|
November 3, 2012 - No. 41
The U.S. Electoral Fraud
A "Coalition of Centrists" in the Making
The
U.S.
Electoral Fraud
• A "Coalition of Centrists" in the Making
• As Election Looms, Many Voters
Fear the Process Is Compromised - Tony Pugh, McClatchy
Newspapers
• Ohio's Ballot Woes Could Delay
Election Results for Weeks - Aviva Shen, ThinkProgress
• Pennsylvania Attempting to
Disenfranchise Latino Voters
Election Issues
• The "Fiscal Cliff" and
Dysfunctional Congress
• The Genocide of Mass
Incarceration
• Immigrant Rights
The U.S. Electoral Fraud
A "Coalition of Centrists" in the Making
In a surprise announcement, New York City Mayor Michael
R.
Bloomberg, endorsed President Barack Obama. Bloomberg calls himself an
"independent" and is known for being a "moderate," and calling for an
end to
the current gridlock in Congress and working in a "bipartisan" spirit.
As
Mayor, he also heads what he says is one of the "largest armies" in the
country, referring to the highly armed New York Police Department
(NYPD)
and large bureaucracy of city government. The NYPD, which also works
directly with the CIA, has its own tanks, helicopters and missiles.
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs
of Staff also endorsed Obama, as he did in 2008. Like Bloomberg, Powell
is
considered a "moderate," who also promotes "bipartisanship." He has
supported
Obama's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said
the campaign is "very excited" about the endorsement: "We think it
sends a
strong signal about why he should be sent back for another four years
to be
Commander in Chief." This is an indication that the role of Obama in
the
coming period is as Commander in Chief and that he must make certain
the
public treasury can be utilized for U.S. war aims in conditions where
the
economy is not recovering.
Bloomberg, after repeatedly saying he would make no
public endorsement
and expressing criticisms of both Obama and Romney, changed his mind.
It
appears Hurricane Sandy was a main factor. He endorsed Obama November
1 saying, "The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York
City
and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost
business --
brought the stakes of Tuesday's presidential election into sharp
relief. The
floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction
that will
require years of recovery and rebuilding work. In just 14 months, two
hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods -- something our
city
government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not
sustainable. Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme
weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may
or
may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this
week's
devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate
action."
Bloomberg titled his editorial, which ran in his
Bloomberg News, "A Vote
for a President to Lead on Climate Change." He emphasized, "We need
leadership from the White House -- and over the past four years,
President
Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption,
including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
His
administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions,
which
will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have
supported
through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans
a
year." He contends that Romney has "reversed course," on climate change
issues. He said, "If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were
running for
president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other
independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word,
disappointing.
"In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and
consensus-builder.
But as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and
sustaining
a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on
illegal
guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction. And
rather
than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he
engaged in
partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused
more on
redistributing income than creating it."
He then goes on to say Obama has achieved some important
victories.
Bloomberg says Obama's "Race to the Top education program -- much of
which was opposed by the teachers' unions, a traditional Democratic
Party
constituency -- has helped drive badly needed reform across the
country,
giving
local districts leverage to strengthen accountability in the classroom
and
expand charter schools. His health-care law -- for all its flaws --
will
provide
insurance coverage to people who need it most and save lives."
He concludes saying, "Neither candidate has specified
what hard decisions
he will make to get our economy back on track while also balancing the
budget. But in the end, what matters most isn't the shape of any
particular
proposal; it's the work that must be done to bring members of Congress
together to achieve bipartisan solutions." He says Obama can be
successful if
"he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust
of
moderates."
A Coalition of Centrists
 In a situation where the machinery
of the two parties is disintegrating and individual candidates with
their own
machinery are backed by contending factions among the rich, the
solution
posed is not one of bringing the parties together. This is not what is
meant by
bipartisanship. On the contrary, a "coalition of centrists" is called
for which
will work together to "achieve bipartisan solutions." Bloomberg, a
billionaire
himself and a representative of Wall Street, is positioned to be part
of this
group of "moderates" and help put it in place.
Bloomberg, together with former Secretary of Defense
Gates, former
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and potentially
now
Colin Powell as well, are all well-known "bipartisan" and "moderate"
forces.
Bill Clinton too is perhaps the quintessential "centrist."
Has a deal been made to bring Bloomberg into this
"coalition of centrists"?
Will these forces form a committee to secure control of the purse
strings? Or
perhaps take a place in the next Obama administration?
If so, it would mean Obama has his forces in control of
both Chicago and
New York City and their massive police forces. It also means various
different
alliances bringing together this "coalition of centrists," are in the
works. If
Obama can pull these various forces together, as the recent
endorsements
indicate, it is further evidence that the ruling circles see him as the
champion
able to preserve the union under conditions of the current cold civil
war going
hot. He is the one who can be successful in putting the public purse
strings
directly in the hands of the monopoly financiers, keep the people
repressed
while keeping the union whole. Or at least that is what the rulers hope.
As Election Looms, Many Voters Fear the
Process Is
Compromised (Excerpts)
- Tony Pugh, McClatchy Newspapers,
November 2, 2012 -
 Only days before millions of
Americans cast their
ballots, a climate of
suspicion hangs over Tuesday's national elections.
Accusations of partisan dirty tricks and concerns about
long voter lines,
voting equipment failures and computer errors are rampant, particularly
in key
battleground states such as Ohio and Colorado, where absentee and
provisional
ballots could decide a close election. [...]
State and local election officials and partisan
watchdogs are on high alert
for problems, as is the U.S. Department of Justice. All of them plan to
post
election monitors at potential trouble spots across the country.
The extra preparations will certainly help, but they
have not stopped
reports of phony election workers showing up at people's homes to
collect
their absentee ballots or anonymous callers falsely claiming that
voters can stay
home on Election Day and cast their ballots by phone.
With concerns running high about voter intimidation,
voter suppression and
poorly trained poll workers, many think that the integrity of the
elections --
and the officials who run them -- has been compromised. Nowhere is that
more
true than in Ohio, where Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has
drawn
the ire of Democrats by limiting the amount of time for early voting.
[...]
In their national bid to root out voter fraud, True the
Vote, a conservative
organization, might have hundreds of thousands of poll watchers
nationwide.
They plan to challenge voters they suspect of casting ballots
illegally. This
could slow the election process and force challenged voters to cast
provisional
ballots, which are counted later.
Labor organizations and voting rights groups, such as
Common Cause and
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, also will have poll
watchers making sure that voters aren't harassed, intimidated or
threatened by
True the Vote members. "Our monitors will be monitoring their
monitors,"
said Judith Browne Dianis, a co-director of the Advancement Project, a
national nonpartisan voting-rights organization. "We are going to make
sure
they're not engaging in bullying at the polling places."
The recent high-water mark for voter distrust is the
2000 presidential
election, when Florida's disputed votes and the resulting challenge to
the U.S.
Supreme Court left the race undecided for several weeks. The high court
eventually declared Republican George W. Bush the winner.
Concerns about the 2012 election mushroomed last year as
Republican
state lawmakers around the country introduced a series of restrictive
voting
laws that critics claimed would affect minorities, college students and
the poor
disproportionately. Democrats and civil rights advocates argued that
the laws
were a less-than-subtle attempt to suppress the votes of some of the
party's
strongest supporters.
Federal and state courts in 14 states ended up
reversing, weakening or
postponing many of the laws' most contentious provisions, according to
the
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
In the aftermath of those legal battles, a skeptical
electorate wonders
whether innocent mistakes, computer glitches and human error by
elections
workers have a deeper, more sinister intent.
After printing the incorrect election date on voter
materials printed in
Spanish -- but not in English -- election officials in Maricopa County,
Arizona,
made the same mistake a week later with a different document. Once
again,
the identical English-language materials did not have the error. [...]
Ohio's Ballot Woes Could Delay
Election Results for
Weeks
- Aviva Shen, ThinkProgress, November 2,
2012 -
Pollsters and pundits have trained their eyes on Ohio,
where President
Obama maintains a narrow lead over Mitt Romney just days before the
election. According to exit polls, Obama's lead is even stronger among
early
voters. But several recent developments threaten to disenfranchise many
of
these voters and plunge Ohio into a bureaucratic nightmare on election
night.
The Columbus Dispatch
reported on [November 1] that a
data-sharing glitch
and mistakes by election officials have caused thousands of absentee
ballot
requests to be rejected. While Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted
maintains
that this was a computer error, the Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates
found an
abnormally high rate of rejected absentee ballot requests in Cuyahoga
County,
a Democratic stronghold that includes Cleveland. The Cuyahoga Board of
Elections determined that 865 ballot requests had been erroneously
thrown
out.
If these voters try to cast their vote in person, they
will likely be forced
to use a provisional ballot, as the absentee ballot error has thrown
their
registration status into question. At least 4,500 registered voters
across the state
will be left waiting for their absentee ballots, while as many as 6,000
provisional ballots cast by registered voters could be tossed out. The
provisional ballots that do not get thrown out won't be counted until
November 17, according to state law, further dragging out the confusion.
This absentee ballot fiasco is just the latest in Ohio's
dysfunctional election
saga. On [October 31], the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed
Husted
to
discount ballots cast by people directed to the wrong polling station
by a poll
worker -- one of the most common errors that led to thousands of votes
getting
thrown out in Ohio's dysfunctional 2004 presidential election.
Husted became a national symbol of voter suppression
after he banned
early voting on nights and weekends, and attempted to defy a court
order that
restored early voting on the last three days before the election.
In his defense, Husted often touts his unprecedented
initiative to mail
absentee ballot requests to every registered voter in the state. But
critics have
pointed out that this measure will probably add to the confusion that
could
delay the results of the election. Anyone who chooses to return the
absentee
ballot application but later decides to vote in person will be required
to use a
provisional ballot, as election officials need to verify that they did
not also
send in their absentee ballot. The absentee ballot initiative, then,
could be a
bureaucratic nightmare in disguise. With innumerable legitimate votes
cast on
provisional ballots, Ohio's 2012 election could end up mirroring 2004,
when
the state discarded thousands of votes and tipped George W. Bush over
the
edge to victory by the narrowest margin.
Pennsylvania Attempting to Disenfranchise
Latino Voters
In Pennsylvania, considered a swing state where the
Latino vote is
important, state-sponsored billboards, in Spanish, have gone up in
predominately Latino neighborhoods to discourage people from voting.
The
billboards say that state issued identification is required to vote.
This is not
true.
Television ads highlighting the state's
mostly-invalidated voter ID law also
aired as recently as October 6. While Pennsylvania did pass a strict
voter
identification law, it was suspended by the state's Supreme Court for
this
election. The Court ruled that too many eligible voters were likely to
be
disenfranchised as they could not secure the ID. It also ruled that
registered
voters are not required to show ID at the polls in order to vote this
year.
 The billboards read "Si Quieres Votar,
Muéstrala"
(If You Want to Vote,
Show it), with a photo showing a women with a driver's license. The
billboards
are being paid for by state government using public dollars, just a few
weeks
before election day. Pennsylvania is doing this even though they are
well
aware that the billboards are false and will serve to disenfranchise
eligible
voters.
Before the Pennsylvania voter ID law was blocked by the
courts, the state
Republican House Majority Leader admitted it was enacted to "allow
Governor
Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" (by disenfranchising Latinos
and
other
people of color who are most likely not to have government-issued photo
IDs).
Recently, Clear Channel, which owns the billboards, was
forced to take
down billboards that were also misleading voters in Black and Latino
neighborhoods in Ohio and Wisconsin after the public spoke up in
outrage.
Many Latinos are now organizing to demand that Pennsylvania remove the
billboards. People are urged to sign a petition telling the
Pennsylvania
Department of Commonwealth and Clear Channel to take down voter
suppression billboards immediately: http://act.presente.org/sign/pasigns.
As
well,
efforts are going forward to inform all that ID is not required
to
vote.
Election Issues
The "Fiscal Cliff" and Dysfunctional Congress
 As election day approaches,
disinformation about what is
called the "fiscal
cliff" abounds. The fiscal cliff refers to upcoming automatic budget
cuts,
including to the
military, increased taxes on the majority and once again reaching the
"debt
ceiling," all to occur during the "lame duck" session of Congress. The
"lame
duck" session refers to the one after the November 6 elections and
before the swearing in of the new Congress January 3, 2013. It is
expected to begin November 13.
The ruling circles and their monopoly media commonly
refer to several
main elements involved in this "fiscal cliff." One is the automatic 50
percent
across-the-board budget cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control
Act, if no new budget is reached. These include 50 percent cuts
both
to the Pentagon budget and that for social programs. A main concern
expressed is the need to make sure the cuts to the military are
blocked.
Simultaneously, more cuts are demanded to social programs. This is
despite
polls which show that a majority of the American people are against the
wars
in which the U.S. is embroiled and demand seriously strengthened social
programs.
The monopoly financiers are claiming the country will
drive "off the fiscal
cliff" if drastic action is not taken. One such potential measure will
be to form
a committee of "moderates," under the Office of the President, to
decide on the
budget and prevent this "fiscal cliff." Two recent letters from the top
monopoly financiers make threats about the "fiscal cliff." They too
demand
that Congress and the President must put the country's "fiscal house in
order,"
or there will be more uncertainty and instability. The financiers,
echoed by the
media, all target Congress and demand that it act to make the necessary
cuts
to social programs. Former Secretary of Defense Gates called it a "make
or
break" situation.
In 2011 Congress gave itself more than a year to resolve
conflicts, but did
not succeed. It is dysfunctional at this point. Old arrangements of
resolving
conflict, based on the two parties of the rich and their machinery --
including
power-brokers that could deliver, dividing up committee chairmanships,
back
room deals on pork -- all no longer function.
The intense conflicts
within the ruling
circles are heating up leading to Congressional dysfunction and demands
for
the executive to establish an allegedly bipartisan committee to control
the
spending power. Obama is to be the champion who saves the situation by
defending the union against the danger of civil war, which is why he is
always
quoting Abraham Lincoln to describe the kind of leadership required
within the
situation. Obama directly commented that "Leadership more than anything
is
about setting a course and describing a vision for people Abraham
Lincoln
understood that we were a single union. And it took a bloody Civil War
and
terrible hardship and sacrifice to achieve that vision."
Obama, as president and Commander in Chief is
responsible for preserving
the union which requires maintaining the continuity of governance.
Congress
is dysfunctional, yet it has control of the public purse strings. A new
arrangement is required, consistent with the huge increase in executive
power
under both Bush and Obama. The "lame duck" session of Congress, the
last
before the automatic cuts occur, is thus looked at as an arena for
securing this
arrangement. The fear-mongering about the "fiscal cliff" is a means to
divert
and deceive the public that a great danger exists which cannot be
resolved in
any way other than the "Commander in Chief" taking control of the
public
purse strings. Who this serves is readily discernable.
 Among the key things left out of
the "fiscal cliff"
diversion are ending war
funding and bringing all U.S. troops home as major ways to cut the
deficit,
strengthen the economy and contribute to peace worldwide. As well,
there is no talk of even freezing debt payments to the financial
oligarchy, another ready source of funds. Given the fact that this
financial oligarchy bears the prime responsibility for the current
economic crisis, and the workers are not responsible, freezing debt
payments would be the obvious measure to take.
Instead, the main content of the proposals comes from
the
very same
financial oligarchs for yet more massive cuts to social programs,
including
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Their demands also mean that
government workers will likely face layoffs and cuts to benefits as
well.
Their various tax proposals also do not include
increased corporate taxes
or even guarantees these are paid. They do include requiring that
whatever
funds are secured by closing tax "loopholes," or eliminating
deductions, are
used to pay down the government's debts, mostly to themselves and their
private
interests. This means guaranteeing that the U.S. makes its payments to
the
financial monopolies on its debt, estimated at close to $500 billion
yearly.
All of this confirms that the "coalition of centrists"
which is likely to
emerge to deal with the failure of Congress to function, will guide a
"budget
committee" under the office of the president. Members of this coalition
of so-called centrists are also likely to be nominated to Cabinet
positions.
It is the
next step in the take over of the public authority by private
interests.
 The promotion of the "cliff" is a
means to justify such a move, to convince the public of its necessity
at a time when people are devastated by the failure of the American
dream, the promise of America to deliver economic prosperity, happiness
and hope. This American dream was to be restored by Obama in the last
four years, so that Americans could overcome the humiliation they felt
as a result of the atrocities committed under the Bush administration
which left the American dream and American promise in tatters. Instead,
the refusal of the ruling elites to permit the kind of changes which
are warranted at this time and their actions to depoliticize the polity
are such that the feelings of humiliation either get overwhelmed by
feelings of hopelessness or must be turned into the kind of resistance
which will bring about fundamental changes to the political and
economic structures in the United States of America. Meanwhile, this
election is all about how the ruling elites will continue to use the
American state power to plunder and devastate both their own country
and the peoples of the world to such an extent that it continues to
devour even itself.
Reference Material
Top Financiers Demand Further Cuts to Social Programs
The largest U.S. financial firms are demanding cuts to
social programs,
especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as necessary to
lower U.S.
debt. In two letters sent to Obama and Congress in October, these
financial
monopolies, who grabbed trillions of public dollars in the last
"stimulus," are
again demanding more payments.
They state the U.S. credit rating will be downgraded, it
is just a question
of when. Such a downgrade would increase rates paid by the government
to
borrow money -- meaning even more government payments to the rich in
the
form of payments on the debt.
As the one letter from 15 of the nation's largest
financial monopolies put
it, "Another downgrade of our nation's debt by a major rating service
could
lead to significantly higher interest rates." They add, "Higher
interest payments
would worsen our nation's fiscal burden and likely increase uncertainty
and
instability in global financial markets." Meanwhile these same
financiers
continue to get trillions from the Federal Reserve, interest free,
under its
"quantitative easing" program. The 15 monopolies included Bank of
America,
Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and the
financiers'
trade group, the Financial Services Forum.
 The financiers make no mention of massive war
funding as
a main source
of U.S. debt and no mention of cutting it as a means to lessen the
"nation's
fiscal burden" and increase economic stability. Ending the $1 trillion
in
military spending could readily deal with the current calls for $1.2
trillion in
cuts over ten years. Bringing all the troops home would immediately
allow for
such cuts, as the war funding and spending on the more than 700
military
bases and facilities worldwide would no longer be needed.
JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon says he will
use all the
power he has as head of the country's largest financial monopoly to
press
Congress for a plan to the financiers' liking. Dimon is a major backer
of a
Washington-based campaign known as "Fix the Debt," which is planning to
spend $30 million to convince the public to support the massive cuts
being
demanded by the financiers. It is "Fix the Debt" that issued the second
letter,
called a "Deficit Manifesto" that is backed by 80 CEOs of major U.S.
monopolies. These include CEOs of Alcoa, AT&T, Boeing, Caterpillar,
Delta
Airlines, Dow Chemical, GE, Merck, Microsoft, Time Warner, UPS, and
Verizon.
The "Manifesto" calls on politicians to acknowledge,
"that our growing
debt is a serious threat to the economic well-being and security of the
United
States." It calls for Washington to adopt "an effective plan [to]
stabilize the
debt as a share of the economy, and put it on a downward path." The
financiers again make no mention of cuts to war funding, interest free
loans
and/or freezing U.S. debt payments to these financiers, currently
estimated at
close to $500 billion. They instead argue that a plan must "Reform
Medicare
and Medicaid, improve efficiency in the overall health care system and
limit
future cost growth" and "strengthen Social Security, so that it is
solvent and
will be there for future beneficiaries."
 Social Security has its own
separate funding, and these
financiers want to
get their hands on it, just as they are striving to get pension funds
of both
private and public sector workers. "Reform" and "strengthen" are code
words
for gutting these programs, which already are insufficient to meet the
rights of
the people to health care and secure retirement.
The CEO statement also calls for "comprehensive and
pro-growth tax
reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and
reduces the
deficit." The incoherence of such a plan was raised, with one
commentator
quoted as saying, "You can't have lower rates and higher revenues," at
least
"not without eviscerating pretty much all of the tax deductions which
much of
the middle class has learned to rely upon. Mortgage-interest tax
relief, the
charitable deduction, even the deduction for state and local taxes:
pretty much
all of them would have to go." The "Manifesto" if implemented will mean
greater chaos and uncertainty as further cuts to social programs are
made and
taxes raised on the majority while keeping corporate taxes and freezing
debt
payments off the table entirely.
The statement concludes by calling on Washington to
implement the
recommendations of the 2010 "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson Commission.
Those included some $4 trillion in cuts to be achieved almost entirely
at the
expense of the working population: new taxes on consumption and
employee
health care benefits, cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and to the
jobs and
pay of government workers.
Both Obama and Romney expressed support for these
demands of the
monopolies. The Wall Street Journal,
which
published the "Manifesto,"
cites
the comment of Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt: "There's a strong
and growing consensus that the only way to reduce the deficit while
also
growing the economy is through a balanced approach that includes both
tough
spending cuts and increased revenue."
Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told the Journal, "As
president, [Romney] will bring his record of bipartisan success to
Washington
and put us on a path to achieve more than the Simpson-Bowles commission
ever proposed."
New York Senator Calls for Significant Cuts to Social
Programs
In a recent speech at the National Press Club, New York
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed significant cuts to Medicare. He
referred to
"reducing Medicare costs by hundreds of billions of dollars." Reducing
"costs"
is code for major cuts to benefits. Schumer put forward his proposal
for cuts
to social programs in the context of upcoming budget debates during the
lame
duck session of Congress, which occurs after the elections but before
the new
Congress is sworn in.
He is presenting the cuts as part of getting Republicans
to agree on a new
budget. As he put it, "A grand bargain can be had: Republicans get
entitlement
reform (read massive cuts to social programs), while Democrats get
revenue
(from keeping the top income tax rate at 35 percent or higher)." The
top rate
is scheduled to automatically go up to 39.6 percent January 1, if
Congress does
not pass a new budget.
 In previous battles on tax reform,
Obama has agreed to
lower the top rate
to 28 percent, while others, like Republican Paul Ryan, have called for
25
percent. Schumer is staking out the higher rate as a starting point for
the
upcoming negotiations, meaning it will undoubtedly go down. He also is
making it appear that he is in favor of taxing the rich, while in fact
his
proposals will guarantee more government payments to the financiers of
New
York's Wall Street.
Schumer is calling for tax loopholes used by the rich to
be closed,
something common to proposals by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Usually,
such funds are then used to cover the cuts in revenue that occur from
lowering
the top rate. Schumer, unlike others, is calling for all funds secured
through
closing loopholes or reducing deductions to be used exclusively to
reduce the
deficit.
What is left out of the discussion entirely is that cuts
to the massive
military budget, which annually is close to $1 trillion is the best way
both to
contend with the deficit and strengthen the economy. War spending takes
funds
out of the economy, while that for social programs puts money into the
economy. Further, a major source of the deficit is the interest
payments made
to the banks on U.S. debt they hold. Schumer's proposal serves in part
to
guarantee these payments to the banks will be made. Instead, all such
debt
payments should be frozen and all war funding stopped.
Schumer also brought out that the corporate tax rate,
which should be a far
greater source of government revenue than individual income, should not
even
be included in the budget discussions. He also did not speak to the
need to
close corporate tax loopholes, which make it possible for the
monopolies to
reap record profits while paying no corporate taxes or very low ones.
Schumer did say that a main source of income for the
rich comes from
capital gains. He said, "capital gains make up 60 percent of the income
reported by the Forbes 400," the top U.S. monopolies. But he said the
rate for
capital gains should not rise to the 35 percent level -- that would be
"too
much" for the rich. While admitting the current 15 percent is the
lowest since
the Depression, he said only that the difference between the two rates
should
be narrowed.
 All of Schumer's proposals
come in the context of the
upcoming budget
talks. They are being called, as he put it "talks on the fiscal cliff."
The "cliff"
refers to contending with the "much larger, more dangerous deficit,"
and the
automatic budget cuts and tax increases that will occur at the start of
the year
absent a new budget. By law the new budget must include more than $1
trillion in cuts or tax increases.
For Schumer, a top Democrat from New York, to be putting
forward
"serious entitlement reform" as a major bargaining chip, means that
massive
cuts to social programs, including Medicare and Social Security are a
done
deal.
Further, the whole "cliff" scenario is designed to block
debate among the
people on alternatives, such as ending war funding and freezing payment
on
the debts. It is to instill fear about the future while blocking actual
means to
secure a bright future, by fighting for a new direction for the economy
--
beginning by taking it off a war footing and putting it on a footing to
provide
for the rights of the people. It is also to hide the fact that so long
as the people
themselves are not decision makers about how taxes are utilized, then
changes
to the tax code are primarily a means to favor one group of the rich
over the
other, while continuing to take wealth from the workers.
The problem is not a "fiscal cliff." It is an economy
and government
serving the rich. What is needed is a new direction for the economy,
beginning
by ending war funding. What is needed are budget talks from the
perspective
of the people, which means, Stop
Paying the Rich, Increase Funding for
Social
Programs!
The Genocide of Mass Incarceration
The U.S. government utilizes mass incarceration as a
means to broadly
repress and disenfranchise African Americans. It is the genocide of the
present,
a genocide that is intensifying yearly.
 The United States prison
population has grown every year
for the past
thirty-six years. The rate of imprisonment in the United States is now
four
times its historic average and seven times higher than in Western
Europe. To
return to 1970s levels, four out of five prisoners would need to be
released.
Further evidence of the intensification of use of mass incarceration is
the fact
that at least 60 percent of those imprisoned are there for non-violent
offenses,
many of them minor like possession of small amounts of marijuana. As
well,
according to a recent Pew study, prisoners released in 2009 served an
average
of nine additional months in custody, or 36 percent longer, than
similar
offenders released in 1990.
Overall the United States has less than 5 percent of the
world's people, yet
accounts for 25 percent of the world's prisoners -- currently more than
two
million people and growing. The racism of the U.S. state, known for its
hundreds of years of slavery, is seen in facts like one-third of
African
American males, under 40 and forced out of high-school are currently
behind
bars. Among all African American men born since the mid-1960s, more
than
20 percent will go to prison, nearly twice the number that will
graduate
college. Six million African Americans are now denied the right to vote
as a
result of this genocide of mass incarceration.
In the U.S., African Americans have long played a vital
role in militantly
resisting oppression and fighting for progress. They are recognized by
the
ruling circles as a significant force in the fight for rights and are
singled out
for massive repression. Genocide is a weapon of mass destruction
practiced
against whole peoples and collectives. It is government use of force to
destroy
cultures and memory -- of resistance, of social development and
contributions.
The large majority of people across the country have
expressed their
outrage at the racism and government profiling of the U.S. state and
demanded
an end to mass incarceration. The rejection of the so-called war on
drugs, used
to justify this genocide is also widespread, as can be seen in the
referendums
in three states (Colorado, Oregon and Washington) to decriminalize
marijuana.
Similarly the government war on immigrants is also being rejected.
Workers
are together standing for rights and for progress. Their vision for
society is not
one of use of force against the peoples but one of defending rights.
Our future
lies in the fight for the rights of all. This direction is what needs
to be debated
and taken up for solution so as to eliminate the genocide of mass
incarceration.
 The issue of mass incarceration is not on the
election
agenda of the rich
because they cannot address the fact that they cannot provide solutions
to
social problems, like inequality and mass repression. Faced with
deepening
economic and political crises, and blocking the path forward, U.S.
rulers can
only resort to violence as their weapon of choice. Mass incarceration
and
policies like Stop & Frisk and mass deportations are all
intensifying, as
repression is the only response to a class that cannot go forward.
The working class has an alternative for a new direction
for the economy
and political affairs. It calls for stepping up the independent
politics of the
working class, guided by the fight for the rights of all. It is these
independent
politics that can and must be advanced -- during the elections by
refusing to
vote for the pro-war politicians of the rich and afterwards, by
continuing the
debate comparing the answers of the ruling class and the alternatives
of the
working class.
Immigrant Rights
Consider the government killings and violence against
immigrants on the
border and in communities across the country; increased racist
government
profiling and impunity to use raids and deportation to terrorize
immigrant
workers, youth and families; one million deported in the past two
years, most
guilty of no crime or at most traffic violations and similar
non-violent
misdemeanors; privately-owned detention centers with inhuman conditions
funded from the public treasury; federal programs imposing profiling
and
involving local and state police authorities in enforcing federal
immigration
law. These are some of the major problems on the issue of immigrant
rights
needing solution. Yet the issue of immigration and racist government
profiling
is barely being mentioned. And when it is, it is generally to say that
yet more
violence and militarization of the border is required.
 Since January 2010 there have been
18 deaths along the
border with
Mexico by U.S. immigration agents. Six involved individuals killed
while they
stood on the Mexican side of the border, guilty of no crime. Six were
under
the age of twenty-one and five U.S. citizens. Militarization of the
border is
such that helicopters with snipers are used to fire on and kill people
simply
trying to work, as the recent killings of two Guatemalan migrant
workers
shows.
The aim of the U.S. rulers in militarizing the border
while also promoting
fear and violence is to divide workers, undermine friendly relations
among
them on both sides of the border while justifying use of U.S. military
forces
inside Mexico. The U.S. wants to annex all of Mexico and Canada and
establish a single state in service to the North American monopolies.
They
want a single common pool of cheap labor and control of the natural
resources
for their empire building. Violence at the border, efforts to divide
workers
inside the U.S. and pit U.S. and Mexican workers against each other are
all
part of this effort.
Attacks on immigrants are a means to further attack all
workers, such as
through demands for biometric identification cards for all workers. The
many
detention camps, most privately-run but publicly-funded, are currently
used for
immigrants. But they can just as easily be used as future labor camps
for those
who cannot secure the national ID cards planned (see for example,
proposals
by New York Senator Chuck Schumer).
 The hundreds of thousands of
deportations (including
many workers who
have lived in the U.S. for years) are a means to undermine the role
workers
of Mexican descent play in developing the independent politics of the
U.S.
working class. As part of the single U.S. working class, these workers
have the
honor of restoring mass May Day demonstrations in the U.S., uniting
workers
and building the struggle for the rights of all.
Strengthening the unity and organized resistance to
government profiling,
racism and plans for labor camps -- beginning with the detention camps
now
in place, is vital to advancing the independent politics of the working
class.
The rulers are organizing to heighten tensions and divisions and use
issues of
immigration for this.
 Obama and Romney want to silence
debate on the vital
issue of immigrant
rights or manipulate it to secure votes. Obama, for example, promised
to use
discretion in deporting undocumented youth. More than one million youth
are
eligible for the program he established. U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration
Services officials had prepared to process 300,000 applications by
October 1.
But only about 120,000 people have applied, as they anticipate
providing
information to the government will lead to their detention and
deportation.
Less than 5,000 people have actually received the work permits and
deportation deferrals so far. Romney has said undocumented immigrants
should "self-deport," while Obama has set up machinery, including
detention
camps, for deporting one million immigrants while profiling and
terrorizing
many more.
Whichever man is selected as president, workers need to
carry forward
discussion on defending immigrant rights and developing relations of
mutual
respect and benefit with workers worldwide, during and after the
elections.
Election day is not the end of such efforts, rather a call to advance
them
further.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
