GOP Tax Scam-- Just More Failed Trickle Down

The GOP thought that at least they'd have one "achievement" to run on in the midterms-- the massive taxcut. But the tax cut-- which many call "the tax scam"-- has turned out to not be that popular, not popular enough to run on. Over the weekend, the NY Times reported that Republicans aren't barging about and aren't even bragging about the continuation of the Obama economic expansion Trump takes credit for. "Republicans have reason to doubt the efficacy of an economic message in hotly contested midterm campaigns, which have historically been referendums on the sitting president. The last time the economy grew 4 percent in a quarter was in the middle of 2014, under President Barack Obama, just before Senate Democrats lost nine seats-- and their majority-- that fall... For their part, Democrats are weaponizing the tax law-- which is mired in only middling popularity-- against Republican opponents in some key races. Their critiques have been fed by government statistics showing that wages for typical American workers have not risen over the past year, after adjusting for inflation, even though Republicans promised the tax cuts would unleash rapid wage growth."

Polling has shown that voters are skeptical of the tax cut. Six months after its passage only 34% of voters approved-- a 6 point decline from the previous month. Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute said that "Public opinion on the Republican lawmakers’ signature accomplishment has never been positive, but potentially growing uncertainty about how American taxpayers will be affected does not seem to be helping the GOP’s prospects for November."

So where's the beef dough? Early yesterday morning Politico reported that it's been gobbled up the kinds of stock buy backs that make CEOs and corporate executives very rich.

Yesterday, I spent a couple of hours being interviewed for a book. It brought me back to thinking about long-forgotten incidents in my life in corporate America. I had to recall an incident when I was arguing about freedom of expression with 4 of Time-Warners highest ranking executives-- the kinds of guys who got millions of dollars in stock options annually. These are people whose net worth went up and down based on rises and drops in the company stock. And a record I had been executive producer on, "Cop Killer" by Ice-T's Body Count was causing the stock to go down-- a lot. I was arguing about freedom of expression. They were arguing about their personal wealth. At one point they rose from the table as one and walked out of the room snarling, sure they would never see me again. (At the time I was an obscure employee at Sire Records, someone whose name they didn't know and would never have to know. When they saw me next I had just been named president of Reprise and they walked into a party and saw me, thought about it in their hive brain and nearly fainted.)



Anyway, the gist of the Politico feature was that the biggest winners from Señor Trumpanzee’s new tax law "are corporate executives who have reaped gains as their companies buy back a record amount of stock, a practice that rewards shareholders by boosting the value of existing shares." These executives "have been profiting handsomely by selling shares since Trump signed the law on Dec. 22 and slashed corporate tax rates to 21 percent. That trend is likely to increase as Wall Street analysts expect buyback activity to accelerate in the coming weeks."

“It is going to be a parade of eye-popping numbers,” said Pat McGurn, the head of strategic research and analysis at Institutional Shareholder Services, a shareholder advisory firm.

That could undercut the political messaging value of the tax cuts in the Republican campaign to maintain control of Congress in the midterm elections.

Since the tax cuts were enacted, Oracle Corp. CEO Safra Catz sold $250 million worth of shares in her company-- the largest executive payday this year. Product development head Thomas Kurian sold $85 million. The sales came after the company announced a $12 billion share repurchase.

Mastercard CEO Ajay Banga sold $44.4 million of stock in May, the largest single cash-out by an executive of the company in at least 10 years, months after the company announced a $4 billion buyback of its own stock.

Two days after Eastman Chemical announced it would purchase $2 billion of its own stock, CEO Mark Costa sold 55,000 shares for $5.4 million.

The SEC requires company executives to disclose share purchases or sales within two business days. Companies emphasize that their executives’ share sales are often scheduled at regular intervals well in advance. In Banga’s case, he has routinely sold shares once a year, and always in May, since 2013.

Yet the insider sales feed the narrative that corporate tax cuts enrich executives in the short term while yielding less clear long-term benefits for workers and the broader economy. Critics of insider sales argue that they diminish the value of paying C-suite employees in shares-- a practice that’s intended to give them a greater stake in the long-term health of the company-- and can even raise questions about the motivation for the buybacks themselves.

Following the tax cuts, roughly 28 percent of companies in the S&P 500 mentioned plans to return some of their tax savings to shareholders, according to Morgan Stanley. Public companies announced more than $600 billion in buybacks in the first half of this year-- already toppling the previous annual record.

Year to date, buybacks have doubled from the same period a year ago, Merrill Lynch said in a July 24 report, citing its clients’ trading activity. “Last week we noted that buyback activity [was] poised to accelerate over the next six weeks, and indeed, corporate clients’ buybacks picked up to a two-month high and the 6th-highest level in our data history,” the company said.

The correlation between corporate buybacks and insider sales is clear, according to SEC Commissioner Robert Jackson, a Democrat. He studied 385 buybacks since the beginning of 2017 and found that after half of them, at least one executive sold shares within the next month.

The link between the tax cuts and big executive payouts, fueled by buybacks, is also plain, according to one institutional research firm.

“Stock buyback announcements in the U.S. have swelled to the highest levels on record in the wake of last year’s corporate tax cut,” said TrimTabs Investment Research in a July 10 report. “Corporate America’s actions suggest that most of the benefits of the corporate tax cut will flow to investors in general and top corporate executives in particular.”

And as the Washington Post pointed out yesterday, "since Paul Ryan joined Congress in 1999, the budget will have gone from a $125 billion surplus to a $1.1 trillion deficit." But... maybe some of these rich executives getting much richer are hiring butlers or buying more private planes and yachts and a little of that money is trickling down to working folks. Maybe. But a blue collar friend of mine who just moved to L.A. can't find a job. And he's been looking really hard and is pretty much willing to do anything. Trickle down has never worked and it's not working now.

Ellen Lipton, is running for an open seat in a suburban Michigan district north of Detroit. Today she pointed out that "For decades, Republicans have been running on the same message-- that massive tax cuts to billionaires and huge corporations will spur economic growth and make everyone better off. One reason I'm running for Congress in Michigan's 9th district is because voters here know that's not true, and that we can't afford to keep giving massive tax breaks to the top 1% while working people in this country continue to suffer. If Republicans in Congress could find over a trillion dollars to give tax breaks to their rich donors, we can absolutely make universal health care a reality in this country. Americans are sick and tired of hearing that there's no money for free college, no money for infrastructure, no money for a living wage. We know trickle-down doesn't work, and that it's time to stop putting the needs of political donors ahead of everyone else."

Progressive Democrat Lisa Brown was the chancellor of Washington State University in Spokane and an economist herself. She pointed out that despite the terrible numbers, her opponent, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers "continues to deliver the DC talking points in eastern Washington to avoid talking about what’s really coming down-- which is the fallout of the ill-conceived tariffs and trade war on farms, ranches, businesses, and consumers. Tariffs are taxes. Worth repeating-- tariffs are taxes, ultimately paid in lost markets and revenue for farms and businesses  and higher prices for everyone. The administration has imposed billions of dollars of tariffs on imports and friends and foes alike are in retaliation imposing billions on U.S. exports. Republicans in the House are 'expressing disappointment' and then pivoting to their talking points while this disaster continues to unfold."

J.D. Scholten is giving Iowa racist Steve King a real race for his money, Yesterday he told me that "Trump and Speaker Ryan said the average American worker would see an extra $4,000-9,000 a year from this bill. So far, the average American worker has seen an additional $323, according to an Employment Situation report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In IA-04, we haven't seen any job growth. Our district is shrinking. As much as we produce corn, hogs and wind energy, the best thing we produce is our children. This Tax Bill doesn't do a damn thing for this district long term and it doesn't help us create a modern economy that allows us to keep our high school and college graduates in our district."

Matt Haggman is running for the open Miami-Dade seat that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is retiring from, the bluest Republican-held district in the country. Trump only took 38.9% of the vote in 2016. Matt told us that "we know America is the strongest when its middle class is in good shape and we also know that trickle-down economics only benefits the wealthiest in this country. Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country and it never will. It’s time that as a country we get smarter about changing the economic landscape and start preparing our workforce for a 21st century economy. Too many families today are working twice as hard for less and we don’t tackle this issue now it will likely get much worse soon. The GOP tax reform passed in late 2017 was not only a scam that lied and manipulated lower and middle-class Americans, but it gave the wealthiest 1% breaks that they don’t need. The tax cuts that should have been made should’ve gone towards middle class families. It should have also made sure corporations and the wealthiest 1% are paying their fair share of taxes-- which as of today is not the case. I believe that everyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules deserves a fair shot at the American Dream. It is clear though, after their horrendous Tax plan, we see the GOPs mentality is more towards the ‘kick them while they’re down’ approach."

Will Ruining The American Health Care System Weaken The GOP In November?

Congressional Republicans plan to reduce the biggest budget deficit in history-- that they created by giving multimillionaires and billionaires massive tax cuts-- by further eviscerating the social safety net, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. But not 'tl after the midterms. Even the GOP-mandated spikes in Obamacare are a political problem for them-- although, they too are timed top come after the midterms, even if voters will know about the huge price increases right before the election. Politico: "Unlike recent campaign cycles, when Republicans capitalized on Obamacare sticker shock, they’re now likely to be the ones feeling the wrath of voters."

Paul Demko surmised that because Republicans are now in total control of the federal government they will therefore be on the hook for the health care system’s chronic shortcomings. "Polling data has consistently suggested that more voters will blame Republicans for future problems with Obamacare. In addition, the GOP’s repeated failures to repeal Obamacare after eight years of campaign promises will make it difficult to galvanize the base on health care." Dems have been hammering Señor Trumpanzee and his congressional enablers "for 'sabotaging' the health care markets and driving up premiums. Protect Our Care has been running digital ads in 13 states featuring news coverage of big rate hikes and concluding with a sound bite from Trump: 'Let Obamacare implode.' They hope that message will stick with voters come November."

One of the most conservative Democrats in the House, Raul Ruiz from Palm Springs, a doctor who sits on a key committee that oversees health care, explained that "The political implications go only as far as people understand that they are a direct consequence of the administration’s actions. If they realize that, then they will be very, very upset with them."

In particular, Democrats blame Republicans for eliminating the mandate penalty for failing to obtain health insurance, which was designed to be a cudgel to compel people who might otherwise go uninsured to buy coverage. They also point to the Trump administration’s efforts to make it easier to buy skinnier, cheaper plans that don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements and patient protections as an exacerbating factor.

“Once they fractured the mandate, that changed the insurance pool,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA.), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee. “Insurance is based upon shared risk, meaning fewer people contributing, the premiums escalate.”

...Insurance experts generally agree that the rate hikes will be more severe because of actions taken by the Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration.

“If it hadn’t been for the individual mandate being repealed, and the threat of short-term and other loosely regulated plans proliferating, I think we would have seen single digit premiums increases,” said Cynthia Cox, an insurance expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Insurers are performing much better on the exchange markets than they had in the early years.”

...[D]ouble-digit premium increases are still likely in many states, as evidenced by the rate filings that have been trickling out in recent weeks. Premiums for the most popular Obamacare plans are going up by 15 percent on average-- about $100 per month-- according to an analysis of rate filings in 10 states by Avalere Health. While rates won’t be finalized until the fall, it’s already clear that there will be wide discrepancies across the country that could affect the political salience of the issue.

Insurers in Maryland want to raise rates on the most popular plans by an eye-popping 53 percent, while New York insurers are seeking average premium increases of 24 percent. By contrast, insurers in Pennsylvania only want to raise premiums by 5 percent on average. All four insurers selling Obamacare plans in Minnesota want to decrease premiums.

One big factor affecting the severity of the rate hikes is how insurers account for the removal of the individual mandate. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will increase premiums by 10 percent, mainly because fewer healthy people will opt to enroll, but Republicans have scoffed at that as an unrealistic assessment of the mandate’s significance.

...Democrats note that Republicans are hoping to at least partially insulate themselves from health care attacks by passing a barrage of bills designed to address the opioid crisis. But Ruiz points out that many individuals who enter rehab to treat opioid addiction are enrolled in Medicaid, which Republicans sought to dramatically scale back as part of their Obamacare repeal efforts.

“You realize that this is a small step forward, but ten steps back if they get their way,” Ruiz said.

If you are wondering whether or not Democrats are taking the offensive against Trump and his Republican enablers on this, please read what these 3 progressive candidates have to say about it. You probably remember Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson for this fiery and compelling speech on the floor of the House almost a decade ago:



Today, Grayson, who is running for his old congressional seat again-- against some do-nothing backbencher-- told me that today the Republican health care plan, in the age of Trump, "isn’t very complicated: the GOP tried again and again to take health coverage away from 20 million people, and they have repeatedly threatened the anti-discrimination provisions and the subsidies that make it affordable for tens of millions of others. However, Republicans are so experienced at playing the blame game that many voters will continue to blame the Democrats for whatever the GOP does to them. As the Republican Party demonstrates every day, 'you can fool some of the people some of the time...'"

Kara Eastman, who won her primary against a DCCC Blue Dog, is now facing off against an anti-healthcare Republican, Don Bacon, who has the highest Trump affinity score in Congress-- 98.8%. But the DCCC adamantly refuses to help her, even though they have called her Omaha district one of the most flippable in the country! That isn't stopping Kara from running of the most powerful grassroots campaigns anywhere. Yesterday, Kara told us that "Nebraska is one of 17 states that left millions of dollars on the table by not expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Thus about 90,000 Nebraskans are left without health care. This has tremendous economic consequences for our state, not to mention, it is immoral. We know that by expanding access to health care, we will see a direct increase in state-level gross domestic product. This would also mean Nebraska could stop cutting funding for things like education (another topic for another day). Health care in the United States should be a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy or for those fortunate enough to have good benefits through their employer. In the 65,000 doors we have knocked during my campaign, health care is the number one issue voters talk about. While some disagree on how we get everyone insured, we all agree that health care is a priority and we need to fix our broken system now."

James Thompson's Republican opponent never deviates from the GOP party line-- including when it comes to taking healthcare away from Kansans. Today, James told us that "The GOP and the current administration will not rest until they destroy the social safety nets that are the only things standing between us and third world status. Their plans to gut social security, Medicare, the Veteran’s Administration, Medicaid and the ACA are attacks on the most vulnerable among us. Healthcare is a human right inherent in all of us. Here in Kansas the failure to expand Medicaid has resulted in the closing of at least one hospital in Independence, Kansas. At any given time, one third of all rural hospitals are in danger of closing because of the failure to implement substantive health care reform and expand Medicaid. The current path of the GOP in attacking healthcare will result in the loss of healthcare for 13 million Americans which will in turn cause the deaths of thousands of American citizens who will be unable to get the healthcare they need. In addition, the profits-- first agenda of the GOP-- driven by legalized bribery through campaign donations has resulted in the skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs that will also cost many their lives. Kansans in my district, including Republicans, are tired of being forgotten by elected officials and seeing their loved ones die because they could not afford healthcare. The tide is shifting towards Medicare for All because they realize the profit driven health insurance industry is unsustainable. In November, I will win the election for 4th District Congressman because the people of my district know that I will listen to them and will do my very best to make sure they get the access to healthcare that every human being deserves."

Ellen Lipton is running for an open Democratic seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. In the state legislature she's proven herself to be a solid progressive leader. Yesterday she told us that "Trump continues to gut the Affordable Care Act. He bragged about doing so just yesterday in Nevada. When I knock doors and go to community events, everyone I meet is concerned about health care as their top priority. I have MS. The fact that I have health insurance is why I am able to afford the medications that allow me to live a healthy and productive life. When Trump threatens to allow health insurers to stop selling to people based on pre-existing conditions, it's personal. In Congress, I will fight for universal health care for everyone in our country."

And for those who follow the vicissitudes of weekly or monthly polling, the first one since Trump started locking up children of immigrants in for-profit-prisons was released by Gallup today, notice the significant spike in disapprovals and the equally significant spike downwards in approvals, We're back to 55% of Americans telling pollsters they think he's doing a bad job.

Michigan To The Rescue?

The DCCC managed to find itself a Michigan Blue Dog, Gretchen Driskell, to support for Congress. Yesterday we looked at what happens when Blue Dogs get into Congress. The damage they cause is very serious. Blue America has endorsed 2 women running for Congress with proven records for leadership in the Michigan state legislature, Ellen Lipton and Rashida Tlaib. We endorsed them both because they are progressives with progressive records of accomplishment. Identity politics played no role in either endorsement. That said, take a look at this tweet from Dave Wasserman last week:

Ellen is the only woman in the August 7th primary for an open seat up against two men, one of whom, Andy Levin, is the retiring Congressman’s son. He’s got the family name recognition; Ellen's got the legislative experience and proven record fighting for progressive values, having served 6 years in Michigan’s State House and worked as a healthcare activist and public education advocate.

The polling and focus groups that have been dome in MI-09 show that when voters-- particularly women voters-- see and hear her story, her record and progressive vision, trump Levin's name recognition and she wins. 2018 so far is an extraordinary year for women candidates, and women in Democratic primaries are voting in record numbers. She promised her supporters that "We’re going to win this primary by hosting events all over the district, knocking on thousands and thousands of doors, and making sure every single voter in the 9th knows my name, who I am, and what I stand for...  I’m so proud and inspired to be a part of the wave of Democratic women standing up to run for Congress this year. It’s time to change the fact that only 20% of Congress is female-- because we all deserve better. We need strong women leaders in Congress now more than ever."

Republicans don't do well in her district-- McCain only pulled 40.1%. Romney, a hometown boy, did a little better at 41.9% and Trump pulled 43.7%. The PVI is D+4 and it's more than very likely that whoever wins the primary will be the next congressmember. That's even more so in MI-13, where the Republicans aren't even running a candidate and which Rashida represented in the state legislature and where she's running now. The PVI is a jaw-dropping D+33 and Obama won with around 85% both times he ran and where Trump only drew 18% of the vote. MI-13-- a big chunk of Detroit plus Highland Park, Dearborn Heights, Inkster and Romulus out beyond the airport-- is a blue powerhouse, the kind of district that should be sending cutting edge leaders to Congress. And that's exactly who Rashida is. Again, two relatives of the last congressman, John Conyers, decided to run, a son (who was disqualified) and a nephew. If Rashida wins this one, everything in her record points to one thing: she's not going to be some backbencher voting like a good little Democrat; she'll be helping form a new progressive consensus among House Democrats and leading the way on tough issues others are afraid to touch, just the way she did in the Michigan legislature.

Both Ellen and Rashida are guided by the belief that everyone, not just the wealthy and privileged, deserves access to opportunity and a better quality of life. They have both dedicated their professional lives to amplifying and addressing the concerns of working families. They don't just talk about it... they both have records to show they've been doing it.

Rashida: "I’m running because I get results. I brought home $5.6 million in funding for before-and-after school programs and $7.8 million for bilingual education and literacy. I brought home $1 million for free health care clinics and $2 million to remove toxic lead paint from older homes. And I did it with Republicans in control of the Legislature, because I don’t make excuses, I get it done."

Neither of these dynamic women is an establishment candidate. The DCCC is ignoring both. That may be because neither sits still and gets told what to do by representatives of the status quo. They are exactly what Congress needs, what the Democratic Party needs... what our country needs. Please consider contributing to their campaigns by clicking on the 2018 congressional thermometer on the right.

Support For Job Guarantee Is Growing Rapidly-- Will It Be A Campaign Issue?

A campaign manager I've worked with on a few campaigns in the past has been asking for for the last few days to consider endorsing the candidate he's working with this time. The candidate doesn't seem bad and it's a winnable race. There are 4 Democrats competing for the nomination and the DCCC isn't involved so they all seem somewhat progressive. His candidate doesn't seem financially competitive-- but when have we ever allowed that to determine supporting someone. The newly redrawn district has counties that went for Bernie and counties that backed Hillary. In the general, Trump won-- though not by double digits.

Before agreeing to speak with his candidate-- let's call him Candidate X-- I asked him a few questions... like which primary candidate is most progressive and if Candidate X supports Job Guarantee and College Debt Elimination. His response was that "It is close, but X is more progressive-- his priorities are good jobs, better public schools and quality and affordable health care for everyone-- it is still a Republican district and he will have to pick up Independents and Reasonable Republicans-- so kitchen table issues are the way to go on the surface. Below that-- he is very strongly against gun violence and pro-choice. He put out a statement against Trump's Transgender Ban in the military and is strongly for LGBTQIA+ rights. He has signed the no money from Fossil Fuels Pledge (all four candidates have)-- but X will be signing the End Citizens United No Corporate Money pledge in the next couple of days-- no other candidate has signed it... He supports plan for a job guarantee for people that want a job-- although it is new concept to him and we spoke about it."

Not very convincing. Remember, what Blue America is looking for is courageous principled candidates-- like Kaniela Ing, Jenny Marshall, Alan Grayson and Dan Canon who are going to go to Congress and not worry about voting with conservatives in order to get reelected. Another campaign manager told me last week that his candidate will do it "the West Virginia way, like Joe Manchin does." Good luck with that. It's not what we're looking for-- not even close.

So, he didn't answer the question about College Debt Elimination and didn't have anything much to say about Job Guarantee. So what will he be like in Congress? A scardy cat? Who thinks voting for equal right for gays and willing to vote pro-Choice defines a progressive? Doesn't sound like the kind of champion we're looking for this late in the cycle. But I'll keep an open mind. And send him the Marie Solis report in Newsweek from yesterday: Can A Federal Jobs Guarantee Help Democrats Defeat Trump In 2020? How about elect a Democratic House in 2018? Bernie is about to unveil plans "that would guarantee every American worker a minimum $15 an hour position complete with health care, a retirement plan and the same paid leave benefits granted to federal public-sector employees." Even less credible would-be presidential candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker are trying to jump on the bandwagon.

There’s already widespread support for a federal jobs guarantee program among voters across the country, and-- most notably-- across the political spectrum, according to Sean McElwee and his colleagues at Data for Progress, a progressive polling and analysis firm. In March, they found that a majority of voters in all 50 states supported a jobs guarantee, even in states that went overwhelmingly to Trump. The state that polled lowest was Utah, where a solid 57-percent majority still said they would favor the proposal.

When researchers at Civis Analytics, another progressive data analytics firm, narrowed the data by voting pattern, they found that 56 percent of those who went from voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 supported a jobs guarantee, and 58 percent of non-voters looked favorably on the idea as well.

... “If we’re speaking strictly about winning campaigns, running on jobs is 100 percent a smart move, and it’s 100 percent what Democrats should be doing,” Sean McElwee, a researcher and co-founder at Data for Progress, told Newsweek. “Democrats can run on jobs without sacrificing other progressive causes.”

McElwee cautioned Democrats against getting too excited about the number of Obama-turned-Trump voters they can win over with the policy-- it’s still modest. But it’s enough to cut a path to victory in 2018, he says.

“If you can get back about one-third of Obama-Trump voters and energize non-voters, there you are,” he said. “You’ve got your House majority.”

Indeed, some who switched their votes from Barack Obama to Trump told Newsweek the idea seemed common-sense.

“If this could help the people get jobs, I support it,” said Eileen Sorokas, from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which went to Obama in 2012 but to Trump by 20 points four years later. “I know what it’s like not to have a job-- it’s kind of scary. If it works, I’m all for it.”

Before she retired, Sorokas, now 70, worked at a dress factory that shut down and went overseas in the mid-90s. Her husband Richard worked at Procter & Gamble for over three decades until he retired 17 years ago. He said a jobs guarantee interests him because he’d like to see fewer Americans rely on the country’s welfare system.

“I remember Trump wanted to get people off of welfare, and he said he was going to make jobs for people who want to work” he told Newsweek. “What stuck out for me was getting people off of welfare. I thought that was a great.”

Both Richard and Eileen-- who said they’d been lifelong Democrats-- said they’d consider voting for a member of their party again if they campaigned on a strong jobs platform, like the guaranteed jobs proposal.

But they’re not totally sold yet. After a beat, Richard posed what might just be a multi-billion dollar question: “Where do you get the money?”

Policy research institutes like the Center on Budget and Policy Proposals and the Center for American Progress have priced federal jobs guarantee plans similar to Booker’s and Sanders’s at $543 billion and $158 billion, respectively. The government could fund a jobs program by raising income tax on the rich-- a proposal that is controversial in some circles. But proponents of the policy in the Senate see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

...House candidates are already testing the waters for the 2020 presidential hopefuls. Dan Canon, who’s running in the Democratic primary in Indiana’s 9th District-- which went to Trump by double digits in 2016-- says he’s spoken to hundreds of voters about his proposal for a jobs guarantee, and not one of them has voiced any opposition to the idea.

“A jobs guarantee is good for the economy, it’s good for unemployment and it’s good for infrastructure,” Canon said.

In Canon’s district, home to some of the most rural parts of Indiana, he says voters have two top concerns: jobs and infrastructure. As Canon sees it, fixing the first problem with a jobs guarantee can solve the other. If people need jobs, they can take government-sponsored work fixing the district’s roads, public transit system, energy grids and broadband access, Canon says. The House candidate's proposal, and others like it, harken back to the Works Progress Administration implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a program that gave some 8.5 million unemployed Americans jobs building up the country's infrastructure during the Great Depression.

“I have not found a single person in Indiana that disagrees with this idea or thinks it’s a bad one,” Canon told Newsweek. “The only pushback I ever got when presenting people with a jobs guarantee is from political theorists who think the district just isn’t ready. But those tend to be D.C. think-tank types who don’t understand the people on the ground here in Indiana."

We asked some the other candidates Blue America has endorsed how they speak about Job Guarantee to the voters. Hawaii candidate Kaniela Ing told us that "America’s promise has always been clear-- work hard and your family will prosper. Today, too many hard-working Americans feel that our leaders have gone bad on that promise. I talk to folks who tell me everyday, they grind and sweat, but struggle to get by. Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are rising, the threats of automation and globalization are becoming real, all while costs are skyrocketing. But just take a walk outside and look around at all the work that needs to be done in America. There are bridges to be built, highways needing repair, kids to be taught, aging folks needing care, oceans to be cleaned, trees to be planted. But private markets fall short. For every job opening in America, four people are gunning for it. This pits worker against worker and creates a power imbalance between workers and their bosses. It’s too risky for a worker to stand up to wage theft, inhumane working conditions, or sexual harassment, when they know there’s nowhere else to go. Our elected representatives must stop pretending that everything is okay, and that the job market will some home fix itself. It’s time for real solutions that will actually help working families across America. It’s time for a new New deal. Since the start of my campaign, I’ve been leading with a universal job guarantee, and I ask other progressive candidates to join me. Let’s remind the establishment that the ability to work for a livable wage is a human right that should be afforded to all. In these uncertain times, progressives will lead with real solutions that offer hope to the many, and just the privileged few."

Ellen Lipton is the former state legislator and progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. She's interested in Bernie's Jobs Guarantee ideas and told us that "the federal government has been at the mercy of corporate-controlled lobbyists for long enough. How long are we going to allow them to offer the same tired economic policy of tax cuts for the phantom 'job-creators?' How about trying something that actually has a track record of working-- direct federal investment in people rather than profits. A guaranteed jobs program would put people to work on everything from infrastructure to IT, renewable energy to healthcare and social work-- the possibilities are endless."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running in the open Albuquerque district, is also a big fan of Job Guarantee. This is what she told us some time ago: "I believe that all human beings deserve to live in dignity, and that as part of that we build a government that ensures a well-paying job to each and every individual. Imagine if we guaranteed to all human beings a well-paying job with a livable wage that allows for healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and ultimately the dignity of work? What it would mean for our communities, poverty, racial and gender equality? Well, we've done parts of this before with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Imagine a program that achieves delivering well-paying work to all individuals, all while overhauling our nation's infrastructure and educational systems. It has the potential to breakdown the entrenched racial and gender-based inequality that exists in our labor force, and enshrines the ideal that all Americans who want a good job will have one. It assures that the dignity of a well-paying job is not just for a plurality of Americans, but for all who seek it. In an increasingly evolving economy, it's important that our government think creatively about the future of our labor force, and ensure that people's needs are put first in the changing labor economy."

Like Dan Canon, Jenny Marshall's North Carolina primary is May 8 sees the idea of Job Guarantee as something relatively easy to explain to voters. (Maybe that's because she's a school teacher.) She's campaigning for the seat held by a multimillionaire, Virginia Foxx, who has never exhibited any interest whatsoever in giving a hand to working families. "People," Jenny told us," want to work and give back to their communities in real tangible ways. They also want to provide a decent, secure life for their family. Think of all the New Deal programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration that helped put people to work and which began to pull us out of the Great Depression in the 1930's. While those programs did not lift all out of abject poverty it did jump start our economy in a way that can still be witnessed today. Frankly, our infrastructure is long outdated and our national parks and memorials need tending to. Here in the 5th district we have national forest that needs trail cleanup, buildings that need to be repaired and programs that need to be staffed. We need to repair dams, bridges and other infrastructure projects. People need jobs and ones that pay a living wage. Why not offer work that would put an investment back into our communities?"

Ready For The Trump Version Of NAFTA?

The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was something that Reagan proposed in 1979 and was agreed on by George H.W. Bush with the heads of Mexico and Canada in 1992. Bush was unable to get it ratified by Congress and Bill Clinton promised (Wall Street) he would succeed where Bush failed. He added two bullshit amendments-- one on labor and one of the environment that everyone knew was just hot air. He also added Rahm Emanuel into the mix as a fixer and on November 17, 1993, it passed the House 234–200-- 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. Three days later it passed in the Senate 61-38-- with 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. It has hurt workers whose industries who most vulnerable to competition to low wage labor from Mexico, but has worked well for Big Business and Wall Street. Populists on the left (Bernie) and the right (Trumpanzee) have opposed it. Trump is trying to renegotiate it now but it is doubtful it could pass in the middle of an election year.

The Trump Regime thinks it can strong-arm Congress to ratify a new NAFTA, with a "take it, or leave it" approach. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer's plan is to withdraw "from the existing pact even before the new one is ready. The thinking is that Congress will have to approve whatever terms are in the new deal quickly, lest the U.S. is left hanging without an agreement with two of its largest trading partners."

Trade votes have always been fraught affairs, but some legislative experts say such a move could elevate tensions between the president and Congress to a fever pitch. Forcing Congress’ hand on a deal which is likely to contain a number of elements unpopular among the majority of pro-trade Republican lawmakers could rally Congress to exert its Constitutional authority over trade.

“There will be, I really believe, a strong institutional, formal re-grasping of this congressional authority, but it also requires political will,” Brian Pomper, who served as chief international trade counsel on the Senate Finance Committee, said during an event this week.

Some in the Trump administration have strongly opposed the strategy, arguing it could further infuriate defenders of the underlying NAFTA deal. Senior aides have clashed during closed-door briefings about the wisdom of the move, according to a person familiar with the issue.

“As someone who counts votes that would not be a totally shocking scenario,” said one source who has advised Lighthizer on NAFTA. “If you actually want to get the vote done and you want to pass the damn agreement then you need to create the scenario of either nothing or something different.”

...[S]ome of the changes Lighthizer seeks in the new deal could potentially pick up support from Democrats even if it comes at the expense of some Republicans. They include strengthening labor language in NAFTA to force up wages in Mexico and more rules aimed at protecting domestic industries.

Lighthizer’s bipartisan vision for NAFTA, however, is threatening to upend decades of Republican trade orthodoxy with proposals that would jettison special protections for U.S. investors and tighten cross-border supply chains.

GOP trade leaders in Congress have clearly expressed that Lighthizer’s objective of getting rid of NAFTA’s investor-state dispute settlement mechanism could jeopardize support for the agreement. The provision allows companies to seek damages through tribunals if a government’s policies or actions violate the pact’s investment rules.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) warned this week that the negotiating objectives Congress had laid out in Trade Promotion Authority legislation “are pretty specific about what needs to be included in an agreement in order for the process to begin.”

...The trade chief has indicated that the same proposals that have raised the ire of Republicans and their corporate constituents could attract the Democratic support he needs to realize his bipartisan vision for trade policy.

But some worry that Lighthizer’s strategy could backfire-- failing to please a large number of Republicans as well as the demands of Democrats.

“I think he actually knows that at the end of the day he’s going to have to rely on overwhelmingly Republican votes to get this done-- votes that will come out of loyalty or fear of Trump,” said one senior trade lobbyist. “He knows that Rosa DeLauro and Elizabeth Warren are not going to form the whip team for NAFTA 2.0.”

So far, the Democrats whom Lighthizer wants to attract say they want a clearer picture of where the administration lands on some issues before committing to voting for the new pact.

“We’ve had some meetings with Mr. Lighthizer and I think there’s some areas that we had some, perhaps, common interest but I haven’t seen it laid out or articulated and that’s a big part of the problem,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said this month during a call with reporters. His group has laid out its recommendations for NAFTA in a 10-page document.

Still, progressive House Democrats say they have received positive signals on the direction Lighthizer wants to take a new NAFTA deal. That includes Lighthizer’s proposal to strip the deal’s investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Lighthizer views the process as government-paid political risk insurance; the left has long viewed the issue as evidence that recent trade policy has generally favored corporate interests.

Democrats would probably also be in support of a final deal that realizes Lighthizer’s goals on autos and labor as well as a more reciprocal-- and probably less open-- market for Canadian and Mexican firms to bid on U.S. government contracts.

“Talking in a positive vein about the Trump administration is sometimes a hard circle to square,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) admitted in the same call with reporters. “We may not go down the same road as the president does, but we can’t brush aside either and lose an opportunity to do what is right by American workers.”

Ultimately, large numbers of Democrats won’t flock to the deal unless labor unions support it.

Crucial to labor support is a commitment by Mexico to press forward with a major overhaul of its labor rights. That includes getting rid of employer-controlled unions and creating an independent labor arbitration process.

U.S. labor unions are also nervously watching the Mexican Senate, which is considering legislation they say could undo any progress on those reforms.

“Enactment of that proposal into law in Mexico would frankly undermine the NAFTA talks,” said Celeste Drake, trade policy specialist with the AFL-CIO.

In recent meetings and conversations with labor leaders, Lighthizer has said he is keenly aware of what’s at stake if Mexican lawmakers move ahead with the legislation, but it’s still uncertain how that issue might play in the negotiations, said sources familiar with those exchanges.

But labor groups haven’t been shy about applauding the Republican administration for lavishing attention on their trade concerns, especially in contrast to the somewhat icy relationship that existed with the Obama administration during Trans-Pacific Partnership talks.

Still, even those in the labor movement can’t foresee yet if they would ultimately support a deal given the broader mistrust between Trump and the left.

“Will the left, including labor, at the end of the day prove the [U.S.] Chamber [of Commerce] right that we simply are never gettable and that Lighthizer is wasting his time talking to us and giving us things?” another labor source asked.

Trump allies in House leadership think they could get this done in a lame duck session (the way Clinton did), although Congress could react badly toTrump trying to force them to act-- especially the dozens of Republicans retiring and the scores having just been defeated for reelection. The big new Democratic majority will be feeling its oats and is unlikely to want to give Trump anything without its won imprint.

Tim Canova agrees with one part of this-- that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated. "But," he wrote, "not because Mexicans and Canadians are somehow taking advantage of Americans, but because it allows large multinational corporations to take advantage of the people in all three countries. NAFTA’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system gives these huge corporations the right to sue governments for the cost of complying with regulations to protect public health and safety, the environment, and labor standards. These suits are not brought in any courtroom, but before off-shore arbitral panels with arbitration judges recruited from the ranks of the corporate law firms that regularly represent these companies in ISDS lawsuits. Under NAFTA, these arbitral panels have awarded private investors more than $392 million as compensation for complying with national, state or local regulations-- effectively shifting the cost of compliance from corporations to taxpayers. NAFTA’s ISDS provision has become the model for hundreds of bilateral investment treaties, the stalled Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and many other multilateral agreements. It’s time to strip it from NAFTA. NAFTA also represents a so-called 'race to the bottom' that allows big corporations to move their operations to jurisdictions with weak protections for labor, the environment, and human rights. Instead, we need to harmonize these standards and norms prior to liberalizing trade in goods, services, and hot money capital flows. Political liberalization, social safety nets, and the rule of law must come first. Otherwise, these kinds of bad trade deals will only benefit the large corporate interests that call the tunes in Washington, D.C."

Bernie beat Hillary in Michigan and when the Democrats served up Hillare, Trump won. trade was a big issue for voters there. Ellen Lipton is a candidate for an open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. "Michigan's 9th Congressional District has been hit particularly hard by NAFTA," she told us this morning. "From 1994-2016, Michigan lost 182,288 manufacturing jobs. I have heard stories from so many people who remember packing up their manufacturing jobs on flatbeds and watching them drive off into the proverbial sunset, never to return. International trade agreements must support good jobs in this country, protect the rights and interests of working people, and also be pro-environment. We have to stop corporations from outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheap labor, poverty, and lax environmental standards. Otherwise, so-called free trade becomes extremely costly for working families and the health of our planet."

Paul Clements may be running for a seat in a chillier climate that Canova's south Florida district, be he has an outlook on NAFTA that is similar. "NAFTA," he told us, "has been bad for workers in my home state of Michigan and across the United States. Any new trade deal with Mexico and Canada needs to be evaluated in terms of how it helps workers. At a minimum, to protect the interests of American and Mexican workers and to avoid undermining democratic powers of local jurisdictions, any revised deal must include:

•      A major expansion of labor rights in Mexico, getting rid of employer-controlled unions and creating an independent labor arbitration process.

•      Getting rid of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that allows companies to seek damages through tribunals if a government’s policies or actions violate the pact’s investment rules.

So far-- no surprise-- the Trump agenda has been all about helping the rich get richer. But with a Democratic majority in the House in January, we can begin to turn the tide. Certainly we will let the Trump administration know we will not accept take-it-or-leave-it approaches or other strong-arm legislative tactics."

Dismantling The Public Schools Is All About Control-- The Future: Mobilization or Bloodshed?

I mentioned in a post yesterday that I had just gotten back from a quick trip to Thailand, where I had gone to buy medicines that are too expensive in the U.S. One of the country's top economists read it and sent me a note that included this line:

"What a world we live in. Born in the richest country but traveling to the 3rd world for cheaper meds. Hope some day soon we'll fix that."

What a coincidence that t the same time, Yves Smith was also comparing the U.S. to the third world at her blog, Naked Capitalism. She let Lynn Parramore from the Institute of New Economic Thinking do most of the talking: Training first-world children for a third-world life

West Virginia’s public school teachers had endured years of low pay, inadequate insurance, giant class sizes, and increasingly unlivable conditions—including attempts to force them to record private details of their health daily on a wellness app. Their governor, billionaire coal baron Jim Justice, pledged to allow them no more than an annual 1% raise-- effectively a pay cut considering inflation-- in a state where teacher salaries ranked 48th lowest out of 50 states. In February 2018, they finally revolted: In a tense, four-day work stoppage, they managed to wrest a 5% pay increase from the state. Teachers in Oklahoma and Kentucky have now revolted in similar protests.

It’s the latest battle in a contest between two countervailing forces: one bent on reengineering America for the benefit of the wealthy, the other struggling to preserve dignity and security for ordinary people.

If the story turns out the way the Jim Justices desire, the children of a first-world country will henceforth be groomed for a third-world life.

...When [Associate Professor at the Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon Gordon] Lafer began to study the tsunami of corporate-backed legislation that swept the country in early 2011 in the wake of Citizens United-- the 2010 Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the green light to spend unlimited sums to influence the political system-- he wasn’t yet clear what was happening. In state after state, a pattern was emerging of highly coordinated campaigns to smash unions, shrink taxes for the wealthy, and cut public services. Headlines blamed globalization and technology for the squeeze on the majority of the population, but Lafer began to see something far more deliberate working behind the scenes: a hidden force that was well-funded, laser-focused, and astonishingly effective.

Lafer pored over the activities of business lobbying groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – funded by giant corporations including Walmart, Amazon.com, and Bank of America—that produces “model legislation” in areas its conservative members use to promote privatization. He studied the Koch network, a constellation of groups affiliated with billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. (Koch Industries is the country’s second-largest private company with business including crude oil supply and refining and chemical production). Again and again, he found that corporate-backed lobbyists were able to subvert the clear preferences of the public and their elected representatives in both parties. Of all the areas these lobbyists were able to influence, the policy campaign that netted the most laws passed, featured the most big players, and boasted the most effective organizations was public education. For these U.S. corporations, undermining the public school system was the Holy Grail.

After five years of research and the publication of The One Percent Solution, Lafer concluded that by lobbying to make changes like increasing class sizes, pushing for online instruction, lowering accreditation requirements for teachers, replacing public schools with privately-run charters, getting rid of publicly elected school boards and a host of other tactics, Big Business was aiming to dismantle public education.

The grand plan was even more ambitious. These titans of business wished to completely change the way Americans and their children viewed their life potential. Transforming education was the key.

The lobbyists and associations perfected cover stories to keep the public from knowing their real objectives.  Step one was to raise fears about an American educational crisis that did not, in fact, exist. Lafer notes, for example, that the reading and math scores of American students have remained largely unchanged for forty years. Nonetheless, the corporate-backed alarmists worked to convince the public that the school system was in dire condition.

Step two was to claim that unproven reforms to fix the fictional crisis, like online learning, were sure to improve outcomes, despite the fact that such schemes go directly against hard evidence for what works in education and deny students the socialization that is crucial to a child’s progress. Sometimes the reformers said the changes were needed because of budget deficits; other times, they claimed altruistic aims to improve the quality schools.

In Lafer’s view, their strategy had little to do with either.

It’s one thing for big businesses to be anti-worker and anti-union, but also anti-student? Why would business lobbies deliberately strive to create what amounts to widespread education failure?

It’s not hard to see how certain sectors in the corporate world, like the producers of online learning platforms and content, could cash in. But it’s harder to fathom why corporate leaders who don’t stand to make money directly would devote so much time and attention to making sure, for example, that no public high school student in the state of Florida could take home a diploma without taking an online course. (Yes, that’s now law in the Sunshine State).

It’s about more than short-term cash. While Lafer acknowledges that there are legitimate debates among people with different ideological positions or pedagogical views, he thinks big corporations are actually more worried about something far more pragmatic: how to protect themselves from the masses as they engineer rising economic inequality.

“One of the ways I think that they try to avoid a populist backlash is by lowering everybody’s expectations of what we have a right to demand as citizens,” says Lafer. “When you think about what Americans think we have a right to, just by living here, it’s really pretty little. Most people don’t think you have a right to healthcare or a house. You don’t necessarily have a right to food and water. But people think you have a right to have your kids get a decent education.”

Not for long, if Big Business has its way. In President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, they have dedicated partners in redirecting public resources to unregulated, privately owned and operated schools. Such privatization plans, many critics say, will reinforce and amplify America’s economic inequality.

U.S. public schools, which became widespread in the 1800s, were promoted with the idea that putting students from families of different income levels together—though not black Americans and other racial minorities until the 1950s—would instill a common sense of citizenship and national identity. But today, large corporations are scoring huge successes in replacing this system with a two-tiered model and a whole new notion of identity.

Lafer explains that in the new system, the children of the wealthy will be taught a broad, rich curriculum in small classes led by experienced teachers. The kind of thing everybody wants for kids. But the majority of America’s children will be consigned to a narrow curriculum delivered in large classes by inexperienced staff-- or through digital platforms with no teachers at all.

Most kids will be trained for a life that is more circumscribed, less vibrant, and, quite literally, shorter, than what past generations have known. (Research shows that the lifespan gap between haves and have-nots is large and rapidly growing). They will be groomed for insecure service jobs that dull their minds and depress their spirits. In the words of Noam Chomsky, who recently spoke about education to the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), “students will be controlled and disciplined.” Most will go to school without developing their creativity or experiencing doing things on their own.

Economist Peter Temin, former head of MIT’s economics department... explains how conditions in America are becoming more like a third-world country for the bulk of its people. He agrees with Lafer that the corporate-driven war on public schools is not just about money, but also about a vision of society.

People like Betsy DeVos, he says, are following the thinking of earlier ideologues like James Buchanan, the Tennessee-born, Nobel Prize–winning economist who promoted current antigovernment politics in the 1970s. The “shut-the-government-down” obsession is really an extreme form of libertarianism, he says, if not anarchism.

Temin also agrees that shrinking the horizons of America’s kids makes sense to people who follow this philosophy. “They want to exploit the lower members of the economy, and reducing their expectations makes them easier to manipulate,” says Temin. “When they aren’t able to go to college and get decent jobs, they become more susceptible to things like racist ideology.”

In other words, dismantling the public schools is all about control.

Buchanan was an early proponent of school privatization, and while he echoed the fears and frustration many Americans felt concerning desegregation, he typically made a non-race-based case for preserving Jim Crow in a new form. He argued that the federal government should not be telling people what to do about schooling and suggested that citizens were being stripped of their freedom. But as Sam Tanenhaus points out in The Atlantic, issues of race always lurked in the background of calls for educational freedom and “choice.” In a paper he co-authored, Buchanan stated, “every individual should be free to associate with persons of his own choosing.” Segregationists knew what that meant.

Policies that end up reducing educational opportunities for those who lack resources creates inequality, and economic inequality reduces support for public schools among the wealthy. It’s vicious feedback loop.

In his book, Temin describes a process that happens in countries that divide into “dual economies,” a concept first outlined by West Indian economist W. Arthur Lewis, the only person of African descent to win a Nobel Prize in economics. Lewis studied developing countries where the rural population tends to serve as a reservoir of cheap labor for people in cities — a situation the top tier works very hard to maintain. Temin noticed that the Lewis model now fits the pattern emerging in the richest country in the world.

America, according to Temin, is clearly breaking down into two sectors: Roughly 20% of the population are members of what he calls the “FTE sector” (i.e., the finance, technology, and electronics sectors). These lucky people get college educations, land good jobs, enjoy social networks that enhance their success, and generally have access to enough money to meet most of life’s challenges. The remaining 80%live in a world nothing like this; they live indifferent geographies and have different legal statuses, healthcare systems, and schools. This is the low-wage sector, where life is getting harder.

People in the low-wage sector carry debt. They worry about insecure jobs and unemployment. They get sick more often and die younger than previous generations had. If they are able go to college, they end up in debt. “While members of the first sector act,” Temin has said, “these people are acted upon.”

Temin traces the emergence of the U.S. dual economy to the 1970s and 80s, when civil rights advances were making a lot of Americans uneasy. People who had long been opposed to the New Deal began to find new ways to advance their agenda. The Nixon administration gave momentum to anti-government, free market fundamentalist ideologies, which gained even more support under Reagan. Gradually, as free-market programs became policy, the rich began to get richer and economic inequality began to rise. Economist Paul Krugman has called this phenomenon the “Great Divergence.”

But it was still possible to move from the lower sector to the affluent sector. The path was tough, and much harder for women and people of color. Yet it existed. Through education and a bit of luck, you could develop the skills and acquire the social capital that could propel you out of the circumstances you were born into.

The dismantling of public education, as Temin sees it, will shut off that route for vastly more people. Like the privatization of prisons, which has increased incarceration rates and cut the mobility path off for more Americans, putting schools into private hands will land even more on the road to nowhere. Even those who were born into the middle class will increasingly get pushed back.

Temin relates that in human history, unitary economies are more the exception than the rule.

In the U.S., there was the Jim Crow era, the Gilded Age, and before that, slavery, which was an extreme form of dual economy. But from the end of WWII through the 1960s, the country began to develop a unitary economy. The idea that everybody should have opportunities became more and more widespread. But there was a backlash, and America still dealing with it.

In the Lewis model of the dual economy, there is still path to the upper sector, but Temin warns that America may be on the way to going one step further. “If you really prevent people from moving up, you get something that looks like Russia or Argentina,” he says. In these two-tiered societies, life is difficult for most people. Life expectancies for all but the affluent go down.

Unfortunately, once you’ve developed a dual economy, getting out of it isn’t pretty. Temin notes that it often happens through devastating wars. “Sometimes the kings who are all cousins turn on each other,” he says. “Other times, the leaders sleepwalk into the war as Trump could possibly do with North Korea.”

Such upheavals create instability that sometimes opens up the possibility of restructuring society for the benefit of more people. But it’s a painful, bloody process. Political mobilization can work, but it’s very hard to get various groups who are dissatisfied to join forces.

Lafer points out that we don’t yet know how this story is going to turn out. “Politics remains forever contingent, never settled,” he says. “The struggle between public interest and private power will continue to play out in cities and states across the country; even with the heightened influence of money in the era of Citizens United, the power of popular conviction should not be underestimated.”

The teachers in West Virginia and now other states across the country have turned the anger fueled by the corporate vision of the future in a positive direction. They are fighting back, peacefully, and winning something-- not just money, but a sense of dignity suited to the job of preparing the country’s kids for life. It remains to be seen if the rights of the many can triumph over the selfishness of the few, and whether economic servitude will be the fate of the children of the wealthiest and most powerful country the world has ever seen.

Kara Eastman is a long-time community activist in Omaha, running for a seat that two conservatives are also competing for, incumbent Don Bacon (R) and ex-incumbent Brad Ashford (Blue Dog). "In Nebraska," she told us today, "we have seen cuts in the past 2 years to funding for our community colleges. As member of the Board of Governors of Metro Community College, I know first hand how this will impact our students and our city. We have to fight against those who devalue our entire educational system. Our students need access to high-quality, affordable education in order to become successful citizens and a part of a modern workforce. Fiscal responsibility would start with increasing these funds, not slashing them."

When she was in the Michigan state legislature Ellen Lipton fought DeVos to a standstill. Today she's running for Congress in the suburbs north of Detroit. "In Michigan, we have been at the epicenter of the disastrous DeVos corporate deform education agenda for over 25 years. Many of our most vulnerable school children are suffering terribly because of the Republican insistence on defunding our public schools, (and no, charter schools are not public schools) supporting the massive proliferation of for-profit charters, (including cyber charters) harmful school choice policies, and general teacher-bashing whenever the opportunity arises. And now, the state's business community is running around with their hair on fire wondering, 'When did our schoolchildren fall so far behind? When did this happen?' Maybe they should take a hard look in the mirror and remember back to 2010 when their greedy hands were stuck in the cookie jar. The Republicans eliminated the Michigan Business Tax entirely and paid for it by taking millions from the School Aid Fund. They have no one to blame but themselves, but Michigan's school children are left holding the bag."

A professor at Western Michigan University, teaching national economic development, Paul Clements, both of whose daughters attend Kalamazoo public schools, knows something about education. His message on this is chilling, a warning we'd best not ignore: "We are replacing the aristocracy of birth that our country was formed to escape with an aristocracy of education. The division between the upper class of opportunity and the other 80% has grown ever more rigid. Today if you are born poor you are more likely than any time in the last century to stay poor, and unequal education is the main barrier to equal opportunity. Good public education is the foundation of democracy. Now this means educating our children for the 21st century, which more than ever means cultivating creativity, independent thinking, and the ability to move from one line of work to another. It starts with excellent day care and preschool for every child, continues with good K-12 as described in this post, and then access to solid vocational training and/or tuition-free community college or public university, not just after high school but also later in life. Today big corporations can secure talent from anywhere in the world, but America's future depends on American citizens and workers."

Will The Bernie/Elizabeth Warren 2020 Campaign Include Job Guarantee? It Sure Appears So

Monday evening, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren took their probable 2020 campaign out for a test run, calling their 90-minute TV show the Economic Inequality Town Hall, or more formally, "Inequality in America: The Rise of Oligarchy and Collapse of the Middle Class." You can watch the whole thing above. Last night 1.7 million people did. And Bernie's goal was clearly towards shaping and promulgating a national progressive narrative that very few in Congress are communicating effectively, Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee and Pramila Jayapal being four of the pitifully few exceptions. Warren-- rumored to be Bernie's pick to run on a 2020 presidential ticket with him-- was a co-host, as were Michael Moore and New School economist Darrick Hamilton. They interviewed three guests: Catherine Coleman Flowers, a founder of the anti-poverty Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise Community Development Corp., Cindy Estrada, a vice president of the United Auto Workers and University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer, who helped explain how corporate special interests have helped turn our democracy further towards plutocracy.

Hamilton brought up one of the likely planks in Bernie's 2020 platform: Job Guarantee, something that several of the best cutting edge congressional candidates are already running on. Kaniela Ing, for example, has been working with Bernie's economic advisor, Stephanie Kelton, on how to make sure Job Guarantee serves the needs Hawaii's working families, where he serves in the state legislature and is now running for the open HI-01 congressional seat. A few weeks ago Kaniela told us that "America’s promise has always been clear-- work hard and your family will prosper. Today, too many hard-working Americans feel that our leaders have gone bad on that promise. I talk to folks who tell me everyday, they grind and sweat, but struggle to get by. Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are rising, the threats of automation and globalization are becoming real, all while costs are skyrocketing. But just take a walk outside and look around at all the work that needs to be done in America. There are bridges to be built, highways needing repair, kids to be taught, aging folks needing care, oceans to be cleaned, trees to be planted. But private markets fall short. For every job opening in America, four people are gunning for it. This pits worker against worker and creates a power imbalance between workers and their bosses. It’s too risky for a worker to stand up to wage theft, inhumane working conditions, or sexual harassment, when they know there’s nowhere else to go. Our elected representatives must stop pretending that everything is okay, and that the job market will some home fix itself. It’s time for real solutions that will actually help working families across America. It’s time for a new New deal. Since the start of my campaign, I’ve been leading with a universal job guarantee, and I ask other progressive candidates to join me. Let’s remind the establishment that the ability to work for a livable wage is a human right that should be afforded to all. In these uncertain times, progressives will lead with real solutions that offer hope to the many, and just the privileged few."

Ellen Lipton is the former state legislator and progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. She's interested in Bernie's Jobs Guarantee ideas and tildes that "the federal government has been at the mercy of corporate-controlled lobbyists for long enough. How long are we going to allow them to offer the same tired economic policy of tax cuts for the phantom 'job-creators?' How about trying something that actually has a track record of working-- direct federal investment in people rather than profits. A guaranteed jobs program would put people to work on everything from infrastructure to IT, renewable energy to healthcare and social work-- the possibilities are endless."

Tim Canova, a South Florida reformer in a tight contest with status quo Democrat Debbie Wassermann Schultz has been a long time supporter of a federal jobs guarantee. "In the 1990s, at the National Jobs For All Coalition, we called for this approach,” he told me recently. “The need for a federal job guarantee has been even greater since the 2008 financial collapse and the trickle down recovery that has followed. New Deal public works programs helped build so much of the country’s infrastructure while providing hope and dignity to millions of people. Today there are millions of Americans, particularly among our youth, who are unemployed or underemployed in bad part time jobs. We need to provide them with opportunities in public jobs programs, building our crumbling infrastructure, in conservation projects, and in service to others. This is a big part of our agend."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running in the open Albquerque district, us also a big fan of Job Guarantee. This is what she told us this morning: "I believe that all human beings deserve to live in dignity, and that as part of that we build a government that ensures a well-paying job to each and every individual. Imagine if we guaranteed to all human beings a well-paying job with a livable wage that allows for healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and ultimately the dignity of work? What it would mean for our communities, poverty, racial and gender equality? Well, we've done parts of this before with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Imagine a program that achieves delivering well-paying work to all individuals, all while overhauling our nation's infrastructure and educational systems. It has the potential to breakdown the entrenched racial and gender-based inequality that exists in our labor force, and enshrines the ideal that all Americans who want a good job will have one. It assures that the dignity of a well-paying job is not just for a plurality of Americans, but for all who seek it. In an increasingly evolving economy, it's important that our government think creatively about the future of our labor force, and ensure that people's needs are put first in the changing labor economy."

Tuesday morning Kelton followed up with a note about Job Guarantee from the Sanders Institute, starting with a quote from Franklin Roosevelt: "“The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

In 1933, President Roosevelt launched a series of public programs aimed at helping Americans recover from the Great Depression. The right to a job was his first policy item in his Second Bill of Rights.

Then in 1967, a group of core organizers of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom introduced the Freedom Budget for All Americans. This program was the blueprint for achieving Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have A Dream” speech, and also called for a national employment guarantee as a way to eradicate poverty within ten years.

In 2007, the Great Recession began and, despite the prevailing narrative of our economy being at full employment, we have still not recovered from it. There are still millions of people who are underemployed or discouraged from looking for work, and an estimated 43 million Americans still live in poverty.

It is time to take a fresh look at the policies and ideas that could help all of our people to recover, not just the very wealthy. It's time to seriously consider the country's need for a National Jobs Program.

I recently sat down with Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders to talk about how a National Job Guarantee Program for the 21st century might work. Over the past year, I have been working with a team of economists to create a full report on the costs, benefits, and projections of such a program.



Our proposal, which will be released next month, will fulfill the goals outlined in FDR and MLK's visionary programs by employing an estimated 14-19 million people, and will almost completely pay for itself.

This is a bottom-up program, designed to shrink the existing levels of income and wealth inequality and guarantee a fundamental right to employment for anyone willing and able to work.

Government at its best can be used to increase the health of the individual and society itself. We can transform America with a federal job guarantee, caring for our people, our planet, and our communities.