Most of all, it's urgent that you oppose war on Iran, defend voter rights, plan for 2014 races now, oppose austerity, support the 'Moral Mondays' in North Carolina, the Congressional Progressive Caucus' 'Back to Work Budget'! We're doing more than ever, and have big plans. So pay your dues, make a donation and become a sustainer. Do it Now! Check the link at the bottom...

The Bipartisan Budget Deal and the
Economy: The Beatings Continue

DEc 12, 2013 - The bipartisan budget agreement released late Tuesday is being celebrated, largely for showing that a deal is possible.

The deal is admittedly small ball, reducing about half of the sequester cuts in 2014 and one-quarter in 2015, a total of $41.7 billion in increased outlays over the two years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, when the government is projected to spend something over $7.4 trillion.

The deal was reached by give and take. Democrats defended Social Security and Medicare from cuts Republicans wanted. Republicans defended billionaires and multinationals from taxes that Democrats wanted. Democrats got some relief from short-term sequester cuts; Republicans got increased long-term deficit reductions. Democrats saved domestic programs from deeper cuts; Republicans saved military programs.

But what is the actual effect on the economy? The deal has been trumpeted as having great beneficial effects, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs that would otherwise be cut, while boosting business confidence that Congress isn't completely dysfunctional and won't continue to "lurch from crisis to crisis," a central talking point of the rollout. Let's take a look at each in turn.

Reducing the projected sequester cuts will save jobs that would otherwise have been cut. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimated that the full sequester cuts would cost about 700,000 jobs over the course of 2014, and slow growth by 0.6 percent. Reducing those cuts by half will reduce the carnage.  Economist Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers projects the agreement might increase growth by one-quarter of a percentage point compared to continuing the full sequester cuts.

But half of the mindless across-the-board sequester cuts will continue in fiscal year 2014 and three-fourths in 2015. This will continue harsh effects on government services. If allocations are made proportionately (a big "if" given that Republican appropriators will have disproportionate power in rushed, backroom deals), back-of-the-hand estimates by one expert suggested Head Start will likely have to cut 150,000 children from the program instead of 180,000.

And the budget itself will remain constrictive. 2014 discretionary spending levels are still projected to be lower than they were in 2013 even before adjusting for inflation.

Moreover, the deal excludes the renewal of emergency jobless benefits. This will cut 1.3 million jobless and their families off of assistance by the end of the year. Renewal would put an estimated $26 billion directly into the economy over the course of the year, and generate an estimated 300,000 jobs. The CBO estimates that the net increase in federal outlays in fiscal 2014 from the bipartisan budget deal (sequester relief minus the spending cuts elsewhere) will be $23.3 billion. Not renewing emergency jobless benefits will simply erase the economic benefits of the budget deal.

In sum, the beatings will continue, with a small reduction in strokes. As Larry Mishel, Director of the Economic Policy Institute, concluded, the deal will "do essentially nothing to alter the disastrous trajectory that has characterized fiscal policy since 2011." And even that wiggle room word "essentially" is generous.

The very fact of a deal is celebrated as likely to increase business confidence, end "fiscal uncertainty" caused by manufactured budget crises, and lead to more investment and more jobs....(Click title for more)

The Affordable Care Act continues to plow ahead, despite Republican attempts to fight it at every turn.  What is unfolding in front of us is nothing short of spectacular.  The problems with healthcare.gov [1] are slowly being resolved which is helping more and more people sign up for affordable healthcare, many for the first time in their life.  The law provides so much more than that, including standards for even the lowest level plans, protections for young adults 26 and younger, and the elimination of pre-existing plans.  Of course, you will not hear the success stories on the news, because those stories are not nearly as sexy as the "Obama Lied" slogan they are so fond of.

The biggest downside of the ACA is the reliance on the private insurance industry.  It does not have to be this way, however.  There is yet another provision in the Affordable Care Act that can open the door for states to institute their own single-payer healthcare system.  Other states have a public option, especially for those below a certain income level, but no state had instituted a true single-payer system.  All of this has changed thanks to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act.

Vermont-Home of Ben and Jerry's, Maple Syrup, Bernie Sanders and the first state to pass marriage equality.  Now, Vermont will be known for something that will impact every resident in the state.

The ACA provided states with federal funds to institute a Medicaid expansion.  The states chose to expand the program also were able to set up their own state exchanges, which were relatively free from the problems the federal site had.  Vermont decided [2] to take it a step further by setting up their very own single payer system.

The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.

The program will be fully operational by 2017, and will be funded through Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes.  In exchange, there will be no more premiums, deductibles, copay's, hospital bills or anything else aimed at making insurance companies a profit.  Further, all hospitals and healthcare providers will now be nonprofit.

This system will provide an instant boost the state economy.  On the one side, you have workers that no longer have to worry about paying medical costs or a monthly premium and are able to use that money for other things.  On the other side, you have the burden of paying insurance taken off of the employers side, who will be able to use the saved money to provide a better wage and/or reinvest in their company through updated infrastructure and added jobs.  It is a win-win solution.

To make sure that it is done right the first time, Vermont brought in a specialist who knows a thing or two about setting up a single-payer system.

    Dr. William Hsaio, the Harvard health care economist who helped craft health systems in seven countries, was Vermont's adviser. He estimates that Vermont will save 25 percent per capita over the current system in administrative costs and other savings.

Many like to say that the United States has the best healthcare system in the world.  The problem is we don't.  Not even close.  In fact, the only way you can get the best healthcare in the world, is if you are willing and able to pay for it.  The United States can and must do better for its people.

    Costs have to be held down - there is no reason why the U.S. has to pay twice the amount per capita as the next most costly system in the world (Norway's), and still not cover millions of its citizens. A Harvard Medical School study states that 45,000 Americans die each year from treatable diseases because they cannot afford to get treatment.

45,000 Americans die every single year because they cannot afford treatment, are you ready for that?  That is 15 times the amount of people that died during the September 11, 2001, attacks, or perhaps for you Righty's out there you would rather see it put this way, 11,250 times the amount of people that died in the Benghazi attack.  That equals 5 Americans that die every hour, of every day, of every year because of a preventable illness that was not taken care of due to lack of access and means.

Even once the Affordable Care Act wrinkles are ironed out, which they will be, and every America is covered, which will happen, that will not change the fact that all of this is being driven by a for-profit system by companies that only care about their bottom line.  Despite rules in the ACA which prevent insurance companies from absolutely gouging their customers, insurance companies are not exactly know for their ethical behavior.

A single-payer system would all but eliminate anybody dying unnecessarily due to lack of access to healthcare.  Our Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [3], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  How can somebody have life and happiness, without their health?  Despite the glaring hypocrisy of rich, white males who owned slaves stating all men are created equal, we have come a long way from 1776.  Yet when it comes to the very basic need, we are left to the whim of a business.  Single-payer is inevitable, and the ACA is a giant step in that direction.  We need must hold our officials to a higher standard which will get us there faster.  40,000 people a year is absolutely unacceptable.  Vermont saw the writings on the wall.  Will the rest of us?...(Click title for more)

PDA's Tim Carpenter and Rep. Barbara Lee at SNAP Rally

The enormous wealth disparity between the top 1% and the rest of America is an unsustainable economic and social injustice. We are committed to an economic recovery that employs all those willing and able, that houses all those needing shelter, and that imposes the cost based on the ability to pay.

The Economic and Social Justice Team is part of the following PDA platforms: We the People NOT We the Corporations, Tax Wall Street, Jobs and Fund Human Needs/Cut Pentagon Waste. We work on the following issues:

    Oct. 2008 - fewer than 14 million households received Food Stamps - in Dec. 2012, 23 million households did

   
In the same period, benefits per household have dropped from $295 per month to $274, while food prices have escalated

   
5 years growth of disposable personal income hit a high of 25% in 1965 and has plummeted to -5% currently

   
In 2000, corporate profits were about $500 billion and 66% of the population was engaged in civilian employment

   
In 2013, corporate profits were nearly $2 trillion and fewer than 59% of the population was engaged in civilian employment

   
Banks are holding record amounts of cash

    HR 1000 (Conyers - D-MI-13) Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment and Training Act

    HR 1579 (Ellison - D-MN-05) Inclusive Prosperity Act

    Advocacy Alert - Demand Details and Oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership Fast Track

    Advocacy Alert - Support the Robin Hood Tax

    Advocacy Alert - Support Jobs for All (HR 1000)

    BlogTalk Radio - Spreading the Word About Fair Trade

    BlogTalk Radio - Conversation with Bill Fletcher, Jr. on the Labor Movement and Being Progressive

    BlogTalk Radio - Meet Maggie Priebe - Working America (Union for working people without a union)

    Join our Monthly Conference Call (1st Wednesday)

    Join our Google Group

    Join our Facebook page

    Visit our Community Action Page

National Nurses United (NNU), Communications Workers of America,  Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, Public Banking Institute, Citizens Trade Campaign, MoveOn.org Regional Organizers and Councils

Issue Team Leaders

Randy Shannon

Dec 12, 2013 - Britain's Liberal-Conservative Coalition was founded in 2010 around a programme of austerity. The government laid down its immediate priority: deficit reduction. This, they argued, is because of the UK's high deficit. It obliged an immediate Spending Review. The previous Labour Cabinet had committed itself to its own programme of cuts. But its reluctance to agree to deeper reductions played a part, it is reported, in the Party's failure to attract the Liberal Democrats to last-ditch efforts to form a "progressive coalition."

As decisions to reduce spending were made, and filtered down to local authorities, a large number of anti-cuts campaigns sprang up. Ranging from those defending particular services, such as NHS hospitals, to Borough and County campaigns, these groups held meetings and demonstrations to protest against the effects of the Coalition's policies. A new Labour leader, Ed Miliband, elected with the support of most of the trade unions, did not actively join these protests, but was far from hostile towards them. Initiated by community groups and unions, with the visible participation of left organisations (Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party and others), Labour parties joined in many marches and pickets of council meetings.

These protests were far bigger than most of the more internationally celebrated 'Occupy' movements', with the exception of the Spanish 'indignados'. The camp at Saint Paul's in London attracted fewer people than, say, marches against Conservative-led Suffolk County Council in Ipswich. In London hospital campaigners mobilised (and still mobilise) whole communities.

Efforts to channel these movements into classic 'front' bodies, such as the Socialist Party's TUSC 'anti-cuts committee' and, what is now (relabelled) the SWP Unite the Resistance (ex-Right to Work), came to little. By contrast the Coalition of Resistance - sponsored by Britain's largest trade union UNITE - came to wider prominence, and gained the affiliation and backing of hundreds of groups. The TUC held a successful national March for the Alternative in March 2011. It attracted over 100,000.  A day of actions over public sector pensions that year was backed by large local rallies. The Ipswich one gathered over 1,500 people and was supported by the local Borough Labour Party.

But, as the Trade Union Congress pointed out as austerity began, those systematically opposed to heavy cuts in public spending, risked becoming isolated. This was borne out in Suffolk. Initial plans for a "big bang" privatisation of municipal services were delayed, a new Council leader elected and Head of Services appointed, and the original programme was introduced more slowly, but just as thoroughly. The most visible example is that the public Library Service is no longer publicly run. It is the responsibility of an Industrial and Providence Society, a private charity with no democratic structure, council funded, but with a heavy fund-raising role - and responsibility for its own reduction in provision. No effective protest against these changes has taken place.

The obvious conclusion is that something more than 'anti', anti-cuts in this instance, protests are needed. Michael Ford is not alone in the judgement that, "Reconstituting the labour movement so that it becomes a powerful expression of the working-class interest, and thereby a means of the working class giving a lead to everyone interested in a new and better society, is .... the main task for socialists to address." We could expand that claim: rebuilding popular backing and enthusiasm for left politics - that is recreating a wide constituency for left politics - is the bench-mark objective of socialist activism in the UK. Faced with the multiple difficulties we face our goals have to focus on the development of a new socialist consciousness in which, in E.P.Thompson's words, the working class is "present at its own making."

The People's Assembly was launched in February this year and held its first national rally in March. This appeared to fill the vacuum just sketched and offer potential for the bedrock socialism described. As Michael Ford stated, "Socialists and the unions need to reach out to each other more, integrate their work more closely where possible and elaborate common projects, of which the People's Assembly is an example." Owen Jones put it more bluntly, "Here's the rationale for the Assembly. It is unacceptable that - five years on from the near-collapse of the global financial system - there is no broad anti-austerity movement."

It would be accurate to observe (after Dave Renton, Britain's People's Assembly: an Auto-Critique) that the involvement of Counterfire, who had been behind the Coalition of Resistance (not to mention the Stop the War Coalition, StWC), was not universally greeted on the rest of the left (See Counterfire and the Coalition of Resistance: a critical analysis).  But the political weight of those signing the People's Assembly's declaration, which included all the major trade unions, left Labour MPs, a Green MP, and respected quickly removed any doubt. Our UNITE Branch immediately signed up....(Click title for more)

December 5, 2013 - Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal -- The formation of a "third pillar" in the Front de Gauche (Left Front) was finalised at a November 23-24 conference in Saint-Denis of delegates from four of the Left Front's smaller affiliates: Alternatives (Les Alternatifs), Convergence and Alternatives (Convergence et Alternatives), the Federation for a Social and Ecological Alternative (Fédération pour une Alternative Sociale et Ecologique) and the Anti-Capitalist Left (Gauche Anticapitaliste).

The 200-strong conference, which gave the name Together! (Ensemble!) to the new formation, also involved unaffiliated activists from the social movements and trade unions, all members or supporters of the Left Front.

Together! sees itself as a necessary third pole in the Left Front, alongside the Communist Party (Parti Communiste Français, PCF) and the Left Party (Parti de Gauche). The main bases for the amalgamation of the four groups are the perceived need to build the Left Front as an involving activist organisation with its own membership and to maintain complete independence of the Left Front from the ruling Socialist Party.

Joining the four groups in the new formation were a number of militants from the Gauche Unitaire (Uniting Left), co-founder in 2009 of the Left Front along with the PCF and Left Party. However, a majority of the Uniting Left decided not to particpate in the new group.

The Uniting Left has been participating with the four other groups in the bulletin Trair d'Union ("Hyphen"), as has another smaller Left Front affiliate, Republic and Socialism (République et Socialisme), which is also not part of the regroupment. The other smaller Left Front affiliate, the Worker Communist Party of France (Parti Communiste Ouvrier de France) has not participated either in Hyphen or the creation of Together!

Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal posts below the founding declaration of Together!, along with an account of a June 15 preparatory meeting that provides useful background on the process.

The translations are by Colin Falconer and taken from Nouveau Poireau Rouge....(Click title for more)

Dec 8, 2013 - There's something so uncannily timely about The Hunger Games: Catching Fire that it's almost disturbing. In the UK over the past few weeks, there's been a palpable sense that the dominant reality system is juddering, that things are starting to give. There's an awakening from hedonic depressive slumber, and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  is not merely in tune with that, it's amplifying it. Explosion in the heart of the commodity? Yes, and fire causes more fire ...

I over-use the word 'delirium', but watching Catching Fire last week was a genuinely delirious experience. More than once I thought: How can I be watching this?  How can this be allowed? One of the services Suzanne Collins has performed is to reveal the poverty, narrowness, and decadence of the 'freedoms' we enjoy in late, late capitalism. The mode of capture is hedonic conservatism. You can comment on anything (and your tweets may even be read out on TV), you can watch as much pornography as you like, but your ability to control your own life is minimal. Capital has insinuated itself everywhere, into our pleasures and our dreams as much as our work. You are kept hooked first with media circuses, then, if they fail, they send in the stormtrooper cops. The TV feed cuts out just before the cops start shooting.

Trailer:  HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

Ideology is a story more than it is a set of ideas, and Suzanne Collins deserves immense credit for producing what is nothing less than a counter-narrative to capitalist realism. Many of the 21st century's analyses of late capitalist capture - The Wire, The Thick Of It, Capitalist Realism itself -  are in danger of offering a bad immanence, a realism about capitalist realism that can engender only a paralysing sense of the system's total closure. Collins gives us a way out, and someone to identify with/as - the revolutionary warrior-woman, Katniss.

The scale of the success of the mythos is integral to its importance. Young Adult Dystopia is not so much a literary genre as a way of life for the generations cast adrift and sold out after 2008. Capital - now using nihiliberal rather than neoliberal modes of governance - doesn't have any solution except to load the young with debt and precarity. The rosy promises of neoliberalism are gone, but capitalist realism continues: there's no alternative, sorry. We had it but you can't, and that's just how things are, OK? The primary audience for Collins' novels was teenage and female, and instead of feeding them more boarding school Fantasy or Vampiary romance, Collins has been - quietly but in plain sight - training them to be revolutionaries.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about  the Hunger Games is the way it simply presupposes that revolution is necessary. The problems are logistical, not ethical, and the issue is simply how and when revolution can be made to happen, not if it should happen at all. Remember who the enemy is - a message, a hailing, an ethical demand that calls out through the screen to us .... that calls out to a collectivity that can only be built through class consciousness .... (And what has Collins achieved here if not an intersectional analysis and decoding of the way that class, gender, race and colonial power work together - not in the pious academic register of the Vampires' Castle, but in the mythographic core of popular culture - functioning not as a delibidinizing demand for more thinking, more guilt, but as an inciting call to build new collectivities.)

Become a CCDS member today!

The time is long past for 'Lone Rangers'. Being a socialist by your self is no fun and doesn't help much. Join CCDS today--$36 regular, $48 household and $18 youth.

Better yet, beome a sustainer at $20 per month, and we'll send you a copy of Jack O'Dell's new book, 'Climbing Jacobs Ladder,' drawing on the lessons of the movement in the South in the 1950s and 1960s.

Solidarity, Carl Davidson, CCDS