Thursday, August 27, 2020

Corporate Dems Want You To Shut Up While They Get Loud



Progressives are told to keep quiet until after the election — meanwhile, corporate Dems are blasting out divisive ideological messages that could demoralize Democratic voters and depress turnout.

August 25, 2020 David Sirota TMI

https://portside.org/2020-08-25/corporate-dems-want-you-shut-while-they-get-loud


No doubt, you have been told to keep quiet. Just put on your big boy pants, they say, and find the impulse control to at least muzzle yourself for the next 72 days until the election happens. After that, fine — then and only then will you maybe be permitted to speak your mind and politely ask the Democratic Party to match its rhetoric with its policy agenda.

But until then, you are told to ‘“shut the hell up and grow up,” as former Obama and Mike Bloomberg pollster Cornell Belcher put it during an emblematic MSNBC segment berating progressives.

This kind of hectoring has become a defining part of the Democratic Party’s culture. As the late great journalist Bill Greider lamented in this must-watch clip: “The way the Democratic Party is run for quite a number of presidential cycles is they pick a nominee in a kind of half-assed process that doesn’t really represent much of anybody and then they tell everybody to just shut up -- don’t bring up anything that will complicate life for your nominee... shut up, turn off your brains.”

There’s a superficial logic to this call for omerta — after all, Donald Trump is destroying everything and he must be defeated. But here’s the problem: The demand to shut up is only being aimed at the progressive base of the party, while the corporate wing floods the zone with rhetoric that could demobilize voters.

Indeed, at the very moment many good progressives are blunting their criticism and making clear that defeating Trump is of utmost importance, Corporate Democrats aren’t being asked to wait or hold their tongues. In fact, they are doing the opposite: Rahm Emanuel — who has been advising Biden — just went on television to show that the corporate wing of the party is intent on using the stretch run of the Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime™ not to doggedly focus on actually winning the election, but to instead try to predetermine post-election policy outcomes.

Emanuel and his ilk depict themselves as evincing a non-ideological “just win, baby” attitude. But they are most decidedly pushing a very clear corporate ideology — and they are doing so in dangerously divisive ways that could depress the big turnout that’s desperately needed to defeat Trump.
‘There’s No New Green Deal, There’s No Medicare For All’

The larger dynamic at play was exemplified by Emanuel’s television appearance on a CNBC segment dubbed “Democrats 2020 Agenda: What’s at stake for business?” As progressives are being told to keep quiet and not even so much as tweet their concerns, Emanuel used the platform to demand that during this health care and climate emergency, a prospective Biden administration must reject the two major initiatives that polls show are popular.

“Two things I would say if I was advising an administration,” said Emanuel, who left the Chicago mayoralty in disgrace after his city officials suppressed a video of the police murder of a teenager. “One is no there’s no new Green Deal, there’s no Medicare For All, probably the single two topics that were discussed the most. That’s not even in the platform.”

Emanuel is hardly a disinterested observer here. As Obama’s chief of staff, Emanuel helped kill the idea of a public health insurance option. Now, he works for a Wall Street firm that advises big health care and fossil fuel companies on mergers, acquisitions and bankruptcy restructuring. Earlier this year, Emanuel was set to be part of the featured entertainment at an oil lobbying group's annual meeting, during a $125-per-plate luncheon with GOP strategist Karl Rove, before the event was cancelled due to COVID.

Emanuel also isn’t just some random blowhard pundit spewing a corporate line. The Chicago Tribune in May reported that “Emanuel is having regular conversations with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his top advisers about economic policy.”

So when Emanuel is refusing to self-censor in the name of “unity” and making these kinds of divisive declarations that stomp on progressive voters, he’s speaking from a position of real power. And he’s not just tweeting these comments, which could depress voter enthusiasm. He’s making them to a giant national television audience.
Corporate Democrats Are Not Holding Their Tongues

Now sure, you could try to write off Emanuel’s rhetoric as just the anomalous bloviations of notorious super-villain who pushed NAFTA and anti-immigration policies and who famously called progressives “f-ing retarded.” But sorry, this isn’t a one-off — this is part of a larger pattern over the last few weeks and months.

As progressives are told to keep quiet, Democratic Party officials engineered a convention light on policy proposals, but one that gave prime convention speaking slots to the anti-climate-science, anti-union former Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and to Colin Powell, who lied America into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. In his CNBC interview, Emanuel said “this will be the year of the Biden Republican” — and he noted that promoting these figures was designed to help Biden deliberately send an anti-progressive message to voters because “John Kasich and Colin Powell don’t exactly endorse (or) support big-P progressive policies.”

This is the kind of move that is potentially disillusioning for Democratic voters who were previously told that a Democratic victory isn’t just a return to status quo — but a step forward in strengthening the movements for climate action, worker rights and a more sane foreign policy.

Similarly, as progressives are told to shut the hell up, Democratic aides on Capitol Hill leaked word that the party’s lawmakers may immediately replay the 2009 debacle and block a public health insurance option after the election — a move that is potentially demotivating for millions of Americans currently losing their private health insurance.

As progressives are told to mute themselves, Team Biden last week publicly signaled that a new Democratic president might prioritize deficit reduction and budget austerity in the middle of an economic crisis — a move that is potentially deflating for millions of voters who have previously been told that President Biden’s agenda makes him the next FDR.

As progressives are told to keep quiet, Biden’s campaign leaks to Politico that the transition team building Biden’s prospective administration is being advised by Wall Street pal Larry Summers and former corporate super-lobbyist Steve Richetti.

And as progressives are told to muzzle themselves, Corporate Democrats went scorched earth and spent $15 million to intervene in primaries, stymie progressive Democratic candidates and tilt intraparty contests to business-friendly candidates. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi works to unseat Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, one of the Senate’s few progressive lawmakers, and to crush a spirited primary challenge to Rep. Richard Neal, who has used his committee chairmanship to block even modest health care reforms.
‘Hold the line. Win. Lead.’

Clearly, this is a coordinated campaign by the right-wing of the Democratic Party to prioritize its policy goals above everything — even motivating core Democratic voters to turnout in record numbers during the general election.

The best response to such an onslaught isn’t to ignore it or succumb to dishonest unity-themed demands for silence and fealty. After all, the folks making those demands don’t actually want unity — they are aiming for corporate victory at all costs, even if waging a war for that intraparty win could depress enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket.

The smarter response is to follow the lead of Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who last week pushed back against the Corporate Democrats’ attempt to resurrect GOP-style austerity politics. Rather than just sitting there and staying silent, she declared that if the party wins in November, it must make “massive investment in our country or it will fall apart. This is not a joke. To adopt GOP deficit-hawking now, when millions of lives are at stake, is utterly irresponsible. Hold the line. Win. Lead.”

The brilliance of this kind of response is that it accomplishes two objectives: It stands up for a real change, and it reassures Democratic voters that there are at least some people who are serious about going to Washington and fighting for what the party purports to believe in.

Put another way, it fortifies the progressive agenda and it helps energize Democratic voters to turn out, because it casts the election not just as a meaningless charade that won’t matter after November because everyone will sell out anyway. It instead depicts the election as an event with high stakes beyond Trump — a turning point that can create new policies that will actually matter in people’s lived experience.

This is how you avoid the 1988-Dukakis-collapse debacle and motivate the big turnout that can defeat Trump.

You don’t tell voters that “nothing would fundamentally change.”

You don’t blast out a story about how the Democratic presidential nominee told his Wall Street donors that he isn’t proposing new legislation to change corporate behavior.

You don’t turn your party convention into a pageant for Republican icons.

You don’t have the disgraced-mayor-turned-Wall-Street guy advise your presidential candidate — or have him go on Corporate America’s favorite television station during a health care emergency and a climate crisis to effectively laugh at progressives who are pushing Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

To paraphrase one of the best tweets in history, you don’t try to turn the election into a centrist rally for the idea that better things aren’t possible — and you sure as hell don’t ask progressives to shut up.

You instead focus intently on telling your party’s voters how the election will materially improve their lives.

Of course, the Democratic Party machine and the Biden campaign aren’t really interested in doing that right now. They want to run an anti-Trump campaign, and nothing else.

In light of that, progressives shouldn’t unilaterally disarm and stay silent when Corporate Democrats are getting bolder and more brazen about using this pre-election period to push their depressing, better-things-aren’t-possible policy agenda.

Staying quiet in the face of that pablum doesn’t help. The real way to help boost turnout and energize voters is for progressives to push back against the corporate propaganda and make clear that — whether the establishment likes it or not — this election can and will offer the opportunity to achieve something even bigger than just getting rid of Trump.

Confirming Progressive Warnings, Social Security Actuary Says Trump Payroll Tax Cut Would Effectively Destroy Program by 2023



"Trump's disastrous plan to defund Social Security would eliminate retirement and disability benefits by 2023," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "That may make sense to the billionaires at Trump's country club, but it makes zero sense to me."

August 25, 2020 Jake Johnson COMMON DREAMS

https://portside.org/2020-08-25/confirming-progressive-warnings-social-security-actuary-says-trump-payroll-tax-cut-would


The Social Security Administration's chief actuary estimated late Monday that eliminating the payroll tax would fully deplete Social Security's disability and old-age trust funds by 2023, confirming the disastrous consequences progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers have been warning of since President Donald Trump threatened earlier this month to "terminate" the levy if reelected in November.

"Everyone should listen to Social Security's independent chief actuary and alert your friends and family: If Donald Trump wins reelection, Social Security will be at his mercy."
—Nancy Altman, Social Security Works

In a letter (pdf) to Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), SSA chief actuary Stephen Goss wrote that scrapping the payroll tax would "permanently" deplete the Disability Insurance trust fund by mid-2021 and the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund by mid-2023 "with no ability to pay" the benefits afterward.

The letter comes days after the group of Senate lawmakers asked (pdf) Goss to analyze "hypothetical legislation" that would zero out the payroll tax as Trump has repeatedly proposed in recent months.

"The law does not provide authority for the trust funds to borrow in order to pay benefits beyond the limited authority for 'advance tax transfers," explained Goss, a 30-year SSA veteran. "This limited authority allows all payroll tax income expected for a month to be advanced to the beginning of that month if needed to meet benefit obligations on a timely basis. Thus... benefit obligations could not be met after the depletion of the asset reserves and elimination of payroll taxes."

Nancy Altman, president of advocacy group Social Security Works, said in a statement that Goss' assessment further substantiates "what Democrats and Social Security advocates have been saying for weeks: Donald Trump's plan to 'terminate' Social Security's dedicated funding if he is reelected would destroy Social Security."


"Trump has shown himself willing to undermine the post office, the free press, and other institutions. If he's reelected, our Social Security system is his next target," Altman warned. "Everyone should listen to Social Security's independent chief actuary and alert your friends and family: If Donald Trump wins reelection, Social Security will be at his mercy."

Goss' letter came shortly before Donald Trump Jr., during a speech on the opening night of the Republican National Convention Monday, touted his father's attempt to unilaterally suspend the payroll tax, referring to a directive the president signed last month that experts and employers have slammed as unworkable and illegal.


"They attacked my father for suspending the payroll tax for middle-class workers," Don Jr. complained.


In a statement responding to Goss' analysis, Van Hollen said it is clear that Trump's push to eliminate the payroll tax is "another thinly veiled attempt to gut Social Security and go after the American people's hard-earned benefit."

Sanders echoed Van Hollen in a tweet late Monday, writing that the SSA "confirmed what we already knew."

"Trump's disastrous plan to defund Social Security would eliminate retirement and disability benefits by 2023," said Sanders. "That may make sense to the billionaires at Trump's country club, but it makes zero sense to me."

WHO BENEFITS? THE NAVALNY CASE: USUAL SUSPECTS, ACTUAL CULPRITS



By David C Speedie and Krishen Mehta, East-West Accord.


We are concerned about the recent news relating to the poisoning of Russian opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, and believe that it may be another attempt by certain interested parties to worsen the already strained US-Russia relations.

Even those who despise President Putin know that he is not insane. Why would Putin seek ‘normal’ relations with Europe [and, at the beginning at least, the United States] only to subvert those efforts by having people shot next door to the Kremlin (Nemtsov) or poisoned on airplanes or airports (Navalny)? It would be like the all-too-obvious murder suspect who leaves his ID at the scene of the crime.

There has been a drumbeat of accusations from intelligence agencies in the US and the UK of nefarious Kremlin behavior: official Russian government interference in elections; the “bounty” report targeting US troops in Afghanistan; now the Navalny episode, which recalls the Sergei Skripal poisoning in the UK.

Apart from those already offered, there are a number of reasons that suggest Putin may not be culpable, and that other forces may be at work. In our view, they include the following:

1. The timing of the Navalny drama is suspicious, occurring as it did just before the closing of the Democratic National Convention and right before the start of the Republican National Convention. This way Russia’s ‘malign’ activities remain front and center in the mainstream media in the middle of a US election. One has to ask: Cui bono?

2. The Russian bounty report has become implanted in the public mind even though there was no credible evidence, and the Defense Department has officially denied it. Yet President Trump is asked about this at almost every press conference. It was even mentioned in Biden’s acceptance speech on August 20th. This ‘poisoning’ news of Alexey Navalny will now seamlessly replace the Russian bounty report. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “Here they go again.”

3. The Durham report has been underway for some time, and the prosecutor may soon be ready to bring about specific charges against certain members of our own intelligence community. What better way to protect these agencies and foment a distraction from Durham via another “Putin poisoning”?

4. President Trump has offered to meet with President Putin at the General Assembly meeting in September. News such as this will inevitably make it difficult for him to do so, for fear of being perceived as a ‘Putin puppet’. That will further setback US relations with Russia, and make such dialogue even more difficult than it is now.

5. Various Arms Control treaties have already been abrogated or withdrawn from, and New START is scheduled to expire in February 2021. Renewal will require that the negotiations begin now. News such as this will make that more difficult, and feed into the interests of our own military and corporate groups that stand to profit from the abrogation of such treaties.

6. Germany is keen to have the Nord Stream 2 pipeline completed and only the last segment remains to be built. What better way to stall that effort than to have this dire news of attack on a political opponent? How can the EU possibly deal with President Putin under these circumstances? The way is paved for sanctions on any party helping with the completion of that pipeline [remember the fresh tranche of sanctions that followed the Skripal episode.]

7. Senator Lindsay Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is in the process of some important hearings about the role of former FBI Director James Comey, the falsification of emails in order that the FBI could obtain FISA warrants to monitor the Republican presidential candidate, question the bonafides of the Steele dossier, and so on. News such as this, which can sway the public mind against President Putin even more, will inevitably seek to make those hearings less credible.

8. Mr. Navalny has dealt with some dubious, indeed dangerous characters, both in business deals and in politics. With regard to the latter, he has long been involved with various ultranationalist groups, including anti-immigrant The People, which espoused “the rights of ethnic Russians” while advocating the expulsion from Russia of entire national populations, including Georgians. As founder or member of subsequent Rightist organizations [he describes himself as a “nationalist democrat”] for years, he led the annual “Russia March” which was described by EU representatives as a “Parade uniting Russian nationalist groups of all stripes.” In other words, Navalny has baggage—a fact ignored by Western media, which has lionized him as Putin’s #1 opposition leader [even though his popularity in Russia is slim.]

In sum, it is highly questionable that Putin is behind this poisoning-if indeed this was the cause of Navalny’s collapse. More likely it could be the work of certain Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs who have their own agenda against President Putin. Even the Financial Times, no friend of Putin, said in an August 21 editorial:

“Mr. Navalny made enemies across Russia’s business and political class. If he was poisoned, there is no certainty the authorities or state-linked articles were responsible.” In the interests of fairness, we need consideration of all myriad possibilities, not a rush to convenient judgment.

CHINA AND THE DECLINE OF US POWER



By Chandra Muzaffar, Transcend Media Service.
August 25, 2020

https://popularresistance.org/china-and-the-decline-of-us-power/


Constant attacks by some US elites on China will, according to some observers, diminish and disappear once the US presidential election is over in November 2020. This is unlikely to happen for at least two reasons:
One, the issues that underscore the targeting of China are fundamental in nature and go beyond elections and personalities.
Two, at the root of some of these issues are questions of power— of dominance and control— whose resolution will span decades if not centuries.

In examining the interface between the US and China, I shall begin with those areas of conflict where the latter has surpassed the former. This will be followed by reflections on manifestations of US power which are not as formidable as they are made out to be. Conclusions will be drawn from these two categories on the emerging pattern of global power.

Within specific sub-fields of science and technology, China appears to have moved ahead of the US. Maritime surveillance and lunar geography would be two such sub-fields. Chinese advances in electronics and telecommunications have also been breathtaking. It is because China is at the forefront of cutting edge technology that there is so much anxiety in the US and the West today about China’s ascendancy. Those who have dominated the world for so long know that it is mastery over science and technology that endows a nation or civilization with power and strength.

Its mastery over science and technology is one of the reasons why in a few decades China has become the factory of the world manufacturing a whole range of affordable, quality goods for people everywhere. China’s success in penetrating markets has made the nation indispensable to the global economy. Even in the entertainment industry, a video-sharing platform like TikTok has become a sensation among the young prompting US authorities to impose curbs upon it.

More than its production of goods and services, it is China’s massive global infrastructure transformation through its Belt Road Initiative (BRI) that is destined to have a lasting impact upon humankind. An endeavor that spans 138 countries, the BRI connects Asia with Africa and Europe through land and maritime routes. It not only seeks to build highways and ports but also attempts to initiate agrarian projects and accelerate industrial ventures which will raise incomes and increase the productivity of many poor countries.

Compared to the BRI there are other spheres where US power appears to be overwhelming. But if we probed each of these spheres carefully, we would discover that US power is only a veneer. Its so-called military prowess is a case in point. Though the US has a huge arsenal and some 800 military bases girding the globe, we forget that it has not won a single major war since the end of the Second World War. Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan testify to this. In fact, its involvement in wars in the last 50 or 60 years have been unmitigated disasters.

Another pillar of US power is the US dollar— the world’s reserve currency. The dollar is no longer as dominant as it once was. In 2015 for instance, approximately 90 % of bilateral transactions between China and Russia were conducted in dollars. By 2019 “the figure had dropped to 51%”

US imposed sanctions against Russia since 2014 following Crimea’s restoration to Russia contributed to this. The US also imposed “tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Chinese goods “which forced China to de-dollarize.” Moscow and Beijing reinforced their financial relationship in June 2019 through a deal “ to replace the dollar with national currencies for international settlements between them.” Russia has also been accumulating Yuan reserves at the expense of the dollar.

The US also perpetuates its global dominance through an extensive propaganda network that projects the US as the greatest nation on earth. It is a portrayal that has lost its luster in the last couple of decades. The US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 which was unjust as it was immoral tarnished the US’s image in the eyes of the world. Increasingly, it has come to be perceived as a rapacious nation that has no scruples about slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people in pursuit of its hegemonic agenda.

More than its role in wars and all the sufferings they cause, the US elite’s failure to govern effectively has shattered and battered its image The coronavirus pandemic and the economic miseries generated by it, have revealed that compared to some countries in Asia the US elite is incapable of protecting the well-being of its own citizenry. With 176 thousand fatalities and 5.68 million infections as of the 22ndt of August 2020, the elite stands condemned for betraying and sacrificing the people. If good governance is the hallmark of a ‘developed nation’ then the US can no longer lay claim to that status.

The coronavirus pandemic with all its dire consequences has also exposed how deeply flawed notions of ‘freedom’ and ‘the rights of the individual’ are in the US When freedom of the individual relegates the collective good of society to the margins, it breeds a self-centered obsession with freedom which in the ultimate analysis undermines freedom itself. If freedom and the celebration of the individual are the glorious attributes of societies like the US, the pandemic has shown us all how ugly their misconception and misapplication can be.

In a nutshell, it is not just the rise of China which is responsible for the decline of the US. Its own distorted perspective on power, its perverted sense of individual freedom, and most of all its lust for global hegemony have all contributed to its fall. This is why as the American people approach yet another presidential election, they should for their own good reflect upon their own flaws and foibles as a nation. It is humility and honesty of this sort that is the need of the hour.

GERMANY BEGINS A UNIVERSAL-BASIC-INCOME TRIAL FOR THREE YEARS



By Adam Payne, Business Insider.


Starting This Week, 120 Germans Will Receive A Form Of Universal Basic Income Every Month For Three Years.

The concept of universal basic income has gained traction in recent years, and Finland tested a form of it in 2017.

Germany is about to become the latest country to trial a universal basic income, starting a three-year study of how it affects the economy and recipients’ well-being.

As part of the study, 120 people will receive €1,200, or about $1,430, each month for three years — an amount just above Germany’s poverty line — and researchers will compare their experiences with another group of 1,380 people who will not receive the payments.

The study, conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research, has been funded by 140,000 private donations.

All participants will be asked to complete questionnaires about their lives, work, and emotional state to see whether a basic income has had a significant impact.

Universal basic income is the idea that a government should pay a lump sum of money to each of its citizens, usually once a month, regardless of their income or employment status, effectively replacing means-tested benefits.

Its proponents argue that it would reduce inequality and improve well-being by providing people more financial security. Its opponents say it would be too expensive and discourage people from going to work. The idea has gained traction in recent years amid financial crises and growing inequality in some Western countries.

Jürgen Schupp, who is leading the study, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel that it would improve the debate about universal basic income by producing new scientific evidence.

“The debate about the basic income has so far been like a philosophical salon in good moments and a war of faith in bad times,” he told the newspaper.

“It is — on both sides — shaped by clichés: Opponents claim that with a basic income people would stop working in order to dull on the couch with fast food and streaming services. Proponents argue that people will continue to do fulfilling work, become more creative and charitable, and save democracy.

“Incidentally, these stereotypes also flow into economic simulations as assumptions about the supposed costs and benefits of a basic income.

“We can improve this if we replace these stereotypes with empirically proven knowledge and can, therefore, lead a more appropriate debate.”

A pro-basic-income lobbying group called Mein Grundeinkommen is funding the experiment. The group has used donations from its supporters to fund monthly €1,000 payments for 668 people since 2014.

Finland experimented with a form of basic income for nearly two years: From January 2017 to December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns received €560 a month. But the researchers behind that trial concluded that while it led to people out of work feeling happier, it did not lead to increased employment, the BBC reported.

KOCH ACADEMIC INFLUENCE RETURNS TO MASSACHUSETTS WITH NEW TUFTS UNIVERSITY THINK TANK



By Dana Drugmand, DeSmog Blog.


When a new Massachusetts think tank housed at Tufts University launched earlier this year, Boston-based media described it as a “CBO-like center” (referring to the Congressional Budget Office) that would offer an “independent analysis” of proposed state policy and legislation.

But one of the main funders of this think tank, called the Center for State Policy Analysis, is a program tied financially to the petrochemical billionaire Koch family. This apparent Koch-linked funding raises questions about just how independent the center’s policy analyses may be.

The Center for State Policy Analysis (CSPA), established in February 2020 and located at Tuft’s Tisch College of Civic Life, says it offers “rigorous, timely, nonpartisan analysis of live legislative issues and statewide ballot initiatives.” In addition to examining the state’s ballot questions for the upcoming November election, CSPA plans to review options for addressing rising prescription drug costs and to undertake an analysis of a proposed regional plan to tackle carbon emissions from vehicles called the Transportation and Climate Initiative.

Initial funding for this think tank, as CommonWealth reported, has come from one of the state’s largest private health insurance companies and from a program called Emergent Ventures, which is based at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University.



Emergent Ventures is a grant program of the right-wing Mercatus Center, and Mercatus is directly tied to Koch Industries and Charles Koch. Charles is on the board of directors at the Mercatus Center, which was founded by Richard Fink, a former executive Vice President and board member of Koch Industries.

Mercatus also is connected with the State Policy Network, a network of free-market think tanks around the country tied to Koch funding that tends to oppose climate action and clean energy. One of these SPN-affiliated groups, the Beacon Hill Institute, published an analysis in March this year—and recently touted by the climate-denying Heartland Institute—claiming the costs of the Transportation and Climate Initiative would outweigh the benefits. This is an argument that Koch and oil industry allies have repeatedly raised in attacking the “cap-and-trade for cars” program.

The Beacon Hill Institute was hosted for years at Suffolk University in Boston, until 2016 when the school’s leadership changed policies to restrict from whom BHI could take money. Today, Koch-funded policy analysis once again has a veneer of academic credibility in the Bay State, with the CSPA at its new home in Tufts’ Tisch College.

It is unclear at this point whether the CSPA will produce an analysis similar to the one from Beacon Hill Institute on TCI, but given CSPA’s and BHI’s shared funding ties to Koch foundations, it is not far-fetched to wonder.

Koch Industries is, after all, in the oil refining business, one of the main industries that stands to lose profits from initiatives like TCI aimed at cleaning up the transportation sector, now the largest source of carbon pollution in America.

ARE POSTAL SERVICE CUTS MOTIVATED BY VOTER SUPPRESSION, PRIVATIZATION OR BOTH?



By Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger, Inequality.


Throughout its 245-year history, the Postal Service has persevered through rain, snow, heat, the gloom of night, and even a global pandemic to serve the American people. But now this vital public service is under attack from within. In the course of two short months, a new Postmaster General has dramatically slowed the mail by banning overtime pay, dismantling mail sorting machines, removing mailboxes, and other service cuts.

On August 24, the House Oversight Committee will grill Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump ally, and Republican mega-donor, about whether these reckless actions are aimed at suppressing mail-in votes in the November election. This is a legitimate fear, given President Trump’s war on the vote by mail.

DeJoy’s actions could also be aimed at advancing another Trump administration goal: privatization. In 2018, the Office of Management and Budget recommended selling off the public Postal Service to for-profit corporations. A 2019 Trump Task Force on the Postal Service, headed by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, called for the privatization of wide swaths of the public agency.

Given the overwhelming public support for the Postal Service, the U.S. government is unlikely to be able to get away with selling it off through public stock offerings as some other nations have done. Private corporations are unlikely to be interested in buying USPS lock, stock, and barrel anyway.

The private carriers UPS and FedEx would be most interested in acquiring more of the public agency’s lucrative and growing package business. They don’t need legislative or executive action. They just need USPS to drive away their own customers by slowing deliveries and jacking up rates.

Having succeeded in slowing deliveries, USPS officials recently imposed an increase in commercial package shipping costs from October 18 through December 27. While private carriers have instituted holiday surcharges for certain shipment classes for two weeks around Christmas, the USPS price increase would affect virtually all USPS package shipments and for two months.

In a press statement, USPS claims that by jacking up rates only on commercial customers, it is “protecting the retail consumer during a vulnerable economic period.” But anyone who’s studied Business 101 knows that these costs will likely be passed on to customers.

The hike in package delivery costs are an early Christmas gift to UPS and FedEx. Since the August 6 USPS decision to increase their rates, Fedex shares are up 20 percent and UPS is up more than 10 percent, compared to a less than 1 percent increase in the S&P 500.

Likewise, DeJoy’s removal of high-volume mail sorting equipment in USPS facilities around the country could pave the way for privatizing this part of USPS. According to news reports, this equipment is not simply being pulled out and stored in warehouses — it’s being dismantled.

So what will happen when the pandemic ends, mail volumes rebound, and USPS needs additional sorting capacity? DeJoy could claim the “most efficient” solution is to turn to private sorting companies like Pitney Bowes to do the work, thus eliminating thousands of good public sector post office jobs.

DeJoy’s personal financial holdings should also be scrutinized by House Oversight Committee members. He owns at least a $30 million stake in USPS contractor XPO and as much as $100,000 in Amazon stock options.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called back House members from their recess to vote on legislation as early as August 22 to reverse DeJoy’s service cuts and other actions that have caused mail slowdowns across the country.

This is a very encouraging step, but Congress must also come through with legislation that provides at least $25 billion in crisis relief aid to ensure that our public Postal Service can continue providing essential services during the pandemic, including handling mail-in ballots. The House approved this aid in the HEROES Act. Seven Republican Senators have joined Democrats in co-sponsoring similar legislation on the Senate side.

The fox has entered the henhouse. It’s time our leaders in Washington drive him back out and ensure our public Postal Service can continue serving all Americans for the duration of the pandemic and for years to come.