American tradition. And when you talk about America being a free country, whether you like it or not the right to protest is what American freedom is all about. That’s the U.S. constitution.

And, M. President, let me also remind you: exactly 60 years ago, student demonstrators occupied the exact same building on Columbia’s campus as is taking place right now – ironically, the same building.

Across the country, students and others, including myself, joined peaceful demonstrations in opposition to the war in Vietnam. Those demonstrators were demanding an end to that War.

And maybe – just maybe – tens of thousands of American lives and countless Vietnamese lives might have been saved if the Government had listened to those demonstrators.

And I might also add that the President at that time – a great president — Lyndon Johnson, chose not to run for re-election because of the opposition to him that occurred as a result of his support for that Vietnam War. And further, let us not forget those who demonstrated against the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe those protestors should have been listened to as well.

Shock of all shocks, government policy is not always right.

President, I noted recently that a number of my colleagues in both parties, as well as many news reporters, TV, newspapers, are very concerned about the protests and violence we are seeing on campuses across the country.

So let me be clear: I share those concerns about violence on campuses, or, for that matter, any place else, and I condemn those who threw a brick through a window at Columbia University. That kind of violence should not be taking place on college campuses.

I am also concerned and condemn about the group of individuals at UCLA in California who violently attacked the peaceful encampment of anti-war demonstrators on the campus of UCLA.

President, let me be clear: I condemn all forms of violence on campus whether they are committed by people who support Israel’s war efforts or those who oppose those policies.

And I hope we can also agree that in the United States all forms of bigotry must be condemned and eliminated. We are seeing a growth of antisemitism in this country which we must all condemn and work to stop.

To stand up for Palestinian rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people does not make one a supporter of terrorism.

We are also seeing a growth of Islamophobia in this country which we must all condemn and stop. And in that regard, I would mention that in my very own city of Burlington, Vermont, three wonderful young Palestinian students were shot at close range on November 25th of last year. They were visiting a family member to celebrate Thanksgiving, walking down the street, and they were shot.

President let make an additional point, I have noted that there is an increasing tendency in the media and on the part of some of my colleagues here in the Senate to use the phrase “Pro-Palestinian” to suggest that that means “Pro-Hamas.”

To my mind, that is unacceptable and factually inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of American people and protestors understand very well that Hamas is a terrorist organization that started this war by attacking Israel in an incredibly brutal and horrific way on October 7th.

To stand up for Palestinian rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people does not make one a supporter of terrorism.

And let me also mention something that I found rather extraordinary and outrageous.

And that is just a few days ago Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing extremist government in Israel, a government which contains out-and-out anti-Palestinian racists.

Netanyahu issued a statement in which he equated criticism of his government’s illegal and immoral war against the Palestinian people with antisemitism.

In other words, if you are protesting, or disagree, with what Netanyahu and his extremist government are doing in Gaza, you are an antisemite.

That is an outrageous statement from a leader who is clearly trying – and I have to tell you, he seems to be succeeding with the American media — trying to deflect attention away from the horrific policies that he is pursuing that created an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.

So, let me be as clear as I can be: It is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that in almost seven months Netanyahu’s extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 – seventy percent of whom are women and children.

And to protest that or to point that out is not antisemitic. It is simply factual.

It is not antisemitic to point out that Netanyahu’s government’s bombing has completely destroyed more than 221,000 housing units in Gaza, leaving more than one million people homeless – almost half the population. No, Mr. Netanyahu it is not antisemitic to point out what you have done in terms of the destruction of housing in Gaza.

It is not antisemitic to realize that his government has annihilated Gaza’s health care system, knocking 26 hospitals out of service and killing more than 400 health care workers. At a time when 77,000 people have been wounded and desperately need medical care, Netanyahu has systematically destroyed the health care system in Gaza.

It is not antisemitic to condemn his government’s destruction of all of Gaza’s 12 universities and 56 of its schools, with hundreds more damaged, leaving 625,000 children in Gaza have no opportunity for an education. It is not antisemitic to make that point.

It is not antisemitic to note that Netanyahu’s government has obliterated Gaza’s civilian infrastructure – there is virtually no electricity in Gaza right now, virtually no clean water in Gaza right now, and sewage is seeping out onto the streets.

It is not antisemitic to make that point.

President, it is not antisemitic to agree with virtually every humanitarian organization that functions in the Gaza area in saying that his government, in violation of American law, has unreasonably blocked humanitarian aid coming into Gaza.

They have created the conditions under which hundreds of thousands of children face malnutrition and famine. It is not antisemitic to look at photographs of children who are starving to death because they have not been able to get the food that they need. It is not antisemitic to agree with American and UN officials that parts of Gaza could become famine districts in the not very distant future.

It is not antisemitic to agree with virtually every humanitarian organization that functions in the Gaza area in saying that his government, in violation of American law, has unreasonably blocked humanitarian aid coming into Gaza.

Antisemitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done unspeakable harm to many millions of people for hundreds of years, including my own family. But it is outrageous and it is disgraceful to use that charge of antisemitism to distract us from the immoral and illegal war policies that Netanyahu’s extremist and racist government is pursuing.

Furthermore, it is really cheap politics for Netanyahu to use the charge of antisemitism to deflect attention from the criminal indictment he is facing in the Israeli courts.

Bottomline, M. President: it is not antisemitic to hold Netanyahu and his government for their actions. That is not antisemitic. It is precisely what we should be doing.

Because among other things we are the government that has supplied billions and billions of dollars in order for him to continue his horrific war against the Palestinian people.

President, I would also point out while there has been wall to wall coverage of student protests, I think that’s about all CNN does right now, I should mention that it is not just young people on college campuses that are extremely upset about our Government’s support and funding for this illegal and immoral war.

The people of the United States – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – do not want to be complicit in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of children.

And I would point out that just last week this Senate voted to give Netanyahu another unfettered $10 billion for his war.

Let me quote just a few polls:

April 14 – Politico/Morning Consult: 67% support the United States calling for a ceasefire. This is at a time when Netanyahu is threatening to expand the war into Rafah.

April 12th – CBS: 60% think the U.S. should not send weapons and supplies to Israel as opposed to 40% who think the U.S. should. And for my Democratic colleagues, those figures are disproportionately higher among Democratic voters.

April 10th – Economist/YouGov: 37% support decreasing military aid to Israel, just 18% support an increase. Overall 63% support a ceasefire, 15% oppose.

No, M. President. This is not just protestors on college campuses who are upset about U.S. policy with regards to Israel and Gaza. Increasingly the American people want an end to U.S. complicity in the humanitarian disaster which is taking place in Gaza right now.

The people of the United States – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – do not want to be complicit in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of children.

Maybe, and here’s a very radical idea, maybe it’s time for politicians to listen to the American people. Maybe it’s time to rethink the decision this body recently made to provide Netanyahu another $10 billion dollars in unfettered military aid.

Maybe it’s time to not simply worry about the violence we are seeing on American campuses, but focus on the unprecedented violence in Gaza which has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 Palestinians – 70% percent of whom are women and children.

So, I suggest to CNN and some of my colleagues here, take your cameras off of Columbia and UCLA. Maybe go to Gaza and show us the emaciated children who are going to die of malnutrition because of Netanyahu’s policies. Show us the kids who have lost their arms and their legs. Show us the suffering.

President, let me conclude by saying, I must admit, I find it incomprehensible that members of Congress are spending their time attacking the protestors rather than the Netanyahu government which brought about these protests and has created this horrific situation.

Thank you and I yield.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Bernie Sanders.

CODEPINK, a member of the Peace in Ukraine Coalition that represents over 100 anti-war organizations, is committed to raising up the majority opinion that the U.S. needs to stop fueling this war. We condemn the illegal Russian invasion but we believe that this conflict has no military solution, only stalled counter-offensives, random drone attacks and profound heartache for the families losing their loved ones, their homes and their livelihoods.

That’s why we are participating in the Global Days of Action for Peace in Ukraine, Sept. 30-October 8th, joining with others in the United States and Europe to march, protest, petition, vigil, banner  and push our elected officials to publicly advocate for a mutual ceasefire, peace negotiations and weapons freeze.

The call for Global Days of Action emerged from last June’s International Summit for Peace in Ukraine, held in Vienna, Austria and attended by representatives from 32 countries, including Italy where tens of thousands marched in Rome last year to end funding for the war. The Summit produced a declaration urging “leaders in all countries to act in support of an immediate ceasefire and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine” and calling on civil society globally to mobilize.

In this country, events to end the Russia-Ukraine-NATO war are slated for Washington DC, New York City, Albany, Brooklyn, Boston, Milwaukee, Madison, Philadelphia, Portland, Hilo, San Francisco, Seattle, Burlington, Rockville and other locations.

To host an event, sign up here. To join an event, click here.

The Peace in Ukraine Coalition, which includes CODEPINK, Veterans for Peace, DSA-International, World Beyond War, RootsAction, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom-US, Massachusetts Peace Action, Brooklyn for Peace and others, invites all peace-loving people to join us in DC and become a member of our coalition.

On Tuesday, October 3, we will host a DC rally with professor Dr. Cornel West, People’s Forum Co-Executive Director Claudia De la Cruz, CODEPINK Co-founder Medea Benjamin, journalist Eugene Puryear, and comedian/podcaster Lee Camp. You can join us in person in Washington or join us online here as we broadcast a livestream! 

The following day, Wednesday, October 4, we will organize in the halls of Congress to hand deliver this “No more weapons!” petition and dialogue with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as other senators who represent constituents traveling to DC.

If you’re in or around DC, join us for Advocacy Day.

The answer to the war in Ukraine is not more cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions or nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets but a willingness to embrace a diplomatic solution, such as the 15-point peace plan that was drafted by both sides in April 2022 but squashed by Western powers.

While the majority of congresspeople in both parties have ignored public opinion and refuse to call for negotiations, some members of the Republican party have voted against more funds for the war, have called for an audit to follow the billions spent on this war, and have pressed the Biden administration to report on its efforts to seek a diplomatic path. Unfortunately, not one Democrat or Independent in Congress has been willing to join any of these efforts.

Instead, high-profile Democrats and Senate Armed Services Committee members, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)  and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), flew to Kyiv to shake hands with Ukraine President Zelensky and promise an endless stream of US tax dollars to continue fueling this war.

Even Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), whose Presidential campaigns were supported by anti-war activists, has quietly gone along with the war funding. In championing workers rights and health care initiatives, he fails to point out that the billions spent on the Ukraine war could be used to address urgent domestic needs instead of lining the pockets of military contractors.

He also disregards his own critique, right before the war began, about the dangers of NATO expansion, the West’s refusal to acknowledge Russia’s security interests, and the pressing need for dialogue.

That’s why a contingent from Vermont is requesting a face-to-face meeting with Senator Sanders in DC to ask him point-blank, “Why aren’t you speaking out for a diplomatic solution to end this war?”

As we face a war marked by intense suffering and environmental devastation in Ukraine, increasing hunger in Africa, and growing fears of a nuclear catastrophe, it is urgent we promote a ceasefire and negotiations. Join us.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin and Marcy Winograd.

It’s the true believers — we who are schooled on republican virtues, democratic procedures, universal equality, and fair play that are said to be deeply embedded in the US experience — who become radical crusaders when their beliefs are shattered by the truth.

The true believers are cast as traitors to humanity, nation, race, or creed when they turn on those who foster a false loyalty or cheap patriotism based on lies or deception.

The late Daniel Ellsberg was one of these soldiers of truth. Once a handmaiden for US foreign policy, experience brought home the murderous, cynical, and false execution of that policy. At great risk — even physical risk — Ellsberg bravely cast aside his privileged, highly respected position and exposed the ugly, hypocritical US intervention in Southeast Asia, an engagement that led to and fueled the savage destruction wrought by the Indochinese war. Ellsberg devoted the rest of his life to opposing the abuse of his once deeply felt ideals.

Thinking of Ellsberg before his death while reading Norman Finkelstein’s new book, I’ll Burn that Bridge When I Get to It!, I could not help but see Finkelstein cast in a similar light. Certainly, they are different people, with different burdens, and different circumstances. But they are alike in important ways: both have shown uncommon courage and uncompromising idealism. Both have known the lash of ostracism.

Where Ellsberg’s idealism was violated by the US empire’s betrayal of his ideals, Finkelstein’s idealism forces him to stand almost alone against cherished beliefs that none dare challenge. Ellsberg confronted US power, Finkelstein attacks the sanctity of conventional, officially-protected thought.

Finkelstein’s new book is not easy to discuss. It is many things — not in a bad way, but in a personal, boldly eccentric way.  He is a remarkably good writer: a careful grammarian, a skilled wordsmith, with a keen, logical mind. No doubt the logical construction of his arguments inflames his foes even further.

The book is divided into two sections: 1.) an extensive argument against the latest fashions of the academic left, capped with an effective critique of their embodiment, Barack Obama, and 2.) an ambitious attempt to defend a John Stuart Mill-inspired account of academic freedom and academic responsibility.

In Part I (Identity Politics and Cancel Culture), Finkelstein effectively foregoes theoretical foreplay and leaps right into discussions of some of today’s more prominent, celebrated figures, locating them and their ideas within the framework of a purported remolding of anti-racism. With the writings and initiatives of Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Robin DiAngelo, and Ibram X. Kendi, Finkelstein finds a bogus path to curing racism as a societal cancer, a path strikingly deviated from the tradition of his (and my) past heroes and heroines in the struggle against racism and racial inequality.

Finkelstein carefully, and in great detail, challenges the scholarship of the writers and the political weight of their ideas. His own scholarship is impeccable, though he favors the time-honored effectiveness of hitting the nail on its head until the head breaks off! He is relentless.

To many of the young, college-educated activists who have come to understand the scourge of racism though Crenshaw, Coates, DiAngelo, Kendi, and their colleagues, the Finkelstein critique will itself appear as racially insensitive, an attack on identity that is truly worthy of cancellation.

Finkelstein counters this “Little Red Book” mob reaction by extensively and passionately quoting from his own anti-racist icons: Frederick Douglass, WEB DuBois, Paul Robeson, and Martin Luther King. His brilliant contraposing of DuBois against Kendi is a veritable seminar in deep and productive anti-racist thinking. The contrast alone diminishes Kendi’s thought. Shrewdly, Finkelstein lets the history of sacrifice, defiance, activism, and razor-sharp analysis by these giants of human advancement address the shallow bromides of smug, secure, petty-bourgeois academics.

From the perch of an insular, arid academic office, the question of racism is a question of manners and self-styled group recognition; from the path that Douglass, DuBois, Robeson, and King trod, the question of racism was a question of emancipation, ending exploitation, and achieving economic security.

If I had my preferences, the author would have broadened his attack beyond these mostly African-American intellectuals to include the vast body of US academics engaged in navel-gazing and supplicating before the ruling class. When leading philosophers are reduced to pondering the depth of “sentiments” and public intellectuals are selling the empty, emotive catch-all-that-we-hate concept of “authoritarianism,” the commodification of anti-racism earns no special place. Intellectual life as contained in academia in general is numbing.

Finkelstein expresses a well-earned contempt for Barack Obama, his hypocrisy, and his self-regard. In many ways, Obama gave agency to appearance over substance in a way similar to the scribblings of Crenshaw, Coates, DiAngelo, et al. Obama sold the appearance of change and delivered none.

By contrast, Finkelstein casts Bernie Sanders as an authentic agent of change shackled by the Democratic Party leadership. But surely Sanders knew about those shackles and did little to break them. In the end, he, too, sold the appearance of change and delivered none, though perhaps not as cynically as did Obama.

Finkelstein’s politics are influenced by his earlier immersion in Gang of Four Maoism. Forgoing his parents’ Popular Front leftism for REAL revolution, the author’s fingers were burnt. Like so many recovering Little Red Bookers, he now struggles to imagine any politics not going through the Democratic Party, despite his contempt for that party. Apparently, Marxist “orthodoxy” was never considered an option.

Which brings us quite naturally to the other part of Finkelstein’s book, Part II (Academic Freedom). Like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and a handful of other US commentators, Finkelstein is part of a dying breed — the true, classic liberal who believes passionately and deeply in freedom of speech, a free press, free academic inquiry, and many other freedoms associated with enlightenment values.

By the third decade of the twentieth century, history has shown these rights to be rights of convenience. The bourgeois state recognizes these rights when it is useful for propaganda purposes or when the state detects no threat, should they be exercised. Otherwise, when the state is made insecure by freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc., these rights are squelched.

In political theory, rights of convenience are actually privileges, where privileges are the warrants granted capriciously by those in power. With the end of the Cold War and its propaganda function, the pretense of universal rights, of absolute freedoms, is just that — a pretense. The current tribalism around both red and blue allegiances demonstrates how shallow goes the popular commitment to the Bill of Rights.

Yet Finkelstein, like other true-believers — nineteenth-century liberals, their admirers, and a smattering of libertarians — still clings to these beliefs and attempts to support them in a world grown cynical.

He wrestles with the idea that a university or its educational counterparts should have freedom of inquiry and its necessary condition, freedom of speech. He relies almost exclusively on John Stuart Mill’s rule-utilitarian justification, citing the potential and actual good that comes from accepting these principles (rules).

At the same time, Finkelstein concedes the obvious counterexamples (e.g., advocating paedophilia) that nullify the universality of Stuart Mill’s rule-utilitarianism. He and we are left with a principle neither absolute nor real-world operant.

For Finkelstein and other enlightenment liberals, academia should be a marketplace of ideas, when, in fact, it is a class war. More broadly, the battle for ideas is waged between classes.

Nonetheless, we should embrace the idealism of Finkelstein and the other doctrinaire liberals, but without illusions. Absent a measure of free speech, the little chance we have of getting radical ideas past the gatekeepers drops sharply.

My reservations aside, Finkelstein and his book are treasures. At a time of mind-numbing conformity and groveling before power, a figure who defies conventions and takes us where the thought police do not want us to go should be cherished.

I’m reminded of my teenage epiphany when I found and read Norman Mailer’s Advertisements for Myself. Today, I would disagree with nearly everything in the book, but at a time of stifling Cold War conformity, it broke those chains for me.

Finkelstein, too, is a chain-breaker.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Greg Godels.

When you look inside, you learn that this virtual meeting is on June 20, 2023, “live via Webcast.” No more in-person shareholder meetings, where at least for a couple of hours a year, the GM CEO, officers and the Board of Directors would have to hear out their powerless owner-shareholders’ recommendations or complaints. The media reports of these gatherings would sometimes highlight shareholder demands.

Not surprisingly, GM wants its shareholders to vote on management’s proposed “full agenda,” for this globally omnipresent giant auto company – with its factories, offices and other installations radiating impact in many directions that affect economics, politics, the environment and lives of workers, taxpayers and consumers.

The agenda reveals the anemic state of individual and institutional shareholders, long disempowered by the corporate toady – Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). GM management only presents seven proposals for a vote. The first is to re-elect its 13-member Board of Directors, starting with Chair and CEO Mary T. Barra. The second is to ratify the election of Ernst & Young LLP as the company’s accounting firm. The third is to vote on the “advisory approval of Named Executive Officer Compensation,” and the fourth is to approve the company’s “long-term incentive plan.”

The GM Board of Directors urged an affirmative vote for these four proposals but they declined to do so for proposals 5, 6 and 7, that came from the owners-shareholders, which means GM, the company, is opposed.

Proposal 5 requested a report on GM’s operations in China; Proposal 6 asked for Shareholders’ Written Consent on some matters; Proposal 7 dealt with “sustainable materials procurement targets.”

Shockingly, proposals 5, 6, and 7 were too much for the imperial hired bosses of GM, who gave not a single nod to their shareholders’ requests. And not a single worry that next year would bring heightened indignation by large institutional shareholders (e.g., Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.) or individual owners. Proposals before the SEC to give shareholders more voice on more matters (e.g., campaign contributions) remain bottled up for years by corporate lawyers and the mostly indentured SEC Commissioners.

Imagine, after explicitly promising not to make any campaign donations to members of Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election results, GM broke its promise in 2022 and sent hefty checks to 12 of the GOP seditionists and the National Republican Campaign Committee. MoveOn released an excoriating TV ad on GM’s broken promise. But no proposal cleared the barriers to demand an apology and other corrective actions for GM’s betrayal of the public trust.

It’s not just GM, of course. When Apple held its virtual meeting on March 10, 2023, the Board of Directors recommended a “Yes” vote to 1) re-elect members of the Board, including Al Gore, 2) “Yes” to ratifying Ernst & Young as its accountant, and 3) “Yes” to an “advisory vote to approve executive compensation.” However, Apple’s management responded with silence, meaning thumbs down, to shareholder proposals on “civil rights,” one on a China audit, another on communication with shareholder proponents, and lastly, one on “racial and gender pay gaps.”

The giant New England utility company Eversource Energy held its May 3, 2023 shareholder meeting in person, but at the corporate law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP. This is not exactly a space for hundreds of the company’s owners to turn out. No matter, all the proposals on the agenda once again were the company’s proposals dealing mostly with executive compensation. There were zero agenda items dealing with the company’s “blackouts,” disinvestment in skilled emergency staff, buying up public drinking water systems, climate issues, or its customers’ formidable difficulties registering complaints about a rate formula that no longer charges consumers for what they use, but rather bills customers using an arcane, more expensive formula.

So, the long slide for shareholder-driven corporate accountability continues. Yet the long upsurge in overwhelming corporate power also continues unabated – controlling federal and state regulators, blocking or dragging out court challenges for purposes of tactical attrition, pouring money into the campaign coffers of elected lawmakers and judges, and “handling” the large mutual and pension funds. (These large funds are similarly structured top-down with heavy payments to the bosses.)

Some nonprofits and religious orders still make a valiant try each spring with a few companies focusing on climate violence policies or the insatiable demands by manufacturers of large weapons of mass destruction. But the immunized, pampered, super-rich CEOs lose little sleep over such challenges.

Some large institutional shareholders like Blackrock, through its CEO Larry Fink, orate that companies should address the conditions of communities’ suppliers, workers, consumers and other affected “stakeholder” groups. But saying is not doing. And with about $8 trillion in invested assets, Blackrock could do a lot.

Shareholder and advocacy groups’ nudging sometimes brings forth voluntary moves, such as Starbucks eliminating plastic straws globally in 2020. Overall, the efforts of shareholder activities paint a dismal picture of historically high corporate supremacy over our political economy and its culture. All the while the algorithms grip and the chatbots loom.

Since corporations are all chartered into existence by state governments, it is time to dust off a more than hundred-year-old federal chartering proposal espoused by Presidents William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Federal chartering might delineate better the terms of corporations’ existence and operations. That was the way they and others during the Progressive Era, wanted to rewrite the contract between giant companies and the government.

In 2018, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposed federal chartering by introducing the Accountable Capitalism Act, which is needed now more than ever in this globalized economy. She has yet to re-introduce the bill, seek co-signers and hold public hearings on this proposal which have been long-sought by civic advocates.

Existing state-based corporate chartering laws (mostly shaped by the race-to-the-bottom states of Delaware and Nevada) are ludicrously obsolete, hailing from the days of the quill pen.

For several years, we’ve been inviting Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on our radio show/podcast to discuss the big picture questions of giant corporatism. They have yet to accept.

Do you wonder why the progressive forces have so little influence over their forlorn allies in the Congress? Wonder no more. See our new report The Incommunicados for some compelling evidence.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ralph Nader.

The United States' astronomical levels of economic inequality are poised to become further entrenched in the coming years as what The New York Times described Sunday as "the greatest wealth transfer in history" gets underway, with the richest members of the Baby Boomer generation set to pass trillions of dollars in assets on to their descendants—often paying little or nothing in taxes.

"Most will leave behind thousands of dollars, a home, or not much at all. Others are leaving their heirs hundreds of thousands, or millions, or billions of dollars in various assets," the Times reported. "Of the $84 trillion projected to be passed down from older Americans to millennial and Gen X heirs through 2045, $16 trillion will be transferred within the next decade."

The newspaper added that thanks to the loophole-ridden U.S. tax system, "heirs increasingly don't need to wait for the passing of elders to directly benefit from family money, a result of the bursting popularity of 'giving while living'—including property purchases, repeated tax-free cash transfers of estate money, and more—providing millions a head start."

"The trillions of dollars going to heirs will largely reinforce inequality," the Times observed. "The wealthiest 10% of households will be giving and receiving a majority of the riches. Within that range, the top 1%—which holds about as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and is predominantly white—will dictate the broadest share of the money flow. The more diverse bottom 50% of households will account for only 8% of the transfers."

\u201c1/Months in the making, here's the final cut of my story on the long-awaited wealth transfer, no longer in the future tense:\nWe're closer to 2053 than 1992.\nElites are already disbursing to heirs while alive.\nThe masses likely need luck or a paradigm shift\nhttps://t.co/FDKNafpCyV\u201d

— talmon joseph smith (@talmon joseph smith) 1684087876

Don Moynihan, a professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, argued that the Times analysis further demonstrates that "we are not taxing the very wealthy enough."

The Times noted that individuals in the U.S. can pass nearly $13 million in assets to heirs without paying the federal estate tax, which only applies to around two of every 1,000 American estates.

"As a result, although high-net-worth and ultrahigh-net-worth individuals could inherit more than $30 trillion by 2045, their prospective taxes on estates and transfers is $4.2 trillion," the Times observed.

The explosion of wealth inequality in the U.S. over the past several decades has prompted growing calls for systemic reform but little substantive action from lawmakers. In 2017, congressional Republicans and then-President Donald Trump contributed to the inequality boom by ramming through tax legislation that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans.

Now in control of the U.S. House, Republicans are trying to make the Trump tax cuts for individuals permanent and eliminate the estate tax altogether—a move that would give the nation's wealthiest households another $2 trillion in tax breaks.

In April, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) led several of his colleagues in offering an alternative proposal: Legislation that would impose progressively higher taxes on estates worth between $3.5 million and $1 billion, as well as a 65% levy on estates worth more than $1 billion.

"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we need to make sure that people who inherit over $3.5 million pay their fair share of taxes," Sanders said last month. "We do not need to provide a huge handout to multi-millionaires and billionaires. It is unacceptable that working families across the country today are struggling to file their taxes on time and put food on the table, while the wealthiest among us profit off of enormous tax loopholes and giant tax breaks."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of Sanders' legislation, tweeted Monday that "Americans overwhelmingly prefer raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy and huge corporations to making cuts to critical programs like healthcare, medical research, and infrastructure."

"Congressional Republicans need to get on board," the senator added.

\u201cAmericans overwhelmingly prefer raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy and huge corporations to making cuts to critical programs like health care, medical research, and infrastructure. Congressional Republicans need to get on board.\u201d

— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1684159855

Morris Pearl, a former managing director at the asset management behemoth BlackRock and the chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, stressed in an interview with the Times that structural changes to the U.S. tax code—not just a crackdown on wealthy tax cheats—are necessary to slow the rise of inequality.

"People are following the law just fine. I generally don't pay much taxes," said Pearl, whose group has warned that democracy "will not survive" unless the rich are taxed much more aggressively.

Stressing the ease with which rich families in U.S. are able to pass assets on to their heirs tax-free, Pearl told the Times that he currently holds stock that his wife's father, "who died a long time ago, bought in the 1970s," an investment that "has gone from a few thousand dollars to many hundreds of thousands of dollars"—unrealized capital gains that are not subject to taxation.

University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have estimated that $2.7 trillion of the $4.25 trillion in wealth held by U.S. billionaires is unrealized.

"I've never paid a penny of taxes on all that," Pearl said of his inherited equities, "and I may not ever, because I might not sell and then my kids are going to have millions of dollars in income that's never taxed in any way, shape, or form."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

As Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal prepare to reintroduce legislation to establish a national health program expanding Medicare to all Americans, the two lawmakers announced on Friday their plans to hold a town hall at the U.S. Capitol on May 16 regarding the need for Medicare for All.

As many health policy experts have since the coronavirus pandemic began in 2020, Sanders on Friday pointed to the public health crisis as an event that made the need for universal healthcare clearer "than it has ever been before."

"The American people understand, as I do, that healthcare is a human right, not a privilege," said the Vermont Independent senator, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. "It is not acceptable to me, nor to the American people, that over 85 million people today are either uninsured or underinsured. As we speak, there are millions of people who would like to go to a doctor but cannot afford to do so. This is an outrage. In America, your health and your longevity should not be dependent on your wealth."

The deaths of at least one-third of the 1.1 million people in the U.S. who died of Covid-19 were linked to a lack of health insurance, said the senator, who has advocated for Medicare for All for decades—and has been dismissed by corporate Democrats and Republicans who have claimed the proposal is unpopular, too expensive, and "unrealistic," despite the fact that other wealthy countries have government-run health programs, lower health costs, and better health outcomes than the United States.

A poll by Morning Consult in 2021 showed that 55% of Americans support a Medicare for All program, and in January Gallup released a survey showing that 57% of respondents believe the federal government should ensure everyone has healthcare.

"We live in a country where millions of people ration lifesaving medication or skip necessary trips to the doctor because of cost," said Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Sadly, the number of people struggling to afford care continues to skyrocket as 15 million people lose their current health insurance as pandemic-era programs end. Breaking a bone or getting sick shouldn't be a reason that people in the richest country in the world go broke."

"There is a solution to this health crisis—a popular one that guarantees healthcare to every person as a human right and finally puts people over profits and care over corporations," she added. "That solution is Medicare for All—everyone in, nobody out. I'm so proud to fight for this legislation to finally ensure that all people can get the care they need and the care they deserve."

The lawmakers are introducing the legislation as 44% of adults in the U.S. struggle to pay for their medical care and 68,000 people die each year due to the cost of healthcare.

Amid those devastating health outcomes, Sanders said on Twitter Friday, private health insurers have spent $141 billion on stock buybacks since 2007 while healthcare costs for the average household have skyrocketed.

"It is long past time to end the international embarrassment of the United States being the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all of its citizens," said Sanders.

On Tuesday the lawmakers will be joined by doctors, nurses, and patients who will speak about how their lives and work have been affected by the healthcare crisis.

The event will be livestreamed on Sanders' social media pages.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday paid his respects to the victims of insulin price gouging in front of the Big Pharma CEOs who are responsible and reiterated the need to make all lifesaving prescription drugs affordable.

Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), opened the panel's hearing by acknowledging "the many Americans who have needlessly lost their lives because of the unaffordability of insulin" and "the thousands who wound up in emergency rooms and hospitals suffering from diabetic ketoacidosis—a very serious medical condition as a result of rationing their insulin."

"This is a problem that is unique to the United States."

Diabetes—a disease that can wreak havoc on organs, eyesight, and limbs if left unmanaged—affects more than 37 million U.S. adults and is the country's eighth leading cause of death, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although it costs less than $10 to produce a vial of insulin required to treat diabetes, uninsured patients in the U.S. pay nearly $300 per vial of the century-old drug because Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—the three pharmaceutical corporations that control 90% of the nation's lucrative insulin market—charge excessive prices with little resistance from federal lawmakers.

As Sanders noted, such corporate profiteering—a problem compounded by the widespread lack of coverage under the nation's for-profit healthcare system—forces many people to skip doses, with deadly consequences. Recent studies found that 1.3 million people in the U.S. ration insulin, including an estimated 1 in 4 people with Type 1 diabetes. People without insurance are the most likely to do so, followed by those with private insurance.

Ahead of the hearing, Sanders released a video featuring diabetes patients sharing their struggles to afford insulin in the U.S.

"Imagine just three companies having worldwide market dominance over such necessities as air and water," Steve Knievel, an advocate with Public Citizen's access to medicines program, said Wednesday in a statement. "This is what people with diabetes face with insulin."

Addressing the CEOs of the three aforementioned firms during the hearing, Sanders outlined how each has jacked up prices in recent decades:

Eli Lilly increased the price of Humalog 34 times since 1996 from $21 to $275—a 1,200% increase. The same exact product. No changes at all. The only reason for the huge increase in price during that period was that there was no legislation to stop them. In America, the drug companies could charge any price they want.

But it's not just Eli Lilly. Novo Nordisk increased the price of Novolog 28 times from $40 in 2001 to $289—a 625% increase.

And then there is Sanofi, a company that increased the price of Lantus 28 times from $35 in 2001 to $292—a 730% increase.

"In every instance it is the same exact product that rose astronomically," said Sanders. "And let's be clear. This is a problem that is unique to the United States. In France, 20 years ago, the cost of Lantus was $40. Today, it has gone down to just $24."

Sanders has famously accompanied Americans with diabetes on a two-mile trip from Detroit, Michigan to Windsor, Ontario. In Canada, people can purchase the exact same insulin product for one-tenth of the price they would pay in the U.S.

"We cannot rely on limited price concessions from insulin corporations to ensure this essential resource is accessible and fairly priced for Americans who need it."

Also in attendance at Wednesday's hearing were the leaders of CVS Health, Express Scripts, and OptumRX, three major pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Sanders took them to task, noting that "as insulin manufacturers continued to increase prices, PBMs signed secret deals to increase their profits by putting insulin products on their formularies not with the lowest list price but the ones that gave PBMs the most generous rebates."

Thanks to sustained public pressure and fresh policy changes—namely the Inflation Reduction Act's provision limiting Medicare beneficiaries' insulin copayments to $35 per month—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi have all recently pledged to significantly lower the list prices for some of their insulin products. As Sanders explained:

Eli Lilly announced it would reduce the price of Humalog by 70% later this year—from $275 to $83. Eli Lilly also decreased the price of its generic Humalog to $25 per vial.

Novo Nordisk announced it would reduce the price of Novolog by 75% beginning next year—from $289 to $72.

Sanofi announced it would reduce the price of Lantus by 78% beginning next year—from $292 to $64.

While Sanders thanked the three companies for taking what he called "an important step forward," he stressed that "we must make sure that these price reductions go into effect so that every American with diabetes gets the insulin they need at an affordable price," vowing to "hold a hearing early next year to make certain that happens."

Knievel, meanwhile, said that "we cannot rely on limited price concessions from insulin corporations to ensure this essential resource is accessible and fairly priced for Americans who need it, regardless of their insurance status or age."

His message was echoed by Margarida Jorge, head of Lower Drug Prices Now.

"Certainly, these multimillion-dollar CEOs will spend their time in front of the committee patting themselves on the back for bowing to public pressure and lowering the cost of insulin," Jorge said in a statement. "But let's be clear, the tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford their prescription medication should not have to depend on the goodwill of greedy corporations who have repeatedly shown they care about profits more than people to bring them relief from skyrocketing prescription costs."

Sanders and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) recently introduced the Insulin for All Act of 2023, which would cap insulin prices at $20 per vial.

Only federal legislation of this sort can "put an end to decades of price gouging that has led to preventable suffering and costs the lives of people with diabetes who need insulin to live," Knievel emphasized.

Meanwhile, Sanders made clear that the unaffordability of insulin is part of a much broader crisis and proceeded to ask:

If Eli Lilly can lower the price of Humalog by 70%, why is it still charging the American people about $200,000 for Cyramza (CYR-AMZA) to treat stomach cancer—a drug that can be purchased in Germany for just $54,000?

If Novo Nordisk can lower the price of Novolog by 75%, why is it still charging Americans with diabetes $12,000 for Ozempic when the exact same drug can be purchased for just $2,000 in Canada?

If Sanofi can reduce the price of Lantus by 78%, why is it still charging cancer patients in America over $200,000 for Caprelsa—a drug that can be purchased in Japan for just $37,000?

"Lowering the cost of insulin is only one part of what we must accomplish," said the senator. "This committee is determined to end the outrage in which Americans pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for virtually every brand name prescription drug on the market—whether it is a drug for cancer, heart disease, asthma, or whatever."

"We want to know why there are Americans who are dying, or are becoming much sicker than they should, because they can't afford the medicine they need," he continued. "We have got to ask, how does it happen that nearly half of all new drugs cost over $150,000? How does it happen that cancer drugs which, in some cases, cost just a few dollars to manufacture are selling on the market for over $100,000?"

"Americans die, get sicker than they should, and go bankrupt because they cannot afford the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, while the drug companies and the PBMs make huge profits. That has got to change."

"I know that our guests from the drug companies will tell us how much it costs to develop a new drug and how often the research for new cures is not successful," said Sanders. "I get that. But what they are going to have to explain to us is why, over the past decade, 14 major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, spent $747 billion on stock buybacks and dividends."

"They will also have to explain how as an entire industry pharma spent $8.5 billion on lobbying and over $745 million on campaign contributions over the past 25 years to get Congress to do its bidding," Sanders added. "Unbelievably, last year, drug companies hired over 1,700 lobbyists including the former congressional leaders of both major political parties—that's over three pharmaceutical industry lobbyists for every member of Congress."

In Sanders' words, "That could well explain why we pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world and why today drug companies can set the price of new drugs at any level they wish."

"While Americans pay outrageously high prices for prescription drugs, the pharmaceutical industry and the PBMs make enormous profits," he noted. "In 2021, 10 major pharmaceutical companies in America made over $100 billion in profits—a 137% increase from the previous year. The 50 top executives in these companies received over $1.9 billion in total compensation in 2021 and are in line to receive billions more in golden parachutes once they leave their companies. Last year, the three major PBMs in America made $27.5 billion in profits—a 483% increase over the past decade. These PBMs manage 80% of all prescription drugs in America."

"In other words, Americans die, get sicker than they should, and go bankrupt because they cannot afford the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, while the drug companies and the PBMs make huge profits," Sanders lamented. "That has got to change and this committee is going to do everything possible to bring about that change."

Jorge, for her part, described the Inflation Reduction Act as a "milestone" law that "will help tens of millions of seniors."

"But it is just the start," said Jorge. "Congress should pass legislation to bring the prescription drug reforms that are saving Medicare patients and taxpayers billions to people of all ages, so that everyone can get lower drug prices on medicines they need—including insulin."

"Congress, not greedy corporations trying to redeem their tarnished reputations, should be leading the way on reforms that put patients ahead of pharmaceutical profits," she added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

"I'm 72 and now live with my daughter after losing everything because of medical bills. I had $250K saved up for retirement and then disaster hit—several bouts of cancer and a stroke in 2009."

That's the story of Arizonan D'Anne MacNeil, a patient advocate and member of Our Revolution—which is working with U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the National Consumer Law Center, and Tzedek D.C. on a new campaign.

The "Freedom From Medical Debt" initiative launches Monday with a virtual town hall at 8:30 pm ET.

"I wouldn't owe anything if hospitals didn't gouge patients," said Mary Willis of Texas. "The cost of an MRI in the hospital was eight times the cost of an outpatient MRI and 80 times outsourced MRIs. I owe over $8,000."

The virtual town hall is set to feature similar stories—including that of Washingtonian Kristin Noreen, who "barely survived" being hit by a vehicle while on her bicycle in 2010. After enduring a brain injury and having her hand amputated and reattached, Noreen is still paying off medical bills and for pain treatments not covered by insurance.

Fellow patient advocate and Our Revolution member Elizabeth McLaughlin of Indiana, who received a $20,000 bill for an emergency visit in 2015, also plans to join the town hall, along with Khanna.

"We need to strategize for legislation Bernie Sanders and I are doing and figure out how we finally end medical debt in this country," Khanna said in a Monday video promoting the event. The lawmakers have worked together for years; Khanna co-chaired Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign and both support Medicare for All, for which the senator has long led the fight on Capitol Hill.

In a Saturday email about the town hall, Our Revolution—which came out of Sanders' 2016 presidential run—said that as the senator and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) "prepare to reintroduce Medicare for All in Congress, we are organizing people struggling with medical debt to speak up and fight for healthcare justice."

The Hill, which first reported on the town hall, noted that in addition to backing Khanna and Sanders' forthcoming bill, patient advocates are hoping to pressure President Joe Biden "to use executive action to help stop price gouging for vulnerable patients, end a variety of predatory debt collection tactics, and ensure that people seeking medical assistance have financial aid and free or reduced-price care available."

Highlighting that "medical debt is the number one reason for personal bankruptcies in the United States," Our Revolution executive director Joseph Geevarghese told the outlet, "We can stop that and the president has the power."

As part of the campaign "calling for Congress and the president to deliver systemic solutions to this massive healthcare injustice," organizers have launched a website to collect medical debt stories and hope to get at least one from every congressional district.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Decrying the "national disgrace" of poverty wages in the world's richest country, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour over a period of five years.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, lamented that Congress hasn't raised the federal minimum wage in more than a decade, leaving tens of millions of workers with what the senator described as "starvation wages."

"Now is the time to raise the minimum wage," Sanders (I-Vt.) said at a Capitol Hill press conference alongside union leaders and service workers. "Let's be clear: This is not a radical idea. The overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to a living wage."

"It is not acceptable today that nearly 35 million American workers earn less than $17 an hour," the senator added.

Sanders pledged to push his legislation "as quickly and as hard" as possible in the Senate, where the bill faces long odds given likely opposition from several members of the chamber's Democratic caucus and every Republican. The Senate HELP Committee will hold a mark-up hearing for the new legislation on June 14, Sanders announced Thursday.

The full text of the bill is not yet available.

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said during Thursday's press conference that "we are going to be watching any congressperson—senator or in the House—that dares to say that they are not going to vote yes for Senator Sanders' bill."

"They need to be held accountable at the ballot box," said Henry.

More than a decade has passed since Congress last raised the federal minimum wage, and efforts in recent years to enact a $15-an-hour wage floor nationally have fallen short amid opposition from the GOP, corporate-friendly Democrats, and the business lobby.

While some lawmakers are sure to balk at the idea of more than doubling the federal minimum wage, a working paper released this week showed that counties that have enacted large minimum wage increases have seen higher employment, higher earnings for workers, and lower inequality.

"Nobody in this country can survive on $7.25 an hour," Sanders said Thursday. "Maybe some of my colleagues in Congress might want to live for a month on seven-and-a-quarter an hour and see what that's like."

As Congress has failed to act, many states, cities, and counties across the U.S. have raised their minimum wages substantially, with progress continuing this year. According to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, a record 86 U.S. jurisdictions are set to raise their minimum wages in 2023.

But 15 states have their minimum wages set at the federal floor of $7.25 an hour, according to the Economic Policy Institute's Minimum Wage Tracker, and five other states have no minimum wage laws—meaning the federal minimum applies.

"As it becomes more and more expensive to get by in America, $15 is no longer an adequate goal. We need to go higher to reflect what it actually costs to live in America."

In an analysis earlier this year, EPI estimated that "a worker in one of the 20 states with a $7.25 minimum wage is 46% more likely to make less than $15 an hour than a worker in the other 30 states or District of Columbia with higher minimum wages."

"There is no part of this country where even a single adult without children can achieve an adequate standard of living with a wage of less than $15 an hour," EPI noted. "With the lack of congressional action, the federal minimum wage has lost more than a third of its value since its inflation-adjusted high point of 1968."

Sanders said Thursday that with living costs rising across the country, a $15 minimum wage would still be insufficient—a point that supporters of the new legislation echoed.

"As it becomes more and more expensive to get by in America, $15 is no longer an adequate goal," Stephen Prince, vice chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. "We need to go higher to reflect what it actually costs to live in America. Sanders is right to revise his minimum wage push to $17 an hour to save workers across the country from further suffocation."

"On a larger scale, raising the minimum wage would give millions of people more money to buy more products and services from businesses around the country, which is good for our bottom lines," said Prince. "From a business standpoint, 60% of the country living paycheck to paycheck is unsustainable and precarious. Sanders' $17 minimum wage will change this reality and I’m all for it."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday called for a 32-hour workweek with no pay cuts for U.S. employees, pointing to the overwhelmingly positive results in nations that have recently experimented with or enacted shorter workweeks.

"Moving to a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay is not a radical idea," Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, wrote in an op-ed in The Guardian. "In fact, movement in that direction is already taking place in other developed countries. France, the seventh-largest economy in the world, has a 35-hour workweek and is considering reducing it to 32. The workweek in Norway and Denmark is about 37 hours."

The senator also pointed to a recent four-day workweek pilot program in the United Kingdom, where more than 90% of participating companies said the trial was so successful that they have no plans to return to a five-day workweek.

"Not surprisingly, it showed that happy workers were more productive," Sanders wrote. "Another pilot of nearly 1,000 workers at 33 companies in seven countries found that revenue increased by more than 37% in the companies that participated and 97% of workers were happy with the four-day workweek."

Sanders also noted that "an explosion in technology" in recent decades, and associated increases in worker productivity, have not prompted any changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the 1938 law that established the 40-hour workweek.

Between 1979 and 2021, according to the Economic Policy Institute, worker productivity rose by nearly 65% while hourly pay rose just 17.3%.

"The result: millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, with the average worker making nearly $50 a week less than he or she did 50 years ago, after adjusting for inflation," wrote Sanders, who has said he will introduce legislation Thursday that would raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour.

"It's time to reduce the workweek to 32 hours with no loss in pay," the senator continued. "It's time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life. It's time to make sure that working people benefit from rapidly increasing technology, not just large corporations that are already doing phenomenally well."

"It's time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life."

Sanders is one of just a handful of U.S. lawmakers to endorse a 32-hour workweek. Earlier this year, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) reintroduced his Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, legislation that would cut the standard U.S. workweek by amending the FLSA.

The bill currently has just two co-sponsors: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). The measure has also been endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, and other organizations.

"Workers across the nation are collectively reimagining their relationship to labor—and our laws need to follow suit," Takano said in March. "We have before us the opportunity to make common sense changes to work standards passed down from a different era. The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would improve the quality of life of workers, meeting the demand for a more truncated workweek that allows room to live, play, and enjoy life more fully outside of work."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Ten lawmakers including progressive Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders implored the Federal Reserve to impose a pause on interest rate hikes during its Wednesday meeting, warning that further financial tightening in the name of fighting inflation would risk a brutal, job-killing recession.

In a Tuesday letter to Fed Chair Jerome Powell, the members of Congress expressed deep concern that "the Fed risks throwing millions of Americans out of work in its drive to raise interest rates even higher—even as Fed staff have already projected a recession this year amid financial market headwinds and even as you have acknowledged that inflation can slow without destroying the labor market, that the most significant drivers of inflation are not demand-based, and that the economy has not yet experienced the full impact of its earlier rate increases."

"We strongly urge you to respect the Fed's dual mandate, pause your rate hikes, and avoid engineering a recession that destroys jobs and crushes small businesses," they wrote.

The letter was sent amid further evidence that the Fed's aggressive interest rate increases—which are aimed at curbing economic demand by making borrowing more expensive—are taking their toll on the economy, with wage and job growth slowing and layoffs increasing. Recent turmoil in the banking industry, including the failure of several mid-sized banks, has also been tied to the Fed's nine consecutive rate hikes.

On top of worsening economic conditions at home and abroad, the lawmakers wrote in their letter to Powell that "it is even more difficult to justify such aggressive rate hikes at the moment given that inflation over the past six months has already declined significantly, averaging just 3.6% at an annualized rate, compared to 6.4% for the previous six months."

"While the Fed should remain flexible to incoming data as it assesses the economy's progress toward achieving lower inflation, the evidence to date suggests that progress can continue to be made without slamming the brakes on the economy and costing millions of Americans their jobs," the lawmakers continued. "Your recent comments, however, suggest that you remain committed to the idea that millions of workers must lose their jobs in order to bring inflation to heel."

The letter cites Powell's claim during a recent press conference that the economy can't "have a sustainable return to 2% inflation"—the Fed's arbitrary target—"without a better balance in the labor market," Fed-speak for more layoffs.

"Continuing to raise interest rates would be an abandonment of the Fed's dual mandate to achieve both maximum employment and price stability."

Powell has suggested that the Fed can prevent unemployment from rising to disastrous levels, but experts have warned that it is difficult to prevent mass layoffs from spreading once they begin.

The members of Congress echoed that fear in their letter to Powell, writing that "history casts doubt on the Fed's ability to engineer an unemployment rate that just 'rise[s] a bit.'"

"Since World War II, the unemployment rate has never increased by one percentage point within a year outside of a recession: the unemployment rate has increased by one percentage point 12 times since 1945, and in all 12 times that increase has been in the context of a recession," they noted. "And every time the unemployment rate increased by a full percentage point, it continued to increase far beyond that level. The Fed's projections that unemployment will essentially stay level in 2024 after pushing the economy into a recession in 2023, warns an economist concerned with maintaining full employment, 'amounts to a convenient delusion.'"

Warren (D-Mass.), Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), and the other letter signatories argued that rate hikes are not the solution to inflationary pressures caused by many factors beyond excessive economic demand—including supply chain shocks and corporate profiteering.

"Continuing to raise interest rates," they wrote, "would be an abandonment of the Fed's dual mandate to achieve both maximum employment and price stability and show little regard for the small businesses and working families that will get caught in the wreckage."

Despite such urgent warnings, the Fed is widely expected to raise interest rates by 25 basis points on Wednesday.

"At the end of its two-day gathering," the Financial Times reported Tuesday, "the Federal Open Market Committee is expected to raise its benchmark policy rate to a new target range of 5-5.25%, the highest level since mid-2007."

Fed-induced economic fears have been compounded by House Republicans' refusal to lift the debt ceiling, obstruction that is pushing the U.S. and global economies to the brink of a devastating crisis.

Rakeen Mabud, chief economist of the Groundwork Collaborative, said Tuesday that "Chair Powell and the Fed have made it clear that high interest rates are here to stay, even if it means trampling on one of the strongest labor markets in history."

"The Fed's actions are heightening the risk of a painful recession and causing instability in financial markets," said Mabud. "If the Fed insists on raising rates again this week, it is jeopardizing the progress we have made towards building a healthier and more inclusive economy for all."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party must do everything in their power to defend middle- and low-income people in potential budget negotiations, after the Republicans said they will raise the country's debt limit only in exchange for cuts to green jobs, food assistance, healthcare, and other social services that millions of Americans depend on.

Sanders spoke to CNN's "State of the Union" about the debt ceiling days after the GOP introduced the so-called Limit, Save, Grow Act, which would raise the country's borrowing limit to avoid an unprecedented default on its debt obligations and threaten the U.S. and global economies—but also includes cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Social Security Administration, and Internal Revenue Service funding meant to prevent tax-dodging by the richest Americans, among other programs.

Sanders noted that the GOP proposed cuts over the next decade to non-military spending, but nothing to reduce the Pentagon budget, which ballooned to $858 billion this year.

"I think we can move toward cutting military spending," said Sanders. "I'm certainly open to demanding that the largest corporations in this country and the wealthiest people start paying their fair share of taxes."

He added that he is willing to address "waste" within the federal government, Democrats should ensure the legislation won't "go to war against the working class of this country, lower-income people."

"Don't tell kids that they can't afford to go to college or cut back on public education in America," he said. "We have already too much inequality in America. Let's not make it worse."

He added that the Democrats "can start negotiating tomorrow," but reiterated the president's position that raising the arbitrary debt limit to protect against a default is non-negotiable.

Senator Bernie Sanders' Interview On CNN's State Of The Union(FULL)www.youtube.com

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Saturday repeated Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) statement that the package will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, and said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is well aware that the proposal is "a joke" that was only passed out of the Republican-controlled House to drive Biden and the Democrats to the negotiating table.

Economists say lawmakers have until at least early June to hammer out a deal to avoid a debt default.

On CNN, Sanders suggested that fighting for working people and low-income households to keep their healthcare, food assistance, and other essential services could be the first step in ensuring Biden wins a second term "in a landslide" in 2024.

"What I do believe is, the Democrats and the president have got to be stronger on working-class issues," said Sanders. "They have got to make it clear that we believe in a government that represents all, not just the few, take on the greed of the insurance companies, the drug companies, Wall Street, all the big money interests, and start delivering for working-class people."

Biden announced he is running for reelection last week, and Sanders endorsed the president's run soon after.

"Look, it is no great secret—I ran against Biden," said Sanders on Sunday. "No great secret that he and I have strong differences of opinion. But... if you believe in democracy, you want to see more people vote, not fewer people vote, I think the choice is pretty clear, and that choice is Biden."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

As corporate interests continue to attack Julie Su, dozens of progressive organizations on Wednesday pressured a U.S. Senate panel to swiftly advance the labor secretary nominee, who "has devoted her life to fighting for workers' rights, holding exploitative employers accountable, leveling the playing field for high-road employers, and doing pioneering work to protect the most vulnerable of workers."

Labor and advocacy groups have celebrated since President Joe Biden nominated Su in February, but industries opposed to her are spending big in states like Arizona, Montana, and West Virginia, hoping some current and former Democrats in the Senate will block her confirmation.

"Julie Su's career has been defined by solving complex problems and building a more just economy for all."

"Why are corporations spending millions to defeat Julie Su's nomination as labor secretary? They know she's a champion of the working class and will take on the forces of corporate greed, illegal union-busters, and improve working conditions. The Senate must confirm her nomination," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted Friday.

Sanders and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)—as chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), respectively—received the new letter from 94 organizations ahead of the panel's Thursday hearing.

Led by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and National Employment Law Project (NELP), the groups wrote:

The Department of Labor's (DOL) basic mission is "to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights." Few people are as uniquely well-suited to lead the Department of Labor in executing this mission as Julie Su...

Over the past two years, Deputy Secretary Su has proven herself to be an indispensable partner to Secretary Marty Walsh. Her recent experience and proven track record as a leader at the Department of Labor will enable a smooth leadership transition for the agency and a continuation of the agenda they both charted, one that will better protect workers from exploitation, but one that also has due regard for the regulated community and employers who are playing by the rules. Indeed, that is why Deputy Secretary Su is so well respected by so many in the business community in her home state of California, because she is someone who respects all stakeholders, including high-road employers who understand that their success is built by and with their workforces.

"This is a critical time for the Department of Labor to continue supporting workers through the economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic," the letter stresses, pointing to the DOL's work to finalize independent contractors rules, modernize unemployment insurance, carry out new interagency initiatives, improve access to well-paying employment, and implement the Good Jobs Initiative and items from the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment.

The letter highlights Su's "deep experience addressing the particular needs of low-wage workers" as well as her "pioneering work for the labor and human rights of immigrant workers," and argues that her former job in California "left her well-positioned to manage the relationship between the U.S. DOL and their numerous state-level counterparts."

As NELP executive director Rebecca Dixon said Wednesday, "Even before coming to Washington—from her experience as a civil rights lawyer to her work as secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency—Julie Su's career has been defined by solving complex problems and building a more just economy for all."

"Now, having served as deputy secretary at the Department of Labor for over two years and using her decades of experience to have a profound impact at the national level, we urge a swift confirmation process so that she and the Department of Labor can continue to make progress on the key labor, workforce, and employment issues facing our country today," Dixon added.

EPI president Heidi Shierholz also advocated for urgent action by lawmakers, saying: "Workers in this country need an experienced leader and brilliant public servant at the helm of the Department of Labor, and Julie Su is exactly that. I encourage the U.S. Senate to act quickly on her nomination to ensure that the Department of Labor can continue its ongoing work to support the economic recovery and address issues important to working people."

Other groups that signed on to the letter include the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Casa Latina, Child Labor Coalition, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Communications Workers of America, National Black Worker Center, Our Revolution, Oxfam America, Sierra Club, Service Employees International Union, United Steelworkers, and Women's Law Project.

Citing unnamed sources, Punchbowl also reported that "union officials will begin a six-figure TV ad buy" supporting Su in Washington, D.C. as well as Arizona and other states, and that more spending would follow.

Some unions have individually pressured the Senate on Su's nomination—including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, whose general president, Sean O'Brien, argued in a letter last week that she is "uniquely qualified" and "would make an extremely effective leader" at the DOL.

United Farm Workers president Teresa Romero similarly said in a Tuesday letter to Sanders and Cassidy that "few nominees in U.S. history have been as qualified" for the role as Su, who "has shown a lifelong commitment to upholding worker's rights as well as working with employers to keep our economy strong and working for everyone."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would hike taxes on estates worth more than $3.5 million as congressional Republicans work to repeal the estate levy entirely—a move that would hand nearly $2 trillion to the wealthiest people in the United States.

The For the 99.5 Percent Act, which Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), would impose a 45% tax on estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million, a 50% tax on estates worth between $10 million and $50 million, a 55% tax on estates worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and a 65% tax on estates valued at over $1 billion.

"This is not a radical idea," Sanders' office said in a press release. "In fact, from 1941-1976, the top estate tax rate was 77% on estates worth more than $50 million."

The new legislation would not impose any new taxes on 99.5% of Americans.

"Over and over again, Republicans in Washington have professed their deep concern about the national debt and yet virtually all of them have signed onto legislation that would provide a $1.8 trillion tax giveaway to billionaires by repealing the estate tax," Sanders said in a statement Tuesday, referring to the GOP's Death Tax Repeal Act of 2023, a bill led by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

Thune's legislation currently has 40 Republican cosponsors, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose wife received an inheritance worth between $5 million and $25 million following her mother's death in 2007.

Dozens of House Republicans have also backed legislation that would repeal all federal income taxes and replace them with a regressive national sales tax.

"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we need to make sure that people who inherit over $3.5 million pay their fair share of taxes," said Sanders. "We do not need to provide a huge handout to multi-millionaires and billionaires. It is unacceptable that working families across the country today are struggling to file their taxes on time and put food on the table, while the wealthiest among us profit off of enormous tax loopholes and giant tax breaks."

According to a summary released by Sanders' office, the new legislation would also target loopholes and inadequate rules that have allowed billionaire families like the Waltons to pass down wealth tax-free.

The bill was introduced with the backing of more than 420 national, state, and local groups, including the AFL-CIO and Public Citizen.

"For years, billionaires and multi-millionaires have gotten away with paying little to nothing in taxes," Warren said Tuesday. "This legislation will help us fix our broken tax system by closing loopholes that the ultra-wealthy use to dodge paying their fair share. Congress should pass this bill so we can invest in working families and build a brighter future for all of our children."

Citing an estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, Sanders' office noted that a previous version of the For the 99.5 Percent Act would have raised $430 billion in federal revenue over its first decade.

The new bill, which faces long odds in both chambers of Congress, was unveiled on Tax Day, an occasion that—as one group put it in a statement earlier Tuesday—serves as "an annual reminder that the ultra-rich exist in an entirely separate world when it comes to taxes."

The For the 99.5 Percent Act is one of several pieces of legislation mentioned by the Patriotic Millionaires in its newly released tax reform agenda, which calls for wealth taxes, a 90% top tax rate on centimillionaires, and other changes to "fundamentally reimagine our tax code."

"For our future, our grandchildren's future, and our country's future," the group said Tuesday, "we must tax the rich."

Survey data released Tuesday by the progressive advocacy group Groundwork Action found that nearly 75% of U.S. voters, regardless of party affiliation, want Congress to prioritize cracking down on wealthy tax cheats and closing loopholes that benefit the rich.

The polling data also showed that 70% of U.S. voters want Congress to "make sure millionaires and billionaires pay more in taxes."

"Voters across the political spectrum are tired of hearing about billionaires and massive corporations paying less in taxes than nurses, teachers, or firefighters, so it's no surprise they're rejecting the Republican agenda of protecting tax breaks for the wealthy at all costs," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Action.

"If Republicans want to talk about deficit reduction," Owens added, "Democrats have an easy response: Let's make the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share before asking workers and families to pay a penny more."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

His campaign also showed how easily leftists can slide from opponents of the corporate rule of America with their two parties to fervent supporters of Democrats when a progressive or liberal candidate seems likely win an election. We saw this before with their enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders in 2016, then again in 2020, even after Bernie had kowtowed to the billionaires’ candidate. We see it with AOC, who is morphing from a socialist into a corporate shill. And before that, leftists had been enthralled with Mr Hope and Change, Barack Obama.

The “socialist” journal Jacobin enthused over Johnson’s mayoral victory: “A week ahead of the April 4 election, Johnson rallied alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders in Chicago, who declared, ‘The fundamental issue is: What side are you on? Are you on the side of working people or are you on the side of the speculators and the billionaires? And I know which side Brandon is on.’”

This is dishonest — both by Bernie and by the Jacobin — because the Democrats are on the side of the 1%, not the 99%. Bernie made this perfectly clear in his 1989 article “We Can’t Tail After the Democrats.”

We need a new, progressive political party in the U.S. because on almost every important issue the Democratic and Republican Parties, both controlled by Big Money, are indistinguishable…We need a new, progressive political movement in this country because the Democrats and Republicans are not only incapable of solving any of the major problems facing this country, they are not even prepared to discuss them…The boldness and clarity that we need to articulate can never be done through the compromised and corrupt Democratic Party — dominated by Big Money.

At his election victory celebration, Johnson declared, “Tonight is the beginning of a Chicago that truly invests in all of its people… a city where no one is too poor to live. There’s more than enough for everyone in the city of Chicago.” Certainly there is, but since the corporate CEOs run the city — a fact Johnson does not address – this will not happen.

How would working class left-wing activists view this election? They would explain that Chicago is owned by the business, banking and real estate elite. They would explain that elected officials are not the city’s decision-makers. It matters little what some politician says and promises while campaigning: even if s/he meant what was said, s/he does not call the shots. The corporate built and controlled political and economic structure does. They would explain that liberal Democrats like Brandon Johnson are obligated primarily to the Democratic Party chiefs and their billionaire bosses, not to the people who elected them. They would explain that even if a Brandon Johnson ran and won, not as a Democrat, but as a representative of an independent popular movement, his electoral victory would result in roadblocks placed in his way by the ruling class to thwart every progressive move his movement made.

Brandon Johnson, as mayor, plans to bring about expanded social programs to benefit the people funded by raising taxes on wealthy elite. His campaign website called for safe, vibrant neighborhoods, affordable housing, healthcare for all, fully funded schools. Any leftist knows it is naive, if not dishonest to propagate the view that these can be achieved under the neoliberal capitalist system we are trapped in.

The corporate owners of Chicago possess numerous weapons to housebreak a mayor, such as lowering the rating of municipal bonds, threatening to move their business out of the city, whipping of fear of crime (causing people to leave the city and undermining the city as a tourist destination — with $15 billion spent by tourists in 2017).

The power of the media, the banks, the police, the courts, the real estate companies, the billionaires’ corporations vastly outweighs that of Johnson’s supporters. Their Chicago City Council is aligned against him; a majority support Johnson’s pro-corporate neoliberal opponent, Paul Vallas, and able to vote down any unwelcome measure he proposes. Nor does Johnson have great influence in the Democratic Party machine.

A working class left-wing would explain that Brandon Johnson’s campaign promises must be okayed by Chicago’s business leaders to become a reality. Their power could only be countered by an ongoing mass movement of the people, who would have to fight hard for any substantial social change. Yet, as Bernie Sanders’ campaigns illustrated, the loosely organized movement behind him was disbanded after his campaign was over.

It is no surprise to any leftist that the owners of the corporations are the ruling class. Nevertheless, they seem forever willing to throw this ABC of Marxism out the window if some progressive Democrat is a serious contender for elected office, and act as if significant social and economic change can occur through the ballot box.

This scenario of leftists campaigning to elect some liberal or “socialist” Democrat, forever ending in some electoral defeat or capitulation to the Democratic bosses, repeats itself over and over. The Jacobin, “socialist” media for the Democratic Party, propagates this pipedream that the “people” can capture a power base in the Democratic Party, as if the people could capture a corporation. It declared this nonsense: “Chicago’s left scored its biggest victory in recent memory”; “a watershed moment for the progressive movement.”

Out of one side of their mouth leftists will proclaim, as Bernie did in 1989, that we need a working class party because the Democrats and Republicans are owned by the ruling rich. Out of the other they still hold that real social change can come through electing these people.

Marxists must be honest, must not mislead the people, must explain to people the class structure of US society, and the hard work we face if we want to end global warming and Martin Luther King’s three evils of society: war, racism and poverty,

Unions such as the CTU and other teachers unions, the SEIU, National Nurses United, did support and provide most of the funding for Brandon Johnson’s campaign. Jesse Jackson, Bernie Sanders, and the most progressive City Council person, Byron Sigcho-Lopez, actively supported his campaign. This did not make it a working class campaign, but a labor for the Democratic candidate campaign.

Let’s not overlook that his opponent, Paul Vallas, was endorsed by over 15 unions, and also built a base in the Black and Latino and Asian communities, one that included Bobbie Rush.

Johnson no longer calls for defunding the police. This change reflects the diversion of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement into a vote against Trump campaign. The ruling class has since been able to shift the sentiment of millions who demonstrated against police brutality. They had the police slack off in combating crime, crime rates rose, and fear of crime was whipped up. Now, just over two years after Blue Lives Matter was viewed as almost fascist, a common sentiment today is for more police.

Brandon did say, “Any speech or any effort to delegitimize Israel and its right to exist, that’s how I view antisemitism.” He is opposed to BDS. “The divestment movement is not aligned with my values,” he said. Rumor has it he privately apologized for these reactionary statements defending Israeli apartheid.

Brandon was congratulated by Obama, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. Chicago was rewarded with hosting the 2024 Democratic National Convention days after his victory. Thus, leftists for Johnson played a role in cloaking the Democratic convention in a faux progressive aura, where Biden or some other neoliberal warmonger will be nominated.

Leftists may pretend there are progressive Democrats in opposition to neoliberal Democrats, but Democratic elected officials see themselves as all belonging to the same tent, the same tent that includes Republicans. No leftist conjuring up “Our Revolution,” no Democratic Socialists, no United Working Families is going to alter that.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Stansfield Smith.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday published a letter signed by a dozen congressional colleagues and backed by dozens of advocacy groups urging the Biden administration to revisit the billions of dollars in mostly unconditional military aid the United States gives Israel each year in light of "the alarming actions of the new extreme right-wing Israeli government" against Palestinians.

The lawmakers' letter to President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken expresses "deep concern" over the "rapidly escalating violence" perpetrated by Israeli occupation forces and settler-colonists against Palestinians.

The letter notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government includes people like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Jewish supremacist security minister who "openly encourages and praises violence against Palestinians," and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who "responded to the recent Israeli settler attacks on the Palestinian town of Huwara" by calling for the whole town to be "wiped out."

"We ask your administration to undertake a shift in U.S. policy in recognition of the worsening violence, further annexation of land, and denial of Palestinian rights," the legislators wrote. "Only by protecting democracy, human rights, and self-determination for all Palestinians and Israelis can we achieve a lasting peace."

Although the letter does not use the world apartheid like an increasing number of congressional progressives and international and even Israeli human rights defenders, it details "shocking violence" that is the "bloody reality" for Palestinians living under illegal occupation in the West Bank.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who signed the letter, did use the word "apartheid" in a social media post to describe the situation.

"On February 22, a daytime raid by the Israeli army into the crowded Palestinian city of Nablus killed 11 Palestinians, among them a 72 year-old-man and a 16-year-old child," the lawmakers wrote. "On February 26, a Palestinian gunman shot dead two Israeli settlers outside of Nablus. Subsequently, hundreds of Israeli settlers attacked the Palestinian town of Huwara."

"The settlers, accompanied by the Israeli army, set fire to homes, schools, vehicles, and businesses, killing one Palestinian and injuring over 300 Palestinians," the letter continues. "The local Israeli military commander called the attack a 'pogrom.'"

The lawmakers noted that "this comes amid an already violent year," as "Israeli forces and settlers have killed over 85 Palestinians in 2023, including 16 children."

"At least 14 Israelis have been killed, including two children," they wrote. "The previous year was the deadliest for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank since 2004 and included the Israeli military's killings of two American citizens, Shireen Abu Akleh and Omar Assad."

The letter urges the Biden administration to:

• Ensure U.S. taxpayer funds do not support projects in illegal settlements;
• Determine whether U.S.-origin defense articles have been used in violation of existing U.S. laws, including for a purpose not authorized by Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act... or to commit or support gross violations of human rights by the Israeli government; and
• Ensure that all future foreign assistance to Israel, including weapons and equipment, is not used in support of gross violations of human rights.

The lawmakers' letter is supported by dozens of advocacy groups, including Adalah Justice Project, Center for Constitutional Rights, Council on Islamic-American Relations, Human Rights Watch, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, Movement for Black Lives, Our Revolution, RootsAction, Sunrise Movement, Win Without War, and Working Families Party.

"Congressman Bowman and Senator Sanders' letter could not come at a more important moment," Beth Miller, political director at Jewish Voice for Peace, said in a statement. "The Israeli government is committing brutal atrocities against Palestinians, including attacking worshipers at Al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan."

"The Biden administration's milquetoast statements of concern ring hollow without action and accountability," she added. "It is time to ensure that no U.S. dollars are supporting the Israeli apartheid government's human rights violations against Palestinians."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Three unions representing faculty members and graduate student workers at Rutgers University in New Jersey on Tuesday rejected the school president's accusation that their strike, now in its second day following nearly a year of contract negotiations, is disrespectful of Rutgers students.

"Let's be clear: Our picket lines have been and will continue to be a peaceful, nonviolent expression of our determination to make a better Rutgers for our students and workers," said the unions, whose members overwhelmingly voted last month to go on strike.

The work stoppage was announced Sunday and includes about 9,000 union members at the public university, who are represented by Rutgers American Association of University Professors-American Federation of Teachers (Rutgers AAUP-AFT), Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union, and AAUP-Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey (BHSNJ).

The unions represent full-time faculty, adjunct lecturers, and the faculty of the university's medical, dental, nursing, and public health schools.

The workers have been negotiating with the school since last July and are calling for changes including a 20% pay increase over four years for full-time professors, a minimum salary of $37,150 for graduate workers, guaranteed funding for teaching assistants and graduate students, an increase of new parents' "release time" to 14 weeks, and equal pay for equal work for adjunct instructors, who they say should be paid and eligible for benefits equal to those given to nontenure track faculty.

"We intend for this new contract to be transformative, especially for our lowest-paid and most vulnerable members," Rebecca Givan, the president of Rutgers AAUP-AFT, toldThe New York Times.

According to the unions, the university has agreed to only a 3% yearly raise followed by smaller pay increases in subsequent years and has "rejected all substantial proposals" regarding funding for graduate students, adjunct teacher pay, job security, and other changes to workers' contracts.

The university's "net unrestricted assets" have skyrocketed in recent years, the unions have said, reaching $818.6 million during the coronavirus pandemic. Union faculty members and their supporters on campus have used the hashtag #RutgersHasTheMoney on social media to build awareness of the school's failure to meet their demands for fair compensation.

One graduate student, Michelle Ling, told the Times that she earns $30,000 per year and that many graduate students struggle to make ends meet.

"A lot of the grads that I know here are on food stamps," she told the newspaper. "A lot of grads I know have secret part-time jobs they don't report to the university because they have to—they have families, they have responsibilities."

Students joined union members in solidarity on Monday and Tuesday as the workers began the work stoppage, with picketers chanting, "No contract, no peace!" and "Together, unite, Rutgers on strike!" at the university's three campuses.

Michael Reagan, who teaches at Rutgers' School of Management and Labor Relations, reported on Twitter that construction workers on the school's New Brunswick campus were stopping work on a project in solidarity with the strike.

In Rutgers president Jonathan Holloway's email to the school community Monday night, he threatened to seek an injunction in court to force the faculty to return to work, claiming strikes by public sector workers are illegal in New Jersey.

While state courts have issued injunctions to stop public sector walkouts before, "there is no state statute that prohibits strikes or work stoppages by public employees, including faculty employed by Rutgers," said the unions. "New Jersey public employees have gone on strike at least 36 times in the past 30 years."

"Rather than threatening us, we urge President Holloway to demand movement from his negotiators, who have repeatedly said no to our core proposals," said the unions.

Union representatives were in Trenton on Tuesday, following an invitation from Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy to the unions and university officials to negotiate in the state capital.

"We are in Trenton today and are bargaining in good faith there, as we have for nearly a year—with the hope that Gov. Murphy will influence the Holloway administration to finally take bargaining seriously," the unions said.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was among the lawmakers who voiced support for the graduate students and faculty members as the strike began Monday.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), whose district includes Rutgers, joined union members on the picket line Monday.

"The [university] administration calls me all the time to try to get more grants and funding for more research," Pallone told the Times. "But I always say if that is going to be the case, we need to make sure that the graduate students who are doing the research, teaching the classes, they have to have a fair wage too."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders this weekend renewed his call to break up agricultural monopolies after the nation's largest egg producer reported that its quarterly profits soared more than 700%.

Cal-Maine Foods, which controls about 20% of the U.S. egg market, announced last week that its revenue for the quarter ending February 25 rose 109% to $997.5 million, while profit for the same period skyrocketed 718% to $323.2 million.

In a statement, Cal-Maine president and CEO Sherman Miller attributed the company's soaring profits to "the ongoing epidemic of highly pathogenic avian influenza which has significantly reduced the nation's egg-laying capacity."

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, "U.S. egg inventories were 29% lower in the final week of December 2022 than at the beginning of the year," while "more than 43 million egg-laying hens were lost to the disease itself or to depopulation since the outbreak began in February 2022."

Sanders (I-Vt.)—who took on agricultural monopolies while campaigning for president in 2016 and 2020—questioned Cal-Maine's narrative in a tweet arguing that "we must break up Big Ag and enact a windfall profits tax."

Sanders wasn't the only congressional critic of Cal-Maine's latest profits.

"While working families paid record prices for eggs, Cal-Maine raked over 700% more in profits—without reporting a single case of avian flu," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted on Thursday. "We need to crack down on corporate price gouging to provide Americans with relief at the grocery store."

Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), who is running for U.S. Senate, wrote on Twitter last week that "corporate greed is driving inflation."

"We need more competition to drive down prices," she added. "In the meantime, I'm demanding answers from Cal-Maine directly."

In February, Warren and Porter wrote letters to the heads of the five biggest U.S. egg producers expressing their concern over the "massive spike" in prices and "the extent to which egg producers may be using fears about avian flu and supply shocks as a cover to pad their own profits at the expense of American families."

The advocacy group Farm Action earlier this year implored the Federal Trade Commission to investigate "apparent price gouging, price coordination, and other unfair or deceptive acts or practices by dominant producers of eggs such as Cal-Maine Foods."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The latest round in the fight between Starbucks and its nascent barista network — Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) — came to a head on Wednesday with the appearance of former CEO and current board member Howard Schultz at the Senate Committee on Housing, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).

“It was honestly hard not to laugh out loud at some of the [bald-faced] lies he told,” said James Greene, a fired Starbucks shift supervisor in the Pittsburgh area.

“He denied breaking the law repeatedly as senators were listing off multiple judges’ rulings against [Starbucks],” Greene added.

Democratic senators alternately beseeched and challenged Schultz to live up to both his self-professed progressive values and the law, while Republicans by and large thanked him for his role as a billionaire businessman.

But if viewers were expecting an inquisition from the senators that would reveal new details about Starbucks’s anti-union push, instead they received what was mostly a milquetoast intervention met with successful stonewalling by Schultz.

For example, there was little discussion acknowledging that, along with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), federal courts have also found that workers’ claims of retaliation have merit. This allowed ranking Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and other supporters of Schultz to muddy the waters with claims about NLRB bias.

Senators asked Schultz about why the company had not reached a contract with any unionized stores despite having had up to over 450 days to negotiate. They also inquired about the impact of cutting hours on benefits, short-staffing, administrative judges’ decisions against the company for retaliation against workers, and other issues that have come up over the course of the union campaign.

Schultz, however, insisted that both he and the company had followed the law in all respects. For example, in response to questions by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the committee, Schultz denied knowledge of — or involvement in — decisions to fire or discipline workers who were involved in union drives. When and where he conceded on factual issues, such as an incident where he suggested that a pro-union worker should find another job, he construed such events in a way that cleared himself and the company of wrongdoing.

Greene noted that even as Schultz was speaking about worker safety at the committee, around 10:30 am Wednesday at a Starbucks store in the Pittsburgh area workers faced an unnerving situation. “The fire alarms went off and announced a shelter in place and lockdown,” an unnamed Starbucks worker reported over Twitter. There were reports of an active shooter in the area.

Though the reports turned out to be false, “we were in lockdown for around half an hour… People were crying in the back and were visibly upset,” the worker said. Minutes after the lockdown ended, the manager and district manager tried to require workers to start serving coffee again, according to the worker.

Starbucks did not reply to a request for comment from In These Times by the time this article was published.

Meanwhile, when asked repeatedly why the company refuses to bargain in earnest, Schultz cited the perceived need to avoid Zoom at bargaining sessions in order to protect employee safety for managers or district managers who might be doxxed or visited at their homes.

The two different perspectives on what constitutes a danger to Starbucks workers revealed a deeper contrast in the perspectives of upper management and those on the shop floor. While Schultz dodged questions about the legality of Starbucks’s union-busting tactics, baristas were dealing with sub-living wage incomes, cuts to their hours and retaliation against union activities.

“Ultimately, I have come to accept that a billionaire (or whatever alternative [term] Howard would prefer) will never be able to reflect on [the] shop floor worker’s level and therefore have learned to cope that we might never see an apology or admission of guilt from him,” said Mason Boykin, a Starbucks worker based in Jacksonville, Florida.

Nonetheless, some Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) baristas were left satisfied that Schultz was at least being forced to answer more difficult questions than usually confronted with in the press.

“I think that they obviously had some people that were more sympathetic to him,” says Hopewell, New Jersey, shift supervisor Sara Mughal. She added, “But there [were] a lot of people asking the questions that we’ve been waiting for people to ask him in all of these interviews that he’s given.”

"Baristas were left satisfied that Schultz was at least being forced to answer more difficult questions than usually confronted with in the press."

After Schultz spoke, Starbucks worker Maggie Carter and fired Starbucks worker Jaysin Saxton had the opportunity to speak to the assembled senators.

“What’s important to me is that our government invited this conversation and even more importantly, gave space to hear directly from workers like Maggie and Jaysin,” said Boykin.

“It was so incredibly inspiring to see support from some of the most influential people in the country and know that those watching saw themselves reflected in my fellow partner’s testimony,” they added.

Since the barista campaign began roughly 19 months ago, Sanders has been a fierce ally of the Starbucks workers, who have organized nearly 300 store unions and over 7,000 workers in the coffee megachain’s U.S. company-run outlets. However, this represents just roughly 3% of such stores in the multi-billion dollar corporation.

The hearing came after months of mounting pressure by the baristas and their allies, including Sanders. In the first phase of the campaign in 2022, the victory at the first store in Buffalo over union-busting tactics that an administrative judge deemed “egregious and widespread” led to an exponential increase in stores filing for unions across the country.

In the second phase, Starbucks retaliated through implementing selective benefits and raises applied to non-union stores, closures of some union or unionizing stores, firings of union organizers, intensification of disciplinary measures against pro-union workers, and other tactics. Through this process, the company managed to staunch the number of stores filing for unions by the summer of 2022.

However, over the course of autumn and winter 2022, baristas counterattacked. On Labor Day, they held in Massachusetts their first regionally coordinated strike. In November and December, workers struck nationally at about 100 stores. Most recently, they went on strike again about a week ago at 113 stores, according to SBWU.

They also won a major victory this week as Starbucks shareholders voted against the recommendation of its board of directors for a resolution urging the board to commission an external investigation into worker rights issues. The measure calls for a look at whether the company is adhering to core International Labour Organization Core Standards, which include freedom of association. The shareholder coalition that successfully brought forward the resolution was led by New York City Comptroller Brad Landers.

“It’s not just a one-store fight. It’s a nationwide fight,” said Ana Martinez, a Starbucks barista in Lynbrook, New York. “I’m just glad that this has brought us all together.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Saurav Sarkar.

The latest round in the fight between Starbucks and its nascent barista network — Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) — came to a head on Wednesday with the appearance of former CEO and current board member Howard Schultz at the Senate Committee on Housing, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).

“It was honestly hard not to laugh out loud at some of the [bald-faced] lies he told,” said James Greene, a fired Starbucks shift supervisor in the Pittsburgh area.

“He denied breaking the law repeatedly as senators were listing off multiple judges’ rulings against [Starbucks],” Greene added.

Democratic senators alternately beseeched and challenged Schultz to live up to both his self-professed progressive values and the law, while Republicans by and large thanked him for his role as a billionaire businessman.

But if viewers were expecting an inquisition from the senators that would reveal new details about Starbucks’s anti-union push, instead they received what was mostly a milquetoast intervention met with successful stonewalling by Schultz.

For example, there was little discussion acknowledging that, along with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), federal courts have also found that workers’ claims of retaliation have merit. This allowed ranking Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and other supporters of Schultz to muddy the waters with claims about NLRB bias.

Senators asked Schultz about why the company had not reached a contract with any unionized stores despite having had up to over 450 days to negotiate. They also inquired about the impact of cutting hours on benefits, short-staffing, administrative judges’ decisions against the company for retaliation against workers, and other issues that have come up over the course of the union campaign.

Schultz, however, insisted that both he and the company had followed the law in all respects. For example, in response to questions by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the committee, Schultz denied knowledge of — or involvement in — decisions to fire or discipline workers who were involved in union drives. When and where he conceded on factual issues, such as an incident where he suggested that a pro-union worker should find another job, he construed such events in a way that cleared himself and the company of wrongdoing.

Greene noted that even as Schultz was speaking about worker safety at the committee, around 10:30 am Wednesday at a Starbucks store in the Pittsburgh area workers faced an unnerving situation. “The fire alarms went off and announced a shelter in place and lockdown,” an unnamed Starbucks worker reported over Twitter. There were reports of an active shooter in the area.

Though the reports turned out to be false, “we were in lockdown for around half an hour… People were crying in the back and were visibly upset,” the worker said. Minutes after the lockdown ended, the manager and district manager tried to require workers to start serving coffee again, according to the worker.

Starbucks did not reply to a request for comment from In These Times by the time this article was published.

Meanwhile, when asked repeatedly why the company refuses to bargain in earnest, Schultz cited the perceived need to avoid Zoom at bargaining sessions in order to protect employee safety for managers or district managers who might be doxxed or visited at their homes.

The two different perspectives on what constitutes a danger to Starbucks workers revealed a deeper contrast in the perspectives of upper management and those on the shop floor. While Schultz dodged questions about the legality of Starbucks’s union-busting tactics, baristas were dealing with sub-living wage incomes, cuts to their hours and retaliation against union activities.

“Ultimately, I have come to accept that a billionaire (or whatever alternative [term] Howard would prefer) will never be able to reflect on [the] shop floor worker’s level and therefore have learned to cope that we might never see an apology or admission of guilt from him,” said Mason Boykin, a Starbucks worker based in Jacksonville, Florida.

Nonetheless, some Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) baristas were left satisfied that Schultz was at least being forced to answer more difficult questions than usually confronted with in the press.

“I think that they obviously had some people that were more sympathetic to him,” says Hopewell, New Jersey, shift supervisor Sara Mughal. She added, “But there [were] a lot of people asking the questions that we’ve been waiting for people to ask him in all of these interviews that he’s given.”

"Baristas were left satisfied that Schultz was at least being forced to answer more difficult questions than usually confronted with in the press."

After Schultz spoke, Starbucks worker Maggie Carter and fired Starbucks worker Jaysin Saxton had the opportunity to speak to the assembled senators.

“What’s important to me is that our government invited this conversation and even more importantly, gave space to hear directly from workers like Maggie and Jaysin,” said Boykin.

“It was so incredibly inspiring to see support from some of the most influential people in the country and know that those watching saw themselves reflected in my fellow partner’s testimony,” they added.

Since the barista campaign began roughly 19 months ago, Sanders has been a fierce ally of the Starbucks workers, who have organized nearly 300 store unions and over 7,000 workers in the coffee megachain’s U.S. company-run outlets. However, this represents just roughly 3% of such stores in the multi-billion dollar corporation.

The hearing came after months of mounting pressure by the baristas and their allies, including Sanders. In the first phase of the campaign in 2022, the victory at the first store in Buffalo over union-busting tactics that an administrative judge deemed “egregious and widespread” led to an exponential increase in stores filing for unions across the country.

In the second phase, Starbucks retaliated through implementing selective benefits and raises applied to non-union stores, closures of some union or unionizing stores, firings of union organizers, intensification of disciplinary measures against pro-union workers, and other tactics. Through this process, the company managed to staunch the number of stores filing for unions by the summer of 2022.

However, over the course of autumn and winter 2022, baristas counterattacked. On Labor Day, they held in Massachusetts their first regionally coordinated strike. In November and December, workers struck nationally at about 100 stores. Most recently, they went on strike again about a week ago at 113 stores, according to SBWU.

They also won a major victory this week as Starbucks shareholders voted against the recommendation of its board of directors for a resolution urging the board to commission an external investigation into worker rights issues. The measure calls for a look at whether the company is adhering to core International Labour Organization Core Standards, which include freedom of association. The shareholder coalition that successfully brought forward the resolution was led by New York City Comptroller Brad Landers.

“It’s not just a one-store fight. It’s a nationwide fight,” said Ana Martinez, a Starbucks barista in Lynbrook, New York. “I’m just glad that this has brought us all together.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Saurav Sarkar.

Just days after former CEO Howard Schultz appeared before a Senate committee to face questioning over the company's brazen union-busting campaign, Starbucks fired a worker credited with sparking the organizing drive that has resulted in nearly 300 unionized shops across the United States.

Alexis Rizzo worked as a shift supervisor at Starbucks' Genesee St. location in Buffalo, one of the first two U.S. stores to win a union election in late 2021.

"Lexi Rizzo was a seven-year shift supervisor at Starbucks who ignited the Starbucks Workers United movement that took the country by storm," reads a GoFundMe page started by Starbucks Workers United organizer Casey Moore.

The page characterized Rizzo's firing as "retaliation at its worst" and asked for support to help "Lexi pay her bills as we fight for justice and her job back."

Rizzo is one of dozens of union organizers that Starbucks has fired since late 2021, according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has accused the company of hundreds of labor law violations. Just last month, an NLRB judge ordered Starbucks to reinstate seven Buffalo-area workers who were illegally fired.

Rizzo toldCNBC on Saturday that she is "absolutely heartbroken" by the termination, saying: "It wasn't just a job for me. It was like my family. It was like losing everything. I've been there since I was 17 years old. It's like my entire support system, and I think that they knew that."

"Instead of negotiating a first union contract as required by law, Starbucks has chosen to double down on its illegal union busting by firing Alexis Rizzo."

According to CNBC, Rizzo "said her store managers fired her after she finished working her shift Friday. She said they told her it was because she had been late on four occasions—two of which were instances where she had been one minute late. Rizzo suspects she was let go as a result of Wednesday's Senate hearing."

"I don't think it's a coincidence that two days after Howard Schultz had his ego bruised the way that he did that he started lashing out at Buffalo," Rizzo told the outlet, noting that two other workers were also fired on Friday.

The Wednesday hearing was led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who used his time to grill Schultz about his role in Starbucks' aggressive and ongoing efforts to crush union organizing at the company, which has been accused of withholding raises and tips from union workers, unlawfully denying new benefits to organized shops, and illegally obstructing contract negotiations.

Schultz, who denied any wrongdoing in testimony that Starbucks workers said was full of lies, stepped down as CEO last month but remains on the company's board.

In a Twitter post late Saturday, Sanders wrote that "instead of negotiating a first union contract as required by law, Starbucks has chosen to double down on its illegal union busting by firing Alexis Rizzo, a union leader in Buffalo who worked for Starbucks for seven years."

"That is beyond unacceptable," the senator added. "Ms. Rizzo must be reinstated."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, under threat of subpoena, has finally appeared before the United States Senate to answer for the company’s union-busting practices.

Most unionized Starbucks workers had never, before Wednesday’s Senate hearing, heard Schultz try to defend how Starbucks has gone about relating to employees at the company’s near 300 unionized stores. And they didn’t like what they would hear.

The Schultz testimony, noted Gianna Reeve, a 22-year-old shift supervisor at a unionized Starbucks location in Buffalo, New York, gave Starbucks baristas “nothing new.” Buffalo saw the first successful Starbucks union vote in late 2021.

“His testimony and continued denial of Starbucks’ illegal activities is deplorable,” says Reeve. “It’s even more frustrating to hear Schultz feign unawareness about the labor law that deems those activities illegal.”

Throughout the Senate hearing, Schultz repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. The National Labor Relations Board — the independent federal agency that protects the right to organize — doesn’t share his perspective. The NLRB has found that the national coffee chain has violated federal labor law some 1,300 times under Schultz’s watch.

Those violations, the NLRB has held, include illegally monitoring and firing organizers, withholding benefits from unionized stores, and closing a store that attempted to organize.

“The Starbucks coffee company unequivocally — and let me set the tone for this very early on — has not broken the law,” Schultz at one point in the hearing insisted, a stance that brought immediate laughter from the gallery.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, reminded Schultz numerous times that workers have a constitutional right to organize. The decision on whether or not to form a union, the senator emphasized, belongs only to workers, not billionaire CEOs.

“Over the past 18 months Starbucks has waged the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country,” Sanders noted. “The fundamental issue we are facing today is whether we have a system of justice that applies to all — or whether billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity.”

Starbucks workers at the hearing found the spectacle of members of Congress grilling Schultz to be highly satisfying, especially since management and the union have spent only a few minutes together in the over 400 days since the first Starbucks store voted to unionize.

Gianna Reeve, the Buffalo Starbucks employee, noted she had once attempted to hold Schultz accountable by asking him to sign the Fair Election Principles, a set of standards assembled by Starbucks Workers United that expects management to commit itself to not retaliating against workers organizing to fight for a fair contract. Schultz’s response?

“He ran out of the room,” says Reeve.

“The work of baristas across the country brought us to this hearing moment,” she adds, “and it’s gratifying to witness.”

Following the hearing, Reeve once again attempted to confront Schultz and get him to sign the Fair Election Principles, a request he ignored as aides escorted him away.

Starbucks workers — the company calls them “partners” — shared with the Senate committee how far Starbucks management will often go to interfere in union organizing.

Maggie Smith, a single mom and Starbucks “partner” from Knoxville, Tennessee, testified that she felt motivated to form a union during the height of the Covid pandemic in the fall of 2021. The Knoxville store would soon afterwards become the first unionized Starbucks store in the South. But that victory didn’t come without a fight.

Employees at the Knoxville store found themselves threatened by their store manager and accused of being disloyal for wanting a union. The company even fired one six-year veteran of the company after she became actively involved in the union organizing. The NLRB has since found merit in the multiple unfair labor practice charges the union has filed and will pursue civil prosecutions. The agency is also seeking to reinstate, with back pay, the fired Knoxville “partner.”

Smith told the Senate panel she first realized how little real meaning the Starbucks “partner” label held when she saw first-hand how much the company opposed the “true partnership” with Starbucks that unionizing workers were trying to organize.

“You can’t be,” Smith explained, “pro-partner and anti-union.”

The Senate testimony from the Knoxville Starbucks workers offers just one example of how Starbucks is attempting to bust burgeoning union drives at Starbucks stores across the country. But Schultz throughout the hearing vehemently denied that Starbucks has broken any law.

“I take offense with you categorizing me or Starbucks as a union buster when that is not true,” Schultz told Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who had cited the huge sums of money Starbucks had spent retaining the services of the well-known Littler Mendelson anti-union law firm.

That Schultz response also drew laughter from union supporters in the crowd.

The Schultz era at Starbucks may now have ended, but the Starbucks worker fight for fair contracts remains far from over. The new Starbucks CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, has announced he plans to work a half-day shift once a month at a Starbucks outlet to stay close to customers and the store culture. He’s remained mum on his plans to negotiate with the union.

Starbucks workers have organized over 7,500 workers since December 2021, Buffalo’s Gina Reeve told the Senate panel. Those workers will be closely watching what course the new Starbucks CEO decides to take.

“The power dynamics of Starbucks need to be rebalanced,” she observed, “and I hope to see CEO Laxman Narasimhan take the opportunity to really make a ‘different kind of company.’”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Rebekah Entralgo.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders stumped for progressive Chicago mayoral candidate Brandon Johnson late Thursday, imploring the city's voters to turn out in record numbers to overcome what he described as the powerful establishment forces backing conservative Democrat Paul Vallas.

"Our job on Tuesday is to make sure we have the largest voter turnout this city has ever seen," Sanders (I-Vt.) told the crowd gathered at the University of Illinois Chicago days ahead of the April 4 runoff. "This is going to be a close election, and the deciding factor will be voter turnout."

A Northwestern University poll released earlier this week showed the race is in a dead heat, with Johnson and Vallas each receiving 44% support and 12% of voters still undecided.

"Brandon's opponent and the other side—they have a lot of money," the Vermont senator said Thursday. "That's what always happens when you take on the establishment. They have the money. They've got a lot of power. But you know what we have? We have the people."

The rally came after new financial disclosures showed that a super PAC with close connections to former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos recently spent nearly $60,000 on digital media supporting Vallas, the former CEO of Chicago Public Schools who has worked to privatize education in his home city as well as New Orleans and Philadelphia.

"The fundamental issue, the deep down issue, is: Which side are you on?" Sanders said Thursday night. "Are you on the side of working people, or are you on the side of the speculators and billionaires? And I know which side Brandon is on."

While Sanders didn't explicitly mention the DeVos-tied super PAC's support for Vallas' campaign during Thursday's rally, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten did, saying it "tells you everything you need to know about" Vallas.

In a statement earlier Thursday, Weingarten said that "Paul Vallas’ goal of defunding public schools and dividing parents against teachers makes him precisely the kind of candidate who would appeal to a fellow wrecker like Betsy DeVos—a person who's devoted her life to ending public education as we know it."

"From Chicago to Philadelphia to New Orleans," Weingarten added, "Vallas waged a craven campaign to voucherize and pauperize, just like DeVos tried—and failed—to do when she served as Donald Trump's education secretary."

Watch Thursday's rally:

Johnson, a longtime educator and organizer, also called attention to the Illinois Federation for Children PAC's spending on the race during a candidate forum late Thursday.

"Betsy DeVos has inserted herself and her resources into my opponent's coffers," Johnson said.

Vallas countered that he has "never had any conversations or contacts with Betsy DeVos."

"Our campaign has not received any money from her," Vallas said, citing the often vanishingly thin barrier separating so-called "independent expenditures" by super PACs and direct donations to political campaigns.

In addition to the DeVos-connected spending, Vallas has also received financial support from "conservative contributors and prominent Republicans," the Chicago Tribunereported earlier this month.

"Vallas' largest contributor was golf course developer Michael Keiser, who has given him $700,000," the Tribune noted. "Keiser previously contributed $11,200 to former President Donald Trump, a Republican. Vallas has taken money from John Canning, a Chicago private equity executive who has given to many politicians locally but also national Republicans, and Noel Moore, who has given to Trump and Texas Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz."

Johnson's biggest contributors, by contrast, have been unions representing teachers and service workers.

"When you take dollars from Trump supporters and try to cast yourself as a part of the progressive movement, man—sit down,” Johnson said at Thursday night's rally.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Sen. Bernie Sanders are circulating a letter this week urging the Biden administration to "undertake a shift in U.S. policy in recognition of the worsening violence, further annexation of land, and denial of Palestinian rights" by Israel.

The letter, which was first obtained and published by Alex Kane at Jewish Currents, was written by Bowman (D-N.Y.) and is being circulated by Sanders (I-Vt.) in order to gain support from other senators. So far, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) have signed it.

In the letter, the lawmakers expressed their "deep concern" over the "rapidly escalating violence" perpetrated by Israeli occupation forces and settler-colonists against Palestinians. It notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government includes people like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Jewish supremacist security minister who "openly encourages and praises violence against Palestinians," and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who "responded to the recent Israeli settler attacks on the Palestinian town of Huwara" by calling for the whole town to be "wiped out."

The letter—which, unlike various human rights groups, does not use the term apartheid—details "shocking violence" that is the "bloody reality" for Palestinians living under illegal occupation in the West Bank.

"On February 22, a daytime raid by the Israeli army into the crowded Palestinian city of Nablus killed 11 Palestinians, among them a 72 year-old-man and a 16-year-old child," the lawmakers wrote. "On February 26, a Palestinian gunman shot dead two Israeli settlers outside of Nablus. Subsequently, hundreds of Israeli settlers attacked the Palestinian town of Huwara."

"The settlers, accompanied by the Israeli army, set fire to homes, schools, vehicles, and businesses, killing one Palestinian and injuring over 300 Palestinians," the letter continues. "The local Israeli military commander called the attack a 'pogrom.'"

The letter notes:

This comes amid an already violent year. Israeli forces and settlers have killed over 85 Palestinians in 2023, including 16 children. At least 14 Israelis have been killed, including two children. The previous year was the deadliest for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank since 2004 and included the Israeli military's killings of two American citizens, Shireen Abu Akleh and Omar Assad...

This Israeli government's anti-democratic mission to dismantle the rule of law is a threat to Israelis and Palestinians alike. In addition to explicitly hateful, anti-Palestinian policies, this government is attempting to destroy the independent Israeli judiciary.

The Israeli government's judiciary reforms—which earlier this week were put on hold amid massive protests—"open the path towards further annexation of Palestinian lands," in "violation of international law," the U.S. legislators noted.

The lawmakers urge the Biden administration to:

• Ensure U.S. taxpayer funds do not support projects in illegal settlements;
• Determine whether U.S.-origin defense articles have been used in violation of existing U.S. laws, including for a purpose not authorized by Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act... or to commit or support gross violations of human rights by the Israeli government; and
• Ensure that all future foreign assistance to Israel, including weapons and equipment, is not used in support of gross violations of human rights.

The lawmakers' push was praised by organizations including the Institute for Policy Studies, Win Without War, and Jewish Voice for Peace, whose political director, Beth Miller, called the letter "an important call to action."

"Over 80 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers just since the beginning of 2023, and the Biden administration's statements of 'concern' mean nothing without action and accountability," Miller said in a statement. "Leaders in Congress who join this letter are following the demands of a rapidly growing number of Americans—including American Jews—who want to see the Israeli government held accountable for its decades of oppression of Palestinians."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is set to testify Wednesday morning before a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is expected to grill the billionaire on the coffee giant's scorched-earth union-busting campaign that has drawn hundreds of unfair labor practice charges and dozens of complaints from the NLRB.

In his opening statement at the hearing, Sanders ran through the litany of allegations against Starbucks and called the company's efforts "the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country."

"That union-busting campaign has been led by Howard Schultz," said the senator, who vowed to press the former CEO to comply with recent NLRB rulings and stop obstructing contract negotiations.

"What is outrageous to me is not only Starbucks' anti-union activities and their willingness to break the law—it is their calculated and intentional efforts to stall, stall, and stall," Sanders continued. "They understand that the turnover rate at Starbucks is high. They understand that if workers do not see success in getting a contract and improved wages they may get discouraged. So what Starbucks is doing is not only trying to break unions, but even worse. They are trying to break the spirit of workers who are struggling to improve their lives. And that is unforgivable."

Watch the hearing live:

Following Schultz's appearance, the committee will hear from a separate panel of witnesses, including current Starbucks worker Maggie Carter and former employee Jaysin Saxton, who was fired after he led a union drive at a store in Augusta, Georgia. Last April, that location became the first Starbucks shop in Georgia to unionize.

The NLRB filed a complaint in December alleging that Saxton was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected union activity. Saxton is one of more than 60 union organizers fired by Starbucks since December 2021, when workers in Buffalo, New York voted to form the company's first union in the U.S.

Since then, nearly 300 Starbucks locations have opted to unionize in the face of aggressive pushback from the company, which has slashed workers' hours, withheld raises, threatened worse benefits for unionized shops, and shut down entire stores in an effort to crush organizing momentum.

Starbucks Workers United said that more than a dozen Starbucks employees from across the United States are expected to travel to Washington, D.C. to attend the hearing, which comes after weeks of stonewalling from Starbucks executives.

Schultz, who has been accused of nearly 100 labor law violations since early 2022, finally agreed to testify earlier this month under threat of subpoena. Schultz stepped down as Starbucks' chief executive on March 20, though he remains on the company's board of directors.

"The HELP Committee intends to make clear that in America we must not have a two-tiered justice system in which billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity, while working-class people are held accountable for their actions," Sanders said.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Monday led two dozen House Democrats in urging Congress to allocate at least $1.2 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen—whose people have suffered eight years of U.S.-backed Saudi war—in next year's budget.

"As we approach the 8th anniversary of the Yemen war, the country remains stuck in a devastating cycle of conflict and humanitarian crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives," Tlaib (D-Mich.) and 23 other lawmakers wrote in a letter to House Subcommittee on State and Foreign Relations Chair Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Ranking Member Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

"Yemen has the grim title of the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with over 4 million Yemenis displaced and an estimated 80% of the country's 30 million people reliant upon some form of assistance for their survival," the letter, which was first sent last week, asserts.

The letter's authors lament that "international appeals for assistance for Yemen have consistently [fallen] short of their goals by large margins" and that "the continuous reduction in funding has greatly exacerbated the humanitarian suffering."

The United Nations "has had to close over 75% of its lifesaving programs, and the World Food Program has been forced to cut or reduce food distribution to 8 million people, increasing the number of areas at risk of famine," the letter notes.

"Without a significant increase in American assistance (which we believe would incentivize foreign nations to increase their support in turn), we fear that 2023 will be a heartbreakingly deadly year for everyday Yemenis," the signers assert.

The lawmakers urge Congress to include at least $1.2 billion "for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts in Yemen" in the budget for fiscal year 2024. They also ask the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development "to develop programming that directly invests in sustainably developing long-term economic opportunities for Yemenis."

Tlaib is one of four dozen bipartisan House lawmakers who last June introduced a War Powers Resolution to end "unauthorized" United States military involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen's civil war.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Last December, Sanders withdrew the resolution just before it was slated for a floor vote, while vowing to work with the Biden administration on ending U.S. involvement in the war.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

A Senate committee headed by Bernie Sanders of Vermont released a report late Sunday aimed at debunking Starbucks' narrative that it supports workers' rights and has not committed large-scale violations of U.S. labor law—claims that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will likely repeat when he testifies before the panel later this week.

Since late 2021, when Buffalo workers voted to form the company's first union in the U.S. and set off a movement that quickly swept the country, "Starbucks has adopted an aggressively anti-union stance that is reflected in Schultz's public statements, the company's communications to workers, and its scorched-earth approach to blocking unionization activity," the new report states.

"Though the coffee giant claims they are a 'progressive' company, there is mounting evidence that the $113 billion-dollar company's anti-union efforts include a pattern of flagrant violations of federal labor law," the report continues. "The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed over 80 complaints against Starbucks for violating federal labor law and there have been over 500 unfair labor practice charges lodged against this company. These violations include the illegal firing of more than a dozen Starbucks workers for 'the crime' of exercising their right to form a union and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions."

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee's majority staff report was published ahead of Schultz's planned testimony on Wednesday, an appearance that the billionaire—who has led Starbucks' aggressive union-busting campaign—resisted for weeks before finally relenting earlier this month under threat of subpoena.

The report also comes days after Starbucks workers across the country went on strike and outlined their demands—including a starting hourly wage of $20, guaranteed hours for full-time workers, and 100% employer-covered healthcare—ahead of the company's Thursday shareholder meeting, the first under new CEO Laxman Narasimhan.

While Starbucks says it "respects employees' right to organize," the HELP Committee report notes, the company in practice has "taken a firmly anti-union position" and has shown it is "willing to do whatever it takes to stop workers from organizing" by firing dozens of union leaders, surveilling and punishing pro-union employees, and promising better benefits for non-union locations.

"NLRB judges have found that Starbucks broke the law 130 times across six states since workers began organizing in fall 2021," the HELP report states. "The NLRB is also currently taking Starbucks to trial in 70 additional cases."

The report goes on to challenge Starbucks' claim that it is bargaining in good faith with workers who have voted to join Workers United. To date, none of the 300 locations that have made the choice to unionize since December 2021 have secured a first contract.

"It has been over 450 days since the first Starbucks stores voted to form a union. Starbucks has not taken any meaningful steps to make progress toward actually negotiating a contract in that time period," the report reads. "On November 30, 2022, the NLRB found that Starbucks has unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with the union at its Reserve Roastery Store in Seattle following an election in May 2022. Starbucks has appealed the NLRB's decision to the Ninth Circuit."

The committee's analysis—which also takes on the company's claim that it is a "model employer" and that the unionization push does not reflect the desires of the majority of its workforce—concludes that "Starbucks has engaged in the most significant union-busting campaign in modern history."

"Just because Starbucks is a $113 billion company and Howard Schultz is a billionaire with a net worth of $3.7 billion does not mean that they are above the law," the report says. "They must be held accountable for creating a culture that allows widespread violations of federal labor law in an effort to stop workers from exercising their constitutional right to organize."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Two days after President Joe Biden's administration rejected a petition asking federal regulators to use their authority to lower the astronomical price of a lifesaving prostate cancer drug developed entirely with public funds, petitioners on Thursday filed an administrative appeal.

At issue is enzalutamide, a drug the Japanese pharmaceutical giant Astellas and its U.S. counterpart Pfizer sell under the brand name Xtandi. Although Xtandi owes its existence to U.S. taxpayers, who bankrolled 100% of its development, an annual supply of the drug costs $189,900 in the United States—three to six times more than its list price in other wealthy nations.

In late 2021, prostate cancer patients Robert Sachs, Clare Love, and Eric Sawyer petitioned the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to exercise its "march-in rights" against Xtandi. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government can reclaim and redistribute patents for inventions created with public funding—enabling generic competitors to produce cheaper versions—when "action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs" or when an invention's benefits are not being made "available to the public on reasonable terms."

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra referred the petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whose acting Director Lawrence Tabak argued in a Tuesday letter that "Xtandi is widely available to the public on the market," citing Astellas' estimate that "more than 200,000 patients were treated with Xtandi from 2012 to 2021."

Even with insurance, co-pays for Xtandi are sky-high. Medicare recipients, for example, are expected to pay roughly $10,000 per year for the medicine. Especially for the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S., Xtandi remains completely out of reach.

Tabak's letter went on to say that Xtandi's "practical application is evidenced by the 'manufacture, practice, and operation' of the invention and the invention's 'availability to and use by the public….'" As Knowledge Ecology International executive director James Love lamented, the NIH completely elided any mention of "reasonable terms," editing out that key phrase from Bayh-Dole.

In their appeal, the petitioners wrote: "The petition focused on a single issue: the reasonableness of charging U.S. cancer patients three to six times more than residents of other high-income countries for the drug Xtandi."

"There is no dispute about the following facts," the appeal continues. "Xtandi was invented on grants from the U.S. Army and the NIH at UCLA, a public university. The patents were licensed eventually to Astellas, a Japanese drug company, with a partnership share now held by Pfizer, following its 2016 $14 billion acquisition of Medivation, UCLA's original licensee, that occurred just after the NIH rejected an earlier march-in request on Xtandi. The prices in the United States have consistently been far higher than the prices in other high-income countries."

Prior to the 2021 petition, Clare Love and prostate cancer patient David Reed filed a petition, later joined by Sachs, with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) after the Senate Armed Services Committee instructed the Pentagon to initiate march-in proceedings when the price of a drug created with a DOD grant exceeds the median price in seven large high-income nations. The Pentagon, however, has yet to acknowledge or act on the petition submitted to it in February 2019.

"If you consider both of these requests together, a petition to exercise the government's march-in or other rights in the Xtandi patents has been pending before the federal government for more than four years," Thursday's appeal states. "The HHS petition was filed 16 months ago."

It continues:

The petitions were filed with the DOD and HHS instead of the NIH because the NIH has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to even acknowledge that the Bayh-Dole Act includes an obligation to make products invented with federal funds 'available to the public on reasonable terms.' This is demonstrated by a track record of dismissing multiple requests to use the government's Bayh-Dole safeguard to address pricing abuses and access restrictions, including those concerning the federal government's march-in rights under 35 USC § 203, and the federal government's global royalty-free license, under 35 USC § 202(c)(4). There are also extensive email records between Mark Rohrbaugh, currently NIH special adviser for technology transfer who is a long-time agency official, and lobbyists for drug companies and university rights holders, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, which not only express opposition to any safeguards regarding unreasonable pricing but organize public relations efforts against using a march-in request to address the pricing of products.

"HHS chose to assign to the NIH the evaluation of our petition regarding Xtandi," says the appeal. "We request HHS to consider this appeal directly, and not assign NIH to review its own decision. The latter would be tantamount to no review at all."

Since Bayh-Dole was enacted in 1980, "march-in rights have never been used... and NIH has repeatedly rejected the idea that affordability is a reasonable term," The American Prospectreported Wednesday. With Xtandi, "advocates thought they found the perfect test case for a new administration that paid lip service to lowering prescription drug costs."

As The Levernoted on Wednesday, the NIH's decision this week was consistent with Biden's track record:

Biden was vice president when the Obama administration rejected congressional Democrats' demand that the government use the same power to lower the skyrocketing prices of medicine in America.

As a senator in 2000, Biden was one of just eight Democrats who helped pharmaceutical lobbyists kill a measure spearheaded by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have reinstated the Reagan-era requirement that drug companies sell medicines developed with public money at a reasonable price.

That requirement was repealed by the Clinton administration in 1995, following pressure by drugmakers.

But Becerra's acquiescence to Big Pharma was more surprising. Prior to joining the Biden administration, the HHS secretary had expressed support for wielding the executive branch's authority to rein in soaring drug prices.

As the attorney general of California in the summer of 2020, "Becerra demanded the Trump administration use existing law to lower the price of medicines that were originally developed at taxpayer expense," The Lever reported. "As a member of Congress in 2016, Becerra signed on to a letter to the Obama Department of Health and Human Services calling on officials to broadly use 'march-in rights' to lower the cost of prescription drugs—including 'specialty drugs, like those to treat cancer, which are frequently developed with taxpayer funds.'"

Despite pressure from numerous members of Congress and medicine affordability advocacy groups, the NIH declared Tuesday that it "does not believe that use of the march-in authority would be an effective means of lowering the price of the drug."

Instead, the agency vowed to "pursue a whole-of-government approach informed by public input to ensure the use of march-in authority is consistent with the policy and objective of the Bayh-Dole Act," a move that progressive advocates denounced as a "pathetic" attempt to deflect criticism of its failure to use or threaten to use its legal power.

“This is a drug that was invented with taxpayer dollars by scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-fifth the U.S. price," Sanders said Tuesday. "The Japanese drugmaker Astellas, which made $1 billion in profits in 2021, has raised the price of this drug by more than 75%."

"How many prostate cancer patients will die because they cannot afford this unacceptable price?" asked Sanders, chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

During a Wednesday hearing, Sanders made the case for changing "the current culture of greed into a culture which understands that science and medical breakthroughs should work for ordinary people, and not just enrich large corporations and CEOs."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced the Federal Reserve Independence Act to prevent bank executives from serving on regional Fed boards that are responsible for regulating their institutions.

The bill—which would also bar the U.S. central bank's board members and employees from owning any stock or investing in any company that is regulated by the Federal Reserve—comes as Fed leadership is under fire for recent interest rate hikes and regulatory rollbacks that preceded the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank failures.

"The Fed has got to become a more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of working people and the middle class."

"I think it would come as a shock to most Americans to find out that Gregory Becker, the CEO of Silicon Valley Bank, who successfully lobbied for the deregulation of his financial institution was allowed to serve as a director of the same body in charge of regulating his bank: the San Francisco Federal Reserve," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.

"It is clear to me and to the American people, that the CEOs of the largest banks in America should not be allowed to serve as directors of the main agency we have in this country in charge of regulating those very same financial institutions," he asserted. "The Fed has got to become a more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of working people and the middle class, not just CEOs of some of the largest financial institutions in America."

In a letter to his congressional colleagues about the bill, Sanders highlighted:

Gregory Becker may be the poster child for why we need this legislation, but he is not alone. Incredibly, two-thirds of the directors of these boards are hand-picked by the same bankers that the Federal Reserve is in charge of regulating.

Today, five top executives of financial institutions with over $150 billion in assets currently serve as directors of Federal Reserve banks. For example, the CEO of State Street (a financial institution with nearly $300 billion in assets) currently serves as a director of the Boston Federal Reserve. The CEO of M&T Bank (a financial institution with over $200 billion in assets) currently serves as a director of the New York Fed. The CFO of Ally Bank which has assets of over $180 billion is currently a director of the Richmond Fed. And the CEO of Northern Trust with assets of more than $150 billion currently serves on the Chicago Fed.

Sanders also pointed to a 2011 Government Accountability Office study which "found that allowing members of the banking industry to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve's board of directors creates 'an appearance of a conflict of interest' and poses 'reputational risks' to the Federal Reserve System."

The senator provided examples involving Stephen Friedman, a former chairman of the New York Federal Reserve board as well as a Goldman Sachs board member and stockholder, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, whose bank got $391 billion in assistance while he sat on that same regional Fed board.

Along with seeking support for his bill—which is backed by Americans for Financial Reform, Demos, Revolving Door Project, Public Citizen, Working Families Party, and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA—Sanders is urging Congress to take other action in the wake of the SVB and Signature collapses.

Specifically, the senator is calling for:

• Repealing Title IV of the 2018 bank deregulation legislation;
• Enacting stronger regulations "to ensure the safety and soundness" of the nation's financial system;
• A U.S. Justice Department probe into whether insider trading laws were broken by SVB executives who sold bank stock;
• Clawing back bonuses given to SVB executives just before the collapse; and
• Breaking up banks that are too big to fail to prevent another financial crisis like 2008.

As Sanders put it earlier this month: "We cannot continue down the road of more socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else. Let us have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, repeal the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law, break up too big to fail banks, and address the needs of working families not the risky bets of vulture capitalists."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday denounced Moderna's proposal to more than quadruple the price of the Covid-19 vaccine it co-developed with billions of dollars in public funding—along with mRNA technology co-invented by government scientists—as an example of Big Pharma's "unacceptable corporate greed."

At a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), the Vermont Independent reiterated his widely shared belief that the purpose of medical advancements should be to save as many lives as possible, not make executives "obscenely rich."

Sanders, who chairs the panel, invited Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel to testify at a hearing titled "Taxpayers Paid Billions For It: So Why Would Moderna Consider Quadrupling the Price of the Covid Vaccine?"

In his opening statement, Sanders stressed that scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies "worked with Moderna to research, develop, and distribute the Covid vaccine that so many of our people have effectively used."

"While Moderna may wish to rewrite history," Sanders continued, "this vaccine would not exist without NIH's partnership and expertise and the substantial investment of the taxpayers of this country. As a matter of public record, U.S. taxpayers spent $12 billion on the research, development, and procurement of the NIH-Moderna Covid vaccine."

"For that huge investment," added the progressive lawmaker, Moderna is "thanking the taxpayers of America by proposing to quadruple the price of the Covid vaccine to as much as $130 once the government stockpile runs out—at a time when it costs just $2.85 to manufacture that vaccine."

"Moderna has already made $21 billion in profits off of the Covid vaccine during the pandemic and four of Moderna's executives and investors collectively became more than $10 billion wealthier as a result of the massive taxpayer investment into that corporation," said Sanders. "Mr. Bancel literally became a billionaire overnight and is now worth $4.7 billion."

"Do we not need to change the current culture of greed into a culture which understands that science and medical breakthroughs should work for ordinary people, and not just enrich large corporations and CEOs?"

In the words of the senator, "This type of profiteering and excessive CEO compensation is exactly what the American people are sick and tired of."

In response to a letter Sanders sent to Bancel following Moderna's January announcement of its planned price hike, the corporation vowed to make Covid-19 vaccines and boosters "available at no cost for the vast majority of people in the United States." Last month, after Bancel agreed to testify at Wednesday's hearing, Moderna said that when the federal government's public health emergency declaration expires in May, "Covid-19 vaccines will continue to be available at no cost for insured people," while the company's patient assistance program "will provide Covid-19 vaccines at no cost" to uninsured or underinsured people.

"That is good news," Sanders said Wednesday. "The bad news is that most patient assistance programs are poorly designed and are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for patients to access," he added, urging Moderna "to reconsider their decision to quadruple the price of this vaccine and not raise the price at all."

"Our committee looks forward to working with Moderna to develop a program that allows every American to continue to receive the Covid vaccine for free without the need to file complicated forms or paperwork, answer personal questions, or wait for hours on end at the pharmacy," said Sanders. "In other words, let us truly make this vaccine available for free to all Americans."

But when asked by Sanders if Moderna will charge the U.S. government less for the NIH-Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, Bancel refused to commit, citing so-called "complexity."

"You have money for stock buybacks by the billions, and you guys became billionaires," Sanders responded. "That doesn't seem too complex to me."

In a video shared Tuesday, Senate HELP Committee senior health counsel Zain Rizvi further detailed how Moderna has tried to suppress evidence of the U.S. public's massive contributions to the NIH-Moderna Covid-19 vaccine while refusing to share the recipe with South African scientists who are working with the World Health Organization to boost global supply.

The refusal of Moderna and other pharmaceutical corporations to transfer publicly funded technology to qualified generic manufacturers has contributed to global Covid-19 vaccine apartheid, needlessly prolonging and worsening the pandemic.

Although Covid-19 jabs have been credited with preventing roughly 20 million deaths worldwide in 2021 alone, researchers estimate that 1.3 million additional lives could have been saved in the first year of the vaccine rollout had shots been distributed equitably. As a result of unequal access to lifesaving Covid-19 vaccines—made worse by corporate-friendly trade rules that protect Big Pharma's intellectual property monopolies and lead to artificial scarcity—one person suffered an avoidable death from the disease every 24 seconds in 2021.

"Moderna has taken a publicly funded vaccine, built on decades of publicly funded research, and used it to maximize their own profits at the expense of public health," Julia Kosgei, policy co-lead for the People's Vaccine Alliance, said Wednesday in a statement. "It's long past time for Stéphane Bancel to be held to account."

"Today's hearing must be the beginning of a conversation about how governments can place public health needs before private profit. That means requiring companies that profit from publicly funded research to share new technologies with the world."

Citing the corporation's latest earnings report, Kosgei noted that "Moderna is spending as much on buybacks and dividends as it is on research and development." She called it "plainly ludicrous to suggest that this is the best way to ensure everyone has access to effective vaccines and medicines."

"This should be a moment of reckoning for Big Pharma," said Kosgei. "Today's hearing must be the beginning of a conversation about how governments can place public health needs before private profit. That means requiring companies that profit from publicly funded research to share new technologies with the world."

Like Kosgei, Rizvi stressed that Moderna's behavior is not unique and called for far-reaching action "to put an end to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry."

That's also precisely what Sanders did during his opening remarks:

In the pharmaceutical industry today we are looking at an unprecedented level of corporate greed—and that is certainly true with Moderna. Today, while 37% of the American people could not afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribe, 10 major pharmaceutical companies made over $100 billion dollars in profits in 2021—a 137% increase from the previous year. In these corporations, the 50 top executives made over $1.9 billion in total compensation in 2021 and are in line to receive billions more in golden parachutes once they leave their companies. In other words, Americans die because they cannot afford the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, while the drug companies make huge profits.

Further, while many Americans don't know this, the taxpayers of this country have spent many tens of billions of dollars over the past decade to research and develop life-saving medicine. Yet, despite that huge investment, and the vitally important work done by NIH scientists, the citizens of the United States pay far more for prescription drugs than do the people of any other country, in some cases, as much as 10 times more. Unbelievably, there are important drugs on the market today that literally cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"What does a lifesaving drug mean for a person who cannot afford to buy that drug?" Sanders asked. "Should people in America and around the world be allowed to get sicker and sometimes die because they cannot afford the outrageous and arbitrary prices that the pharmaceutical industry demands?"

"Do we not need to change the current culture of greed into a culture which understands that science and medical breakthroughs should work for ordinary people, and not just enrich large corporations and CEOs?" he continued.

Sanders urged people "to remember the contributions of great scientists like Dr. Jonas Salk who, in the 1950s, invented the vaccine for polio. Salk's work saved millions of lives and prevented millions more from being paralyzed."

According to the progressive lawmaker: "It has been estimated that if Dr. Salk had chosen to patent the polio vaccine he would have made billions of dollars. But he did not. When asked who owns the patent to this vaccine Dr. Salk said: 'Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?' What Dr. Salk understood was that the purpose of the vaccine he invented was to save lives, not to make himself obscenely rich."

Salk was not alone, as Sanders explained:

In 1928, Alexander Fleming, a scientist from Scotland, discovered penicillin at St. Mary's hospital in London. Fleming's discovery of penicillin changed the medical world and saved millions of lives.

When Fleming was asked about his role, he did not talk about the outrageous fortune he could have made through his discovery. Instead, he said: "I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident." He refused to make obscene profits from his discovery.

In 1921, Dr. Frederick Banting along with two other scientists at the University of Toronto invented insulin—an issue we're hearing a lot about today. When Dr. Banting was asked why he wouldn't patent insulin and why he sold the rights to insulin for just $1 he replied: “Insulin does not belong to me. It belongs to the world.”

It has been estimated that Dr. Banting's invention saved some 300 million lives. Once again, a great scientist made it clear that his purpose in life was to ease suffering and save human lives, not to make billions for himself.

"In this moment of excessive corporate greed," said Sanders, "the moral vision of these great scientists is something that we might learn from."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Amid an ongoing unionization wave, Starbucks workers across the United States are holding a national day of action on Wednesday to demand a living wage, consistent scheduling, safe working conditions, and the right to organize free from fear and intimidation.

Baristas plan to strike at more than 100 of the coffee giant's shops from coast to coast, including at cafes in Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, Memphis, and other cities. In Seattle, where Starbucks was founded and is headquartered, a major protest is planned—one day before shareholders vote on an assessment of workers' rights at the corporation's annual meeting.

At 12:00 pm PT, workers will march outside Starbucks' headquarters, declaring that the company's illegal union-busting won't stop their fight for higher wages, better benefits, and democratic workplaces.

Since December 2021, when baristas in Buffalo made history by forming the first unionized Starbucks in the U.S., more than 7,500 workers at over 280 of the coffee chain's locations nationwide have voted to unionize. Organizers have won more than 80% of their campaigns despite the company's unlawful intimidation and retaliation tactics.

According to Starbucks Workers United:

In this same time period, the NLRB's [National Labor Relations Board] regional offices have issued more than 80 official complaints against Starbucks, prosecuting the company for over 1,400 specific alleged violations of federal labor law, including accusations that former CEO Howard Schultz personally threatened a worker who expressed support for organizing.

To date, NLRB administrative law judges have issued nine decisions, eight of which collectively found that the company has committed 130 violations, including illegally monitoring and firing organizers, calling the police on workers, and outright closing a store that recently attempted to organize.

Due to Starbucks' refusal to bargain in good faith, none of the locations that voted to unionize have reached a contract.

With his unlawful crackdown on organizing coming under increased scrutiny, Schultz moved up his resignation from April 1 to March 20. Schultz is still scheduled to testify at next Wednesday's hearing convened by Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He only agreed to do so under threat of subpoena.

Sarah Pappin, a Seattle Starbucks worker and member of Starbucks Workers United, said Wednesday in a statement: "Baristas like me are the ones who keep our stores running. We remember our customers' regular orders, make the lattes, clean up spills, and are often the bright spot of our customers' days. We are the heart and soul of Starbucks."

"Instead of celebrating the law-breaking former CEO hell-bent on silencing us, Starbucks should respect our right to organize and meet us at the bargaining table," said Pappin. "We are Starbucks, and we deserve better."

Starbucks Workers United said that "Wednesday's day of action will also serve to welcome the company's new chief executive, Laxman Narasimhan, and send him a message that the transition in the C-suite provides an opportunity for the company to stop its unprecedented campaign of union-busting and instead partner with its workers and our union to build a company that truly lives up to its stated progressive values."

Earlier this month, Starbucks Workers United sent a letter to shareholders urging them to vote for a third-party evaluation of Starbucks' purported commitment to affirming workers' rights, arguing that the corporation's anti-union actions are inconsistent with its International Labor Organization commitments.

According to the union, "Two proxy advisory firms, International Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, have already recommended Starbucks shareholders vote in favor of the proposal from Trillium Asset Management, the New York City Pension Funds, and other investors."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Patient advocates on Tuesday blasted the Biden administration's refusal to compel the manufacturer of a lifesaving prostate cancer drug developed completely with public funds to lower its nearly $190,000 annual price tag.

In 2021, prostate cancer patient Eric Sawyer petitioned U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to grant march-in rights—under which the government can grant patent licenses to companies other than a drug's manufacturer—for enzalutamide, which is sold under the brand name Xtandi by Pfizer and Japanese pharmaceutical giant Astellas.

The drug's development was 100% taxpayer-funded. Yet a one-year supply of Xtandi currently costs $189,800 in the United States, or up to five times more than its price in other countries.

HHS' National Institutes of Health (NIH) said Tuesday that it "does not believe that use of the march-in authority would be an effective means of lowering the price of the drug."

"What the Biden administration is saying is that charging U.S. residents three to six times more than any other high-income country is reasonable."

The agency added that it "will pursue a whole-of-government approach informed by public input to ensure the use of march-in authority is consistent with the policy and objective of the Bayh-Dole Act," a reference to legislation meant to promote the commercialization and public availability of government-funded inventions.

James Love, director of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International, called the administration's rejection "appalling."

"What the Biden administration is saying is that charging U.S. residents three to six times more than any other high-income country is reasonable," he wrote.

U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement that he is "extremely disappointed that the Biden administration denied a petition by prostate cancer patients to substantially reduce the price of Xtandi."

"This is a drug that was invented with taxpayer dollars by scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-fifth the U.S. price," Sanders added. "The Japanese drugmaker Astellas, which made $1 billion in profits in 2021, has raised the price of this drug by more than 75%... How many prostate cancer patients will die because they cannot afford this unacceptable price?"

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said in a statement:

Today's decision is a blow to prostate cancer patients, their families, and taxpayers. Developed with U.S. taxpayer research dollars, Xtandi costs American patients $180,000 a year—as much as six times as much as patients in other countries. This excessive price gouging cost taxpayers $2 billion to cover Medicare beneficiaries' treatment in 2020 alone. The Biden administration has missed yet another opportunity to do something meaningful to lower prescription drug costs and protect taxpayer investments.

The administration's position "protects monopolists over taxpayers and patients, despite clear statutory authority and reasonableness to intervene," Doggett added. "This decision effectively rubber-stamps continued Big Pharma abuse."

In a move that Public Citizen president Robert Weissman called "pathetic," HHS and the Department of Commerce announced Tuesday that they would "pursue a whole-of-government approach to review... march-in authority as laid out in the Bayh-Dole Act" by forming an interagency working group.

The group "will develop a framework for implementation of the march-in provision that clearly articulates guiding criteria and processes for making determinations where different factors, including price, may be a consideration in agencies' assessments."

In a statement, Becerra said that the administration is "committed to increasing access to healthcare and lowering costs."

"March-in authority is a powerful tool designed to ensure that the benefits of the American taxpayers' investment in research and development are reasonably accessible to the public," he added. "We look forward to updates from the Bayh-Dole Interagency Working Group, and at my direction, HHS will review the findings, engage the public, and better define how HHS could effectively utilize our authority moving forward."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Patient advocates on Tuesday blasted the Biden administration's refusal to compel the manufacturer of a lifesaving prostate cancer drug developed completely with public funds to lower its nearly $190,000 annual price tag.

In 2021, prostate cancer patient Eric Sawyer petitioned U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to grant march-in rights—under which the government can grant patent licenses to companies other than a drug's manufacturer—for enzalutamide, which is sold under the brand name Xtandi by Pfizer and Japanese pharmaceutical giant Astellas.

The drug's development was 100% taxpayer-funded. Yet a one-year supply of Xtandi currently costs $189,800 in the United States, or up to five times more than its price in other countries.

HHS' National Institutes of Health (NIH) said Tuesday that it "does not believe that use of the march-in authority would be an effective means of lowering the price of the drug."

"What the Biden administration is saying is that charging U.S. residents three to six times more than any other high-income country is reasonable."

The agency added that it "will pursue a whole-of-government approach informed by public input to ensure the use of march-in authority is consistent with the policy and objective of the Bayh-Dole Act," a reference to legislation meant to promote the commercialization and public availability of government-funded inventions.

James Love, director of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International, called the administration's rejection "appalling."

"What the Biden administration is saying is that charging U.S. residents three to six times more than any other high-income country is reasonable," he wrote.

U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement that he is "extremely disappointed that the Biden administration denied a petition by prostate cancer patients to substantially reduce the price of Xtandi."

"This is a drug that was invented with taxpayer dollars by scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-fifth the U.S. price," Sanders added. "The Japanese drugmaker Astellas, which made $1 billion in profits in 2021, has raised the price of this drug by more than 75%... How many prostate cancer patients will die because they cannot afford this unacceptable price?"

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said in a statement:

Today's decision is a blow to prostate cancer patients, their families, and taxpayers. Developed with U.S. taxpayer research dollars, Xtandi costs American patients $180,000 a year—as much as six times as much as patients in other countries. This excessive price gouging cost taxpayers $2 billion to cover Medicare beneficiaries' treatment in 2020 alone. The Biden administration has missed yet another opportunity to do something meaningful to lower prescription drug costs and protect taxpayer investments.

The administration's position "protects monopolists over taxpayers and patients, despite clear statutory authority and reasonableness to intervene," Doggett added. "This decision effectively rubber-stamps continued Big Pharma abuse."

In a move that Public Citizen president Robert Weissman called "pathetic," HHS and the Department of Commerce announced Tuesday that they would "pursue a whole-of-government approach to review... march-in authority as laid out in the Bayh-Dole Act" by forming an interagency working group.

The group "will develop a framework for implementation of the march-in provision that clearly articulates guiding criteria and processes for making determinations where different factors, including price, may be a consideration in agencies' assessments."

In a statement, Becerra said that the administration is "committed to increasing access to healthcare and lowering costs."

"March-in authority is a powerful tool designed to ensure that the benefits of the American taxpayers' investment in research and development are reasonably accessible to the public," he added. "We look forward to updates from the Bayh-Dole Interagency Working Group, and at my direction, HHS will review the findings, engage the public, and better define how HHS could effectively utilize our authority moving forward."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Four U.S senators this week called on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to use her existing authority to go after American billionaires and multimillionaires who "use trusts to shift wealth to their heirs tax-free, dodging federal estate and gift taxes."

"They are doing this in the open: Their wealth managers are bragging about how their tax dodging tricks will be more effective in the current economy," stressed Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

"While we look forward to continuing to partner with you on legislative solutions," the senators wrote to Yellen, "the Treasury Department can and should exercise the full extent of its regulatory authority to limit this blatant abuse of our tax system by the ultrawealthy."

Their letter to the Treasury leader, dated Monday and first reported by CBS MoneyWatch Tuesday, highlights that "only the wealthiest American families" are asked to pay transfer taxes such as the estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax.

As the letter lays out:

Tax avoidance through grantor trusts starts with the ultrawealthy putting assets into a trust with the intention of transferring them to heirs. Grantor trusts are trusts where the grantor retains control over the assets, and the structures of some of these grantor trusts allow the transfer of massive sums tax-free. Tax planning via grantor trusts, including grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs), is a kind of shell game, with a wealthy person and their wealth managers able to pass assets back and forth in ways that effectively pass wealth to heirs while minimizing tax liability.

Some of the wealthiest families further compound this tax avoidance with perpetual dynasty trusts, which can be used to shield assets from transfer tax liability indefinitely. For example, aggressive valuation discounts can artificially reduce the value of assets transferred into a trust below the GST tax exemption threshold, after which the assets can grow in perpetuity within a trust exempt from transfer tax.

"The ultrawealthy at the top of the socioeconomic ladder live by different rules than the rest of America, especially when it comes to our tax system," the letter charges. "As the richest Americans celebrate and take advantage of these favorable tax opportunities, middle-class families struggle with inflation and Republicans threaten austerity measures and the end of Social Security and Medicare."

To help force the richest Americans to "pay their fair share" in taxes, the senators are calling on Treasury to revoke a pair of tax code rulings from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); require GRATs to have a minimum remainder value; reissue family limited partnership regulations; clarify that intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs) are not entitled to stepped-up basis; and put out clarifying regulations on certain valuation rules for estate and gift taxes.

The senators also sent a series of questions—about potential administrative action, how much is estimated to be held in grantor trusts, and how much could be raised from cracking down on abuse—and requested a response from Treasury by April 3.

Their letter comes after President Joe Biden earlier this month introduced a budget blueprint for fiscal year 2024 that would hike taxes on the rich—proposed policies praised by progressive experts and advocates as "fair, popular, and long overdue."

Yellen last week appeared before the Senate Finance Committee—of which Warren and Whitehouse are members—to testify about the administration's proposal. She said in part that "our proposed budget builds on our economic progress by making smart, fiscally responsible investments. These investments would be more than fully paid for by requiring corporations and the wealthiest to pay their fair share."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren this weekend called on federal officials to investigate the causes of recent bank failures and urged President Joe Biden to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom she has criticized for intensifying financial deregulation and imposing job- and wage-destroying interest rate hikes.

Asked on Sunday by Chuck Todd of NBC's "Meet the Press" about the possibility of Powell imposing yet another interest rate hike despite ongoing market turmoil, Warren (D-Mass.) said, "I've been in the camp for a long time that these extraordinary rate increases that he has taken on, these extreme rate increases, are something that he should not be doing."

Powell "has a dual mandate," said Warren. "Yes, he is responsible for dealing with inflation, but he is also responsible for employment. And what Chair Powell is trying to do, and he has said fairly explicitly, is that they are trying to, in effect, slow down the economy so that, this is by the Fed's own estimate, two million people will lose their jobs. And I believe that is not what the chair of the Federal Reserve should be doing."

Since the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted international supply chains—rendered fragile by decades of neoliberal globalization—powerful corporations in highly consolidated industries have taken advantage of these and other crises such as the bird flu outbreak to justify profit-boosting price hikes that far outpace the increased costs of doing business.

"Raising interest rates doesn't do anything to solve" a cost-of-living crisis driven primarily by "price gouging, supply chain kinks, [and] the war in Ukraine," Warren said Sunday. "All it does is put millions of people out of work."

"Jay Powell... has had two jobs. One is to deal with monetary policy, one is to deal with regulation. He has failed at both."

Powell, an ex-investment banker, was first appointed by then-President Donald Trump in 2018 and reappointed by Biden in 2021. Warren noted that she opposed Powell's nomination in both cases "because of his views on regulation and what he was already doing to weaken regulation."

"But I think he's failing in both jobs, both as the oversight and manager of these big banks, which is his job, and also what he's doing with inflation," said Warren.

Asked by Todd if Biden should fire Powell, Warren said: "My views on Jay Powell are well-known at this point. He has had two jobs. One is to deal with monetary policy, one is to deal with regulation. He has failed at both."

"Would you advise President Biden to replace him?" Todd inquired.

"I don't think he should be Chairman of the Federal Reserve," the Massachusetts Democrat responded. "I have said it as publicly as I know how to say it. I've said it to everyone."

None

— (@)

Meanwhile, in a Saturday letter, Warren asked Richard Delmar, Tyler Smith, and Mark Bialek—respectively the deputy inspector general of the Treasury Department, acting inspector general of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and inspector general of the Fed's board of governors—to "immediately open a thorough, independent investigation of the causes of the bank management and regulatory and supervisory problems that resulted in this month's failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank (Signature) and deliver preliminary results within 30 days."

Until the Treasury Department, the Fed, and the FDIC "intervened to guarantee billions of dollars of deposits," the second- and third-biggest bank failures in U.S. history "threatened economic contagion and severe damage to the banking and financial systems," Warren noted. "The bank's executives, who took unnecessary risks or failed to hedge against entirely foreseeable threats, must be held accountable for these failures."

"But this mismanagement was allowed to occur because of a series of failures by lawmakers and regulators," Warren continued.

In 2018, several Democrats joined Republicans in approving Sen. Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which weakened the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Crapo's deregulatory measure, signed into law by Trump, loosened federal oversight of banks with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets—a category that includes SVB and Signature.

"As officials sought to develop a plan responding to SVB's failure, Chair Powell muzzled regulators from any public mention of the regulatory failures that occurred under his watch."

Moreover, the Fed under Powell's leadership "initiated key regulatory rollbacks," Warren wrote Saturday, echoing criticisms that she and financial industry watchdogs voiced earlier in the week. "And the banks' supervisors—particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which oversaw SVB—missed or ignored key signals about their impending failure."

It is "critical that your investigation be completely independent and free of influence from the bank executives or regulators that were responsible for action that led to these bank failures," Warren stressed. "I am particularly concerned that you avoid any interference from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who bears direct responsibility for—and has a long record of failure involving—regulatory and supervisory matters involving these two banks."

"I have already asked Chair Powell to recuse himself from the Fed's internal investigation of this matter, but he has not yet responded to this request," wrote Warren. The progressive lawmaker said "this silence is troubling" in light of recent reporting that "as officials sought to develop a plan responding to SVB's failure, Chair Powell muzzled regulators from any public mention of the regulatory failures that occurred under his watch."

"Bank regulators and Congress must move quickly to close the gaps that allowed these bank failures to happen, and your investigation will provide us important insight as we take steps to do so," added Warren, who has introduced legislation to repeal a vital provision of the Trump-era bank deregulation law enacted five years ago with bipartisan support.

None

— (@)

In appearances on three Sunday morning talk shows, Warren doubled down on her demands for an independent investigation into recent bank failures, stronger financial regulations, and punishing those responsible.

After lawmakers from both parties helped Trump fulfill his campaign promise to weaken federal oversight of the banking system, Powell "took a flamethrower to the regulations, saying, 'I'm doing this because Congress let me do it,'" Warren told ABC's "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "And what happened was exactly what we should have predicted, and that is the banks, these big, multi-billion-dollar banks, loaded up on risk; they boosted their short-term profits; they gave themselves huge bonuses and big salaries; and they exploded their banks."

"When you explode a bank, you ought to be banned from banking forever."

"When you explode a bank, you ought to be banned from banking forever," said Warren, who acknowledged that criminal charges could be coming. "The Department of Justice has opened an investigation. I think that's appropriate for them to do. We'll see where the facts take them. But we've got to take a close look at this."

Not only did former SVB chief executive officer Greg Becker, who lobbied aggressively for the 2018 bank deregulation law, sell millions of dollars of shares as recently as late last month, but until federal regulators took control of the failed bank on March 10, he was on the board of directors at the San Francisco Fed—the institution responsible for overseeing SVB.

On Saturday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced that he plans to introduce legislation "to end this conflict of interest by banning big bank CEOs from serving on Fed boards."

None

— (@)

"We've got to say overall that we can't keep repeating this approach of weakening the regulation over the banks, then stepping in when these giant banks get into trouble," Warren said Sunday, arguing for stronger federal oversight to prevent the need for bailouts.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday endorsed progressive Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson in Chicago's mayoral race, calling the former public school teacher a "champion for working families" and touting his support for taxes on the rich to fund critical social services.

In a statement, Sanders said Johnson "is not afraid to stand up for strong unions and make big corporations and the rich pay their fair share to invest in affordable housing, quality healthcare, better schools, and good jobs."

"Brandon understands the struggles of working people, and is prepared to address them, and that is why I am proud to endorse his campaign for mayor of the city of Chicago," the Vermont senator added.

Johnson is set to face conservative Democrat Paul Vallas, a notorious school privatization advocate, in Chicago's April 4 mayoral runoff.

The progressive candidate said he is "honored to have the support of Senator Bernie Sanders in this campaign."

"This campaign is about fighting for working people, and that is what Senator Sanders has done his entire life," Johnson said in a statement. "Together, we will deliver the change we need to secure better schools, safer neighborhoods, affordable housing, quality healthcare, and support for working people across this city."

Sanders' endorsement came on the same day that powerful Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)—whose electoral maneuvering and policy positions have frequently clashed with the Vermont senator's—threw his support behind Johnson.

HuffPostreported Thursday that "Clyburn, a prodigious fundraiser, has been 'bundling,' or gathering campaign donations for Johnson for weeks now, according to the Johnson campaign."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) have also backed Johnson over Vallas.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Crediting advocacy groups with pressuring two out of the three pharmaceutical companies that supply insulin to patients with diabetes in the United States to drastically lower their prices, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday called on the last of the trio, Sanofi, to do the same while arguing price caps should be mandatory—not a choice.

Novo Nordisk on Tuesday announced that it will cut prices by up to 75% for some of its insulin products starting next year, less than two weeks after one of its rival companies, Eli Lilly, said it plans to slash prices for its most widely used insulin products by 70%.

A vial of one of Novo's products, NovoLog, will drop from more than $289 to just over $72, and the insulin product FlexPen will cost $139, down from more than $500, starting January 1, 2024.

The price changes come after the price of insulin for patients has more than tripled in recent decades, with deadly consequences for some of the eight million Americans who rely on synthetic insulin to convert food into energy. A study based on the 2021 National Health Interview Survey last November found that 1.3 million people in the U.S. rationed their insulin supply in 2021 due to the drug's prohibitive cost.

Sanders (I-Vt.) noted that "grassroots pressure" forced Eli Lilly and Novo this month to announce major price cuts, but said that as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee he "will soon hold a hearing on the need to guarantee insulin at an affordable price to everyone who needs it," suggesting that voluntary price cuts by companies are not sufficient.

None

— (@)

Public pressure by groups including Patients for Affordable Drugs and Lower Drug Prices Now has resulted in some recent insulin price reforms, including a provision that took effect in January capping insulin copayments at $35 per month for Medicare recipients.

As Common Dreams reported last week, days after Eli Lilly announced its voluntary price cuts, Sanders, a longtime advocate of affordable insulin, joined Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) in introducing legislation that would prohibit pharmaceutical companies from charging more than $20 for a vial of insulin. President Joe Biden has called for the product to be capped at $35 per vial for all patients—a proposal that Senate Republicans voted down last year.

Novo's announcement, said Biden, "builds on the important progress we made last year when I signed a law to cap insulin at $35 for seniors. I urge all other manufacturers to follow suit and Republicans in Congress to join us and cap insulin at $35 for all Americans."

Advocacy groups also called on Sanofi, the third insulin manufacturer for American patients, to follow its rival companies' lead and introduce price cuts.

None

— (@)

"Let's keep fighting," said Lower Drug Prices Now, "so that patients can afford any medicine they need."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

A progressive coalition of more than 100 unions and consumer advocacy groups from across the United States has come together to build the "Stop the Merger" campaign, a national and state-level effort to prevent Kroger from acquiring Albertsons and establishing the country's most powerful grocery cartel.

On Tuesday, the coalition announced the launch of NoGroceryMerger.com, which includes information about the negative impacts of the proposed $25 billion merger between two of the nation's largest grocery chains, testimony from unionized grocery workers and elected officials, and tools for people to express their opposition to the potential deal.

Individuals and organizations can sign the coalition's letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is currently reviewing the grocery giants' proposal and has the regulatory authority to reject it.

If approved, the merger would likely "lead to store closures, worsen food deserts, increase prices for consumers, and destroy thousands of unionized grocery jobs," the letter warns. "This deal is an antitrust travesty and it must be stopped."

Since the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted international supply chains—rendered fragile by decades of neoliberal globalization—Kroger, Albertsons, and other mega-grocers have capitalized on these crises as well as the bird flu outbreak, citing them to justify price hikes that far outpace the increased costs of doing business.

Such price gouging has been exacerbated by preceding rounds of supermarket consolidation, and the coalition warns that if the proposed merger between Kroger and Albertsons goes through, it "will no doubt create a monopoly in the grocery industry."

Less competition, says the coalition, would result in even higher food prices and hundreds of shuttered stores—intensifying unequal access to healthy food. It also threatens to destroy thousands of jobs and hurt the ability of farmers and other suppliers to sell their products.

"It's simple: This merger will be bad for workers, bad for customers, and bad for our communities."

Cincinnati-based Kroger trails only Walmart in grocery sales, while Boise-based Albertsons is the fourth largest grocery chain in the U.S., behind Costco. Together, Kroger and Albertsons, including their numerous subsidiaries, employ more than 700,000 workers at roughly 5,000 retail stores and more than 50 manufacturing facilities across 48 states plus Washington, D.C.

According to the campaign's fact sheet, "If this merger goes through, the resulting company will become the largest supermarket by revenue in the United States with a current national market share of 36% and a combined annual sales of more than $200 billion."

As Michelle Freitas, a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 member who works at a Safeway in Gunnison, Colorado, noted: "My town only has two standalone grocery stores. If one closes and we only have one option, it will be a monopoly which means this new grocery company could raise food prices to exorbitant amounts."

"If the prices for essential goods go up, how are people who are lower-income or middle-income going to be able to survive?" she asked. "Many people who work at my store live paycheck to paycheck, including parents with small children and single moms."

Lawanna Archer, a UFCW Local 770 member who works at a Vons in Gardena, California, described the devastation that accompanied a merger between Albertsons and Haggen eight years ago.

"The deal between Albertsons and Haggen in 2015 was really bad for workers," said Archer. "I saw massive layoffs, cars being repossessed, foreclosures, and loss of benefits. I am a single mother and I provide for my daughter and myself. The Kroger and Albertsons merger could possibly impact us in the most harmful way ever."

Christina Robinett, another UFCW Local 770 member who endured that merger and now works at a Vons in Ojai, California, said, "After Haggen went bankrupt and shut down my store, I applied for work at four different stores."

"I wasn't able to get a job for three months and I had to take side jobs as a seamstress and cleaning houses to make ends meet," she said. "That merger caused me a lot of anxiety. No worker should go through this kind of hardship again."

The campaign's website features several videos, including one in which Robert Reich, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and former U.S. labor secretary, explains how the proposed merger "could send skyrocketing food prices through the stratosphere unless government sees the deal for what it is: a rotten egg."

Soon after the proposed deal was announced in October, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) implored the FTC to block it.

Although consolidation in the grocery sector has, according to the American Economic Liberties Project, "previously been mismanaged by antitrust enforcers," approval of Kroger's buyout of Albertsons—the largest supermarket deal since Supervalu, CVS, and a group of investment firms bought Albertsons for $9.7 billion in 2006—is far from guaranteed.

Federal officials, including FTC Chair Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, have both taken a more hard-nosed approach to mergers following decades of lax enforcement.

The decision before regulators should be easy, the coalition argues.

Its members have "written numerous letters to the FTC and state attorneys general, held meetings with federal and state elected officials and regulators, held press conferences and virtual town halls, attended public events on the merger hosted by government officials, and participated in various local community activities opposing the merger," the coalition said in a statement. "All this activity has helped reveal growing evidence that shows the real motives for the proposed merger: corporate greed at the hands of C-suite executives and the private equity firms that are significant owners of their stock."

"It's simple: This merger will be bad for workers, bad for customers, and bad for our communities," reads the campaign website. "Union grocery workers, consumers, elected officials, and community members are standing together to fight for access to nutritious food, safe shopping experiences, and investment in good jobs in our communities."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Barney Frank, a former House Democrat from Massachusetts, has been the subject of criticism since federal regulators took over Signature Bank on Sunday.

That's because Frank, architect of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations implemented in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, played a key role in whitewashing the bipartisan effort to weaken those rules in 2018—after he had received more than $1 million while serving on Signature's board following his departure from Congress.

Since federal regulators seized Signature's assets on Sunday—two days after they intervened to protect depositors amid the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)—progressive critics have been quick to blame a deregulatory measure approved five years ago by the then-Republican-controlled Congress for engendering two of the three largest bank failures in U.S. history.

The GOP, however, wasn't alone in supporting Sen. Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a trenchant critic of the legislation, observed when it was moving through Congress, several Democrats—including Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Jon Tester (Mont.)—were integral to its passage.

To justify their decision, many of them pointed to Frank. The originator of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act used his cachet as a presumed banking expert to legitimize a rollback of the very framework he helped enact in 2010 as chair of the House Financial Services Committee. But the ex-lawmaker wasn't merely an uninterested bystander. In 2015, he joined the board of directors at Signature, a crypto-friendly bank that was poised to benefit from less stringent oversight.

Frank said Crapo's Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act "would not help the biggest Wall Street banks and denied it would increase the risks of another financial crisis," The Washington Post reported when then-President Donald Trump signed the bill into law in May 2018. "Some Democrats leaned heavily on those words as they pushed back against the plan's liberal critics."

However, the newspaper noted, "proponents of the law rarely, if ever, mentioned that Frank is not just the author of the 2010 law, but also sits on the board of New York-based Signature Bank."

In the wake of Signature's collapse on Sunday night, Frank's role in downplaying the risks of deregulation—while being paid by a bank that stood to gain from it—has received fresh light.

As the Post reported in May 2018: "Dodd-Frank imposed additional regulatory safeguards on banks with more than $50 billion in assets, but the rollback that passed this week, among other things, raises that threshold to $250 billion. Signature Bank has more than $40 billion in assets and can now grow significantly without automatically facing additional regulation."

But the bank's growth over the past half-decade came to a screeching halt over the weekend when its customers, alarmed by the failure of SVB, quickly withdrew $10 billion.

"Frank acknowledged that Signature stood to benefit, but he said his role on the bank's board did not influence his thinking," the Post reported five years ago. "Frank said his position on the threshold predates his compensation from the financial sector."

As Politicoreported on Monday, Frank disputes that Trump-era deregulation "had anything to do with" Signature's failure, even though it weakened oversight of "mid-size and regional banks like his own."

"I don't think that had any impact," Frank told the outlet. "They hadn't stopped examining banks."

Frank went so far as to tellCNBC that there was "no real objective reason" that Signature had to enter federal receivership.

"I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message," Frank argued. "We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals."

Warren, by contrast, has focused her ire directly on the deregulatory moves minimized by Frank.

"Had Congress and the Federal Reserve not rolled back the stricter oversight, SVB and Signature would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to withstand financial shocks," Warren wrote Monday in a New York Times opinion piece.

"They would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities and shore up their businesses," the lawmaker continued. "But because those requirements were repealed, when an old-fashioned bank run hit SVB, the bank couldn't withstand the pressure—and Signature's collapse was close behind."

"These bank failures were entirely avoidable if Congress and the Fed had done their jobs and kept strong banking regulations in place since 2018," she added. "SVB and Signature are gone, and now Washington must act quickly to prevent the next crisis."

Like Warren, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called for fully repealing "the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday night called for a full repeal of the 2018 banking deregulations signed into law by former President Donald Trump and declared that "now is not the time for taxpayers bail out Silicon Valley Bank"—the California bank that collapsed Friday.

On Sunday evening, the U.S. Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a joint statement outlining a plan to make all deposits for Silicon Valley Bank as well as Signature Bank, which was shuttered by New York regulators earlier in the day, available to costumers Monday morning.

In his statement, Sanders said, "If there is a bailout of Silicon Valley Bank, it must be 100 percent financed by Wall Street and large financial institutions. We cannot continue down the road of more socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else. Let us have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, repeal the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law, break up too big to fail banks and address the needs of working families, not the risky bets of vulture capitalists."

The statement the Fed, Treasury, and FDIC noted that "no losses" associated with the rescue plan "will be borne by the taxpayer," though the extraordinary intervention—the largest of its kind since the 2008 financial collapse—is still seen by many economists and financial experts, even if bank investors and debt holders are not protected, as a "bailout" for the financial industry only made possible by taxpayers.

"Let us have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, repeal the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law, break up too big to fail banks and address the needs of working families, not the risky bets of vulture capitalists."

Warren Gunnels, longtime staffer and top advisor to Sanders, made the connection between venture capitalists clamoring for a speedy government intervention to save the banking sector from a wider shock and the same kind of people who have adamantly opposed financial relief for the struggling middle- and working-class Americans:

As the Washington Postreports, "The decision by Treasury to backstop all deposits at SVB and Signature — not just those up to $250,000 that are insured under federal law — rested on a judgment that it was necessary to avoid a wider 'systemic' meltdown. The move will likely ignite a political firestorm over the decision to protect the assets of tech firms, venture capitalists, and other rich people in California."

In 2018, as Sen. Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act was making its way through Congress, Sanders took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to oppose the bill, warning of exactly this kind of economic disaster if the deregulation was approved:

"Let's be clear," Sanders said Sunday night in his statement. "The failure of Silicon Valley Bank is a direct result of an absurd 2018 bank deregulation bill signed by Donald Trump that I strongly opposed. Five years ago, the Republican Director of the Congressional Budget Office released a report finding that this legislation would 'increase the likelihood that a large financial firm with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would fail.'"

"Unfortunately," he added, "that is precisely what happened."

In a statement on Sunday ahead of the government's rescue plan announcement, Matt Stoller, research director for the American Economic Liberties Project, made the case against any taxpayer bailout for SVB.

"Silicon Valley Bank was a badly managed and corrupt institution that entangled itself with powerful actors in the technology industry," Stoller argued. "The operative question government regulators are now facing is whether to use taxpayer funds to bail out the depositors from the failures of SVB's management."

But a full bailout, Stoller warned, "will only encourage other large regional banks to take similar risks in the future, just as Silicon Valley Bank did."

While bank investors and executives will not be included in the emergency actions announced on Sunday, Rep. Ro Khanna, the California Democrat who represents Silicon Valley, applauded the actions taken by Treasury to keep depositors whole.

Among his constituents impacted by the bank's collapse, he said, were "non-profit leaders, small business owners, start-up founders, and impacted employees of small businesses."

While expressly arguing that government intervention "should not and need not ... cost taxpayers a dime" during a news interview Sunday morning, Khanna later applauded the government plan while echoing Sanders' call for a reversal of the deregulation that led to the current crisis.

"I am glad that the Department of Treasury listened and moved to protect workers, the innovation pipeline, and the economy at large," Khanna said. "But the work doesn't end here. We've known since 2008 that stronger regulations are needed to prevent exactly this type of crisis. Congress must come together to reverse the deregulation policies that were put in place under Trump to avert future instability.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jon Queally.

A few weeks ago, Bernie phoned.

“Bob?”

The Brooklyn patois was unmistakable.

“Bernie!”

“Listen, I want you to know that I recommended you to be the next secretary of labor.”

Bernie is not one for small talk.

“But I’ve been there. Done that. Don’t want to do it again.”

“Just wanted to give you a heads up. You’ll be getting some calls from the media.”

Did Bernie even hear what I said?

“Thanks, Bernie.”

“Bye.”

“Bye, and …” He was already off the phone.

Let me just come right out and say it: I love Bernie Sanders.

I love his authenticity. Some people like Donald Trump becausehe says whatever he wants and he’s an asshole. Bernie’s authenticity comes from saying what he wants and speaking the truth. And although he’s blunt, he’s anything but an asshole. When he growls “this grotesque level of income and wealth inequality is immoral,” he means it. And he’s right.

I love his chutzpah. On Tuesday, Bernie announced that Starbucks’s anti-labor CEO, Howard Schultz, has agreed to testify before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Bernie chairs. The National Labor Relations Board has filed more than 80 complaints against Starbucks for refusing to negotiate in good faith with its workers in more than 280 Starbucks stores that have voted to unionize. Schultz had refused the committee’s request to appear until Bernie threatened to subpoena him. "I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schultz as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions," Bernie said.

I love him because he sounds like a vintage record (even his voice has the crackle of worn vinyl).

I love him because he’s never been afraid to call himself a democratic socialist. Soon after he began running for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, his campaign manager warned me he was about make a speech to “introduce” the public to democratic socialism. I was impressed that he had the guts to do this but worried about his timing. “Does he haveto do it now?” I asked. The campaign manager told me Bernie was committed to doing it and couldn’t be persuaded otherwise. It was pure Bernie.

Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed for Social Security, Republicans have used “socialism” to scare Americans away from doing anything big that we need done.

But America is changing. As early as 2011, the Pew Research Center found that almost half of all voters under the age of 30 held a positive view of socialism while only 46 percent held a positive view of capitalism. In the 2016 Democratic primaries and then again in 2020, young people all over America wore buttons reading “Feel the Bern.” They were like the young admirers of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another warrior who combined progressive conviction with elder crankiness.

I love Bernie because he has endless patience for important things and no patience for small talk. In 2010, he delivered an eight-and-a-half-hour speech on the Senate floor to protest the extension of tax cuts instituted during George W. Bush’s presidency. I was in the Capitol at the time and dropped by his office to congratulate him on his marathon. He quickly thanked me, then waved me off to take a phone call.

Just before the California Democratic primary in 2020, he gave a stemwinder of a speech in Oakland. We had a late dinner at a small dive on Shattuck Avenue that was empty except for the two of us — until a supporter spied us through the window and came bounding in with a Bernie poster.

“Senator, would you sign my …?”

“Not now! We’re eating!” Bernie barked.

In all my years of politics, I’d never come across a candidate willing to do this.

I love Bernie because he’s a true populist — a word that has gotten a terrible rap since Trump but should be redeemed. It means for the people and against the powerful. Trump pretends to be a populist, but he’s always wanted to be one of the powerful and has forever been in their pockets. Bernie is a true populist.

I love Bernie because he has almost single-handedly changed the national conversation — turning proposals that had once been on the Democratic fringe into respectable, and in some cases mainstream, Democratic positions. Creating jobs by rebuilding infrastructure. Providing free tuition at public universities. Breaking up the big banks. Guaranteeing workers paid medical and family leave.

The policies no longer seem far-fetched. And now that he’s chair of a powerful Senate committee, Bernie might be able to usher some of them through, if Democrats regain control of the House next year.

I love Bernie because even at the age of 81, his indignation hasn’t faded. Nor has his energy.

When he entered Congress in 1991 as an independent, he wasn’t particularly well liked. That may have had something to do with his telling the press that Congress “is not working. It is failing. Change is not going to take place until many hundreds of these people are thrown out of their offices,” and charging that “Congress does not have the courage to stand up to the powerful interests. I have the freedom to speak my mind.”

At the time, Congressman Barney Frank shot back: “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude — saying, in a very loud voice, he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness.” Joe Moakley, another Massachusetts Democrat, then chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee, complained that Bernie “screams and hollers, but he is all alone.”

Bernie’s lack of popularity on Capitol Hill didn’t hold him back. He was reelected to the House seven times and was one of the founding members and the first chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has grown steadily from six members in 1991 to 71 today.

His ascent to the Senate in 2006 was astonishing — beating the Republican candidate, Richard Tarrant, one of the wealthiest men in Vermont, by 33 percentage points.

I backed Bernie in 2016 when he ran for the Democratic nomination for president against Hillary Clinton and backed him again in 2020. I took some crap for doing this from Clinton people, but I’m glad I did it. The system needed shaking up. It needed Bernie’s candidacy even if he wasn’t going to get the nomination.

I love Bernie because he has more guts than any politician I know. Hell, he has more guts than just about anyone I know.

But I’m still not going to be labor secretary again.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Robert Reich.

In the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit, Dominion Voting Systems accuses Fox News Channel of falsely reporting that Dominion’s voting machines fraudulently delivered victory to Joe Biden in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Court documents attained by other media outlets reveal that hosts and other high-ranking Fox News Channel officials – including the Chairman and CEO of Fox’s parent company News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch – knew these reports were false, but aired them because they were more concerned with confirming their audience’s belief that Donald Trump won the election.

The evidence presented in the court documents speaks to the journalistic malpractice that plagues the cable news industry. Journalistic malpractice refers to professional journalists who privilege ideological bias and profits over truth in their reporting. Fox News Channel is patient zero for the plague of journalistic malpractice. It was created in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch and the late Roger Ailes, a media consultant for several Republican presidents, as a political project to sell conservative culture and policy to the American public with pro-conservative propaganda disguised as journalism. For example, Fox News Channel has

• falsely claimed that other media outlets did not cover the conservative Tea Party rallies;
• utilized videos out of context to inflate the perceived size of conservative protests;
• labeled former President Barack Obama a racist;
• declared Osama bin Laden as a John Kerry supporter;
• perpetuated discredited reports on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq;
• introduced digitally altered photos to fabricate Black Lives Matter violence and make New York Times reporters appear to be revolting.

Liberals were right to assert that such chicanery was propaganda, not journalism. But before liberal readers scold Fox News viewers, they should remind themselves that the plague of journalistic malpractice has also infected the liberal leaning cable networks such as CNN and MSNBC. Researchers and scholars have noted that the advent of cable and then the internet saw news media outlets shift from attaining the largest audience possible to focusing on a more specific or narrow demographic of the audience. While Fox News Channel sought to cater to Republican Party voting viewers, CNN and MSNBC did the same for Democratic Party voters. This gave the Democratic Party influence over programming that was tantamount to what the Republican Party long enjoyed at Fox.

When Senator U.S. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Presidential bid posed a threat to their desired candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, leaders from the Democratic Party admitted they worked to undermine his campaign. Pro-Democratic party outlets like MSNBC and CNN aided in this effort by

• creating an unfavorable debate schedule;
• giving Clinton twice as much and more favorable coverage;
• publishing 16 negative articles about Sanders in Washington Post (owned by major Democratic Party funder Jeff Bezos) in 16 hours;
• ghost editing previous news articles to diminish Sanders’ quarter century of accomplishments;
• inviting his opponent’s surrogates to attack his character under the auspices of being objective journalists.

Their smear of Sanders continued in 2020 when

• the Democratic Party-leaning news outlets misled the public about Sanders’ polling numbers;
• CNN’s Abby Phillips drew gasps for ignoring Sanders’ claim that he never said a “woman could not be president;”
• James Carville on MSNBC made the baseless claim that Russia was supporting Sanders;
• MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compared Sander’s primary victories to the Nazi’s defeat of the French, an unfortunate comparison as Sanders’ family was murdered in the holocaust.

Journalistic malpractice also plagued Covid-19 coverage. Starting in 2020, CNN’s Chris Cuomo utilized his platform – with the approval of CNN leadership – to host his brother, then New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The jovial segments seemed like campaign advertisements as Chris treated Andrew as the anti-thesis to then President Trump: a competent executive who took decisive action to address the Covid-19 pandemic. Although, the Democratic versus Republican framing attracted partisan audiences, in reality, Andrew Cuomo and Trump were all too similar: both concealed the actual number of Covid-19 deaths in their jurisdiction, both put patients at risk with kickbacks to industry partners, and both utilized media contacts to stifle press reports about their alleged sexual crimes.

The partisan falsehoods in cable news includes the production of powerful, long- running false stories designed to convince their audiences that the other party is wrong and crazy. For years now, conservatives and Fox News Channel perpetuated the baseless Qanon conspiracy, which alleges that a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles – mainly in the Democratic Party – runs global affairs but Trump will break up the conspiracy. The absurdity of this conspiracy is tantamount to liberal leaning news media’s reporting on Russiagate, which sought to discredit Republicans. Since 2016, Russiagate – the story that Russia meddled in and influenced the outcome of the U.S. election in 2016, had direct connections to Donald Trump and his associates, and worked to help defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidency – was perpetuated by a series of false stories from Democratic Party-friendly media including

• Russia hacking a Vermont power plant;
• putting a bounty on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan;
• shifting election outcomes around the world;
• turning Trump into an asset since 1987;
• labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as fake news.

Conservatives rightly see this reporting and believe liberals are insane.

Both factions need to look in a mirror. While audiences can clearly see the insanity in other networks’ viewers, they rarely seem to see it in themselves. Indeed, in the same week that CNN and others were having a schadenfreude moment over the Dominion v. Fox case, they hosted a commentator on the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio without disclosing that he had lobbied for the train company Norfolk Southern. This example of hypocrisy and journalistic malpractice is not only costly to CNN’s credibility, but our democracy as well.

Without a robust media system that privileges truth over preaching to the choir, the public will have endless debates devoid of facts on key issues such as critical race theory, vaccine efficacy, the origins of the COVID-19 virus, climate change, transgender issues, Ukraine, mysterious balloons, and more. Democratic discourse will be reduced to seeing Republicans as MAGA-hat wearing, blue lives matter-flag waving, gun nuts, and Democrats as medical mask wearing, “this house cares about everything” front-lawn sign adorning, professional victims and virtue signalers. These caricatures have never really been accurate, but as long as the nation is infected with the plague of journalist malpractice they will surely be perpetuated.

While the courts are unlikely to deliver solace from political party propaganda disguised as journalism, they have provided some wisdom. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson of MSNBC and Fox News Channel respectively, have been brought to court for spreading false information and were exonerated because the judges concluded that no reasonable person would believe either of them were telling the truth. That is good advice, and viewers would be wise to remember it every time they consider watching cable news.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Nolan Higdon.

Thursday's U.S. Senate hearing about the ongoing environmental and public health disaster in East Palestine, Ohio "did not go well" for Norfolk Southern president and CEO Alan Shaw, the progressive media outlet More Perfect Union declared.

Shaw refused to commit to providing workers with seven days of paid sick leave, ceasing stock buybacks, and abandoning Wall Street-endorsed policies that critics say contribute to the 1,500-plus derailments seen each year in the U.S., including Norfolk Southern's toxic crash near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border last month as well as a derailment that happened in Alabama just before the multimillionaire executive testified.

In remarks prepared for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Shaw wrote, "I am deeply sorry for the impact this derailment has had on the people of East Palestine and surrounding communities, and I am determined to make it right."

But during the committee's hearing, Shaw refused to use the multiple opportunities he was given to publicly commit to enacting meaningful changes.

Noting that Norfolk Southern has recently rewarded wealthy investors with $10 billion in stock buybacks, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont asked Shaw if he could "tell the American people and your employees right now that... you will guarantee at least seven paid sick days to the 15,000 workers you employ."

Sanders acknowledged that Norfolk Southern recently agreed to provide up to a week of paid sick leave per year to roughly 3,000 track maintenance workers. However, he asked Shaw, "Will you make that commitment right now to your entire workforce?"

"I will commit to continuing to discuss with them important quality-of-life issues," Shaw responded.

Sanders told Shaw he sounds "like a politician" and reiterated his question, but the executive repeated his dodge.

Sanders, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, then told Shaw that he looks forward to discussing the matter further, hinting at a potential request to testify before the panel he leads.

Later during the hearing, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon asked Shaw, "Will you pledge today that you will do no more stock buybacks until a raft of safety measures have been completed to reduce the risk of derailments and crashes in the future?"

Once again, Shaw refused to give a straight answer, saying that he will commit to "continuing to invest in safety." Merkley repeated his question, to no avail.

More Perfect Union has calculated that payouts to Norfolk Southern's shareholders surged by more than 4,500% over the past 20 years, from $101 million in stock repurchases and dividend bumps in 2002 to $4.7 billion in 2022.

In response to Merkely's inquiry, Shaw claimed that thanks to his company's safety investments, "the number of derailments, hazardous material releases, and personal injuries has declined" over time.

Not helping Shaw's case, a Norfolk Southern train careened off the tracks in Calhoun County, Alabama around 6:45 am ET on Thursday, about three hours before the hearing began. The rail giant was also responsible for other derailments last month in addition to the highly visible one in East Palestine. Moreover, a Norfolk Southern conductor was killed in a collision in Ohio early Tuesday.

More Perfect Union shared data showing that Norfolk Southern's accident rate grew faster than the industry average over the past decade and accused the CEO of lying about his company's safety record.

According to Railroad Workers United and others, industry-led deregulation and Wall Street-backed policies such as "precision-scheduled railroading" (PSR) have made the U.S. rail system more dangerous.

During Thursday's hearing, Sanders brought up PSR, which forces fewer workers to manage longer trains in less time.

The profit-maximizing practice championed by Wall Street has enabled Norfolk Southern to rake in billions of dollars while reducing the size of its workforce by nearly 40% over a recent six-year period, said Sanders, but that has come at the expense of safety.

"Will you make a commitment right now to the American people that you will lead the industry in ending this disastrous precision-scheduled railroading?"

Despite Sanders' request for a "yes or no" answer, Shaw danced around the question, saying that he has increased hiring since becoming CEO last May.

Sanders characterized the recent uptick in hiring as an attempt to recover from a preceding round of mass layoffs and asked once again if Shaw "will lead the industry in doing away with" the PSR model that was "imposed" by profit-hungry Wall Street actors.

Shaw, however, refused to commit to such a change.

Thursday's hearing comes two days after the National Transportation Safety Board—which is already probing the causes of the East Palestine disaster—announced a "special investigation" into Norfolk Southern's "organization and safety culture."

It also comes less than a month after Shaw angered East Palestine residents by skipping a town hall where people expressed their concerns over the long-term consequences of air pollution and groundwater contamination stemming from the release and burnoff of carcinogenic chemicals, a move that was made to avoid a catastrophic explosion.

Following the hearing on Capitol Hill, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said in a statement that "Shaw's apology today rings hollow," coming as it did "after years spent pushing to roll back the very sorts of safety regulations that would have prevented an accident like this."

"If Norfolk Southern had real concern for the safety of the countless communities like East Palestine through which their trains run, they would be calling for more safety measures for the industry," said Hauter. "Instead they offer voluntary steps that can easily be undone, prioritizing profit margins over people."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Thursday's U.S. Senate hearing about the ongoing environmental and public health disaster in East Palestine, Ohio "did not go well" for Norfolk Southern president and CEO Alan Shaw, the progressive media outlet More Perfect Union declared.

Shaw refused to commit to providing workers with seven days of paid sick leave, ceasing stock buybacks, and abandoning Wall Street-endorsed policies that critics say contribute to the 1,500-plus derailments seen each year in the U.S., including Norfolk Southern's toxic crash near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border last month as well as a derailment that happened in Alabama just before the multimillionaire executive testified.

In remarks prepared for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Shaw wrote, "I am deeply sorry for the impact this derailment has had on the people of East Palestine and surrounding communities, and I am determined to make it right."

But during the committee's hearing, Shaw refused to use the multiple opportunities he was given to publicly commit to enacting meaningful changes.

Noting that Norfolk Southern has recently rewarded wealthy investors with $10 billion in stock buybacks, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont asked Shaw if he could "tell the American people and your employees right now that... you will guarantee at least seven paid sick days to the 15,000 workers you employ."

Sanders acknowledged that Norfolk Southern recently agreed to provide up to a week of paid sick leave per year to roughly 3,000 track maintenance workers. However, he asked Shaw, "Will you make that commitment right now to your entire workforce?"

"I will commit to continuing to discuss with them important quality-of-life issues," Shaw responded.

Sanders told Shaw he sounds "like a politician" and reiterated his question, but the executive repeated his dodge.

Sanders, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, then told Shaw that he looks forward to discussing the matter further, hinting at a potential request to testify before the panel he leads.

Later during the hearing, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon asked Shaw, "Will you pledge today that you will do no more stock buybacks until a raft of safety measures have been completed to reduce the risk of derailments and crashes in the future?"

Once again, Shaw refused to give a straight answer, saying that he will commit to "continuing to invest in safety." Merkley repeated his question, to no avail.

More Perfect Union has calculated that payouts to Norfolk Southern's shareholders surged by more than 4,500% over the past 20 years, from $101 million in stock repurchases and dividend bumps in 2002 to $4.7 billion in 2022.

In response to Merkely's inquiry, Shaw claimed that thanks to his company's safety investments, "the number of derailments, hazardous material releases, and personal injuries has declined" over time.

Not helping Shaw's case, a Norfolk Southern train careened off the tracks in Calhoun County, Alabama around 6:45 am ET on Thursday, about three hours before the hearing began. The rail giant was also responsible for other derailments last month in addition to the highly visible one in East Palestine. Moreover, a Norfolk Southern conductor was killed in a collision in Ohio early Tuesday.

More Perfect Union shared data showing that Norfolk Southern's accident rate grew faster than the industry average over the past decade and accused the CEO of lying about his company's safety record.

According to Railroad Workers United and others, industry-led deregulation and Wall Street-backed policies such as "precision-scheduled railroading" (PSR) have made the U.S. rail system more dangerous.

During Thursday's hearing, Sanders brought up PSR, which forces fewer workers to manage longer trains in less time.

The profit-maximizing practice championed by Wall Street has enabled Norfolk Southern to rake in billions of dollars while reducing the size of its workforce by nearly 40% over a recent six-year period, said Sanders, but that has come at the expense of safety.

"Will you make a commitment right now to the American people that you will lead the industry in ending this disastrous precision-scheduled railroading?"

Despite Sanders' request for a "yes or no" answer, Shaw danced around the question, saying that he has increased hiring since becoming CEO last May.

Sanders characterized the recent uptick in hiring as an attempt to recover from a preceding round of mass layoffs and asked once again if Shaw "will lead the industry in doing away with" the PSR model that was "imposed" by profit-hungry Wall Street actors.

Shaw, however, refused to commit to such a change.

Thursday's hearing comes two days after the National Transportation Safety Board—which is already probing the causes of the East Palestine disaster—announced a "special investigation" into Norfolk Southern's "organization and safety culture."

It also comes less than a month after Shaw angered East Palestine residents by skipping a town hall where people expressed their concerns over the long-term consequences of air pollution and groundwater contamination stemming from the release and burnoff of carcinogenic chemicals, a move that was made to avoid a catastrophic explosion.

Following the hearing on Capitol Hill, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said in a statement that "Shaw's apology today rings hollow," coming as it did "after years spent pushing to roll back the very sorts of safety regulations that would have prevented an accident like this."

"If Norfolk Southern had real concern for the safety of the countless communities like East Palestine through which their trains run, they would be calling for more safety measures for the industry," said Hauter. "Instead they offer voluntary steps that can easily be undone, prioritizing profit margins over people."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Demanding an end to "the international embarrassment" of low teacher pay in the United States, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced legislation to guarantee a minimum salary for public school educators of $60,000 per year, moving to fulfill a pledge he made during his 2020 presidential campaign.

The Vermont Independent senator called on the federal government to take accountability for chronic staffing shortages in school districts across the country, which he said is linked to the fact that "the starting pay for teachers in almost 40% of our nation's school districts is less than $40,000 a year" and that the average weekly wage of a public school teacher has gone up by just $29 in the past 30 years, adjusting for inflation.

More than half of the nation's schools are understaffed, according to the National Center on Education Statistics, and Sanders noted in a fact sheet about his proposal that "hundreds of thousands of public school teachers have to work two or three jobs during the school year to make ends meet." A recent report by the Teacher Salary Project found that 17% of educators work part-time in retail, restaurants, or in the gig economy to supplement their meager incomes.

Sanders, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, called the statistic "simply unacceptable."

"The situation has become so absurd that the top 15 hedge fund managers on Wall Street make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America combined—over 120,000 teachers," said the senator. "Wages for public school teachers are so low that in 36 states, the average public school teacher with a family of four qualifies for food stamps, public housing, and other government assistance programs. We have got to do better than that."

The Pay Teachers Act of 2023 would significantly increase investments in public education, beyond teacher salaries—tripling Title I-A funding for schools with high percentages of low-income students and funding for rural education programs; providing an additional $1 billion for the Bureau of Indian Education; and investing in grant programs to improve teacher preparation and development, among other investments.

States would be required to establish a "minimum salary for teachers" of at least $60,000 per year, with increases throughout their career, and to ensure teachers are paid "a livable and competitive annual salary" that's comparable to professionals with similar education requirements.

"Educators are nation builders," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.7 educators. "They have a vital role in educating and caring for our next generation. But they are neither treated nor paid commensurate with that role. Teachers earn nearly 24% less than similarly educated professionals, and when adjusted for inflation, many [earn] less than they were making a decade ago."

"Even with their need to take second jobs, educators spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on supplies, snacks, books, and other items for students," she added. "Chairman Bernie Sanders's bill, the Pay Teachers Act, will help close the pay gap by significantly increasing federal investments in public schools and raising annual teacher salaries."

Co-sponsors of the Pay Teachers Act include Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Alex Padilla of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Peter Welch of Vermont.

Ellen Sherratt, board president of the Teacher Salary Project, applauded the legislation and lawmakers who are"fighting for teacher salary levels that are professional."

Sanders introduced the legislation a month after holding a town hall with labor leaders and teachers from across the country regarding chronic low pay in the field, where educators talked about completing hours of work per week outside of the school day for no extra pay, purchasing snacks for low-income students, and facing barriers to working in schools that have many open teaching positions and have resorted to hiring people without teaching qualifications.

"Students of every color, background, and ZIP code deserve qualified and caring educators who are dedicated and have the resources to uncover the passions and potential of every child," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA), as Sanders introduced the bill Thursday. "America's schools are facing a five-alarm crisis because of the educator shortages that have been decades in the making and exacerbated by the pandemic. Together, we must recruit large numbers of diverse educators into the profession and retain qualified and experienced educators in our schools to support our students in learning recovery and thriving in today's world. To do that, we must have competitive career-based pay to recruit and retain educators."

"On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association, I thank Chairman Sanders for introducing the Teacher Pay Act," she added. "We urge senators to support educators and cosponsor this commonsense legislation that invests in our students, educators, and public schools."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Cori Bush on Thursday introduced legislation that would prohibit pharmaceutical companies from charging more than $20 for a vial of insulin, a move that comes a week after Eli Lilly pledged to cap out-of-pocket payments for its insulin products at $35 per month.

"As a nurse, I've seen too many people in our communities struggle to afford their lifesaving insulin medication," Bush (D-Mo.) said in a statement. "People are left choosing between insulin or groceries; insulin or rent; insulin or child care. This is unacceptable."

More than 7 million people across the U.S. use insulin to manage their diabetes, and some have been forced to pay upwards of $1,000 per month for the medicine as pharmaceutical giants have jacked up prices with abandon in recent decades.

According to one study published in October, more than a million people in the U.S. have had to ration insulin due to the high cost.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and a longtime advocate of insulin price reform, said Thursday that "there is no reason why Americans should pay the highest prices in the world for insulin—in some cases, ten times as much as people in other countries."

"In 1923, the inventors of insulin sold their patents for $1 to save lives, not to turn pharmaceutical executives into billionaires," said Sanders. "Now, 100 years later, unacceptable corporate greed has caused the price of this lifesaving medication to skyrocket by over 1,000% since 1996. We can no longer tolerate a rigged healthcare system that forced 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin while the three major insulin manufacturers made $21 billion dollars in profits."

"Now is the time for Congress to take on the greed and power of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the price of insulin," the senator added. "In the richest country in the history of the world, no one should die because they cannot afford the medication they need."

If passed, the Insulin for All Act of 2023 would cap the list price of insulin nationwide at "$20 per 1000 units... which may be contained in one or more vials, pens, cartridges, or other forms of delivery."

Original co-sponsors of the legislation include Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Reps. Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

"Big Pharma continues to rake in record profits by gouging patients on insulin prices," Merkley said in a statement. "Unaffordable high prices are forcing patients to ration their insulin, leading to dire health consequences—heart attacks, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, foot disease and amputations, even death. It's tragic, it's unacceptable, and it's time to end this rip-off."

The new bill is also backed by more than 70 advocacy organizations, including T1International, Public Citizen, and Social Security Works.

"This bill being called the Insulin for All Act of 2023 shows the power of grassroots activism," said Elizabeth Pfiester, a patient with Type 1 diabetes and the founder and executive director of T1International, the group behind the #insulin4all campaign.

"We know that Eli Lilly isn't lowering the list price of one of their insulins out of the goodness of their hearts," Pfiester added. "That's why policy change to ensure patients with diabetes can't be exploited anymore is essential."

Eli Lilly's decision earlier this month to slash the prices of its most-prescribed insulin products by 70% was cautiously welcomed by advocates who have been organizing against insulin price gouging for years.

But campaigners stressed that given the serious limitations of Eli Lilly's pledge—and the company's ability to raise prices again whenever it chooses—federal action is still necessary to ensure lower costs for everyone, including those who use products made by the other two giant insulin manufacturers, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk.

The three companies produce more than 90% of the global insulin supply, market dominance that has allowed them to drive up costs massively—drawing legal action from several U.S. states, including California.

Last April, Human Rights Watch released a report showing that Eli Lilly has raised the list price of Humalog by an inflation-adjusted 680% since it first began selling the product in the late 1990s. The company vowed earlier this month to slash the list price of Humalog by 70% starting in the fourth quarter of this year.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Sparks flew at a congressional hearing Wednesday when International Brotherhood of Teamsters president Sean O'Brien told Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma—a multimillionaire whose family previously owned five non-union plumbing companies—that "we hold greedy CEOs like yourself accountable."

The exchange happened during a hearing convened by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—titled "Defending the Right of Workers to Organize Unions Free from Illegal Corporate Union-Busting."

Watch:

Asked by O'Brien how much he made from his plumbing business, Mullin claimed, "I kept my salary down at about 50,000 a year because I invested every penny into it."

But in 2013, then-Rep. Mullin reportedly pocketed more than $600,000 from the companies in violation of House ethics rules and federal laws limiting how much outside income members of Congress are allowed to receive.

Although Mullin transferred ownership of the companies to his family, he continued to serve as a board member and chief advertiser while raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As O'Brien pointed out on social media, Mullin saw his reported net worth surge from between $7.3 million and $29.9 million at the end of 2020 to between $31.6 million and $75.6 million after he sold his family's plumbing companies in late 2021.

"Don't let them distract you," O'Brien tweeted. "Unions create jobs, make work safer, and put more money in workers' pockets. Most importantly, everything we do is to improve the lives of our members. I wonder if some others can say the same about their constituents?"

Sanders, for his part, declared at the conclusion of Wednesday's hearing that "there's a class war going on whether we want to recognize it or not."

"People on top have the money, they have the power," said Sanders. "They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to prevent ordinary workers from coming together to fight for dignity."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

An analysis published Monday by the watchdog Accountable.US revealed that the biggest oil companies operating in the United States raked in a collective $290 billion in profits last year while they "consistently prioritized shareholder returns over alleviating the pressure of high energy prices."

According to the report—which analyzed 26 oil companies doing business in the U.S.—the $290 billion in collective 2022 Big Oil profits marked a 126% increase from the previous year. Fossil Fuel giants including BP, Shell, and Chevron more than doubled their net income in 2022, while smaller players like Murphy Oil And Southwestern Energy saw respective increases of 1,410% and 7,496%.

"With $290 billion in profits, Big Oil made enough money in 2022 to end world hunger, pay off U.S. medical debt, and build 10 Disney Worlds, but instead used their record profits to shower $163 billion on shareholders with plans to give even more in 2023," Accountable.US said.

According to a summary of the analysis:

The industry's historic margins were largely achieved through unabated price gouging of American consumers. As families across the country experienced financial strain due to the artificially high prices at the pump, the industry spent over $163 billion on stock buybacks and dividends, further enriching their wealthy shareholders. Even as Big Oil executives complain about supposedly lower-than-desired margins in 2023, oil and gas companies have already publicly announced plans to buy at least $160 billion in stock backs starting this year.

"Modern-day oil barons like Shell, BP, and Chevron forced American consumers into financial strain and ruthlessly extracted every last dime out of working and middle-class people,"said Accountable.US director of energy and environment Jordan Schreiber.

Fossil fuel and other corporations have used the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and inflation as pretexts to price gouge consumers.

"Despite the industry's bald-faced lies, Big Oil's never-ending greed was the central force driving the industry's obscene price gouging," Schreiber continued. "Now, executives have already announced plans to spend $160 billion on stock buybacks to enrich their wealthy shareholders further."

"Meanwhile," she added, "the MAGA majority in the House continues to shield Big Oil from accountability as their constituents pay the price."

Last March, Rep. Ro Khanna(D-Calif.) introduced a bill that would tax excess oil company profits and pay American households a quarterly refund. That same month, Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) introduced the Ending Corporate Greed Act, a proposed 95% windfall profits tax on major oil companies.

While President Joe Biden has threatened to support a windfall profits tax on oil companies if they don't increase production, he has not yet done so.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed Thursday to move ahead with a planned vote to force Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to testify on the company's numerous labor law violations after the coffee chain offered up other executives to appear in the billionaire's place.

In a letter to Sanders (I-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Starbucks general counsel Zabrina Jenkins wrote that the company is "shocked and deeply concerned" that the senator has rejected proposed stand-ins for Schultz, including executive vice president AJ Jones II.

"Respectfully, Howard Schultz is not the right witness for the hearing," Jenkins wrote, insisting that the Starbucks CEO "delegated decisionmaking regarding actions to be taken on union issues to a small team of executives which includes Mr. Jones."

Jenkins also emphasized that Schultz, who has been directly rebuked by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for threatening pro-union workers, is stepping down as CEO at the end of the month.

Sanders made clear in his response letter that he wasn't persuaded by the company's rationale.

Echoing the language of Starbucks' letter, Sanders wrote that he is "shocked and deeply concerned that Howard Schultz would continue to defy a request made by a majority of members on the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) to testify about the 80 complaints issued by the National Labor Relations Board against Starbucks for violating federal labor law, the more than 500 unfair labor practice charges lodged against Starbucks, and the illegal firing of more than a dozen Starbucks workers."

"Let's be clear," Sanders continued. "Howard Schultz is the founder of Starbucks, he is the CEO of Starbucks, he is the spokesperson of Starbucks, and he will continue to be on the Board of Directors at Starbucks well into the future. In numerous media interviews, Mr. Schultz has made it clear that he is the driving force of labor policy at Starbucks. For these reasons, the Senate HELP Committee invited Howard Schultz to testify, not a subordinate, because he is the man who engineered and continues to make labor decisions at Starbucks."

"At some point in the future, we may well want to hear from other executives as to how Starbucks intends to abide by the law and allow workers to form unions," the senator added. "But right now, the immediate issue is to hear from Mr. Schultz."

Sanders announced earlier this week that the Senate HELP Committee will vote this coming Wednesday on whether to subpoena Schultz after the executive refused to voluntarily cooperate with the panel's requests for meetings, documents, and answers to questions about Starbucks' union-busting activities.

Starbucks has denied allegations from workers and the NLRB that it is targeting and firing union organizers, unlawfully threatening pro-union workers with the loss of benefits, cutting workers' hours, and refusing to bargain in good faith with employees who have voted to unionize.

Since the groundbreaking victory in Buffalo, New York in December 2021, more than 280 Starbucks locations across the United States have opted to join Workers United, the union representing Starbucks employees.

Schultz returned for his third stint as Starbucks CEO in early 2022, a move widely seen as part of the company's attempt to crush the nascent union movement. Starbucks Workers United says the company has fired more than 200 workers for engaging in legally protected union activity.

In his letter on Thursday, Sanders pointed to a federal administrative law judge's ruling earlier this week that "detailed a November 2021 meeting—before Mr. Schultz had even returned to the company as CEO—that he had with all Buffalo-area Starbucks workers."

"These workers were forced to attend this meeting while every Buffalo-area store was closed to listen to Mr. Schultz one month prior to union elections that were held in the area," Sanders wrote. "This meeting makes clear the enormous power and influence Mr. Schultz has over labor policy at Starbucks even when he is not the official CEO of the company."

"The American people are sick and tired of multinational corporations violating labor laws with impunity," he continued. "Howard Schultz may be a multibillionaire, but he has got to understand that he and the multibillion-dollar corporation he runs are not above the law."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Though states are seeking to reduce the teacher shortage, the problem only seems to be getting worse. Recently, the National Education Association reported that 55 percent of teachers are planning to leave the profession earlier than they planned. This means that, if current trends persist, the gap between the number of working teachers and the number of open positions will widen significantly by 2030. This is where Bernie Sanders, the new Senate Chair of Health, Education, and Labor, comes in.

In late February, Sanders proposed the “Pay Teachers Act,” which would increase the base salary for teachers across the country to $60,000. “In America today,” the senator wrote in a mailer, “the starting pay for teachers in almost 40% of our school districts is less than $40,000 a year. Further, 43% of all teachers in America make less than $60,000 a year.” While some critics of the proposal say that wage increases in education should be handled solely at the state and local level, federal action would provide an immediate response to an entire system in crisis, rather than a slow, patchwork response. Legislation that would improve the starting wages for many teachers, especially early career educators, is much needed and a welcome step to stabilize the educator workforce.

Privatization initiatives—such as voucher and charter expansions, along with legislative efforts meant to intimidate teachers—have made teaching in public schools more difficult.

For the first years of my own teaching career, I made below $40,000. Back then, like many other educators, I had to balance the costs of everyday life with the steep learning curve of a new career. For many educators, the financial, emotional, and professional stressors of the first five years simply become too much. The result has been a staggeringly high percentage of teachers leaving the profession before making it to the half-decade mark. The pandemic and anti-public school political campaigns have undoubtedly made this trend worse.

Pressure from the privatization movement also adds to the crisis by accelerating the departure of public school teachers from the profession. This churn is in line with the movement’s goals, which are to disrupt and destabilize the public education sector, regardless of the human cost. Privatization initiatives—such as voucher and charter expansions, along with legislative efforts meant to intimidate teachers, like proposing jail time for teachers who have the audacity to have books that show the diversity of humanity—have made teaching in public schools more difficult. Undoubtedly, these shifts have contributed to potential teachers deciding on other careers where they will not be demonized for providing a public good.

College students who might be aspiring teachers have taken note of the hostile conditions of the profession as well. Education departments in colleges and universities nationwide have seen student enrollment in their programs drastically dip since the pandemic began. Survey results have found that parents are less likely today to encourage their children to pursue a career in education. This is a problem for schools, both in the near and long term.

With the challenges facing public education, the Pay Teachers Act is a step in the right direction for the nation. But before we can pay teachers, we must make sure that there are teachers who will be ready to enter the classrooms of tomorrow (and today). Increasing the total number of students enrolled in university programs and internships leading to certification must be a focus going forward. And no, we cannot accept lower standards for teacher preparation programs or the use of National Guard members to keep schools open. We can do better—we owe it to our students to do better.

Improving teacher recruitment and retention requires easing barriers for aspiring teachers. It is not uncommon for aspiring educators to take on debt for college classes, which include part-time or full-time internships training side by side with an experienced educator. While internship experiences are an excellent way for new teachers to learn, paying for the training experience on top of transportation, food, rent, and other living expenses is an economic burden. It’s critical that those entering the profession not be saddled with debt that may make a career in teaching out of reach.

Paid internships and residencies can place needed money in the pockets of aspiring teachers and reduce financial friction on the pathway to being a certified educator. Along these lines, legislative action at the state level may aid aspiring teachers with paid internships. Existing loan forgiveness programs may supplement these new measures. Those who want to contribute to the betterment and development of the next generation should not have to be buried by debt.

Reversing the declining ranks of public school teachers will take a concerted effort by federal and state agencies, local school districts, and universities. But most importantly, it will take current and aspiring educators, because without their passion, dedication, and willingness to do the tough heartfelt work communities across the country need at this moment, no amount of policy will make a difference. Let’s do all that we can to encourage and support teachers in this time, including getting behind Sanders’s Pay Teachers Act.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jacob Goodwin.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday announced plans to introduce legislation that would cap U.S. insulin prices at $20 per vial after Eli Lilly pledged to cut the list prices of its most commonly used insulin products by 70%.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement that "this is what fighting back accomplishes" and urged two other major insulin manufacturers to replicate Eli Lilly's move, which also includes capping monthly out-of-pocket insulin payments at $35 for many people with diabetes.

"At a time when Eli Lilly made over $7 billion in profits last year, public pressure forced them to reduce the price of insulin by 70%," said the Vermont senator. "Now is the time for Sanofi and Novo Nordisk to do the same. Now is the time to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs in America."

In letters to the CEOs of Sanofi and Novo Nordisk—which together with Eli Lilly produce more than 90% of the global insulin supply—Sanders wrote that "people with diabetes should not be forced to pay $98 for a vial of insulin that costs just $8 to manufacture and can be purchased in Canada for just $12."

"I urge you to join Eli Lilly in substantially lowering the price your company charges for insulin and make certain that all Americans can purchase this lifesaving drug," added the senator, who has been scrutinizing the trio's business practices—including price collusion—for years.

"Let's be clear: Insulin is not a new drug," Sanders continued. "It was discovered 100 years ago by Canadian scientists who sold the patent rights of insulin for just $1 because they wanted to save lives, not make pharmaceutical executives extremely wealthy. And yet, as a result of unacceptable corporate greed, the price of insulin has gone up by over 1,000% since 1996, causing 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin last year while your companies made billions of dollars in profits. That is absolutely unacceptable."

\u201cPublic pressure forced Eli Lilly to reduce the price of insulin by 70%. Today, I sent a letter demanding Sanofi and Novo Nordisk do the same. Now is the time to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs.\u201d

— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1677710196

Eli Lilly's announcement was welcomed as a victory for people with diabetes who have been campaigning tirelessly for years to bring down insulin prices in the U.S., where some patients have been forced to pay more than $1,000 a month for the lifesaving medicine.

But the company's move also drew skepticism as advocates remain wary of the limitations of Wednesday's pledge and of Eli Lilly's commitment to keeping prices low, particularly given the pharmaceutical giant's history of lobbying against efforts to rein in prescription drug costs.

In a footnote at the bottom of its Wednesday press release, Eli Lilly states that "government restrictions exclude people enrolled in federal government insurance programs from Lilly's $35 solutions."

People on Medicare are covered by the Inflation Reduction Act's $35-per-month cap on insulin copayments, but low-income people on Medicaid don't appear to be eligible for Eli Lilly's price-cap program.

Additionally, Eli Lilly's 70% price cut for Humalog—the company's most commonly prescribed insulin product—won't take effect until the fourth quarter of this year, "giving Lilly seven more months of high prices even as they are lauded for their corporate responsibility," noted The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner.

"And since Lilly caps out-of-pocket costs to patients but not necessarily prices charged to insurance companies," Kuttner added, "the result could be cost-shifting and higher insurance premiums."

Such caveats led campaigners to emphasize the necessity of federal action to guarantee that insulin is available and affordable for all who need it.

"Insulin manufacturers have shown time and time again that they will put their CEOs' profits over patients' lives," said Kristen Whitney Daniels, the co-leader of T1International's federal working group and a person living with Type 1 diabetes. "That's why the government also needs to regulate insulin manufacturers to hold them accountable to ensuring the human right to insulin."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

President Joe Biden's plan to forgive more than $400 billion in student loan debt to over 40 million borrowers drew criticism from conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday as the justices heard oral arguments in a pair of cases that will decide the fate of one of the president's signature policies and impact the financial futures of millions of Americans.

Politicoreports members of the high court's right-wing supermajority "repeatedly questioned whether the Education Department had the legal authority it claimed to discharge federal student loan debt to help borrowers recover economically from the national emergency spurred by Covid-19."

Chief Justice John Roberts was particularly hostile, telling U.S. Solicitor-General Elizabeth Prelogar—who was defending the administration's plan—that "we're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans."

The Los Angeles Timesreports that most of Roberts' conservative colleagues "sounded ready to rule against the administration."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, expressed skepticism about authorizing the president to a "massive new program" based on an interpretation of the HEROES Act of 2003, which allows the Education Department to "modify or waive" student aid "in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency."

Conversely, Justice Elana Kagan asserted that Congress "doesn't get much clearer" about the president's authority in the HEROES Act.

“We deal with congressional statutes every day that are really confusing," she said. "This one is not."

Lawyers representing Nebraska—one of the Republican-led states challenging Biden's plan—argued that the administration is using the Covid-19 pandemic as "a pretext for the president to fulfill his campaign promise" to forgive student loan debt.

Proponents of Biden's plan, meanwhile, stressed the importance of student debt relief.

"Addressing the student loan debt crisis puts money back in the pockets of families and communities who need it most," Taifa Smith Butler, president of the progressive advocacy group Dēmos, said in a statement.

"Black and Brown borrowers are disproportionately burdened by student debt, further inhibiting their ability to build wealth and economic power," she continued. "This ongoing crisis undermines the promise of higher education, leaving millions of people to put their dreams and lives on hold because of the crushing pain of student loan debt."

Lamenting that "a handful of ultraconservative officials, backed by special interest groups motivated by greed and dark money, want to bypass the president's authority at the expense of everyday working people," Smith Butler argued that "any action, plan, or agenda not rooted in equity to address the student loan debt crisis undermines America's legitimacy in being a world leader that truly cares about the future of its people."

Borrowers, activists, and U.S. lawmakers ralliedon the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on Monday night and Tuesday morning to voice support for Biden's plan. Members of Congress who spoke included Sens. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal(D-Wash.), and Reps. Ilhan Omar(D-Minn.), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), and Jamaal Bowman(D-N.Y.).

"This is about justice, this is about freedom, this is about economic security, this is about our future," said Jayapal. "Let's cancel this student debt, let's keep this movement going, and let's bring justice to everyone."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Borrowers, advocates, and lawmakers converged on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday night and Tuesday morning to defend President Joe Biden's stalled student debt relief plan as justices prepared to consider a pair of right-wing challenges to the popular proposal.

Attendees argued that Biden's move to erase up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers with individual incomes under $125,000 and modify the income-driven repayment program is just, legal, and necessary. Although it falls short of progressives' demands for universal cancellation, speakers made clear that the White House's plan is key to improving economic security.

"You should not have to face financial ruin because you want a damn education!" Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said during Tuesday morning's rally. "Education, from child care to graduate school, is a human right. It should be free to all."

"Today we say to the Supreme Court, listen to the needs of millions of struggling people," Sanders added. "Do the right thing. Support Biden's proposal to cancel student debt."

"President Biden's executive authority to provide student debt relief to borrowers is abundantly clear."

After Monday night's rally, some campaigners planned to camp out overnight in a bid to secure seats in the courtroom for Tuesday's oral arguments, which began at 10:00 am ET.

In both Biden v. Nebraska—brought by the Republican-led states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina—and Department of Education v. Brown—filed with the support of billionaires by a pair of plaintiffs who claim they were unfairly excluded from relief—the right-wing-controlled Supreme Court will decide whether Biden's plan exceeds the U.S. Department of Education's (DOE) authority and whether the lawsuits have legal standing.

In a Tuesday statement released ahead of the hearing, Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri said, "Today, far-right Republican attorneys general will bring baseless and politically motivated arguments to the Supreme Court in opposition to providing student debt relief promised to 40 million borrowers across our country."

"Regardless," said Bush, "President Biden's executive authority to provide student debt relief to borrowers is abundantly clear—just look at the facts."

Bush continued:

Fact: The basis of the Republican AG's case relies on the claim that this relief plan threatens the profits of loan servicers such as MOHELA and states will be financially injured. Yet, in response to an October letter I sent to MOHELA, they denied involvement in the case and discredited Republicans by stating that they don’t operate to make profits and remain committed to complying with contractual obligations set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.

Fact: Republicans claim that states, like Missouri, also rely on revenue from loan servicers like MOHELA. Yet, MOHELA hasn’t paid their bills to the state in over a decade and owes over $100 million to the state of Missouri.

Fact: President Biden's student debt relief plan would provide 40 million borrowers across our country—including 144,000 of my constituents—with life-changing financial relief. Following the economic devastation of the pandemic, we need transformative policy solutions to foster an equitable economic recovery.

"I know what it's like to carry crushing student debt and to have to make impossible choices between paying rent or paying an exorbitant student loan bill," said Bush. "And I've heard from people across the country who have shared how this relief would change their lives—from being able to afford child care, to paying their medical bills, to being able to put food on the table."

"The facts are clear, and I implore the Supreme Court to affirm the president's executive authority to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt," she added. "I'm confident the Biden-Harris administration's plan will withstand these hurdles and provide the much-needed relief to borrowers."

Right-wing lawmakers and activists filed numerous lawsuits after the White House announced its student debt cancellation bid in August. Applications for relief closed in November after a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump blocked Biden's plan. At the time, 26 million borrowers had already applied for or were automatically eligible for relief, and 16 million applications were given the green light and sent to loan servicers.

While GOP members of Congress argue that student debt relief is a regressive policy whose benefits would flow disproportionately to wealthy households, DOE data released earlier this month dispels that myth. According to a Politicoanalysis of the data, over 98% of people who applied before the portal was frozen reside in ZIP codes where the average per-capita income is under $75,000. Nearly two-thirds of applicants live in neighborhoods where the average person makes less than $40,000 per year.

With his relief initiative on hold, Biden extended the pause on federal student loan repayments—a measure that was introduced at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and had been set to expire on December 31, 2022—through June 30, 2023. Payments are set to restart 60 days after that date, or 60 days after the high court hands down its decision, whichever comes first.

The Debt Collective, however, tweeted Monday night: "We're not paying that damn student debt no matter what the Supreme Court and its corrupted judges say."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Like they used to say in the old neighborhood, some things ain't complicated. If your senator or representative won't tax the wealthy to protect and expand Social Security, then they care more about America's 728 billionaires than they do about the 66 million children, disabled, and older people currently receiving benefits—or the many millions that will follow them. They don't deserve to stay in office if they can't represent their own people.

Social Security is a vast, highly successful program. That makes it sound complicated. It's not. It was built on simple moral and operational principles. Among them was universality, the idea that the program should include everyone, and the notion that everyone should pay their fair share. Unfortunately, the millionaires and billionaires plundering the economy aren't pitching in the way they should.

That makes the choice for our elected officials simple, too: Are you going to make the wealthy step up or are you going to hide behind word-salad speeches and sleight-of-hand legislation? One thing is clear: any politician who expresses concern about Social Security's finances without being willing to tax the rich is a phony. Nothing but a phony.

We're looking at you, Mitt Romney.

The commission that worked on Social Security's finances in the 1980s raised the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, with the expectation that it would capture 90 percent of the income earned in this country. As Linda Benesch notes, however, rising income inequality has caused that number to plummet. As of February 28, 2023, a person making a million dollars per year has finished paying into Social Security for the year. (I calculated that figure for Jeff Bezos once; he was done paying his "fair share" about 28 seconds after the New Year's Eve ball dropped in Times Square!) Moreover, wealthy people earn the lion's share of their income from non-payroll sources like investments and business revenue. That isn't taxed for Social Security at all.

Social Security is a vast, highly successful program. That makes it sound complicated. It's not.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, people making less than $160,200 annually—that is, the vast majority of American workers—will be paying this tax all year.

That's why the idea of "scrapping the cap" on this tax is so compelling. Sen. Bernie Sanders' Social Security Expansion Act would re-impose this payroll tax on income above $250,000 and would add in the kinds of non-payroll income that mainly benefit the super-wealthy. In the House, a bill from Rep. John Larson would scrap the cap on income above $400,000.

Both bills substantially expand Social Security while bringing in substantial new revenue. The Larson bill would provide a sizeable down payment and the Sanders bill would fully fund Social Security, something politicians like Sen. Mitt Romney claim to be concerned about. Romney has wept crocodile tears over the program's expected revenue shortfall for years, but he's ruled out tax increases.

People say we live in a divided country, but Americans are united on this subject. 71 percent of voters polled after the last election want Congress to "protect Social Security and Medicare." The message to Capitol Hill is simple: do your damned jobs.

Romney's proposed bill, which in an Orwellian flourish is called "the TRUST Act," would create "congressional rescue committees" that would meet privately to determine the fate of critical social programs. Since Romney (who is extremely wealthy himself) opposes revenue hikes, that leaves only benefit cuts.

It will take ongoing political pressure to protect and expand Social Security. But it will be a great day when it happens.

Romney and his cosponsors hope to elude responsibility for their actions by hiding behind as-yet-unnamed committee members and their backroom deliberations. That includes some Democrats. The bill's Democratic backers, including Joe Manchin, are more likely than Romney to say that they're open to hiking taxes on the wealthy. But they're supporting a 'bipartisan' process with Republicans who will never go along with that.

These Dems know that. They're trying to have it both ways—sounding reasonable while promoting a process that's designed to lead to cuts and cuts alone.

And make no mistake: that's the play. Romney's bill uses a well-worn playbook for trying to cut popular programs. As the bill's summary says, "Congress must use specified expedited legislative procedures to consider legislation that is approved and submitted by the rescue committees." In other words, it gets rushed to the floor for a vote for an immediate up-or-down vote, without committee review or the chance to revise it.

That's an attempt to circumvent democracy. Public trust in our democracy has plunged to frightening lows as the wealthy buy more and more custom-designed legislation. The TRUST Act is designed to make an undemocratic and unaccountable political process even more undemocratic and unaccountable.

That's what the Simpson/Bowles Deficit Commission tried to do during the Obama administration. It's part of the old anti-government playbook laid out by billionaire Pete Peterson and the astroturf anti-social-welfare organizations he funded for decades. One pro-TRUST congressional Dem even used a Peterson-funded, consultant-designed phrase to defend his actions. If I hear the words "we have kicked this can down the road for too long" again I won't be responsible for my actions. Maybe somebody's can should get kicked, but it ain't yours or mine.

Maybe somebody's can should get kicked, but it ain't yours or mine.

Don't count the double-talkers out. There's a lot of money riding on this, and it's all with the billionaires. It will take ongoing political pressure to protect and expand Social Security. But it will be a great day when it happens. Taxing the wealthy will have other benefits, too. It will strengthen the social contract when the public sees their country's oligarchs being forced to assume some responsibility for the society that enriched them. It might reduce their stranglehold on politics a little, too.

This country's billionaires gainedmore than $2.1 trillion in wealth since the pandemic began and now have total estimated riches of $5.1 trillion. Meanwhile, almost half of all Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all. The average person on Social Security only gets $1,688 per month. And you're trying to tell us that's what this country can't afford?

As we used to say in the old neighborhood: Get outta here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Richard Eskow.

Sen. Bernie Sanders warned Monday that without swift congressional action, the $5.8 billion in federal funding relied on each year by community health centers around the United States will expire on September 30, resulting in a devastating "primary care cliff."

"Congress can and must avoid" such a scenario, says a statement from the Vermont Independent's office.

Sanders announced that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee he chairs is scheduled to hold a hearing this Thursday at 10:00 am ET titled, "Community Health Centers: Saving Lives, Saving Money."

Millions of people in the U.S. currently receive lifesaving services from community health centers in thousands of neighborhoods nationwide.

“In America today, community health centers are providing cost-effective primary medical care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs to 30 million people regardless of a person's bank account or insurance status," said Sanders.

"Not only do these health centers save lives and ease human suffering," Sanders continued. "They save Medicare, Medicaid, and our entire healthcare system billions of dollars each year because they avoid the need to go to expensive emergency rooms and hospitals."

"In the midst of a broken and dysfunctional healthcare system, I will be doing everything I can to expand community health centers so that every American has access to the primary care that they need and deserve," he added.

According to the senator's office:

Nearly 100 million Americans live in a primary care desert, nearly 70 million live in a dental care desert, and some 158 million Americans—nearly half the country's population—live in a mental healthcare desert. Today, 85 million people are uninsured or under-insured, over 500,000 people go bankrupt each year because of medically related debt, and more than 68,000 people die each year because they cannot afford the healthcare they desperately need. Expanding community health centers will begin to address this urgent crisis.

The following individuals are scheduled to testify at the hearing: Amanda Pears Kelly, chief executive officer of Advocates for Community Health and executive director of the Association of Clinicians for the Underserved; Ben Harvey, chief executive officer of Indiana Primary Health Care Association; Robert Nocon, assistant professor at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine; Sue Veer, president and chief executive officer of Carolina Health Centers; and Jessica Farb, managing director at the Government Accountability Office.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Is your salary less than $160,200? If so, you’re among the 94 percent of American workers who pay into Social Security all year long. But there’s a privileged group that’s about to stop paying into Social Security for the rest of 2023: People who make $1,000,000 a year. Their last day of contributing to Social Security is February 28.

That’s not even the worst of it. Tucker Carlson, who makes a reported $8 million a year, stopped contributing to Social Security on January 8. Joe Rogan, who reportedly makes $4 million a month, stopped contributing on January 2. Many billionaires receive all of their money in the form of bonuses and stock options. Elon Musk is the highest paid CEO in the world, but because none of it is wage income, he doesn’t pay a single penny into Social Security.

Right-wing politicians and cable news pundits frequently say that we “can’t afford” Social Security. Their solution? Cut benefits for working people who’ve paid into the program for our entire lives. They never suggest that we simply require the wealthiest people in America to pay into Social Security all year long, just like the rest of us. If we do, we can afford to not just protect but expand benefits.The Social Security Expansion Act, recently introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders(I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren(D-MA) along with its House counterpart, introduced by Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Val Hoyle (D-OR), would do just that. This legislation would require the wealthy to contribute into Social Security on all their income over $250,000 — including unearned investment income. It uses the additional revenue to increase Social Security’s modest benefits and keep the program strong through the end of the century and beyond.

Another piece of legislation, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, is sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-CT). This bill, which also lifts the cap on Social Security contributions and uses the revenue to expand benefits, had the support of about 90 percent of House Democrats in the last Congress.

The movement to finally require the wealthy to pay into Social Security all year long isn’t limited to Congress. President Joe Biden campaigned on lifting the cap and using the revenue for targeted benefit expansions. Polling shows that the idea has widespread support among the public, including 76 percent of all voters and 65 percent of Republican voters.

Unfortunately, Republican politicians are not listening to their voters. The Republican Study Committee, a group that counts 156 House Republicans as members, released a budget last year that would make massive cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the full retirement age to 70. It does not lift the cap or otherwise raise a dime of additional revenue from the wealthy.

Republican politicians are focused on protecting their wealthy donors, who are paying less into Social Security than ever. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently found that as inequality increases, a record share of all earnings are above the $160,200 cap on Social Security contributions.

In 1983, the last time Congress made major reforms to Social Security, they set the cap at a level that covered 90 percent of all wage income, leaving only 10 percent above the cap. But they didn’t count on the rising inequality of the last forty years. The percent of wage income outside the cap has nearly doubled — in 2021, nearly 20 percent of wage income was outside the cap. And that doesn’t even include unearned investment income, which accounts for the huge bulk of the income of the wealthiest!

EPI estimates that income falling above the cap due to rising inequality has cost the Social Security Trust Fund $1.4 trillion. That’s a massive windfall for the wealthy — and a massive loss for our Social Security system and the millions of Americans who rely on it.

Congress has the power to end this injustice. All it would take is Republican politicians listening to their voters, joining with Democrats to require the wealthy to pay into Social Security all year long and on all of their income. If they do, millionaires won’t exactly be celebrating next February 28 — but the rest of us will.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Linda Benesch.

In a previously unreported discussion, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders urged President Joe Biden to ensure Social Security is fully funded through the end of the century by increasing taxes on wealthier Americans, according to a report published Thursday.

During the hourlong meeting on January 25—which took place before Biden and Sanders (I-Vt.) shot a video together about student debt—the democratic socialist senator pushed the president to expand payroll taxes on high-income Americans, The Washington Postreports. Currently, only the first $160,000 in earnings is subject to payroll tax.

Sanders reportedly asked Biden to support his plan—which is highly unlikely to gain congressional approval—to expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 annually for each recipient. Biden was noncommittal, according to the senator.

"Extending the solvency of Social Security for 75 years and increasing benefits should be a no-brainer."

Earlier this month, Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren(D-Mass.) unveiled legislation, with a similar bill introduced in the House, to increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month.

"It is not enough to point out the reactionary, anti-worker vision of the Republican Party. We have to present a positive, pro-worker alternative," Sanders said. "The truth is that Social Security does have a solvency problem, and we have got to address that."

As the Post's Jeff Stein wrote:

Biden has for weeks leaned into the simple message that he is determined to block GOP efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare for millions of seniors. Left unanswered in these attacks is what Biden, himself, wants to do to address the massive funding shortfalls facing the programs, which face catastrophic benefit reductions within a decade if lawmakers take no action.

"Extending the solvency of Social Security for 75 years and increasing benefits should be a no-brainer," tweeted Stephanie Quilao, a California-based vegan climate activist and 2016 Sanders delegate. "It's an issue that most Americans agree with across the political spectrum. Scrap the cap only impacts the very wealthy, no one in the working class."

The advocacy group Social Security Works noted that "President Biden has pledged to protect Social Security and veto any legislation that cuts the program."

"That's a great first step," the group argued. "Now, he should release a plan to expand benefits."

The economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires wrote on Twitter that "Sen. Sanders is right—it's essential that Biden take a firm stand in support of Social Security, especially if that distinguishes Democrats from the GOP."

"Our seniors deserve a comfortable retirement," the group added, "and the GOP is not their friend."

Meanwhile, Republicans—despite howling protestations to the contrary—keep signaling their openness to slashing Social Security. Earlier this week, former Vice President Mike Pence, a potential 2024 GOP presidential hopeful, appeared on MSNBC and said that "we all know where the real issue is in terms of long-term debt for the United States."

"I respect the speaker's commitment to take Social Security and Medicare off the table for the debt ceiling negotiations," said Pence, referring to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) spot pledge to preserve the crucial social programs during Biden's State of the Union address, "[but] we've got to put them on the table in the long term."

In an opinion piece published by Common Dreams on Thursday, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman asserted that "poll after poll shows that such a potential Biden expansion plan would be extremely popular."

"Because Social Security is so important, painting the contrast—Democrats want to expand Social Security, Republicans want to cut it—is a much more powerful message than simply attacking Republicans, polling reveals," she continued.

"If the debate over cutting or expanding Social Security is a major issue in 2024, Democrats will be in a strong position to retain the White House and the Senate, while retaking the House," Altman added. "They will then be able to hold votes on Social Security—in the sunshine, not behind closed doors."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Senator Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) came on Face the Nation Sunday. In the course of the interview, Sanders lashed out at the new, extremist government in Israel, which includes a minister once convicted of incitement to racial violence and more than one figure belonging to Kahanist organizations of a sort that were at some points on the U.S. terrorism list.

Sanders, who is Jewish, has several beefs with the current government in Israel, not least that he is “embarrassed” by it. Israel should not reflect on Jewish Americans, who are only responsible for their own individual actions and speech. The world is unfair that way, though, and for some people the fascist takeover in Israel will raise questions about what sort of person would not only support it but also try to silence anyone who speaks out against it. Sanders clearly feels that it is an albatross about his neck.

For Sanders, a true Mensch, however, it isn’t only about Israel. He says he is worried about “what may happen to the Palestinian people.” The hate-filled Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir of the extremist Religious Zionism bloc have been put in charge of the three million occupied Palestinians in the West Bank, and are now in charge of the blockade against the 2 million besieged Palestinians of the occupied Gaza Strip. It is as though the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan were put in charge of millions of African-Americans.

Sanders, moreover, doesn’t just want to complain about this alarming state of offairs, which the CIA believes could result in a new round of violence. He said,

I mean, I haven’t said this publicly. But I think the United States gives billions of dollars in aid to Israel. And I think we’ve got to put some strings attached to that and say you cannot run a racist government. You cannot turn your back on a two-state solution. You cannot demean the Palestinian people there. You just can’t do it and then come to America and ask for money.

In Congress, Israel is the most sacred of sacred cows. Its lobbyists (who ought to have to register as foreign agents but who seldom do) don’t win every fight and they aren’t almighty or “in control.” But they are very, very powerful, as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee boasts at its website. So the Israeli government routinely violates international and U.S. law with impunity.

So for Sanders to suggest holding the some $4 billion in direct aid the U.S. gives Israel every year over Prime Minister Netanyahu’s head to make him back off his racist rhetoric and alliances, and to make him stop doing everything he can to forestall the rise of a Palestinian state, is bold indeed. So far, it is not entirely clear that Sanders and other critics of Netanyahu could get the votes in Congress that would be necessary to rein the prime minister in.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Juan Cole.

Bernie Sandersclutched both sides of the sturdy wooden podium at the UAW Local 578 hall in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, as he prepared to address a packed house of 400 union workers, students, campaign staff, and curiosity seekers. Looking like a cross between a history professor and a professional wrestler from a bygone era, the Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont leaned in, then rocked back and forth. He was pacing himself before launching into another stem-winder lecture on income inequality and the state's fiercely contested U.S. Senate race, whose Republican incumbent, Ron Johnson, lives in Oshkosh.

"We're going to have to knock down a wall or two," Sanders remarked. "This is a good turnout."

Oshkosh, a city of 67,000 people, was built by a union workforce. Its sawmills wereorganized in the late nineteenth century, and the University of Wisconsin campus a few miles up the road was the state's first teachers college,founded in 1871. Labor's roots run deep here on the western shore of Lake Winnebago.

In recent years, Winnebago County has become a bellwether. When it goes narrowly blue or grazes the 50 percent mark, Democrats win statewide. Blue-collar Oshkosh anchors the county, and Democrats must ramp up turnout here to win tightly contested races.

Democratslost the U.S. Senate race in November's midterm elections butprevailed in the race for governor, and kept the Oshkosh-based state assembly seat in the Democratic fold, thereby staving off a Republican run for a supermajority in the lower house. In November, Governor Tony Everslost Winnebago County by just one percentage point.

For the first time in decades, Democrats are on track to burnish their street credentials as a truly economic populist party, a sharp turn from the ideologies and philosophies of the previous three Democratic administrations: neoliberalism (Barack Obama), neo-neoliberalism (Bill Clinton), and rudderless-ism (Jimmy Carter).

Shifts in the gubernatorial race have beensignificant since2010 in the outer-ring suburbs of Milwaukee, namely Waukesha and Ozaukee Counties. But movement in counties like Winnebago and Eau Claire—the latter of which saw a sixteen-point increase for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate between 2010 and 2022—which have college and working class populations, was not as well noticed. Democrats held their own in rural areas likeWood County, home to Verso Paper, which wasshuttered two years earlier and had supported more than 900 localjobs, along with countless logging jobs in the Northwoods.

One month after Democrats beat expectations in the 2022 midterm elections by holding on to the U.S. Senate and denying Republicans a working majority in the House, President Joe Biden broke from his populist, pro-labor moorings and spiked a good labor contract proposal by the railway workers' unions.

When rank-and-file members of four of the twelve unions rightlyrejected a proposal that did not grant them enough paid sick days, Bideninvoked the Railway Labor Act of 1926 andsent the rebuffed contract to Congress for ratification. It was the first time a President had applied that law since 1992, when then-U.S. Senator Joe Biden was one of just six Senators tooppose the measure.

Biden breached the trust of American workers and did untold damage to hisbrandas the "most pro-union President you've ever seen." Progressive Democrats understood both the symbolism and the substance of the President's actions. But thanks to quick work by Sanders and Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, of Washington State, progressives put a separate measure up for a vote that included seven days of paid sick leave, to add to the railway contract bill. However, the Senatefailed to reach cloture, and the measure died. (Yet another reason to ax the filibuster.)

The Railway Labor Act is an outdated labor law that was designed to placate workers at a time when they were achieving significant momentum. Its roots were in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, when workers took one too many pay cuts on the chin and decided to fight back. One striking worker famouslystated, "I might as well die by the bullet as to starve to death by inches."

Laws were soon passed to set up arbitration panels to salve workers' grievances. But members of Congress struggled to pin down an effective mediation and arbitration system to resolve grievances. President Woodrow Wilson came close to fixing this when henationalized the rail industry in 1917. But shortly after World War I, Wilson returned power to the railroad owners, and the industry oligarchs have been screwing over workers ever since.

Then came the cure-all: the New Deal'sNational Labor Relations Act of 1935. It, too, was designed to quell labor unrest. President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not allow unregulated union activity to upend the New Deal. While the act'strue intent was to pump the brakes on union momentum, its initial effects were quite promising for the labor movement. Unions became recognized across the country and among all private-sector industries. By the end of the Great Depression, enrollment in unions had shot up almostthree-fold, from 7 to 20 percent of employed workers.

But as soon as labor started grabbing the upper hand, Congress responded with the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over President Harry Truman's veto, which limited job actions, made union dues voluntary, and prohibited closed shops. The bipartisan vote spelled the beginning of the end of the modern-day labor movement. When it took effect in the aftermath of World War II,one out of three private-sector workers were in a union. Three years later, union density had fallen by 10 percent. It rebounded briefly, but by the end of the 1960s, its downward trajectory was clear.

Tim Jacobson of UAW Local 578 looks exactly like you would expect a union steward to look. He has a commanding presence, is tall, muscular, and has a frame built for a hard hat. He hunches over slightly, no doubt the result of decades on the Oshkosh Defense assembly line fastening bolts and panels onto military tactical trucks.

Elbowing his way through a scrum of fans after Sanders's speech, Jacobson presented the Senator with a T-shirt from the union local. Sanders gladly accepted it, held it up to an approving crowd, and slipped out the side door.

Jacobson was stoked that Sanders had made it to his union hall. For almost two years, he and his union brothers and sisters had been trying to grab the attention of national leaders. In June 2021, Oshkosh Corporation, the parent company of his employer,selected Spartanburg, South Carolina, rather than Wisconsin, to fill a multi-billion-dollar U.S. Postal Service (USPS) contract to build the next fleet of electric postal vehicles. The contract was won on the merits and track record of the work by Jacobson and his colleagues, not because of an empty warehouse in the Palmetto State, leading many critics toaccuse the company of pulling a bait-and-switch.

Aside from a briefclashin the House Committee on Oversight and Reform earlier in the year between Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, and a USPS representative, Local 578's plight garnered scant national attention. While most would have given up, Jacobson soldiered on. His persistence and advocacy were the reason Sanders took a break from a nationwide campus tour to get out the youth vote—a vote that made the difference in the midterm elections—to meet and rally with workers in Oshkosh.

What happened to Jacobson represents a bigger problem—not in organized labor, but in American and global industry. Chief executive officers are recruited not for their knowledge and understanding of how a certain industry works, but for other factors.According to Byron Hanson of the Curtin Graduate School of Business, "Industry experience is not as big a success factor as what people think it would be. My sense of success factors is more context-related or expertise-related."

While worker wages have stagnated in the past four decades, chief executive officer compensation has skyrocketed. From 1978 to 2021, it increased by 1,460 percent, according toan analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Concurrently, the average worker's compensation package has grown at literally 1 percent of that rate.

During a visit to a local paper mill in the Fox River Valley, I once asked a now former paper executive what was in a rail car below his office window. "I'm not sure," he responded. "In fact, I don't really know what we actually do, I'm just here to run the place."

While he undoubtedly knew the difference between a paper roll and a roll of toilet paper, the executive's limited insight into a fundamental part of his business was revealing. If he didn't know what the hell was going on, who did? One year later, the company fell into bankruptcy.

It's union workers like Jacobson who dedicate an entire career to a single industry at a single plant. Unsurprisingly, manufacturing workers have the highest tenure—five years—of all major private industries in the United States. And for organized shops, with theunion wage premium, workers stick around longer.

When workers at Appleton Coated in Combined Locks, Wisconsin, rallied tosave their mill after it had been sold at areceivership sale in late 2017, it was the union that convinced a judge to give them another shot. And it was the workers' expertise that executed a new business model that made the company profitable. (Just over two years later, the owner—a scrap dealer that had bought the mill for parts—made tens of millions of dollars in profit byreselling it in 2020.)

When it came time to bring 1,000 union jobs to Oshkosh, it was Jacobson and UAW Local 578 President Bob Lynk who flew to Washington, D.C., to make their case to USPS officials and to lobby their members of Congress. Meanwhile, Oshkosh Defense executives were feted by anti-union South Carolina business groups, including being given the South Carolina Manufacturing Commerce and Expo's "Smart Move Award" for 2022.

If the workers are the ones tending to the shop, shouldn't they figure more prominently in industry? And shouldn't they be treated a little better?

Democrats should make clear whose side they are really on in the new Congress. One way to do that is to adopt an economic bill of rights, not unlike the one FDRproposed in January 1944, or what labor activists like University of Wisconsin–Green Bay professor emeritus Harvey Kaye and writerJohn Nichols, a contributor to The Progressive, have been championing of late. And that is tolay out in no uncertain terms what the American worker can count on from the Democratic Party in order to achieve "the essentials of a good life, regardless of their income, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin."

In states like Wisconsin, where Democrats beat expectations and met crucial goals like re-electing Tony Evers as governor and denying the GOP a supermajority in the state legislature, credit is owed to folks like Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, for injecting real resources into crucial races. Equally important, however, are workers like Jacobson, who should be credited with reminding elected leaders and candidates who it was that built the Democratic Party—and the nation—in the first place.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Thomas M. Nelson.

Appearing on "Face the Nation" on CBS Sunday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sandersdiscussed a number of issues he covers in his upcoming book, It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism, including his proposal to ensure the news media acts in the interest of the general public and not wealthy corporations and powerful interest groups.

Host Margaret Brennan described his proposal as "a New Deal for journalism."

As some European countries do, the Vermont Independent senator said, the U.S. should have "nonpartisan public funding of media" to ensure local news outlets can stay afloat and keep communities informed about "their city council, their school board."

Such a system would also prevent news networks like CBS from relying on advertising dollars, which Medicare for All advocates have blamed for playing a role in the corporate media's hostility towards a nationalized healthcare system and other progressive proposals for the public good.

"What I say in the book is that look, I've done 1,000 interviews, like I'm doing with you right now," Sanders told Brennan. "And nobody has ever come up to me, not one reporter—not you, not anybody else—and said, 'Bernie, why are we spending twice as much on healthcare as any other country and yet we have 85 million uninsured or underinsured?' How many programs at CBS, NBC, ABC had on why we have a dysfunctional healthcare system? Does that have anything to do with who owns the major networks? 'Bernie, what are you going to do about income and wealth inequality?' ... 'Why are billionaires paying an effective tax rate lower than working class people?' No one asked me those questions."

As Luke Savage reported at Jacobin following the 2020 presidential election, viewers of the Democratic primary debates weren't informed by moderators that Medicare for All was supported by a majority of Americans, and ad breaks featured "health insurance and pharmaceutical companies seizing every opportunity to bombard viewers with misleading industry agitprop about the breathtaking wonders of profit-driven healthcare."

He added:

CNN’s Detroit debate is a case in point; the network was demanding at least $300,000 from companies advertising, with a single thirty-second spot costing an estimated $110,000—and groups like the so-called Partnership for America’s Health Care Future (in practice, a front for various corporate interests), filled out many of the slots. Regardless of how anchors or hosts think about an issue like healthcare, the networks' basic model essentially precludes meaningful critique of the status quo by design. As long as it persists, don't expect to see the public interest or popular opinion reflected anywhere on cable TV.

To counter that dynamic, Sanders argued on "Face the Nation," a New Deal for journalism including publicly funded media is "an idea that we should explore."

In the interview, the senator spoke about his support for attaching "some strings" to U.S. funding for Israel to help pressure the country to end its human rights abuses against Palestinians.

Sanders also reiterated his call for the Democratic Party to focus on representing the interests of all working people.

"What we need to do is have a movement of Black workers, Latino workers, white workers, gay workers, straight workers, and understand that we're all in this together," said Sanders. "I don't care if you're living in rural Iowa, where I spent a lot of time, alright, you can't afford health care, you can't afford to send your kid to college, or you're living in San Francisco. So too often we forget about the economic issues that unite us. The vast majority of the people know the pharmaceutical industry is ripping us off. The vast majority of the people understand that we have to improve our educational system. Let's work on that."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

The New York Times‘ Sheryl Gay Stolberg (2/12/23) describes Sen. Bernie Sanders as “wearing his trademark scowl” when she uses his becoming chair of the Senate health committee as an opportunity to ask him about running for president rather than about healthcare.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the new chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions—and the New York Times has something to say about it. In a piece by veteran reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg (2/12/23) headlined, “Bernie Sanders Has a New Role. It Could Be His Final Act in Washington,” the paper demonstrates once again (FAIR.org, 2/24/16, 10/1/19, 1/30/20) how the lens through which corporate media view progressive politicians colors their coverage.

Stolberg kicks things off by noting that Sanders has “made no secret of his disdain for billionaires,” and now “has the power to summon them to testify before Congress—and he has a few corporate executives in his sight.” On the list: Amazon founder (and owner of the Washington Post) Jeff Bezos and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Writes Stolberg:

He views them as union busters whose companies have resorted to “really vicious and illegal” tactics to keep workers from organizing. He has already demanded that Mr. Schultz testify at a hearing in March.

We might point out here that these “views” aren’t just Sanders’ opinion. Less than two weeks before Stolberg’s piece appeared, a judge ruled that Amazon violated labor law trying to stop unionization efforts in Staten Island warehouses. (Stolberg might also see her colleague David Streitfeld’s lengthy investigation published in the Times—3/16/21—headlined, “How Amazon Crushes Unions.”) The National Labor Relations Board had filed 19 formal complaints against Starbucks as of last August—as Stolberg herself acknowledges two-thirds of the way into the article—and just ruled against the company in a union-busting case in Philly.

‘Angry letter’

Bernie Sanders (seen here smiling in a TMZ photo—8/7/22) was once described by the New York Times (6/10/16) as “unkempt and impatient, often angry.”

But another passage caught our eye:

Mr. Sanders is clearly operating on two tracks. Last week, in a move that might surprise critics who view him as unbending, he partnered with a Republican, Senator Mike Braun of Indiana, to call on rail companies to offer seven days of paid sick leave to their workers—a provision that the Senate defeated last year when it passed legislation to avert a rail strike.

But he also sent a curt letter to Mr. Schultz, giving him until Tuesday to respond confirming his attendance at the hearing. That followed an earlier, angry letter in which Mr. Sanders urged the Starbucks chief to “immediately halt your aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign.” A Starbucks spokesman said the company was considering the request for Mr. Schultz to testify and was working to “offer clarifying information” about its labor practices.

To the Times, this is a lesson in contrasts in which Sanders can sometimes be flexible and pragmatic, but at others “unbending” and “angry.” But the truth is that the “two tracks” here are actually following exactly the same script: calling on corporate bosses to treat their workers fairly, and if they don’t, asking them to come in for questioning.

Sanders issued his warning to Schultz last March when Schultz took over as interim CEO, writing, “Please respect the Constitution of the United States and do not illegally hamper the efforts of your employees to unionize.” Nearly a year later, with no progress, he’s calling Schultz in to testify.

In the case of the rail companies, local news station WAVY (2/11/23) reported that “Sanders promises if he doesn’t see change, he will question railway executives under oath in a Senate hearing.” Sound familiar?

The only difference between the two—and what really matters to the Times—is that in one case, a Republican joined him, which by corporate media’s definition makes it a flexible and pragmatic action, whereas in the other, no Republicans on the committee signed the letter. No bipartisanship? No pragmatism. It’s a golden rule for political reporters that encourages compromise for the sake of compromise, no matter what the public actually wants.

And it elevates empty rhetoric over more serious action. Asking big companies to be nice to workers is framed in a positive light, but trying to back it up with any more serious action gets you called out as “curt,” “angry” and “unbending.”

(We’ll let you decide for yourself if this standard-looking letter from the committee, giving Schultz a week to respond and a month to prepare testimony, is “curt.” It’s not clear what Stolberg was looking for to make it more polite; apologies for taking up a very important man’s time?)

The number of negative words used to describe Sanders in this one article is remarkable. In addition to “unbending,” “curt” and “angry,” he’s “combative,” full of “disdain,” a former “left-wing socialist curiosity” who “rants,” makes demands, has a “trademark scowl” and can almost never be seen smiling in the Capitol.

‘Ever combative’

Bernie Sanders “already has,” Stolberg writes, “provide[d] a wonderful target for Republicans to shoot at.”

Bernie Sanders “already has,” Stolberg writes, “provide[d] a wonderful target for Republicans to shoot at.”The end of the piece perfectly illustrates the eternal disconnect between Sanders and reporters like Stolberg:

With the recent retirement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat who served for 48 years, Mr. Sanders is finally the senior senator from Vermont. Asked how he felt, he said, “Pretty good.” Then, ever combative, he shot back, “How do you feel?”

“How do you feel?” Them’s fightin’ words!

Stolberg continued:

He said people who wonder about whether he will run again—and by people, he meant reporters—should “keep wondering.”

Why? “Because I’ve just told you, and this is very serious,” he said, wearing his trademark scowl. “If you think about my record, I take this job seriously. The purpose of elections is to elect people to do work, not to keep talking about elections.”

Just as they prioritize compromise over meaningful political action, political reporters consistently prioritize the horserace over substantive issues, all to the detriment of democracy. But those reporters cling to the fiction that they’re strictly observers—and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is dismissed under a steady stream of pejorative adjectives.

ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.

The post You’d Scowl, Too, if Media Covered You Like Bernie Sanders appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Julie Hollar.

How can we measure the work a particular society truly values? Take-home pay can make as good a yardstick as any: The lower an occupation’s compensation, the lower the esteem a society is showing for that occupation.

In the United States, our pay data show, no profession faces a reality that makes this link plainer — and uglier — than teaching.

All sorts of metrics can help us measure the level of our society’s esteem for the teaching profession. Are young people, for instance, interested in becoming teachers? Between 2008 and 2019, teacher ed enrollments in the United States plunged by over a third. Are current teachers feeling valued? Between 2019 and 2022, teacher retirements and resignations rose 40 percent.

But nothing says “esteem” more directly than paychecks, and, by that metric, American society has for years been systematically devaluing the work teachers do. Between 1996 and 2021, the Economic Policy Institute’s Sylvia Allegretto detailed last August, average teacher weekly wages adjusted for inflation rose a miniscule $29. Over the same years, inflation-adjusted weekly wages for other college graduates rose over 15 times faster, up $445.

What has this shortfall in overall compensation and esteem meant for America’s schools? In the current school year, the U.S. Department of Education reports, every single state in the union has reported teacher shortages, with 46 states citing shortages of science teachers and 44 missing math teachers.

Overall, some 36,000 teaching positions nationwide are going vacant, with at least 163,000 additional positions getting “filled” with unqualified teachers. Both these numbers, concludes a study by researchers at Brown University’s Annenberg Institute, represent “conservative estimates of the extent of teacher shortages nationally.”

Some observers of our contemporary education scene are contending, Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond noted last month, that the teacher resignations and vacancies we’re experiencing shouldn’t particularly concern us because they appear mostly in certain subjects and parts of the country. But that amounts to arguing, Darling-Hammond observes, that a house isn’t on fire “because only three of its five rooms are burning.”

Our educational house most definitely isburning, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanderstold a town hall on America’s teacher pay crisis at the U.S. Capitol earlier this week.

“I want the day to come, sooner than later, when we are going to attract the best and brightest young people in our country into teaching,” said Sanders. “I want those young people to be proud of the profession that they have chosen.”

All teachers, the Vermont senator believes, should be earning at least $60,000 a year. Some 43 percent of teachers currently fall short of that mark. In Florida, the average teacher earns less than $50,000, just $49,583.

How do the bargain-basement paychecks that go to teachers compare with compensation for other professions? Not well at all. In Florida, accountants make $76,320 annually, 54 percent more than teachers. And software developers in Florida average $105,200, 112 percent more.

But the most stunning pay contrasts show up when we contrast teacher pay to the compensation of our nation’s most generously rewarded power suits.

“The top 15 hedge fund managers on Wall Street,” notes Senator Sanders, “make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America — over 120,000 teachers.”

Sanders will soon be introducing legislation, the Pay Teachers Act, to ensure that all teachers make at least $60,000 annually and guarantee significantly higher pay for educators “who have made teaching their profession — working on the job for 10, 20, 30 years.”

Where could the funding for this teacher pay revolution come from? From a tax revolution.

Public schools across the nation have historically relied on the local property taxes that average Americans pay. Property taxes today are still supplying 40 percent of total public education funding. These taxes all fall on the primary source of wealth for average families, the owner-occupied home. But America’s rich hold most of their wealth in financial instruments, a category of wealth that essentially goes untaxed, even after death, since the current federal estate tax asks so little from families sitting on grand fortunes.

Senator Sanders has proposed a fix: a thorough-going reform of the federal estate tax. Rich married couples last year could exempt $23.4 million of their fortunes from all estate tax and pay no more than a 40 percent tax on any dollar of wealth above that. The Sanders legislation — the “For the 99.5 Percent Act” — would lower that estate tax exemption to $7 million per married couple and up the minimal estate tax rate on wealth above that level to 45 percent.

Wealthier estates would face even higher rates, with wealth over $1 billion facing a 65 percent estate tax.

The Sanders legislation also takes aim at current loopholes that lower the rate of estate tax that the families of dead deep pockets actually face. Over his legislation’s first 10 years, Senator Sanders notes, the federal treasury would collect an additional $450 billion in estate tax revenue, “precisely how much the Teacher Pay Act would cost.”

“Let’s be clear,” the senator added at the U.S. Capitol teacher pay town hall Monday. “If we can provide over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent and large corporations, please don’t tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every teacher in America is paid at least $60,000 a year.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Sam Pizzigati.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday connected the spate of recent train derailments in the United States to Wall Street-backed cost-cutting and other policy decisions that have decimated the rail industry's workforce and compromised safety for the sake of larger profits.

"When rail companies reduced their workforce by 30% under orders from Wall Street, bad things happen—like the dangerous derailments in Ohio and Michigan," Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, wrote on social media. "Rail companies not only must provide seven days of paid sick leave to workers, they must stop skimping on safety measures."

The toxic crash in East Palestine, Ohio has drawn greater scrutiny to a widely adopted model known as Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), which rail workers have said is at least partially to blame for the derailment and broader crises across the industry. Under PSR, The New York Times explains, rail companies focus on "running rigid, consistent schedules, streamlining processes and routes, and cutting back on equipment and employees."

According to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, Class I railroads—including Norfolk Southern, the company at the center of the derailments in Ohio and Michigan—have collectively slashed their workforces by 29% over the past six years, terminating roughly 45,000 employees including safety personnel.

An analysis conducted by USA Today earlier this month found that while "catastrophic events involving trains and chemicals may be uncommon, [hazardous material] cargo violations caught during inspections of rail shippers and operators appear to be climbing."

"Over the last five years, federal inspectors have flagged 36% more hazmat violations compared with the five years prior—and fines for those are up 16%.," the outlet noted.

One Norfolk Southern employee told Motherboard this week that train derailments and other rail disasters are "going to keep happening if regulators continue to allow this business model to ravage our nation's freight rail system in the pursuit of profit."

"My fear is that these corporations have so much money and political influence that nothing is going to change," the worker added.

"Secretary Pete Buttigieg must heed rail workers' calls and implement common-sense regulations to ensure this never happens again."

In addition to fighting to deny their increasingly exhausted workers paid sick leave, Norfolk Southern and other hugely profitable Class I rail carriers have lobbied aggressively against regulatory changes aimed at enhancing industry safety practices.

The Norfolk Southern train cars that derailed in East Palestine were not being regulated as hazardous, despite carrying a known carcinogen that was later released into the air.

"After rail industry donors delivered more than $6 million to GOP campaigns, the Trump administration—backed by rail lobbyists and Senate Republicans—rescinded part of [a] rule aimed at making better braking systems widespread on the nation's rails," The Lever reported earlier this month. "Specifically, regulators killed provisions requiring rail cars carrying hazardous flammable materials to be equipped with electronic braking systems to stop trains more quickly than conventional air brakes."

In the wake of the East Palestine derailment, progressive lawmakers have ramped up pressure on U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to take steps to more strictly regulate railroads as he suggests—incorrectly—that federal law is preventing him from doing so.

"The train derailment in East Palestine is an ecological and humanitarian disaster caused by a predatory rail industry that constantly puts profit over people," Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) said Thursday. "Secretary Pete Buttigieg must heed rail workers' calls and implement common-sense regulations to ensure this never happens again."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Progressives are looking at U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh's expected departure as an opportunity for President Joe Biden to demonstrate his professed commitment to workers' rights by placing at the helm of the Labor Department a leader who will unabashedly call out the corporate greed that has left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet in the face of historic inequality.

After hockey news outlet The Daily Faceoff first reported earlier this month that Walsh is planning to step down from the Labor Department to lead the National Hockey League's Players' Association, Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote to Biden to put forward two potential nominees, urging him to select someone who is "a champion of workers."

In a letter dated February 10, Sanders recommended former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served for four years under former President Bill Clinton and has since written and spoken out extensively about income inequality, or Association of Flight Attendants-CWA International President Sara Nelson, one of the best-known labor leaders in the United States today.

"There are a wealth of potential avenues an ambitious, fearless, hard-nosed labor secretary may take to actually make a real material impact on the survival of the American labor movement."

"Reich," said Sanders, "would hit the ground running. He has been instrumental in advancing workplace protections, workforce development, and worker power for decades."

Nelson "has been a union member for nearly 30 years, has been a leading voice for worker rights and is a very strong communicator of progressive values," wrote the senator, who chairs the Senate committee that would hold confirmation hearings on a nominee.

"She has a thorough understanding of federal labor laws and how these laws apply to workers, and her experience sets her up for success in this job," he added.

Sanders' recommendation of Nelson was bolstered on Thursday by an opinion piece written by Fast Company editor Morgan Clendaniel, who said Walsh's imminent departure leaves Biden with "a renewed chance to fulfill his stated desire to be considered "the most pro-union president you've ever seen," as Biden promised he would be.

Nelson has spoken out against corporate greed, saying the labor movement is "the only check" against an economic system in which CEO compensation surged nearly 1,000% between 1978 and 2018, while workers were paid just 12% more on average.

A deep understanding and engagement with the realities of soaring income inequality could help ensure the Labor Department is helmed by a leader who is on the side of labor, wrote Clendaniel.

"The president talks a good game for workers, and you can see the visceral thrill it gives him in speeches when he calls for the passage of thelabor-friendly PRO Act or when he met with [Amazon Labor Union leader Christian] Smalls and supported his efforts, saying, 'Amazon, here we come,'" he wrote. "But what better way for President Biden to show that he actually has labor's back than elevating Nelson?"

As a union leader, Nelson played a key role in negotiating provisions in the pandemic-era CARES Act that temporarily banned airline stock buybacks, capped executive pay, and tied rules that centered workers' rights to funding for the airline industry.

"U.S. workers deserve a labor secretary that is unapologetically pro-worker," former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, an ally of Sanders, said last week.

Former U.S. Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), has also been suggested by former labor reporter Steven Greenhouse as a possible contender who could draw from his experience as a trade union organizer and leading his state's Labor Department, while Deputy Secretary Julie Su has been named as a likely interim secretary and a potential nominee for the permanent role.

The National Immigration Law Center, National Education Association president Becky Pringle, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have expressed support for Su, who previously served as California's labor commissioner and launched a statewide "Wage Theft Is a Crime" campaign.

Silicon Valley companies Uber and Lyft, which have aggressively campaigned against workers' rights legislation, are reportedly lobbying against Su's potential nomination.

Meanwhile, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is reportedly pushing the White House to nominate former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), a corporate Democrat who progressives have blamed for the party's failure to maintain control of the House after the midterms in November, as he chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the time.

"Progressives really don't want Maloney, but neither really does anyone else except Pelosi," a veteran Democratic strategist toldThe Hill Thursday. "He has literally absolutely no qualifications for this job and it's so random."

While Walsh was "incredibly" the first labor secretary to stand on a picket line alongside workers without also meeting with anti-union management, wrote independent reporter Kim Kelly at Fast Company on Tuesday, the former Boston mayor's position at the Labor Department amounted to a missed opportunity, according to critics.

Walsh sided with railroad companies over workers during negotiations regarding a contract that employees were ultimately forced to accept, even though it included no paid sick leave, and he has not addressed the Warrior Met Coal strike in Alabama, which has now been going on for nearly two years as workers demand fair pay, benefits, and working conditions.

The outgoing labor secretary "rose to power during a time when the institutions of organized labor grew sclerotic, and privately accepted their own inability to create fundamental change," wrote Hamilton Nolan at MSNBC last week. "In 2022, the percentage of workers who are union members in America declined once again."

Walsh has left the next labor secretary with "a lot of catching up to do," wrote Kelly at Fast Company. "During a moment of historically high public approval for unions and historically low union membership, there are a wealth of potential avenues an ambitious, fearless, hard-nosed labor secretary may take to actually make a real material impact on the survival of the American labor movement."

"Here's hoping we get one of those next time," she added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

A trio of progressive U.S. senators on Wednesday pressed the CEO of Kroger to answer longtime worker allegations of rampant wage theft, accusations that continue as the supermarket giant pursues a contentious megamerger with erstwhile competitor Albertsons.

"We are writing today regarding alarming new reports of Kroger's involvement in the mistreatment of workers and consumers through widespread and unresolved wage theft," Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote in a letter to Kroger Company chairman and CEO Rodney McMullen. "These reports indicate that 'systemic and widespread errors' by Kroger resulted in thousands of your employees experiencing delays and missing wages in their paychecks in late 2022."

Warren explained on Twitter that "Kroger stiffed its own workers while pushing a merger deal with Albertsons that could harm both consumers and workers," and that the senators "are calling them out for lining their pockets at the expense of their employees."

Kroger workers say a big part of the problem is MyTime, a new payroll system rolled out last year that McMullen claimed would "simplify day-to-day work" but instead has resulted in problems including missing pay and incomplete checks.

"I'm tired of having to beg for pay that's due to me," one Kroger employee toldPopular Information last month.

In January, hundreds of Kroger employees, most of them members of the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 Union, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging widespread wage theft.

The senators' letter states that "given your company's record of anti-worker policies, and your ongoing attempt to push through a merger that would harm both consumers and workers, we are writing to request a full explanation of how your workers will be compensated for any lost or delayed wages, and how you will prevent future wage theft."

The lawmakers asked McMullen to answer questions including:

• How many missing or incorrect paychecks were reported to the company in 2022, and how many of these reports were related to the MyTime system?
• What was the total amount of wages owed to workers that Kroger failed to pay in 2022?
• How much back pay has Kroger issued to date for missing or incorrect paychecks in 2022?
• Is Kroger continuing to use the MyTime payroll system, despite significant accuracy issues, and if so, what steps has the company put in place to prevent further wage theft?
• Have any company executives had pay, bonuses, or other compensation withheld or clawed back as a result of the systemic problems affecting workers' pay in 2022?
• Will you commit to fully redressing all workers affected by missing or late pay prior to taking any additional steps to move forward with the Albertsons merger?

Warren, Sanders, and Wyden are among the many progressive and labor voices urging the federal government to reject Kroger's proposed merger with Albertsons. Together, the two supermarkets and their subsidiaries employ more than 710,000 workers at around 5,000 stores in 48 states and Washington, D.C. and rake in $208 billion in annual revenue, second only to Walmart.

In a bid to fend off antitrust challenges to the proposed merger, Kroger and Albertsons announced earlier this week that they would sell off as many as 300 stores, mostly in areas where the two chains overlap, GlobeStreported.

"This merger would exacerbate corporate consolidation in the grocery sector, and likely result in the shuttering of some stores across the country and the firing of workers from both Kroger and Albertsons."

"Even as your company was failing to address concerns about systemic wage theft, you have been pushing through a $24.6 billion merger with Albertsons Companies, Inc. that further threatens workers' wages and jobs and hurts consumers by reducing competition among grocers," the lawmakers' letter asserts. "This merger would exacerbate corporate consolidation in the grocery sector, and likely result in the shuttering of some stores across the country and the firing of workers from both Kroger and Albertsons."

According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, more than $3 billion in stolen wages were recovered for U.S. workers between 2017 and 2020—a fraction of the $50 billion EPI says is stolen by employers each year. By contrast, the FBI said the total value of all 267,988 reported U.S. robberies in 2019 was around $482 million.

The lawmakers' letter came as Communications Workers of America and the National Employment Law Project published a study in which 9 in 10 surveyed workers at independent authorized retailers of telecom titans AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon in 43 states said they've experienced wage theft.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The following are the prepared remarks of a speech delivered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, February 15th, 2023 about the growth of greed in the pharmaceutical industry and what Congress can do to end it.

M. President: There is a lot of discussion about how “divided” our nation is and, on many issues, that is absolutely true.

But on one of the most important matters facing our country the American people – Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Progressives, and Conservatives – could not be more united.

And that is the need to take on the unprecedented corporate greed of the pharmaceutical industry and to substantially lower the outrageously high price of prescription drugs.

Today, millions of Americans are making the unacceptable choice between feeding their families or buying the medicine they need. Seniors from Vermont to Alaska are forced to split their pills in half and many have died because they did not have enough money to fill their prescriptions.

No one knows for sure precisely how many people die because they cannot afford to buy their prescription drugs.

But a 2020 study by West Health found that by the year 2030, over 100,000 Medicare recipients could die prematurely each and every year because they cannot afford to buy their life-saving medicine.

M. President: All over this country, the American people are asking the following questions:

How does it happen that people in the United States pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?

Why is it that nearly one out of every four Americans cannot afford their prescription medication?

How does it happen that nearly half of all new drugs in the United States cost more than $150,000 a year?

M. President: A few years ago, I took a busload of people with diabetes from Detroit, Michigan, to a drugstore in Windsor, Ontario. And there, in Canada, they were able to purchase the same insulin products they bought in the United States for one-tenth the price.

In 1999, 24 years ago, I took another busload of people – this time women with breast cancer — from St. Albans, Vermont to a doctor’s office and a pharmacy in Montreal, Canada. And, there again, with tears in their eyes, they were able to purchase tamoxifen for one-tenth of the price charged in the United States.

M. President: How is it that in Canada and other major countries the same medications manufactured by the same companies, sold in the same bottles are available for a fraction of the price that we pay in the United States?

Well, the answers to all of these questions are not complicated. In fact, they can be summed up in just three words: Unacceptable corporate greed.

M. President: Over the past 25 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent $8.5 billion on lobbying and over $745 million on campaign contributions to get Congress to do its bidding.

Incredibly, last year, drug companies hired over 1,700 lobbyists including the former congressional leaders of both major political parties – over 3 pharmaceutical industry lobbyists for every Member of Congress.

Meanwhile, as Americans die because they cannot afford the medications they need, the pharmaceutical industry makes much higher profit margins than other major industries. Between the years 2000-2018, drug companies in this country made $8.6 trillion dollars in profits.

In fact, in 2021, just ten pharmaceutical companies in the United States – AbbVie, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck, Moderna, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals – made a total of more than $102 billion in profits up 137 percent from the previous year.

But it’s not just industry profits. It is the exorbitant compensation packages that the pharmaceutical industry has given to its CEOs and other executives within the industry.

According to a report done by the HELP Committee staff released today in 2021, while hundreds of thousands of Americans died from COVID, 50 pharmaceutical executives in just 10 companies made $1.9 billion in total compensation.

These same 50 executives are in line to receive up to $2.8 billion in golden parachutes once they leave their companies.

For example, AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez’s made nearly $62 million in total compensation – in one year.

The CEO of Eli Lilly, David Ricks, made more than $67 million – in one year.

Incredibly, the CEO of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Leonard Schleifer, made nearly $453 million in total compensation – in one year.

Meanwhile, M. President, while we are told over and over again that the reason we have outrageously high drug prices in America is because of the need to invest in research and development, it turns out that, over the past decade, 14 major pharmaceutical companies spent $747 billion not to research and develop life-saving drugs, but to make their wealthy shareholders even wealthier by buying back their own stock and handing out huge dividends. It turns out that the drug companies spent $87 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than what they spent on research and development. Let me repeat that. Drug companies spent $87 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than on research and development.

M. President: The truth is we are dealing here today not just with an economic issue in terms of the high cost of prescription drugs. We are dealing with a profound moral issue and that is: Is it morally acceptable that tens of thousands of people die each year because they cannot afford the medicine their doctors prescribe – while the industry makes billions in profits and provides their CEOs with outrageous compensation packages?

Is it morally acceptable that, at a time when, the taxpayers of this country spent tens of billions a year on the research and development of life-saving drugs, that many of these same taxpayers are unable to afford the drugs they helped develop?

Is it morally acceptable that the business model of the pharmaceutical industry today is not to create the life-saving drugs we need for cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, diabetes, and so many other terrible illnesses, but through excessive greed in order to make as much money as they can?

M. President: It has not always been that way. There was once a time when the inventors of life-saving drugs were not obsessed with making huge sums of money, but were instead obsessed with ending the terrible illnesses that plagued humanity.

In the 1950s, for example, there was Dr. Jonas Salk, who invented the vaccine for polio. Salk’s work saved millions of lives and prevented millions more from being paralyzed.

It has been estimated that if Dr. Salk had chosen to patent the polio vaccine he would have made billions of dollars. But he did not.

When asked who owns the patent to this vaccine this is what Dr. Salk said: “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun”

What Dr. Salk understood was that the purpose of this vaccine he invented was to save lives, not to make himself obscenely rich.
And he, among great scientists, was not alone.

In 1928, Alexander Fleming, a scientist from Scotland, discovered penicillin at St. Mary’s hospital in London. Fleming’s discovery of penicillin changed the medical world and saved millions of lives.

I am sure that Alexander Fleming could also have become a multi-billionaire if he chose to own the exclusive rights to this anti-biotic.

But he did not.

When Fleming was asked about his role, he did not talk about the outrageous fortune he could have made through his discovery. Instead, he said: “I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident.”

And then, M. President, there was the great scientist Frederick Banting from Canada.

In 1921, Dr. Banting along with two other scientists at the University of Toronto invented insulin. An issue we’re hearing a lot about today.

When Dr. Banting was asked why he wouldn’t patent insulin and why he sold the rights to insulin for just $1 he replied: “Insulin does not belong to me. It belongs to the world.”

It has been estimated that Dr. Banting’s invention saved some 300 million lives.

Once again, a great scientist made it clear that his purpose in life was to save humanity and save lives, not to make billions for himself.

Meanwhile, M. President, while Dr. Banting sold his patent for $1 so that humanity could benefit from his discovery, I should mention that Eli Lilly, one of our nation’s largest drug companies, has increased the price of insulin by 1,200 percent over the past 27 years to $275 – while it costs just $8 to manufacture. Not quite the spirit of Frederick Banting.

Now let’s fast forward to the COVID pandemic, this horrible period in our history where we have lost over 1 million Americans and tens of millions have suffered varying levels of illness.

Moderna, a drug company in Massachusetts, worked alongside the National Institutes of Health to develop the vaccine that so many of our people have effectively used. It is widely acknowledged that both the company and the NIH were responsible for the creation of this vaccine.

After the company received billions of dollars from the federal government to research, develop and distribute the COVID-vaccine, guess what happened? The CEO of Moderna, Stéphane Bancel, became a billionaire overnight and is now worth $5.7 billion.

Further, the 2 co-founders of Moderna (Noubar Afeyan and Robert Langer) also became billionaires and are now both worth $2 billion each. Moreover, one of the founding investors in Moderna (Tim Springer) is worth $2.5 billion.

None of them were billionaires before the taxpayers of our country funded the COVID-19 vaccine. And are now collectively worth over $11 billion.

Meanwhile, Moderna, as a whole, made over $19 billion in profits during the pandemic.

And how is the CEO of this company thanking the taxpayers of this country who are responsible for making him and his colleagues incredibly rich?

He is thanking them by proposing to quadruple the price of the COVID vaccine to about $130 once the government stockpile of the vaccine runs out.

Let’s be clear: This is a vaccine that costs just $2.85 to manufacture.

M. President: On March 22nd, the Senate HELP Committee will be holding a hearing on March 22nd on this subject. Bottom line: Does Moderna think that it is appropriate to quadruple prices for the vaccine after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer support.

M. President: While Moderna may be a poster child for corporate greed, it is not alone.

A number of years ago, the former CEO of Gilead became a billionaire by charging $1,000 for Sovaldi, a hepatitis C drug that was discovered by scientists at the Veterans Administration. This drug costs just $1 to manufacture and could be purchased in India for $4.

The Japanese drugmaker Astellas, which made a billion dollars in profits in 2021, recently raised the price of the prostate cancer drug Xtandi by more than 75% in the United States to nearly $190,000. This is a drug that was invented by federally funded scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-sixth the US price.

M. President: It does not have to be this way. The reality is that if Congress had the courage to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, we could cut the price of prescription drugs in America by at least 50%.

How? By preventing the pharmaceutical industry from charging more for prescription drugs in the U.S. than they do in Canada, Britain, Germany, France and Japan – a concept that is not only supported by progressives, but former President Donald Trump.

M. President: There is no rational reason why the HIV treatment Biktarvy costs over $45,000 per year in the U.S, but only $7,500 in France.

Or why a weekly dose of the auto-immune medicine Enbrel costs over $1,760 in the U.S, but just $300 in Canada.

Or why a vial of insulin costs $98.70 in the U.S, but just $11 in Germany.

Or why a monthly course of the blood thinner Eliquis costs $440 in the U.S., but just $102 in Spain.

Or why an injection of the breast cancer treatment Herceptin costs nearly $7,000 in the U.S, but less than $1,600 in Switzerland.

Or why a bottle of a hepatitis C drug costs over $30,000 in the U.S, but just $15,000 in Greece.

M. President: The American people whether they are Republicans, Democrats or Independents, whether they are conservatives, moderates or progressives, are sick and tired of being ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry.

Now is the time for us to take on the greed and power of that industry and substantially lower prescription drug prices in our country.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Bernie Sanders.

Asserting that Americans are "sick and tired of being ripped off" by Big Pharma during the Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Stéphane Bancel, Moderna's billionaire CEO, will testify next month before the Senate committee he chairs.

Last month, Sanders wrote to Bancel—who according to the committee "became a billionaire after U.S. taxpayers gave his company billions of dollars to research, develop, and distribute its Covid-19 vaccines"—urging the CEO to "refrain from more than quadrupling the price of the vaccine to as much as $130 while it costs just $2.85 to manufacture."

Speaking on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sanders, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said the American people want to know "how does it happen that in the United States we pay by far... the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?"

"Why is it, people are asking, that nearly 1 out of every 4 Americans cannot afford the prescriptions their doctors write?" he added. "Think about how crazy that is."

"How does it happen that nearly half of all new drugs in the United States cost more than $150,000 a year?" Sanders asked. "How does it happen that in Canada and other major countries, [the] same exact same medications, manufactured by the same exact companies, are sold for a fraction of the price that we pay in America?"

The answers to these questions are not complicated. In fact, they can be summed up in three words—unprecedented corporate greed.

Over the past 25 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent $8.5 billion on lobbying and over $745 million on campaign contributions to get Congress and the government to do its bidding. Incredibly, last year, the drug companies hired over 1,700 lobbyists including the former congressional leaders of both major political parties—over three pharmaceutical industry lobbyists for every member of Congress. And it has paid off—big time.

"Meanwhile," said Sanders, "as Americans die because they cannot afford the medications they need, the pharmaceutical industry makes higher profits every year than other major industries, year after year after year."

"Between the years 2000 and 2018, drug companies in this country made over $8 trillion... in profits," the senator noted.

As the HELP Committee reported:

Ten of the top pharmaceutical companies in the U.S.—AbbVie, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck, Moderna, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals—made a total of more than $102 billion in profits in 2021—a 137% increase from the previous year. In 2021 alone, 50 top executives in these 10 pharmaceutical companies took home over $1.9 billion in compensation and stock awards. Those 50 pharmaceutical executives are also in line to receive golden parachutes amounting to more than $2.8 billion when they depart the companies. Those golden parachutes are tied to the company's stock price and provide executives with massive payouts if they leave the company on good terms after hitting certain stock price targets—a tactic to ensure executives focus on increasing their company's stock prices at the expense of Americans who cannot afford their lifesaving medication.

"The question that I think Americans should be asking themselves," said Sanders, is if it is "morally acceptable that tens of thousands of people die each year in this country because they cannot afford the medicine their doctors prescribe, while at the same time, the drug companies make billions of dollars in profits and provide their CEOs with huge compensation packages?"

"The American people, regardless of their political affiliations, are sick and tired of being ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry," Sanders concluded. "Now is the time for us to have the courage to take on the 1,700 lobbyists all over Capitol Hill, to take on the unlimited financial resources of that industry. Now is the time to stand with the American people and substantially lower prescription drug prices in this country."

Moderna said Wednesday that its mRNA vaccine "will continue to be available at no cost for insured people" and that "for uninsured or underinsured people, Moderna's patient assistance program will provide Covid-19 vaccines at no cost."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

U.S. coffee chain Starbucks on Tuesday told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that interim CEO Howard Schultz has no intention of testifying before the panel as Chairman Bernie Sanders requested last week, sparking speculation that the progressive senator could use his subpoena power to compel the billionaire executive to appear at an upcoming hearing.

Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by Democrats on the committee in writing a letter to the company on February 7, asking Schultz to testify on the company's "decisions with respect to complying with our nation's labor laws and negotiating a first contract with union workers at Starbucks."

Sanders (I-Vt.) called Starbucks' response to the request "disappointing, but not surprising."

"Apparently, it is easier for Mr. Schultz to fire workers who are exercising their constitutional right to form unions, and to intimidate others who may be interested in joining a union than to answer questions from elected officials," said the senator Wednesday.

Schultz has played a central role in attempting to quash unionization efforts at the company's stores across the country. After workers in Buffalo launched efforts to form a bargaining unit in 2021, the Starbucks co-founder flew in to the city to hold an anti-union meeting with employees just before they were set to vote on the issue.

The CEO, who is scheduled to leave the company in April, has been personally named in some of the 75 complaints against Starbucks filed by the National Labor Relations Board general counsel, accusing the company of illegal union-busting tactics such as intimidation and retaliation.

On Monday, ahead of Starbucks' response to Sanders, Schultz brushed off the workers at 366 of the company's stores in 39 states who have organized to form bargaining units despite Starbucks' aggressive anti-union efforts, tellingThe Washington Post that they are "angry at the world."

"They're angry at YOU and your despicable union-busting tactics," countered economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires.

In response to Sanders' request for Schultz's testimony, the company offered to send A.J. Jones II, an executive vice president and chief communications officer, instead of the CEO.

"This could get interesting," said labor reporter Steven Greenhouse after Sanders sent the request, noting that the senator has repeatedly called on Schultz to testify.

"If Mr. Schultz believes that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Starbucks can break federal labor law with impunity he is mistaken," said Sanders Wednesday. "As the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, I intend to hold Mr. Schultz and Starbucks accountable for their unacceptable behavior and look forward to seeing him before our committee."

Sanders said last week that he is willing to use the panel's subpoena power to force Schultz to testify, but he did not address that possibility directly in his statement.

After writing to Starbucks last week, the senator told the Associated Press that the HELP Committee intends "to be asking Mr. Schultz some very hard questions" and that Starbucks and other union-busting corporations "should be nervous."

"This is corporate greed," Sanders told the outlet. "Workers have a constitutional right to organize. And even if you are a large, multinational corporation owned by a billionaire you don't have the right to violate the law."

Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from Sen. Bernie Sanders.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Sen. Bernie Sanders announced this week that he will soon introduce legislation to set the minimum annual salary for U.S. public school teachers at $60,000, a change the senator said could be fully financed with progressive changes to the estate tax.

At a town hall with educators and union leaders, Sanders called low teacher pay a national "crisis" that has gotten substantially worse during the coronavirus pandemic, which has placed massive additional strain on school staff across the country.

A survey released last year by the National Education Association (NEA) found that 55% of U.S. educators are considering leaving the profession earlier than they had planned, citing pandemic-related stress and burnout as well as inadequate pay.

"In America today, hundreds of thousands of public school teachers are forced to work two or three jobs during the school year. Maybe they are driving an Uber. Maybe they are waiting on tables. Maybe they are parking cars," Sanders said. "In the richest country in the history of the world, we have got to do better than that. It is time to end the international embarrassment of America ranking 29th out of 30 countries in the pay middle school teachers receive."

The Vermont senator, who chairs the upper chamber's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said his Pay Teachers Act would "triple" funding for low-income schools, "ensure all starting teachers across the country are paid at least $60,000 a year," and boost the salaries of those "who have made teaching their profession—working on the job for 10, 20, 30 years."

As Education Weeknoted Tuesday, the average starting salary for U.S. teachers is less than $42,000 a year. Sanders said during the town hall that "43% of all teachers in America make less than $60,000 a year."

Sanders estimated that his legislation would cost $450 billion over the next decade, exactly how much his proposed estate tax overhaul would raise. The bill, titled the For the 99.5 Percent Act, would impose a 65% top tax rate on estates worth more than $1 billion and reduce the estate tax exemption to $3.5 million, down from around $13 million.

"If we can provide over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, please don't tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every teacher in America is paid at least $60,000 a year," the senator said. "If we can spend close to $900 billion last year on the military, more than the next 11 nations combined, please don't tell me that we cannot make sure that every teacher in America is treated with dignity and respect."

According to recent research from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), "teachers are paid less (in weekly wages and total compensation) than their nonteacher college-educated counterparts, and the situation has worsened considerably over time"—a gap that has been dubbed the "teacher pay penalty."

"The average weekly wages of public school teachers (adjusted only for inflation) increased just $29 from 1996 to 2021, from $1,319 to $1,348 (in 2021 dollars)," EPI found. "In contrast, inflation-adjusted weekly wages of other college graduates rose from $1,564 to $2,009 over the same period—a $445 increase."

EPI stressed that "providing teachers with compensation commensurate with that of other similarly educated professionals is not simply a matter of fairness but is necessary to improve educational outcomes and foster future economic stability of workers, their families, and communities across the U.S."—a point Sanders echoed during his town hall address.

"Raising teacher salaries to at least $60,000 a year and ensuring competitive pay for all of our teachers," Sanders argued, "is one of the most important steps we can take to address the teacher shortage in America and to improve the quality of our public school systems."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the program's solvency for decades by finally requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced by Sanders (I-Vt.) and Warren (D-Mass.) in the Senate and by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) in the House, would put an additional $2,400 in beneficiaries' pockets each year and ensure the program is fully funded through 2096.

The bill would accomplish this by lifting the cap on the maximum amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a change that would not raise taxes on the 93% of U.S. households that make $250,000 or less per year, according to an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders.

Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which means that millionaires will stop contributing to the program later this month. The legislation proposes lifting this cap and subjecting all income above $250,000 per year to the Social Security payroll tax. If enacted, the bill would have raised more than $3.4 billion from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone in 2021, including $2.9 billion from Tesla and Twitter executive Elon Musk.

"The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years."

"At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50% of our nation's seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security," Sanders said in a statement.

“Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need," the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions continued. "The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system."

"Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year," the Vermont Independent added. "Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty."

As Sanders' office noted:

Before 1935, when it was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about 50% of the nation's seniors were living in poverty, as well as countless Americans living with disabilities and surviving dependents of deceased workers. Nearly 90 years later, the senior poverty rate is down to 10.3% and in 2021 alone, during the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors.

Despite this long legacy of combatting poverty, more must be done to strengthen the program, not cut it. While the average Social Security benefit is only $1,688 a month, nearly 40% of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income; one in seven rely on it for more than 90% of their income; and nearly half of Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all.

Schakowsky warned that "instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age."

Contrary to the claims of GOP lawmakers who are clamoring to slash benefits and postpone eligibility, the latest annual Social Security trustees report showed that the program has a $2.85 trillion surplus in its trust fund, enabling it to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2035, 90% for the next 25 years, and 80% for the next 75 years.

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage," said Hoyle. "With the rising cost of living, it's time to modernize and expand the program."

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage."

In addition to lifting the tax cap to boost benefits by $200 each month for all recipients, the Social Security Expansion Act would increase Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments by adopting a more accurate measure of inflation, improve the Special Minimum Benefit to help keep low-income workers out of poverty, and restore student benefits up to age 22 for children of disabled or deceased workers.

Endorsed by 56 labor unions and progressive advocacy groups, the legislation is overwhelmingly popular among voters, who have consistently expressed opposition to cutting or privatizing Social Security.

According to polling results published Monday by Data for Progress, 78% of likely voters support the Social Security Expansion Act, including 85% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans. The survey, commissioned by Social Security Works, was conducted online from January 27 to January 30.

"Social Security Works is proud to endorse the Social Security Expansion Act," the group's executive director, Alex Lawson, said in a statement. "This bill is the answer to any politician or pundit who claims we 'can't afford' Social Security. It protects and expands benefits, and it is fully paid for by finally requiring the wealthy to contribute their fair share."

"During the State of the Union, nearly every member of Congress stood and clapped for protecting seniors," Lawson noted. "They should prove it by passing this bill into law."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the program's solvency for decades by finally requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced by Sanders (I-Vt.) and Warren (D-Mass.) in the Senate and by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) in the House, would put an additional $2,400 in beneficiaries' pockets each year and ensure the program is fully funded through 2096.

The bill would accomplish this by lifting the cap on the maximum amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a change that would not raise taxes on the 93% of U.S. households that make $250,000 or less per year, according to an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders.

Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which means that millionaires will stop contributing to the program later this month. The legislation proposes lifting this cap and subjecting all income above $250,000 per year to the Social Security payroll tax. If enacted, the bill would have raised more than $3.4 billion from the nation's top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone in 2021, including $2.9 billion from Tesla and Twitter executive Elon Musk.

"The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years."

"At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50% of our nation's seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security," Sanders said in a statement.

“Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need," the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions continued. "The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system."

"Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year," the Vermont Independent added. "Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty."

As Sanders' office noted:

Before 1935, when it was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about 50% of the nation's seniors were living in poverty, as well as countless Americans living with disabilities and surviving dependents of deceased workers. Nearly 90 years later, the senior poverty rate is down to 10.3% and in 2021 alone, during the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors.

Despite this long legacy of combatting poverty, more must be done to strengthen the program, not cut it. While the average Social Security benefit is only $1,688 a month, nearly 40% of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income; one in seven rely on it for more than 90% of their income; and nearly half of Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all.

Schakowsky warned that "instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age."

Contrary to the claims of GOP lawmakers who are clamoring to slash benefits and postpone eligibility, the latest annual Social Security trustees report showed that the program has a $2.85 trillion surplus in its trust fund, enabling it to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2035, 90% for the next 25 years, and 80% for the next 75 years.

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage," said Hoyle. "With the rising cost of living, it's time to modernize and expand the program."

"While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans' hard-earned benefits and expand coverage."

In addition to lifting the tax cap to boost benefits by $200 each month for all recipients, the Social Security Expansion Act would increase Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments by adopting a more accurate measure of inflation, improve the Special Minimum Benefit to help keep low-income workers out of poverty, and restore student benefits up to age 22 for children of disabled or deceased workers.

Endorsed by 56 labor unions and progressive advocacy groups, the legislation is overwhelmingly popular among voters, who have consistently expressed opposition to cutting or privatizing Social Security.

According to polling results published Monday by Data for Progress, 78% of likely voters support the Social Security Expansion Act, including 85% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans. The survey, commissioned by Social Security Works, was conducted online from January 27 to January 30.

"Social Security Works is proud to endorse the Social Security Expansion Act," the group's executive director, Alex Lawson, said in a statement. "This bill is the answer to any politician or pundit who claims we 'can't afford' Social Security. It protects and expands benefits, and it is fully paid for by finally requiring the wealthy to contribute their fair share."

"During the State of the Union, nearly every member of Congress stood and clapped for protecting seniors," Lawson noted. "They should prove it by passing this bill into law."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

"I do not think we should accept it as 'normal' in our society that billionaires get massive tax breaks while teachers in this country have to work a second job just to make ends meet," said the Vermont Independent senator. "We must pay all teachers in America at least $60,000."

Sanders will be joined by four public school teachers, National Education Association (NEA) President Rebecca Pringle, and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten at Monday evening's town hall.

The event, titled "Respecting our Teachers: A Town Hall on the Teacher Pay Crisis in America," will place at the U.S. Capitol and streaming at the senator's Twitter and Facebook pages, starting at 7:15 p.m. ET.

"In the richest country in the history of the world, each and every person must be able to get the education they need to fulfill their dreams," said Sanders. "That means we need the best education system in the world, and that means we need the best teachers. Teachers have one of the toughest and most demanding jobs, and we must stand up and support them."

A poll taken last year by the NEA found that more than half of teachers in the U.S. were considering leaving their profession—a statistic Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, called "unconscionable."

Every state across the U.S. is currently reporting teacher shortages, and the senator pointed to "the fact that mostschool districts and states do not provide teachers with a livable and competitive wage" as a key reason for educators' departures from the profession.

According to the NEA, teachers in the U.S. now make $2,150 less than they did a decade ago, adjusted for inflation. During the 2020-21 school year, starting teacher salaries were at their lowest level since the Great Recession.

"Research hasfound that teachers are one of the most important factors in improving students' outcomes, and our nation has much work to do to ensure all students are taught by fully qualified and well-compensated teachers," said Sanders' office in a press release.

Noting Sanders' new position chairing the Senate HELP Committee, Weingarten said ahead of the town hall that the senator "is in the perfect position to do great things for workers across the country."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Ahead of his first White House meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva met Friday with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said topics of discussion included the far-right threat, combatting the climate and environmental emergencies, and supporting workers.

"I enjoyed a productive meeting this morning with President Lula of Brazil and his cabinet," Sanders said in a statement. "Our countries share many challenges, including the threat of right-wing authoritarians who seek to undermine democratic institutions in both countries."

"I am very impressed that in his short visit to the United States, Lula chose to speak to the AFL-CIO," he added. "In that regard, we discussed ways to build an economy that serves all people, not just the wealthy and large corporations. We also discussed ways to advance workers' rights and build strong unions."

\u201cA pleasure to welcome @LulaOficial to Washington. We discussed the importance of defending democracy, advancing workers\u2019 rights, and increasing environmental and climate cooperation around the world.\u201d

— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1676048745

Sanders continued:

Unlike his predecessor, Lula understands the enormous threat that climate change poses to our planet. We discussed ideas of how to increase international cooperation to preserve the environment for future generations. Scientists tell us that deforestation will have a devastating impact on climate change and the planet, and it is imperative that the United States work with Brazil and other countries to protect the Amazon.

If ever there was a time for international solidarity on these shared challenges, this is it. My hope and expectation is that the United States and Brazil will build a stronger partnership to address these crises.

Da Silva said on Twitter that he "had the pleasure" of meeting Sanders, who was an outspoken advocate for his release after the former president—he also served from 2003-2010—was imprisoned on what critics called politically motivated corruption charges in 2018.

"We talked about democracy, the trade union movement, and better rights and jobs for workers," da Silva added.

Three other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—also met with da Silva.

\u201cIt was an incredible honor to meet with Brazilian President @LulaOficial and @USProgressives members @RepAOC and @RepRoKhanna. \n\nPresident Lula\u2019s election has given hope to democratic and progressive movements around the world. \ud83e\uddf5\u201d

— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@Rep. Pramila Jayapal) 1676062547

"It was an honor to meet with President Lula da Silva this morning, whose election has given hope to democratic and progressive movements around the world," the caucus said in a statement. "We had a productive discussion on our shared commitments to environmental, social, and economic justice."

"We also discussed opportunities to deepen U.S.-Brazilian cooperation in the fight against authoritarianism, strengthen relationships between legislators of the two countries, and a shared agenda for economic justice and freedom that can combat the appeals of right-wing extremism," the statement said.

Later Friday, da Silva met with Biden as part of a reboot of U.S.-Brazilian relations following the right-wing presidencies of Donald Trump and Bolsonaro, the so-called "Trump of the Tropics."

Last month, Bolsonaro—who has been in the United States since just before da Silva's inauguration—applied for a six-month tourist visa as his legal woes, including an investigation of his role in the January 8 insurrection, mount.

WATCH LIVE: Biden meets with Brazil's President Lula da Silva to discuss climate, democracy www.youtube.com

At an afternoon press conference in the White House's Oval Office, da Silva told Biden through a translator that "the United States and the rest of the world can count on Brazil in the fight for democracy and the fight for the preservation of the Amazon rainforest."

Biden said that "we have to continue to stand up for democracy and our democratic values that form the core of our strength," while asserting the two presidents were on "the same page" about the climate emergency.

"Lula, he has everything on the table right now to be a democratic champion, given what happened in Brazil over the past month and a half," Thiago de Aragão, a senior associate of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told PBS NewsHour, referring to the January 8 attack by Bolsonaro supporters on the country's Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace in a failed bid to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

"So, having seen Biden in a similar situation during January 6, this is something that they can together focus on," he added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will meet Friday with Sen. Bernie Sanders as part of the recently inaugurated leftist leader's visit to the United States, his first official foreign trip.

According to a statement from his administration, da Silva—who defeated far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro in last October's runoff election—will meet with Sanders (I-Vt.) at Blair House in Washington, D.C. at 12:30 pm local time, five hours before President Joe Biden hosts Lula at the White House.

According to The Hill, Biden "extended an invitation as a sign of support after Bolsonaro's supporters stormed the country's Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace" last month in an echo of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

Da Silva, who arrived at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Thursday, is also scheduled to meet with Democratic members of Congress and representatives of the AFL-CIO union. He is accompanied on the trip by numerous members of his cabinet.

As the statement detailed:

Two of the world's largest democracies, Brazil and the United States face similar challenges linked to political radicalization and hate speech in virtual space. Also at the center of the agenda: the reactivation of the Brazilian commitment to environmental conservation and the search for a greater engagement of developed countries in fulfilling their financing commitments in the climate area.

In the economic sphere, efforts are being made to boost investments, particularly in energy transition and clean energy generation, and greater integration of production chains. The United States is Brazil's second-largest trading partner and the main destination for our exports of industrialized products.

Special attention should also be given to promoting the human rights agenda, in particular on topics such as the fight against hunger and poverty on a global scale, the rights of Indigenous peoples, and the fight against racism, in addition to the integration of the two million Brazilians who live in the United States, our largest overseas community.

Sanders was an outspoken advocate for da Silva's release after the former president—he also served from 2003-2010—was jailed on what critics called politically motivated corruption charges in 2018. Da Silva was freed in November 2019 and in 2021 a Brazilian Supreme Court justice annulled Lula's criminal convictions, restoring his political rights and opening the door for his remarkable comeback last year.

Da Silva and Bolsonaro will be in the U.S. at the same time. Last month, Bolsonaro applied for a six-month tourist visa as his legal woes, including an investigation of his role in the January 8 insurrection, mount.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

A day after sustained pressure from labor advocates resulted in an historic paid leave deal between one freight rail company and two unions representing thousands of its workers, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday launched a renewed push for at least seven days of paid sick leave for all railroad employees in the United States, noting that the industry can easily afford to reform its stringent attendance policies.

"At a time of record-breaking profits, the industry can and must guarantee at least seven paid sick days to every rail worker in America," said the Vermont Independent senator. "In the year 2023 that is not a whole lot to ask."

Sanders noted that rail companies have recently posted record earnings for 2022, with the largest corporations reporting more than $26 billion in profits.

Late last month, Union Pacific—which defeated labor unions and progressive advocates in labor negotiations late last year, avoiding a contract that would have included paid sick leave for workers—reported $7 billion in income. It spent $6.3 billion on stock buybacks and just $4.6 billion on employee pay and benefits.

Rail giants "are doing extremely well," said Sanders, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee. "And what did they do with those record-breaking profits? Did they spend it on making the rail industry safer?... Did they spend that money on improving the horrendous working conditions that exist today in the rail industry?"

"No, they didn't do that," the senator continued. "They spent over $20 billion of their profits on stock buybacks and dividends to make their wealthy shareholders even wealthier."

Sanders added that seven guaranteed paid sick days would cost the rail industry just $321 million annually—less than 1.2% of its profits.

The senator led an effort late last year to pass an amendment to guarantee paid sick leave for workers, as Congress and the Biden administration got involved in contract negotiations to avoid a rail strike. The amendment won the support of every Senate Democrat except for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and six Republicans joined them in backing the proposal, which failed to pass. Congress then voted to compel four rail unions to accept a contract without paid sick days.

At Thursday's press conference, Sanders was joined by representatives from rail unions including SMART-TD, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, who applauded his efforts to ensure fair working conditions.

The lack of paid sick leave "puts an engineer and a conductor in a hard spot because when they get sick they have to make a hard decision on showing up to work not well-rested, distracted, getting on a train with 10,000 tons, possibly some seriously hazardous materials on board... or you can face the wrath of the attendance policy," said Adam West, a conductor with CSX Transportation. "If you're at the end of the attendance policy, you're not going to get to the doctor's appointment, your'e not gong to get to the dentist, and you're not going to get the preventative care that you need to stay healthy."

Sanders said that if railroad executives "do not come to the table and negotiate an acceptable agreement with the unions," he will use his authority as chairman of the HELP Committee to call on them to testify at hearings, adding "we certainly will bring legislation to the floor."

"People across the country are seeing the reality of what these workers are going through, and the American people are behind these workers overwhelmingly," he said.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Tuesday invited Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to testify about the coffee giant's "lack of compliance with federal labor laws."

All 10 Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) joined Sanders, who chairs the panel, in inviting Schultz to a hearing scheduled for March 9.

The letter—signed by Sanders and Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—gives Schultz until February 14 to confirm his attendance at the hearing.

"We greatly appreciate your assistance to the HELP Committee," the lawmakers told Schultz, whose wealth increased by $800 million during the pandemic to nearly $4 billion.

Since December 2021, when baristas in Buffalo made history by forming the first unionized Starbucks in the United States, workers at nearly 280 of the coffee chain's locations nationwide have voted to unionize. Organizers have won more than 80% of their campaigns despite the company's unlawful intimidation and retaliation tactics.

In response to mounting demands for better wages, benefits, and conditions, "the $122 billion-dollar corporation has fought their workers every step of the way, including refusing to bargain a first contract in good faith, delay tactics, and a significant escalation in union-busting," Sanders' office noted in a statement.

"There have been 500 unfair labor practice cases filed against Starbucks and its affiliates," the statement continued. "The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued 75 complaints in response to those charges and has sought emergency preliminary injunctive relief in five cases in the federal courts."

"Sanders has sent three letters to Schultz in the last year calling on the CEO to end the egregious union-busting campaign the company has deployed against its own workers," the Vermont Independent's office added. "Schultz has not yet responded to or provided the documents requested in the most recent letter Sanders sent in January 2023."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

After sustained pressure from organized workers and their allies, freight rail giant CSX Transportation agreed Tuesday to provide 5,000 employees in two unions with four days of paid sick leave each year—an industry-first move progressive said should serve as an example for other companies to follow.

The agreement reached between Jacksonville, Florida-based CSX and two unions—the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (BRC) and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED)—will provide four days of fully paid sick leave each year, while allowing union members to take up to three personal leave days annually. Additionally, employees can apply their unused paid sick days to their 401K retirement accounts or take payouts.

"We are extremely proud that BRC is one of the very first unions to reach this type of an agreement," said Don Grissom, president of the BRC—which represents mechanical workers—in a statement. "This agreement is a significant accomplishment and provides a very important benefit for our members working at CSXT. The other carriers should take note and come to the bargaining table in a similar manner."

\u201c\ud83d\udea8 This paid sick leave agreement with CSX is certainly welcome but long overdue. We look forward to other rail crafts reaching similar agreements with CSX and other railroads following suit. \n\n#PaidLeaveforAll\u201d

— TTD | America's Transportation Unions (@TTD | America's Transportation Unions) 1675817167

"Today's agreement is a huge win for our members at CSXT," Grissom added, "and we will continue the fight to secure paid sick leave for our members working on other railroads."

Referring to the classification for railroad companies with annual revenue exceeding $250 million, BMWED president Tony D. Cardwell said in a statement that "the other Class I railroads just reported extremely healthy earnings for 2022, many of which were record-setting."

"Other than absolute greed, there is no reason why the other Class I railroads cannot enter into an identical paid sick leave agreement."

"The workers are responsible for these profits," Caldwell added. "Other than absolute greed, there is no reason why the other Class I railroads cannot enter into an identical paid sick leave agreement with BMWED, or any other rail union for that matter, especially in light of what CSX and the BMWED have done today."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an outspoken supporter of railroad workers, tweeted that "now it's time for the entire rail industry, which made over $26 billion in profits last year, to provide at least seven paid sick days to every rail worker in America."

\u201cLet me congratulate @BMWEDIBT and @TCUnionHQ for guaranteeing paid sick days for 5,000 rail workers at CSX. Now it's time for the entire rail industry, which made over $26 billion in profits last year, to provide at least 7 paid sick days to every rail worker in America.\u201d

— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1675872420

On the other hand, labor advocates have called out Republicans, many Democrats in Congress, and the Biden administration for siding with corporations and billionaires over workers.

Paid sick leave was a key issue in last year's contract negotiations between a dozen rail worker unions and railroad companies. While eight of the unions voted in favor of a tentative agreement negotiated by the Biden administration—a deal that had no paid sick days—four unions rejected the proposal.

Congress subsequently intervened to compel the four holdout unions to accept the contract, while House Democrats passed a concurrent resolution adding seven days of paid sick leave to the agreement.

On Thursday, Sanders will join with unions in a joint press conference where they will make a fresh demand for paid sick leave across the industry.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Tuesday that he will join rail workers later this week to launch a fresh push for at least seven days of paid sick leave, an effort that comes months after Congress and the Biden White House forced workers to accept a contract without a single paid sick day to avert a potential strike.

Joining Sanders (I-Vt.) and rail union representatives at the Thursday press conference in Washington, D.C. will be Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), one of the handful of Republican senators who voted for Sanders' amendment to add a week of paid sick leave to the White House-brokered contract deal.

The Vermont senator's amendment ultimately fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the Senate filibuster.

Since lawmakers' December vote to impose the contract despite opposition from unions representing a majority of U.S. rail workers, progressive members of Congress and rail employees have continued pressuring the Biden administration and ultra-profitable railroads to provide paid sick leave, overhaul their exploitative and untenable scheduling systems, and implement stronger safety standards.

On December 9, Sanders and more than 70 of his Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate sent a letter urging President Joe Biden to use his executive authority to "take quick and decisive action to guarantee these workers paid sick leave"—something he has yet to do.

Sanders, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, is expected in the coming months to introduce legislation that would require rail corporations to guarantee their workers a minimum number of paid sick days.

At Thursday's press conference, according to Sanders' office, union leaders will demand that "companies provide them with at least seven paid sick days."

"Rail labor is committed to pursuing and securing paid leave for workers this year to create a safer, healthier national rail system for all."

The event will come just two weeks after Union Pacific, one of the largest rail corporations in North America, reported a record $7 billion in profits for 2022. The company spent significantly more on stock buybacks last year than it did on worker pay and benefits.

Sanders' office noted Tuesday that "guaranteeing seven paid sick days to rail workers would cost the industry just $321 million dollars—less than 1.2% of profits in a single year."

Marking the 30th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act, U.S. rail unions unanimously adopted a resolution last week declaring that "all of rail labor is united and resolved to fight for paid sick leave for all railroad workers through collective bargaining or voluntary agreement, and that rail labor will further call upon all elected and appointed government officials and government agencies to pass a national paid sick leave law that covers all railroad workers with paid sick leave without penalty or punishment."

“A worker should not be fired for going to the doctor. Yet it is 2023 and railroaders are fighting for sick leave in the richest country on Earth," Greg Regan, president of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, said in a statement Monday. "Absent a national paid sick leave policy, the burden of securing this humane policy falls onto the shoulders of workers and the unions that represent them."

"Rail labor is committed to pursuing and securing paid leave for workers this year to create a safer, healthier national rail system for all," Regan added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Ahead of the Democratic National Committee's annual Winter Meeting in Philadelphia, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday called on the party to end super PAC spending in primary races, saying the Democrats should take the event as an opportunity to show their commitment to protecting democracy.

Twelve years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Vermont Independent senator wrote, the last election cycle illustrated how the "disastrous" decision is "undermining American democracy," as super PACs spent roughly $1.3 billion on campaigning—including more than $460 million spent by Democratic groups.

Millions of dollars were spent by billionaires "against progressive candidates in competitive primaries," Sanders wrote, with super PACs funding "outrageous and dishonest attack ads."

"When we talk about billionaires buying elections, this is exactly what we are talking about."

Notably, a super PAC created by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent millions of dollars in competitive races in North Carolina, Texas, and Pennsylvania last year, running attack ads against progressives who are critical of the United States' support for Israel's violent anti-Palestinian policies. One ad accused Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) of being disloyal to the Democratic Party.

"When we talk about billionaires buying elections, this is exactly what we are talking about," wrote Sanders, who caucuses with Senate Democrats.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling allowed corporations and special interest groups to create super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations and spend unlimited money on campaigns. The ruling has been condemned for years by Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who earlier this month introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United.

The party could make clear that it opposes the corporate takeover of campaigning by banning super PAC spending in its primaries, said Sanders, noting that the issue was not permitted to come up for a vote at last year's DNC meeting when he proposed it there.

"Virtually all Democrats talk about the need for campaign finance reform," wrote Sanders. "Talk is easy. Now it's time to walk the walk. Let's stand up for democracy."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

It is showdown time. Senator Bernie Sanders, new chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee versus Big Pharma.

The self-described “democratic socialist” from a safe seat in Vermont has long been a Big Pharma nemesis. He has issued detailed critiques of what others have called a “Pay or Die” industry coddled by Congress that provides huge tax credits, free government-developed medicines, and free, with few exceptions, unbridled power to charge what their monopoly markets can’t bear.

Americans are charged the highest drug prices in the world. U.S. drug companies feed off taxpayer subsidies yet are under no reasonable price controls even for those new drugs they get free from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Senator Sanders has taken busloads of Vermonters to Canada to buy the same medicines sold in the U.S. at much cheaper prices just over the Canadian border. During his presidential campaigns, he assailed high drug prices and supported single-payer or full Medicare-for-All. The latter, he has told the pro-single-payer group, Physicians for a National Health Program, is off the table. Astonishingly, he is not going to push it. That leaves the drug companies on which to focus his power.

Big Pharma is ready for Bernie’s thunderous denunciations. As witnesses, Pharma executives play humble rope-a-dope and exude courtesy. Their 500 full-time lobbyists outnumber the members of the Senate, and Big Pharma’s backup brigades of corporate lawyers, propagandists and local chambers of commerce add to the power imbalance. They’ve survived Congressional table-thumping for decades by both Democrats and Republicans, knowing that it is largely all theatre.

The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.

The three drug companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—that control the price of insulin, have withstood verbal blast after verbal blast by candidates campaigning for public office. They’re still jacking up their price, 1,100% since the 1990s, even though it’s the same product and is sold in other wealthy countries for a fraction of what Big Pharma bills Americans in the U.S. Still, uninsured or underinsured people who need insulin have to pay, but are so hard-pressed they often ration their supply of this essential drug. Up to 1 in 4 people with Type 1 diabetes ration insulin. There are fatal consequences to such rationing.

The bosses of these three companies—Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi—are not ready to budge.

Nor are other giant drug companies ready to disturb their subsidized and anticompetitive business model. This model includes finding tricky ways to continually extend their monopoly patent period, taking control of the comparable generics, spending more on advertising and marketing than on research and development for which they get a generous tax credit from Uncle Sam, taking good care of key physicians who tout their products and gaming the insurance industry that in theory should be resisting gouging payouts for drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.

Big Pharma is insatiably avaricious. They obstruct incoming free trade of lower-priced drugs while they outsource the production of key medicines to countries like China and India where drug manufacturing plants are poorly monitored by the understaffed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Big Pharma has maneuvered Congress into having a large portion of the FDA’s meager budget come from the drug companies with the invisible strings attached. Imagine paying the police who are supposed to be holding you to the law.

There is more. With some Democratic House members joining the Republican legislators in 2003, a bill was passed expanding Medicare’s drug benefits and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts with the drug companies. This has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Thank you, Republican Party – the constant avatar of corporate greed and leaving our country defenseless. For example, no antibiotics are now produced in the U.S. Many come from China. The GOP exhibits both a disregard for national security peril and a lack of patriotism, while it takes campaign cash from the drug goliaths.

The latest outrage comes from a report by the Wall Street Journal that Pfizer and Moderna intend to quadruple the price of their Covid vaccine, once their government purchasing contracts run out, to a range of $110-130 a shot. Bear in mind, both companies have made enormous profits from a government-guaranteed market of tens of billions of dollars. But readers may ask: “Won’t the higher price lead to fewer people being able to afford the vaccines, especially those not covered by insurance?” Correct. Big Pharma doesn’t care.

Moderna is a creature of the government’s National Institutes of Health research and development for the mRNA type Covid-19 vaccine. NIH scientists were in the lead, in collaborating with the scientists at this formerly tiny Boston-based company. The result turned Moderna into a multibillion-dollar firm. One would think being bred to commercial success by the taxpayers would result in some restraint. Not so.

Lives lost, injuries and diseases are at stake. For decades Big Pharma has refined its gigantic profits into an invulnerable racket that is impervious to media exposes, occasional prosecutions and fines, political campaign denunciations and keeping promises of patient relief.

Here is a solution. Since the NIH R&D programs have developed many drugs to the clinical trial level, let NIH proceed to manufacture these drugs in the good old USA and market them through government health programs.

There is a precedent from the Pentagon during the Vietnam War when the second leading cause of hospitalization for U.S. soldiers there was malaria. The drug companies were not willing to invest in developing anti-malarial medicines (not enough profit). The Pentagon set up its own “drug firm” inside Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital (now the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center). For a tiny fraction of what the drug companies would have charged the government, MDs and PhDs produced three new anti-malarial medicines, plus other medicines, which were positively reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.

So, let’s go, Bernie Sanders. This is “democratic socialism” fostering domestic and national security replacing unpatriotic, greedy “corporate socialism” that abandons the U.S. to communist China, leaving behind the federal safety regulatory watchdogs.

Let’s see how Bernie Sanders can use his staff and public hearings to jolt the Big Pharma toadies in Congress with the rumble from the people who are in dire straits. Senator Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and other compatriots can barnstorm the country and energize super majorities of both liberal and conservative Americans to back their cause since they all bleed the same color.

Otherwise, it’s just going to be the same old song – “There goes Bernie again – baying at the moon.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Ralph Nader.

The self-described “democratic socialist” from a safe seat in Vermont has long been a Big Pharma nemesis. He has issued detailed critiques of what others have called a “Pay or Die” industry coddled by Congress that provides huge tax credits, free government-developed medicines, and free, with few exceptions, unbridled power to charge what their monopoly markets can’t bear.

Americans are charged the highest drug prices in the world. U.S. drug companies feed off taxpayer subsidies yet are under no reasonable price controls even for those new drugs they get free from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Senator Sanders has taken busloads of Vermonters to Canada to buy the same medicines sold in the U.S. at much cheaper prices just over the Canadian border. During his presidential campaigns, he assailed high drug prices and supported single-payer or full Medicare-for-All. The latter, he has told the pro-single-payer group, Physicians for a National Health Program, is off the table. Astonishingly, he is not going to push it. That leaves the drug companies on which to focus his power.

Big Pharma is ready for Bernie’s thunderous denunciations. As witnesses, Pharma executives play humble rope-a-dope and exude courtesy. Their 500 full-time lobbyists outnumber the members of the Senate, and Big Pharma’s backup brigades of corporate lawyers, propagandists and local chambers of commerce add to the power imbalance. They’ve survived Congressional table-thumping for decades by both Democrats and Republicans, knowing that it is largely all theatre.

The three drug companies – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi – that control the price of insulin, have withstood verbal blast after verbal blast by candidates campaigning for public office. They’re still jacking up their price, 1,100% since the 1990s, even though it’s the same product and is sold in other wealthy countries for a fraction of what Big Pharma bills Americans in the U.S. Still, uninsured or underinsured people who need insulin have to pay, but are so hard-pressed they often ration their supply of this essential drug. Up to 1 in 4 people with Type 1 diabetes ration insulin. There are fatal consequences to such rationing.

The bosses of these three companies – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi – are not ready to budge.

Nor are other giant drug companies ready to disturb their subsidized and anticompetitive business model. This model includes finding tricky ways to continually extend their monopoly patent period, taking control of the comparable generics, spending more on advertising and marketing than on research and development for which they get a generous tax credit from Uncle Sam, taking good care of key physicians who tout their products and gaming the insurance industry that in theory should be resisting gouging payouts for drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act partially addresses drug pricing but is so full of loopholes and delays that it cannot be relied on to curb Big Pharma abuses.

Big Pharma is insatiably avaricious. They obstruct incoming free trade of lower-priced drugs while they outsource the production of key medicines to countries like China and India where drug manufacturing plants are poorly monitored by the understaffed U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Big Pharma has maneuvered Congress into having a large portion of the FDA’s meager budget come from the drug companies with the invisible strings attached. Imagine paying the police who are supposed to be holding you to the law.

There is more. With some Democratic House members joining the Republican legislators in 2003, a bill was passed expanding Medicare’s drug benefits and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating volume discounts with the drug companies. This has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Thank you, Republican Party – the constant avatar of corporate greed and leaving our country defenseless. For example, no antibiotics are now produced in the U.S. Many come from China. The GOP exhibits both a disregard for national security peril and a lack of patriotism, while it takes campaign cash from the drug goliaths.

The latest outrage comes from a report by the Wall Street Journal that Pfizer and Moderna intend to quadruple the price of their Covid vaccine, once their government purchasing contracts run out, to a range of $110-130 a shot. Bear in mind, both companies have made enormous profits from a government-guaranteed market of tens of billions of dollars. But readers may ask: “Won’t the higher price lead to fewer people being able to afford the vaccines, especially those not covered by insurance?” Correct. Big Pharma doesn’t care.

Moderna is a creature of the government’s National Institutes of Health research and development for the mRNA type Covid-19 vaccine. NIH scientists were in the lead, in collaborating with the scientists at this formerly tiny Boston-based company. The result turned Moderna into a multibillion-dollar firm. One would think being bred to commercial success by the taxpayers would result in some restraint. Not so.

Lives lost, injuries and diseases are at stake. For decades Big Pharma has refined its gigantic profits into an invulnerable racket that is impervious to media exposes, occasional prosecutions and fines, political campaign denunciations and keeping promises of patient relief.

Here is a solution. Since the NIH R&D programs have developed many drugs to the clinical trial level, let NIH proceed to manufacture these drugs in the good old USA and market them through government health programs.

There is a precedent from the Pentagon during the Vietnam War when the second leading cause of hospitalization for U.S. soldiers there was malaria. The drug companies were not willing to invest in developing anti-malarial medicines (not enough profit). The Pentagon set up its own “drug firm” inside Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital (now the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center). For a tiny fraction of what the drug companies would have charged the government, MDs and PhDs produced three new anti-malarial medicines, plus other medicines, which were positively reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.

So, let’s go, Bernie Sanders. This is “democratic socialism” fostering domestic and national security replacing unpatriotic, greedy “corporate socialism” that abandons the U.S. to communist China, leaving behind the federal safety regulatory watchdogs.

Let’s see how Bernie Sanders can use his staff and public hearings to jolt the Big Pharma toadies in Congress with the rumble from the people who are in dire straits. Senator Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and other compatriots can barnstorm the country and energize super majorities of both liberal and conservative Americans to back their cause since they all bleed the same color.

Otherwise, it’s just going to be the same old song – “There goes Bernie again – baying at the moon.”

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ralph Nader.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday voiced support for a renewed progressive push at the Democratic National Committee to ban dark money donations in the party's primaries, an effort that comes months after the DNC Resolutions Committee refused to allow a vote on the proposal.

"Billionaires and their super PACs must not be able to buy Democratic Party primaries," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media. "If Democrats really believe in democracy and campaign finance reform, we must ban super PACs in primaries. I stand with progressive reformers advocating for this change."

James Zogby, a longtime DNC member who helped craft the resolution, welcomed Sanders' continued support, writing that "Democrats mustn't let billionaires buy campaigns and our politics with deceitful ads."

"We introduced a resolution to ban dark money at the last DNC meeting," Zogby tweeted Thursday. "They wouldn't let it be discussed or come to a vote. We're bringing it back again."

The 2022 midterms were the most expensive on record, with billionaire-backed super PACs pumping torrents of cash into congressional races across the country.

During last year's Democratic primaries, a number of progressive candidates—including Summer Lee in Pennsylvania, who won her race, and Nida Allam in North Carolina, who lost—faced massive opposition spending from super PACs, including at least one bankrolled by Republican billionaires.

Super PACs, entities that are allowed to spend unlimited sums advocating for or against political candidates, are an outgrowth of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which unleashed an avalanche of corporate cash into the U.S. political system.

Though they are legally required to disclose their donors, some super PACs "are effectively dark money outlets when the bulk of their funding cannot be traced back to the original donor," OpenSecrets explains.

"While Citizens United may allow for unlimited corporate money in general elections, that Supreme Court ruling does not govern Democratic Party rules."

Appalled by the growing influence of super PACs on Democratic races, progressive DNC members led by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Judith Whitmer proposed a resolution late last year that would have prohibited dark money funding "during any and all Democratic primary elections" and set up "procedures for the investigation of 'dark money' use by candidate committees as well as possible disciplinary action."

But during a September meeting, the DNC Resolutions Committee didn't allow the measure to come up for a vote even though it had the support of dozens of DNC members, spotlighting the committee's increasingly undemocratic procedures and emboldening progressives who vowed to keep fighting for a full floor vote on the dark money ban.

"It was absolutely stunning," Zogby said in an interview after the meeting. "The resolution was never even considered. I know how that works. I was chair of the resolutions committee for 10 years. I was a member of the resolutions committee for 20 years. It means that staff whipped the members and said, 'Don't you dare.'"

"I went up to folks afterwards who I've known," Zogby added. "I mean, you know, they've served on the committee with me. And I said, 'Why? Why did this happen?' They wouldn't look me in the eye."

In a column for In These Times on Thursday, Our Revolution board chair and DNC member Larry Cohen wrote that "while Citizens United may allow for unlimited corporate money in general elections, that Supreme Court ruling does not govern Democratic Party rules."

However, Cohen added, "it is likely that in February, for the second time, the resolutions committee (which determines which proposals move forward) will refuse to report out the dark money ban—despite the significant support it has received from DNC members in about 20 states."

"Increasingly, both the DNC and political leadership in the Biden White House appear interested in preventing party discussion and debate," Cohen wrote. "The good news is that the number of progressives at the DNC is growing, slowly but surely, and grassroots activists increasingly understand that without change within the Democratic Party, we won't win the advances in healthcare, childcare, workers' rights, and climate change that are desperately needed."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.