UFT/Unity/AFT/NYSUT Bait and Switch Pro-Privatization Healthcare Duplicity, Playing Swap the Lobbyists Game

Oh, what a tangled web they weave,  

when first they practice to deceive! 

 

Always watch what UFT/AFT/NYSUT Leaders do, not what they say.

 

Ugh! I Mean UGH!!!!!!

 

• UFT political director (and former Cuomo aide) Cassie Prugh leaves for lobbying firm in December but UFT may retain her and her firm (rumor - @10k a month).
  
• Assistant UFT political director Angel Vasquez remains in place despite primarying (and losing) major UFT supporter Robert Jackson. 
• Mulgrew lists himself as a lobbyist along with Vasquez. Vasquez, as Prugh’s assistant, is tasked with lobbying on a city level. As he describes in his LinkedIn bio. Clearly he was responsible for the failed campaign to influence the City Council to amend 12-126. An attempt that hurts retirees and active workers as the code provides decades old safeguards protecting the healthcare of city workers. UFT Payments to lobbyists (Vasquez and Mulgrew?) are listed as 94K. Is this in addition to their UFT salaries?
  

I've been working on this story about UFT/NYSUT political directors that points to how our local, state, national union work in tandem with the corporate Democrats' aim to make sure healthcare remains under the control of private insurance. Remember how quickly Obama abandoned the public option in order to get the private insurance companies to support Obamacare because they are making a fortune? Fundamental neo-liberal concept that better profit making private than anything government. Reaganism from both parties. Only the Bernie left pushes back. 

Thanks to Daniel Alicea for doing the fundamental research. 

Daniel has provided some insights into explaining the reasoning behind the Mulgrew promotion of Medicare Advantage which is controlled by private profit making insurance over the publicly managed Medicare system. 

 

The key: the union is bonded at the hip to the corporate wing of the Dem party which is also pro-privatization which also promotes medicare advantage over Medicare. Biden even appointed a corp exec to run Medicare - the classic fox in the hen house. (see below for details). A gang of lobbyists do their thing very successfully.

Daniel's research into the history of our local, state, national teacher union positions on healthcare shows an evolution going from support for public option toward privately managed care with some careful managing of the language used.

In 2017, the unions flirted theatrically with Bernie Sander’s popular single payer Medicare For All plan supported by a supermajority of Americans. However, Daniel asserts that with the campaigns of Harris and Biden, the union machines like AFT and AFL-CIO fall in line with the privatized vision for private-public national healthcare system. 

 

There's a difference between single payer and medicare for all. Medicare for all Obama care style keeps the private insurers in the game. Single payer means the government pays all bills and also has the ability to control healthcare costs. 

Note this point whenever Mulgrew whines about healthcare costs going up:

In 1996 Pataki rescinded, decades-old practice of setting statewide hospital pricing.

Flashback: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/21/nyregion/pataki-is-seeking-to-end-regulation-of-hospital-rates.html

While mulgrew railed at high health costs his solution was to lower cost to city but never to use lobbyists to put hospital price controls in place by repealing the Pataki '96 giveaway to the hospitals. It’s acceptance that prices must rise and we are the ones who must pay, not the insurance companies.

And have you noticed how since then hospitals have consolidated?

The AFT’s shift on Medicare Advantage and privatization of Medicare 

into a few too big to fail groups?

And the disappearance or deterioration of public hospital options?   

• Here's a link to a dossier of links and documents showing this shift among our teachers unions from a strong anti-privatization stance for decades until the 2019-20 shift to privatization through Medicare Advantage and ACOs. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TmGybt3FwmrVOAxRaL-gd5AD0H-lRs3tV9JjtciTuHU/edit
  

Yes they call for universal coverage but in the model of an Obamacare system extension which is better than nothing but fundamentally is a windfall for private insurers. They are careful in not calling for a single payer system like we have with traditional Medicare. So when Mulgrew tries to move us from single payer Medicare to multi-payer Medicare Advantage, he is affirming the corp Dem (ie. Biden/Shumer/Pelosi, etc) position on healthcare vs the Bernie Sanders single payer wing.

 

Some Key takeaways:

• UFT/AFT leaders "claim" they want universal healthcare while doing everything they can to undermine the possibilities on all levels.
• Ditto for their partners in the Democratic Party run by a center/right connected to private health insurance lobbyists.
  
• UFT hires lobby firm representing healthcare industry.
• Biden chooses member of same firm to run Medicare. 
• Both Dems and UFT try selling universal healthcare for all but must go through private insurance companies instead of single payer.
  

Ed Notes' recent report on the coming changes in the NY State United Teachers (NYSUT News: Going - Pres. Andy Pallotta, Coming - Melinda Person Who? Has Never Been a Teacher - Succession or Coup?) we mentioned that lobbyist Cassie Prugh had left the UFT in December to go work for a private firm, Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips, LLP, leaving her UFT position vacant. Or maybe not. (See below for Prugh's lobby listings.) Also note above and below the letter Mulgew sent to state ethics listing himself and Vasquez as lobbyists at 94K a year while at the same time we hear they may use Prugh, now employed by Manatt, etc. as a consultant. Money to burn. Our money.

 

Want an example of litigation won by Manatt in California where they defended the right of hospitals NOT to reveal fees? Remember, Prugh comes out of the Cuomo admin - check his record on hospitals (and nursing homes).

Manatt secured a landmark victory for its client Dignity Health, a California-based nonprofit hospital system, on October 13, when the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the hospital in Gray v. Dignity Health. The decision affirmed the dismissal of a putative systemwide class action lawsuit that claimed Dignity Health unlawfully failed to disclose emergency room fees. The decision also held that Dignity Health complies with all state and federal pricing disclosure laws, none of which imposes a duty to disclose emergency room fees. The Court of Appeal held that the disclosure duty the plaintiff wanted to impose was directly contrary to a host of federal and state laws that prohibit hospitals from discussing cost with patients in the emergency room prior to treating them, thus “disregard[ing] the long standing regulatory environment within which emergency departments operate, which emphasizes that no one in need of emergency care should be deterred from receiving it because of cost.” 

Do you think this victory for hospitals helped them keep prices high?

 

Now how about this one as we tie the Biden admin to Manatt:

 

 

Jeez - the lady running Medicare managed the same firm that Cassie Prugh is working for. A tangled web indeed. Recently we found that Medicare was going to let the private insurers get away with billions in defrauding Medicare.

Daniel's next career should be investigative reporter.

No legislative reports at Ex Bd meetings 

Ok, so we have the link between Prugh and Manatt and the UFT.  For years we enjoyed former UFT Leg rep Paul Egan's reports at Ex Bd meetings because we wanted the latest soccer scores from Manchester United. We no longer get regular reports since Prugh left. Ask who replaced her and you get vague answers, including the UFT will now hire her and her firm as consultants. Now add to this that Prugh's deputy has been Angel Vasquez who outraged people by forcing Robert Jackson, probably the most loyal UFT supporter, into a primary for State Senate. We should not be using our dues to pay Angel Vasquez to work for the UFT. He was the agent of the right wing Dem attempt to purge a progressive. 

 

Here are some of Daniel's tweets on the story:

@manatt

is a VERY big lobbying firm.

@UFT

just secured them as their lobbying firm in Jan. Significant for a few reasons. 1. Manatt is one of the most influential lobbyists for Medicare Advantage & ACOs. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM00/20190612/109618/HHRG-116-WM00-Wstate-Brooks-LaSureC-20190612.pdf 

 

2.

@UFT

fmr political director

@cassieprugh

who just left, now UFT lobbyist in Albany. 

 

3. Fmr managing director for Manatt is

@BrooksLaSureCMS

appointed by Biden as director for CMS. She is on record in her belief that the path to national healthcare is through privatization.

 

Prugh and her assistant,

@angelvasq104

have lobbied with

@UFT

FOR admin code 12-126. The provision that protects city worker healthcare. Vasquez still with

@UFT

and on payroll. He ran against

@SenatorRJackson

in 2022. And is responsible for lobbying pols in NYC like

@CnDelarosa

 

To clarify, Prugh and Vasquez lobbied for the ELIMINATION of admin code 12-126.

A single payer option is off the table on state & nat’l level for the big Dem machine. Despite lip service. See Biden & Harris vision for private-public plans. We see this vision in 2019 when

@BrooksLaSureCMS

testified before Congress. It’s as if she targets NYHA https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM 

This privatization vision is reflected in our teacher unions when

@rweingarten

voted against including Medicare for All on DNC platform. And after decades of anti-privatization policy

@AFT

passes a resolution in 2020 during #lockdown that opens path to privatization.

This shift away from anti-privatization from teacher unions is made evident when

@aft

and

@nysut

rejected separate resolutions seeking to reaffirm our past rejection of privatization of Medicare. This is the AFT reso that was REJECTED in committee and not brought to a vote.

 And some source material:

https://twitter.com/educatorsofnyc/status/1625840781075308544?s=20https://twitter.com/educatorsofnyc/status/1625840781075308544?s=20

BERNIE WAS RIGHT - Virus testing wildly varying prices proves why we need single payer

Such discrepancies arise from a fundamental fact about the American health care system: The government does not regulate health care prices.
Two Friends in Texas Were Tested for Coronavirus. One Bill Was $199. The Other? $6,408.. NYT - June 30, 2020

Obama care fixed none of this.
On a regular basis the NYT publishes an article on the testing fiasco and points out the reason is that the government doesn't set prices which is why our medical system costs double anywhere else. Yet the articles never nake the connection to the major issue in the Democratic debates - medicare for all - single payer. By not making that connection, the NYT is making an editorial decision to bury the lede.

these differences aren’t about quality. In all likelihood, the expensive M.R.I.s and the cheap M.R.I.s are done on the same machine. Instead, they reflect different insurers’ market clout. A large insurer with many members can demand lower prices, while small insurers have less negotiating leverage.

Because health prices in the United States are so opaque, some researchers have turned to their own medical bills to understand this type of price variation. Two health researchers who gave birth at the same hospital with the same insurance compared notes afterward. They found that one received a surprise $1,600 bill while the other one didn’t.

The difference? One woman happened to give birth while an out-of-network anesthesiologist was staffing the maternity ward; the other received her epidural from an in-network provider.

BERNIE WAS RIGHT!!!!!! I want to see this the next time there is an article like this - but don't hold your breath - the Dem Party Center wants to see this continue - along with Obama care which obviously did nothing to curb this yet they defend it to the max - yes, I mean Biden.

By the way - note how the cultural left is focused on taking down statues and also buries the lede. They should be marching for medicare for all and universal income. But more of that in future posts - examining the fault lines between the cultural and economic populist left.

It is so logical to support single payer - where we can reduce costs in half - that the only thing that makes sense in terms of Dem Central resistance is the money coming in from the health industrial complex. (The same with support for defense budget - military industrial complex money to Dems.) And by the way - our own union (AFT/UFT) also oppose single payer and line up perfectly with the Dem Party- and yes, on defense spending too. They can close schools and cut budgets but the AFT/UFT will NEVER call for moving money from defense to schools.

Here''s another recent article:

Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?

How can a simple coronavirus test cost $100 in one lab and 2,200 percent more in another? It comes back to a fundamental fact about the American health care system: The government does not regulate health care prices.

This tends to have two major outcomes that health policy experts have seen before, and are seeing again with coronavirus testing.

The first is high prices over all. Most medical care in the United States costs double or triple what it would in a peer country. An appendectomy, for example, costs $3,050 in Britain and $6,710 in New Zealand, two countries that regulate health prices. In the United States, the average price is $13,020.

The second outcome is huge price variation, as each doctor’s office and hospital sets its own charges for care. One 2012 study found that hospitals in California charge between $1,529 and $182,955 for uncomplicated appendectomies.

“It’s not unheard-of that one hospital can charge 100 times the price of another for the same thing,” said Dr. Renee Hsia, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and an author of the appendectomy study. “There is no other market I can think of where that happens except health care.”

There is little evidence that higher prices correlate with better care. What’s different about the more expensive providers is that they’ve set higher prices for their services.

But American patients will eventually bear the costs of these expensive tests in the form of higher insurance premiums. In some cases, they are paying for additional tests, for flu and other respiratory diseases, that doctors tack onto coronavirus orders. Those charges are not exempt from co-payments and can fall into a patient’s deductible.

Those kinds of bills could make patients wary of seeking care or testing in the future, which could enable the further spread of coronavirus. In an April poll, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that most Americans were worried they wouldn’t be able to afford coronavirus testing or treatment if they needed it.

Did I say, BERNIE WAS RIGHT?

Bowman/Engel/Etc - Epic Battle for Soul of Dem Party, UFT Leaders Back Engel Against Progressive Educator, Warren/Bernie Vs Hillary/Cuomo/Randi

The UFT is not backing the progressive educator in the Bowman/Engel battle who is not in favor of all the ed deform stuff that hit teachers right in the face. But let's delve into the details of why at another time.

Election Day - I voted remotely. After months of fundamentally being in isolation I'm venturing out today as a volunteer - a distance volunteer. I'm picking up and dropping off literature for the Shaniyat Chowdhury campaign for Congress against incumbent Gregory Meeks in Southeast Queens and Nassau County. Shan is a progressive and hasn't gotten the publicity other challengers have gotten. Shan was in the marines for 6 years, a grad of Infotech HS in Queens and also a NYCHA resident. Meeks is a long-time rep out of the Dem machine and he's black, so Shan as an East Asian makes this an interesting race demographically. Here's hoping Shan wins but if he doesn't he has an excellent future in politics as he is only 28 and if he engages in the grassroots type of campaign to challenge the local Dem machine I'm all in. Of course the UFT is backing Meeks the incumbent with the more important issue to the UFT leadership is to stay true to Dem Party central - or as we on the left refer to them as CORP DEMS.

The hot race locally and nationally is the Jamaal Bowman challenge to Eliot Engel, along with the open primary event in Kentucky between Schumer and Corp Dem backed Amy McGrath against progressive insurgent Charles Booker - McGrath has attracted 40 million from Trump resistance Dem backers.

The race between Engel-Jamaal (who I've known from the anti ed deform battles over the years) has gotten national attention. He is not from the standard AOC brand and there was a guy in the race who was to the left but dropped out. Not getting noticed are two other candidates - I saw them in a debate with Bowman last week. I imagine they will draw a few votes from both Bowman and Engel - maybe more from the latter. If Bowman doesn't win look for him or another progressive to challenge Engel next time and he might choose like Nita Lowey (who retired in the face of a primary) to retire also. Justice Democrats have their eye out on this and I even know a NYC teacher who they are interested in having run at some point. By the way - that race has a chance of seeing a right wing Dem win over a gaggle of others - there are some progressives in the race.

The other race I'm interested in is the Lauren Ashcraft challenge to Carolyn McCarthy - I met her and her partner at a Bernie watch party and have given her money - she covers west Queens and midtown Man - my other home even though I am registered here. The problem is there is another progressive in the race.

And of course I support AOC - and imagine in 2018 how the UFT backed Crowley - I wonder if there is the same enthusiasm for her as an incumbent as there is for Engel? _ Tongue in cheek

There's so many issues on the table in these Democratic internal battles and how our union leadership on all levels - AFT, NYSUT, UFT - so totally line up with what is being called the Corporate Democrats who control the party and were especially successful in killing the Bernie Sanders insurgency and promoting Joe Biden.

What is clear is just how tied the UFT -which is the tail that wags the dog in the AFT - is under Randi control still and how our leadership is tied up hook line and sinker with the Dem Party Central -- and only a movement from below in the AFT will force change from being part of the fabric of corp dem which fundamentally is anti-worker and union.

Why is the UFT/AFT/NYSUT leadership so anti-progressive? You'll have to wait for a follow-up for that bedtime story. Hint: It's in their DNA.

Here are a few interesting links for the stories above.

Krystal Ball BLASTS Dems, Black Caucus for propping up white corporatists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOpO_OdJSJU

On the Kentucky race:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/20/us/politics/amy-mcgrath-charles-booker-kentucky-senate.html

On Bowman-Engel

ICEUFT Blog

ENGEL AND BOWMAN ON EDUCATION -

James comments:

Bowman is backed by the Justice Democrats, the CSA, the New York Times, the Badass Teachers Association, The Sunrise Movement, The Working Families Party, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others in a kind of a Who's Who of the progressive wing of the party. A quick look at Bowman's education plan shows there is much to like.

https://prospect.org/politics/eliot-engel-down-double-digits-new-poll-jamaal-bowman/

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/10/jamaal-bowman-eliot-engel-democratic-party

Why is this union (UFT) different from similar big city unions (UTLA, CTU): Commentary Update

In previous posts on the coming crisis - Parts 1 Part 2 and Part 3 I was speculating about the possible impact of massive cuts and changes in the schools next year and beyond and whether that would spark a level of reaction from the members that echo 1975. And if that happened how would the union leadership respond. I'm guessing it would follow the Shanker 1975 playbook -- give a little space if there was genuine outrage from the rank and file - as opposed from small groups like MORE and other usual suspects in the opposition - and allow steam to escape - and yes if necessary go on a pre-arranged with the city few days strike - and "win" back a few things while making the case for the city- and even do what Shanker did -- lend the city money from the pension fund. The result would be less calls for the union itself to be punished while allowing the members to take the two for one hit.

I also want to point out that the AFT national and NYS NYSUT are under the control of the same political forces as the UFT. There is a still low level political divide inside the national unions with UCORE sort of repping the left - and I will be reporting on a new entity in the national scene after I chat with one of their leaders.

One thing I forgot to point out about the differences between the UFT and the UTLA/CTU - is the latter two unions' ability to organize charter schools while the UFT has pretty much failed. I leave that for mulling over for a future post.

My last post was a corollary of sorts:

UFT Update: Which Came First - the leadership or the membership? Are teachers in LA and Chicago different than NYC?

And led to some comments on Leonie's listserve. Below her and John's comments I respond. Is the illegal strike the reason alone or even if we had the right to strike would this particular UFT leadership be willing or even capable of leading a strike similar to those in LA and Chi -- where they had a level of community support.

First from Leonie:

Norm: I’m not qualified to say if conditions are better for teachers here – I’ve seen Mulgrew argue yes.

NYC class sizes may be a bit better though not great, and there’s no publicly available reliable class size data in either LA or Chicago on this.

On the other hand, the UFT class size caps that exist are more than 50 years old, negotiated by Al Shanker and I’ve seen no real push by leadership to lower them through contract negotiations since that time.

I believe teacher salaries are higher in NYC than those other two cities, but would have to check.

But there is also a law against public employees including teachers striking in NY which doesn’t exist in Chicago or LA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Law

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-teachers-are-strike-exercising-right-not-enjoyed-most-n958871

Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three.

California is among the minority of states that do permit teachers’ strikes even though most states allow collective bargaining and wage negotiations for public school teachers.
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, as of January 2014, 35 states and the District of Columbia outlaw striking. Teacher strikes are legal in 12 states and not covered in statutes or case law in three.
Here are the states where it is illegal for teachers to strike according to this link: https://cepr.net/documents/state-public-cb-2014-03.pdf

From john fager

Leonie, and Hi Norm

Look at the health care benefits and the pensions. And the almost absolute job security. I don't think the Taylor Law, that forbids public employees from striking, has every resulted in teachers losing salary money. And the elections are not democratic. It is an autocracy.

My response:

John and Leonie,

The two for one penalties are very effective as a weapon that can be used not only by the city but also by the leadership to keep the members in line. The other penalties of the Taylor Law are severe attacks on the union itself - so it is a very effective double whammy,

And as Leonie points out the last time class size limits were put in was 50 years ago when the Taylor Law was enacted -- there is a connection with the fundamental loss of the right to strike with the attitude from the city that they don't have to reduce class size and would do so only at the point of a gun. This year's LA strike and to some extent the Chicago strike had a strong class size reduction component and even now don't match ours from 50 years ago --- by the way - the 67 strike was a key in the class size issue if I remember correctly.

But making strikes illegal does not stop strikes -- the first NYC strikes were illegal too as were the red state strikes.

There are fundamental differences in ideology between the leaderships of some of the other teacher movements and the UFT - as evidenced by which candidates they supported in the pres election. One of my points answers John's question - the lack of democracy (and by the way I would also question the level of true democracy in LA and Chicago if you do a deep dive) in the UFT - that in the areas where there is democracy of sorts - the elections for Chapter leaders and delegates and in the three divisions - elm, ms, hs - where retirees and non-classroom people vote -- only the high schools - with a very low vote total overall - has been 50-50 anti unity with the opposition still winning most of the time over 30 years.

My thesis in my next posting - part 4 - is that the 68 strike created an anti-teacher union mantra in liberal circles and that made any moves forward impossible in terms of taking strike action - and thus the 75 strike was a show - a lesson from the leadership to the membership that strikes are now going to be futile.

Lots to mull over.

Neoliberalism - Where Do Trump and Hillary Line Up? Plus Bernie: Dems Have to Wake Up

In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy. .......   Absent the neoliberal framework, we simply cannot grasp what is good or bad for citizens under Cruz versus Trump, or Clinton versus Sanders, or Clinton versus Trump, away from the distraction of personalities. To what extent does each of them agree or disagree with neoliberalism? Are there important differences? How much is Sanders a deviation? Can we still rely on conventional distinctions like liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, to understand what is going on? How do we grasp movements like the Tea Party, Occupy, and now the Trump and Sanders insurgencies?...

the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them.

Of course the word hasn’t gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton. The project of neoliberalism—i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society, and the self—has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
I said almost. The reason why Bernie Sanders, self-declared democratic socialist, is so threatening to neoliberalism is that he has articulated a conception of the state, civil society, and the self that is not founded in the efficacy and rationality of the market.

A superb piece on neoliberalism from Salon. Keep in mind in all my posts on neoliberalism - the UFT/NYSUT/AFT complex of leadership are neoliberals and that goes a ways to explain a lot. My last post on the NY Times piece on charters in Detroit is perfect neoliberalism in action. Bernie is presented as the ONLY option to NL - not Trump whom the press presents at the alternative which he is not. The best shot to change directions will come I believe in 2020.

Over the last fifteen years, editors often asked me not to mention the word “neoliberalism,” because I was told readers wouldn’t comprehend the “jargon.” This has begun to change recently, as the terminology has come into wider usage, though it remains shrouded in great mystery.... It is not surprising to find neoliberal multiculturalists—comfortably established in the academy—likewise demonizing, or othering, not Muslims, Mexicans, or African Americans, but working-class whites (the quintessential Trump proletariat) who have a difficult time accepting the fluidity of self-definition that goes well with neoliberalism, something that we might call the market capitalization of the self..... Salon, This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why the market and the wealthy win every time, Anis Shivani

A reader suggested the Salon piece on neoliberalism and it points to the fears of using the "n" word.

Neoliberalism is excused for the crises it repeatedly brings on—one can think of a regular cycle of debt and speculation-fueled emergencies in the last forty years, such as the developing country debt overhang of the 1970s, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s, and the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s—better than any ideology I know of. This is partly because its very existence as ruling ideology is not even noted by the population at large, which continues to derive some residual benefits from the welfare state inaugurated by Keynesianism but has been led to believe by neoliberal ideologues to think of their reliance on government as worthy of provoking guilt, shame, and melancholy, rather than something to which they have legitimate claim.

There's a lot of meat here so go to it below.

But first:
In yesterday's Times Bernie had an op-ed: Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.

We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels.

We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.

In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, not just a handful of billionaires.

======

Salon, This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why the market and the wealthy win every time, Anis Shivani

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/this_is_our_neoliberal_nightmare_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_and_why_the_market_and_the_wealthy_win_every_time/

Over the last fifteen years, editors often asked me not to mention the word “neoliberalism,” because I was told readers wouldn’t comprehend the “jargon.” This has begun to change recently, as the terminology has come into wider usage, though it remains shrouded in great mystery.

People throw the term around loosely, as they do with “fascism,” with the same confounding results. Imagine living under fascism or communism, or earlier, classical liberalism, and not being allowed to acknowledge that particular frame of reference to understand economic and social issues. Imagine living under Stalin and never using the communist framework but focusing only on personality clashes between his lieutenants, or likewise for Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Franco and their ideological systems! But this curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for a quarter century, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic party under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton. We live under an ideology that has not been widely named or defined!

Absent the neoliberal framework, we simply cannot grasp what is good or bad for citizens under Cruz versus Trump, or Clinton versus Sanders, or Clinton versus Trump, away from the distraction of personalities. To what extent does each of them agree or disagree with neoliberalism? Are there important differences? How much is Sanders a deviation? Can we still rely on conventional distinctions like liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, to understand what is going on? How do we grasp movements like the Tea Party, Occupy, and now the Trump and Sanders insurgencies?
Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people’s self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the “new man.”

It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it. Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state.
I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism’s long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything—every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet—in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology. Neoliberalism happens to be the ideology—unlike the three major forerunners in the last 250 years—that has the fortune of coinciding with technological change on a scale that makes its complete penetration into every realm of being a possibility for the first time in human history.

From the early 1930s, when the Great Depression threatened the classical liberal consensus (the idea that markets were self-regulating, and the state should play no more than a night-watchman role), until the early 1970s, when global instability including currency chaos unraveled it, the democratic world lived under the Keynesian paradigm: markets were understood to be inherently unstable, and the interventionist hand of government, in the form of countercyclical policy, was necessary to make capitalism work, otherwise the economy had a tendency to get out of whack and crash.

It’s an interesting question if it was the stagflation of the 1970s, following the unhitching of the United States from the gold standard and the arrival of the oil embargo, that brought on the neoliberal revolution, with Milton Friedman discrediting fiscal policy and advocating a by-the-numbers monetarist policy, or if it was neoliberalism itself, in the form of Friedmanite ideas that the Nixon administration was already pursuing, that made stagflation and the end of Keynesianism inevitable.

It should be said that neoliberalism thrives on prompting crisis after crisis, and has proven more adept than previous ideologies at exploiting these crises to its benefit, which then makes the situation worse, so that each succeeding crisis only erodes the power of the working class and makes the wealthy wealthier. There is a certain self-fulfilling aura to neoliberalism, couched in the jargon of economic orthodoxy, that has remained immune from political criticism, because of the dogma that was perpetuated—by Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes—that There Is No Alternative (TINA).

Neoliberalism is excused for the crises it repeatedly brings on—one can think of a regular cycle of debt and speculation-fueled emergencies in the last forty years, such as the developing country debt overhang of the 1970s, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s, and the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s—better than any ideology I know of. This is partly because its very existence as ruling ideology is not even noted by the population at large, which continues to derive some residual benefits from the welfare state inaugurated by Keynesianism but has been led to believe by neoliberal ideologues to think of their reliance on government as worthy of provoking guilt, shame, and melancholy, rather than something to which they have legitimate claim.
It is not surprising to find neoliberal multiculturalists—comfortably established in the academy—likewise demonizing, or othering, not Muslims, Mexicans, or African Americans, but working-class whites (the quintessential Trump proletariat) who have a difficult time accepting the fluidity of self-definition that goes well with neoliberalism, something that we might call the market capitalization of the self.
George W. Bush’s useful function was to introduce necessary crisis into a system that had grown too stable for its own good; he injected desirable panic, which served as fuel to the fire of the neoliberal revolution. Trump is an apostate—at least until now—in desiring chaos on terms that do not sound neoliberal, which is unacceptable; hence Jeb Bush’s characterization of him as the “candidate of chaos.” Neoliberalism loves chaos, that has been its modus operandi since the early 1970s, but only the kind of chaos it can direct and control.
To go back to origins, the Great Depression only ended conclusively with the onset of the second world war, after which Keynesianism had the upper hand for thirty-five years. But just as the global institutions of Keynesianism, specifically the IMF and the World Bank, were being founded at the New Hampshire resort of Bretton Woods in 1944, the founders of the neoliberal revolution, namely Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and others were forming the Mount Pelerin Society (MPS) at the eponymous Swiss resort in 1947, creating the ideology which eventually defeated Keynesianism and gained the upper hand during the 1970s.

So what exactly is neoliberalism, and how is it different from classical liberalism, whose final manifestation came under Keynesianism?

Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged.

When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts—in response to demands for reregulation of finance, for instance—that we have to abide by “the rule of law,” this reflects a particular understanding of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms. In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.

One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything—everything—is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries. As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange—which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.

Neoliberalism is often described—and this creates a lot of confusion—as “market fundamentalism,” and while this may be true for neoliberal’s self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies.

The neoliberal state—actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds their sum—is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow.

There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e., the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them.

Of course the word hasn’t gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton. The project of neoliberalism—i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society, and the self—has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
I said almost. The reason why Bernie Sanders, self-declared democratic socialist, is so threatening to neoliberalism is that he has articulated a conception of the state, civil society, and the self that is not founded in the efficacy and rationality of the market. He does not believe—unlike Hillary Clinton—that the market can tackle climate change or income inequality or unfair health and education outcomes or racial injustice, all of which Clinton propagates. Clinton’s impending “victory” (whatever machinations were involved in engineering it) will only strengthen neoliberalism, as the force that couldn’t be defeated even when the movement was as large and transcendent as Sanders’s. Although Sanders doesn’t specify “neoliberalism” as the antagonist, his entire discourse presumes it.
Likewise, while Trump supporters want to take their rebellion in a fascist direction, their discomfort with the logic of the market is as pervasive as the Sanders camp, and is an advance, I believe, over the debt and unemployment melancholy of the Tea Party, the shame that was associated with that movement’s loss of identity as bourgeois capitalists in an age of neoliberal globalization. The Trump supporters, I believe, are no longer driven by shame, as was true of the Tea Party, and as has been true of the various dissenting movements within the Republican party, evangelical or otherwise, in the recent past. Rather, they have taken the shackles off and are ready for a no-holds barred “politically incorrect” fight with all others: they want to be “winners,” even at the cost of exterminating others, and that is not the neoliberal way, which doesn’t acknowledge that there can be winners and losers in the neoliberal hyperspace.

In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.

This is the dark side of neoliberalism’s ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on human beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of identity politics neoliberalism promotes.

And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining, such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives).
The actual cost to the state of the AFDC program was minimal, but its symbolism was incalculable. The end of welfare went hand in hand with the disciplinary “crime bill” pushed by the Clintons, leading to an epidemic of mass incarceration. Neoliberalism, unlike classical liberalism, does not permit a fluidity of self-expression as an occasional participant in the market, and posits prison as the only available alternative for anyone not willing to conceive of themselves as being present fully and always in the market.