Sarah van Gelder

The New Economy Won't Be Like the Last One

2009-06-22T12:38:00.000-07:00

Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, the economy is a long ways from recovery. The speculative system that created the mess remains intact, and foreclosures and unemployment continue to rise. But at the same time, a new economy is taking form. It’s built on a recognition that the only thing too big to fail is the Earth itself. It is designed to build sustainable wealth for families, communities, and ecosystems, and it’s our best chance to improve prospects for future generations, instead of leaving them with ever-growing debt, conflict, and environmental destruction.

Politicians, pundits, and financiers defend deepening our national debt to bail out the institutions of a failed Wall Street system. But this system, built on speculation and the rule of money, is undermining the health of the planet and the well-being of all but the wealthiest few.

It’s time to let it go.

The new economy is built on new forms of money, and on democratic finance and business. In the summer 2009 issue of YES!, we report on worker-owned cooperatives that distribute the benefits of hard work to employee-owners who call the shots in democratic workplaces. These co-ops spend locally and are rooted locally, so they are long-term boons to their local economies. And they don't close down in favor of sweat shops in low-wage regions.

Money, though hidden in plain sight, is another critical piece of the puzzle. As currently created, it destabilizes our economy and concentrates wealth. Many communities are developing new means of exchange that work even when there is a global shortage of credit. And the issuing of money could be a public service, rather than a profit center for private banks.

We’re told we need Wall Street in order to finance business. But Wall Street has quit serving the real economy and, with the continued blessing of the Obama administration, is acting as a global casino, creating exotic and toxic packages of “assets” that have no function but to make money for the already wealthy.

In the new economy, credit is provided through local banks rooted in the communities they serve. Credit unions, community development banks, and other democratic institutions also serve, rather than cannibalize, the real economy.

Americans know we’ve been living beyond our means, and we’re cutting back. That means the segment of the old economy centered on encouraging wasteful consumption will continue shrinking.

The new economy—sometimes with the aid of President Obama’s stimulus spending—is moving in to meet needs unmet by a system centered on mega-profits. New jobs are being created to install renewable energy and weatherize homes, raise food through more labor-intensive and less damaging means, build public transit systems and inter-city rail, and rebuild schools, bridges, water systems and neighborhoods. We can no longer defer these vital investments as we did when we oriented our economy around the desires of the ultra-rich.

The new economy is about increasing quality of life, improving health, and restoring the environment. The resources to pay for this will be the resources that previously went into multi-million-dollar CEO pay packages and oversized returns on speculation.

With reduced consumption, we’ll no longer need to fight for an excess share of the world’s resources, so we can slim down our bloated military budget. We can save on prisons and police, since people with access to good education and jobs less often turn to crime.

An Earth- and human-centered economy is not inevitable. We could revert to a winner-take-all system in which a few benefit and everyone else fights over the scraps. The current economic downturn, though, offers an exceptional opportunity to rebuild and, this time, to make it an economy that works for all.

The Planet is Saved ... Pass it On

2009-06-18T10:17:00.000-07:00

World leaders negotiate an historic climate agreement. ... Temperature rise will be kept below 2 degrees, averting runaway global heating and chaotic weather. ... Celebrations break out. ... World leaders at Copenhagen thank the citizens of the world for the months of protests that created the political will to take on the climate crisis while there was still time:

"It was only thanks to your massive pressure over the past six months that we could so dramatically shift our climate-change policies.... To those who were arrested, we thank you."

You've probably figured it out by now.

These announcements are part of a fake issue of the International Herald Tribune, dated December 19, 2009. The newspaper is another hoax by the Yes Men (sadly, no relation to YES! magazine), this time in collaboration with Greenpeace. All the headlines are made up.

But it all could come to pass. As real news continues to come out about the climate crisis, the alarm is spreading. Next December's global climate talks in Copenhagen may seal the deal -- world leaders will either step up to the crisis with binding commitments to cut their own emissions and help the poorer nations to do the same, or we may be in for runaway climate catastrophe.

The headlines in this faux newspaper contain the news that many hope for, crediting mass nonviolent civil disobedience for the changes.

"Non-violent civil disobedience has been at the forefront of almost every successful campaign for change," Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men, said in announcing the prank newspaper. The Yes Men are also behind the technology at BeyondTalk.net, a new database where people can sign up to do civil disobedience, or, through "action offsets," financially support others willing to risk arrest for the climate.

"Especially in America, and especially today, we need to push our leaders hard to stand up to industry lobbyists and make the sorts of changes we need."

Security in Pakistan: Let's Try Generosity

2009-06-08T15:33:00.001-07:00

Two million refugees have fled the violence in the Swat region of Pakistan, the largest movement of people since the genocide in Rwanda. This follows attacks by the Pakistan military--reportedly at the urging of the U.S.--aimed at routing out the Taliban. Reporters are prohibited from entering the area, so there are no independent reports of the number of casualties, but refugees report seeing thousands of bodies left on the road as they fled.

Is there a better way to keep the Taliban out?

Kathy Kelly, of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, thinks there is. Kelly is traveling and blogging in the region. She offers some insight into reasons the Taliban was so successful at making inroads in the region:

"In villages where people don’t have enough resources to feed their children, the Taliban would initially move in with plans to build schools and offer two meals a day, plus clean clothes, to the children. Later, they would exercise increasingly fierce control over villages. But their initial forays into villages were marked by offers to reduce the gaps between “haves and have-nots.”

An insurgent effort like that of the Taliban requires the cooperation of civilian populations. Yet bombardments by the Pakistan military and drone attacks by the U.S. military traumatize and alienate those same populations.

Might we have more success if we help these impoverished populations rather than supporting continued attacks on them? In particular the way the refugees are treated right now could lay the groundwork for peace or for continued insurgency.

Kelly reports on the extraordinary generosity of ordinary Pakistanis towards the refugees. And this generosity sparks an idea: the U.S. could respond to the humanitarian crisis represented by the massive flood of refugees by putting on hold the construction of the new U.S. embassy. Instead of spending $800 million on one of the most expensive diplomatic compounds in the world, we could use the funds to assure that all of these refugee families get the food, shelter, and medical care they need, and that they get help rebuilding shattered lives. Kelly writes:

"The maxim that guides this idea is simple: to counter terror, build justice. Build justice predicated on the belief that each person has basic human rights, and that we have a collective responsibility to share resources so that those rights are met. This means eliminating the unjust and unfair gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' It means weaving new relationships that don’t rely on guns and bombs for security."

The most powerful country the world has ever known was massively disrupted by a few fanatics with box cutters. Security is not found in a bigger military or more massive weapons systems, and certainly not in a world with expanding nuclear capacities. It's found in a world where every child is safe and can look forward to a secure future.

You can follow Kelly's reports from the region here.

Photo is of children from the Swat Valley by Razia Ahmed, from the Voices for Creative Nonviolence website.

Tribute to Thomas Berry RIP

2009-06-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

Thomas Berry, priest, scholar of Asian and indigenous spiritual traditions, and cultural historian died yesterday in his hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina. He was 94 years old. Berry was a visionary who inspired many with his teachings about the new cosmology.

"If the dynamics of the Universe from the beginning shaped the course of the heavens, lighted the Sun, and formed the Earth, if this same dynamism brought forth the continents and the seas and atmosphere, if it awakened life in the primordial cell and then brought into being the unnumbered variety of living beings, and finally brought us into being and guided us safely through the turbulent centuries, there is reason to believe that this same guiding process is precisely what has awakened in us our present understanding of ourselves and our relation to this stupendous process. Sensitized to such guidance from the very structure and functioning of the Universe, we can have confidence in the future that awaits the human venture."

Photo courtesy Bullfrog Films

Howard Dean on Single Payer Health Care

2009-06-01T19:51:00.000-07:00

Probably the top priorities at "America's Future Now" conference (formerly Take Back America) is getting universal health care adopted this year.

Progressive groups announced plans to spend $82 million to press for adoption of Obama's health care plan. The coalition, made up of MoveOn.org, Americans United for Change, USAction, Campaign for Community Change, Rock the Vote, AFL-CIO, SEIU, the Children's Defense Fund, and others, together represent 30 million Americans.

Making sure the "public option" is contained in health care legislation is a top priority of the coalition. Likewise for the congressional Progressive Caucus and the Black, Hispanic, and Asia Pacific American caucuses, which recently sent joint letters to President Obama and House and Senate leadership emphasizing that they would only support health care reform if it contains the public option.

The public option allows Americans to choose between private insurance and a public plan. (I wrote about the public option here.)

The momentum is strong -- in June, there will be petitions, lobby days in Congress, and the beginnings of a grassroots and eventually an advertising campaign.

The public option is not enough to satisfy single-payer advocates. But if Congress can withstand intense pressure from the private health care industry -- which doesn't want to have to compete with a more efficient public plan -- and if Congress can refrain from watering it down, it does represent an enormous step toward universal, quality health coverage.

This approach may be a good way to go. But that is no reason for Senator Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama to exclude single-payer health care advocates from the summits, forums, and hearings on health care reform. Even the "America's Future Now" conference had no speakers advocating for single-payer health care.

At a press conference today, I got a chance to ask Howard Dean why single-payer advocates are not at the table. Here's his responses, followed by what I think (but did not say):

Dr. Dean: We really weren't anticipating that question...

Me: Really? Everywhere there is a public forum on health care, people are shouting from the audience about single-payer since they are almost never included on the official panels.

Dr. Dean: They should be at the table.
The Right has managed to turn "single-payer" into a bad word, like "liberal."

Me: All the more reason to insist on considering the policy on its merits, not based on a foregone conclusion about what is politically plausible. After all, if you have the insurance and medical-industrial complex pushing for no public plan, wouldn't you want the single-payer movement pushing from the other side? Then the Obama plan can take its place as a centrist policy, which is what it is.

Dr. Dean: Opponents have used confusion to sow doubt. People may not like the health care system, but they like their doctor or hospital.

Me: in other words, we need to keep everyone on message. Not sure I buy that when public opinion polls show a majority of Americans favoring single-payer health care -- even if they have to pay higher taxes. That's extraordinary support for a proposal with few public figures advocating it and a virtual media blackout on the topic.

In his opening remarks, Robert Borosage of Campaign for America's Future, said: "We need to build independent movements, organizing outside of Washington, demanding real change." Let's start by including members of the movement for single-payer health care in the dialogue.

Dr. Dean: President Obama's plan is realistic. Even in Britain, where medicine really is socialized [doctors offices and hospitals are publicly owned] 15% of health care dollars go to private insurance. Private insurance isn't going away. Americans should be the ones to choose. If they like their current, private insurance, they can keep it. If they aren't satisfied, they should be able to choose a public plan. Respect Americans' ability to decide.

Me: Respect for Americans' ability to decide. Just what the doctor ordered.

Alice Walker on the continuing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi

2009-05-26T21:04:00.000-07:00

President Obama has joined the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other international leaders in calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The military rulers of Myanmar (Burma) are trying Suu Kyi for violating the terms of her detention because a U.S. citizen entered her home.

Writer and activist Alice Walker was recently in Myanmar, and these reflections are from her blog:

"What makes Aung San Suu Kyi so very special – and Buddhists will yawn – is that she is a meditator. This means her mind is well trained to grasp the implications of actions, especially violent ones, too many of our world leaders seem clueless about. They talk about annihilating, obliterating, beggaring, starving, impoverishing, raping and pillaging other human beings as if this behavior has no consequences to themselves or to those they represent. This is an incredibly antique way of looking at our problems: that we can bomb them away. War is a dead end, literally. And, what is more, we simply can’t afford it. Not morally, and not financially. How long will it take the citizens of the United States, one wonders, to recognize that the house their country bombed in Iraq is the same one they were living in until it was foreclosed? We see, if we care to look, that everything really is connected, and, not only connected, it is the same thing. Aung San Suu Kyi gets this, which is why she renounces violence in the face of one of the most violent regimes in the world, while at the same time not condemning those who, driven to desperate measures by their mistreatment by the regime, resort to violence in an attempt to defend themselves.

"I can’t think of anything more important than Aung San Suu Kyi’s struggle, which she is waging so brilliantly. She has proved she is not afraid of death, and one feels imprisonment will be to her - as being jailed was for Martin Luther King - simply part of a necessary pilgrimage of the soul. I am not as concerned about her, to be honest, as I am about the rest of us. We need Aung San Suu Kyi. We need her example of integrity, courage, a raging and revolutionary loving kindness that has kept her steady in her long years under house arrest."

There's much more on Alice Walker's blog, from her visit to Myanmar and from a long letter written to Suu Kyi. How are we to respond? What can we do? These are questions so often asked. The answers, even in a day of global connectivity, are as illusive as ever. But "showing up" and taking some action, Walker assures us, are important nonetheless.

Single-Payer Advocates Deserve a Place at the Table

2009-05-14T15:59:00.000-07:00

At a town hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, this week, President Barack Obama was asked why he has taken single-payer health care off the table.

It's a great question.

Not only have the Obama administration and top Democrats taken the option off the table, they are excluding single-payer advocates from the official forums on health care reform, while advocates of the for-profit medical system turn up and have their say. This in spite of the fact that President Obama has repeatedly admitted that single-payer is good policy. (Single-payer health care is a system, like Canada's, in which the government provide health insurance for everyone. It is simple, straightforward, much lower cost, and it works.)

The Obama administration believes they have a good plan. It includes an option for public coverage so that families can opt for a public health care coverage if they are uninsured or not satisfied with the private insurance they now receive.

At a conference in Washington earlier this year, I asked Jacob Hacker, one of the architects of the plan, why they were not advocating single-payer health care, a system that has proven successful in other industrialized countries, as we showed in a special YES! issue on health care options.

Hacker's response was similar to Obama's response in Rio Rancho. People are afraid to give up their employer-provided plan. Although single-payer may be a better system, the private/public plan is more likely to escape the "Harold and Louise" treatment, and is more likely to get adopted than single-payer health care.

It could be that Obama and Hacker are right.

But here's the thing. Right now, the medical-industrial complex is working hard to eliminate the public option. That way, there wouldn't be a public system to compete with them and set a standard for good quality, non-bureaucratic health care. Why would they want to compete? It's great having a monopoly on our health-care dollars.

Since the private insurance lobby is at the table every day, pushing to eliminate the public option, wouldn't it be smart to allow people on the other side -- the single-payer advocates -- to come to the table, too? Then the Obama plan can take the place it belongs, as a centrist compromise.

Allowing people to the left as well as to the right of the Obama position into the discussion is good strategy. And doing so would recognize two important facts -- that single-payer happens to be great policy and it has support from a large number of Americans -- maybe even a majority. In a healthy democracy, a good policy with widespread support should be part of the debate.

One Simple Thought About One Hundred Days

2009-04-28T16:54:00.000-07:00

There is lots to be said about what President Obama has accomplished during his first 100 days in office. I'll leave that important task to others.

Here, I want to talk about our performance.

When he was elected, some believed Barack Obama's rise to the presidency was akin to the second coming. Others, even on the progressive side of things, held that his sauve style masked a more sinister figure. Most of course, were somewhere in between.

More specifically, some hoped President Obama would undo all that had gone wrong in the eight years of the Bush administration and end war, halt climate change, provide health coverage for all, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and so on.

Others felt that the Bush-era policies would continue under an Obama administration. With a pleasant, intelligent, and cordial person acting as a front, corporate rule would quietly get more powerful, and war, poverty, and environmental decline would continue.

So after 100 days, who's right?

The good news is we don't have to decide, and we don't have to agree. Either way the answer is the same: organize.

If President Obama is in fact as progressive as many hoped, he still needs strong social movements. No leader can get too far beyond his base of support. If we want strong health care reform, progressive tax reform, green and fair jobs, action on climate change, equal pay for equal work, and so on, we need to organize for them just as actively as if we still had a President Bush in office.

If it turns out President Obama -- wittingly or unwittingly -- is a front man for the continued corporate take-over of America, we need to do the same thing: build strong social movements.

In either case, we have the same task: turn the large public will for progressive change into a political force. In either case, we need good ideas about how to move forward, great organizing, lots of ways ordinary people can get involved, and smart communications.

So yes, let's evaluate the performance of the Obama administration to date. But let's also evaluate our own. How effective are we at building the powerful social movements that assure that President Obama, members of Congress, and our local officials respond to our aspirations for a better future? And for that matter, how effective are we at implementing the changes needed ourselves, whenever we have the power to do so?

Is President Obama Serious about a New Relationship with the Americas?

2009-04-20T10:16:00.000-07:00

President Obama's stance at the Summit of the Americas signals that we may, finally, be stepping into a new era in our relationship with our neighbors.

This is very good news, especially after eight years in which the U.S. president was either ignored as irrelevant or repudiated in much of Latin America. But to be successful, Obama will have to look for advice beyond his secretary of state, whose husband advocated NAFTA and other trade policies now rejected by much of the region.

The Summit of the Americas gave the leaders of Latin America a chance to get to know the new U.S. president. More importantly, it gave Obama a chance to hear, first-hand, the fears and hopes of a continent that has been subjected to repeated U.S. interventions since the Monroe Doctrine declared our country's right to call the shots throughout the hemisphere.

Partners: for real this time?
Obama signaled his hopes for a fresh start when he said in his opening remarks that he wanted to form an "equal partnership" among the nations of the hemisphere:

"There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values."

U.S. leaders have said this before, but Obama made some gestures toward implementing a more pragmatic and respectful relationship. Shortly before the summit, the U.S. eased restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to travel or transfer money to Cuba.

Obama acknowledged the damage caused to Mexico by the drug wars and pledged to take action to reduce the flow of U.S. weapons and cash across the border and to reduce the U.S. market for illegal drugs.

And he announced a micro-credit loan fund to get loans to small business and entrepreneurs.
"We’re ... committed to combating inequality and creating prosperity from the bottom up," he said.

All these are promising signs that we may be preparing to let go of our dangerous role as the world's sole superpower, at least in Latin America.

What Obama Took Away
This was Obama's first trip to Latin America, and it appears he took some important insights home with him. He learned, for example, the same thing I found during a study trip in Latin America at the end of 2006 -- that in many of the poorest regions, Cuban doctors are treating people who ordinarily have little or no access to health care, and that ongoing act of goodwill is generating goodwill in return towards Cuba. Here's what Obama said at his wrap-up news conference:

"One thing that I thought was interesting [was] hearing from these leaders who, when they spoke about Cuba, talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend."

The statement shows Cuba's efforts are having the effect Dr. Juan Ceballos, adviser to the Cuban vice minister of public health, hoped for. I interviewed Ceballos when I was in Havana in December 2006 about why Cuba was carrying out these medical missions and training people from the poorest communities in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa to be doctors.

At first Ceballos emphasized the "big hearts" of the Cuban people, and their pride in helping the world's poor. But when I pressed him on what Cuba hoped to gain for their aid, he said "All we ask for in return is solidarity." What good is "solidarity?"

“It's infinitely better to invest in peace than to invest in war,” he told me.

Clearly it's worked. Many of the leaders at the summit raised, repeatedly, the issue of Cuba's exclusion from the summit. Obama got the message. Referencing the role Cuban doctors are playing in the region, he said:

"It's a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region."

The End of Intervention?
The U.S. president also, evidently, got an earful about the past U.S. role in the region. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who experienced U.S. engagement first hand when U.S.-backed Contras waged war for years against his government, accused President Obama of being the "president of an empire." And Bolivian President Evo Morales charged that the U.S. Embassy might have been involved in a recent attempt on his life.

Obama acknowledged that the U.S. has a history in the region that has "not always appreciated from the perspective of some," but he added:

"I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere. That is not the policy of our government. That is not how the American people expect their government to conduct themselves."

If he means it, this is very good news for a region that has, in the 186 years since the passage of the Monroe Doctrine, seen U.S.-backed military coups, guerrilla warfare, and outright invasions.

New Economic Policy
Obama also acknowledged that the neoliberal trade policies, like NAFTA, that have been pressed on the region are deeply unpopular. But he said many related issues were dealt with at the G20 summit.

"We talked about the need to create a reformed international financial -- set of international financial institutions that provide additional flexibility, provide more voice and vote to developing countries."

This may be among the most critical turning points. These economic policies are blamed by many scholars, in Latin America and elsewhere, for the poverty and economic stagnation the region suffered in recent decades. I witnessed the outcome in country after country, where the best lands and resources were turned over to big corporations or their local partners to use for export production, while the locals work for a pittance, or can't work at all for lack of access to land.

And, as we reported in the YES! special issue on Latin America, popular movements throughout the hemisphere oppose these policies, and insist that the land and resources of the people of Latin America be used for their benefit, not to enrich large corporations.

The willingness of the U.S. to impose its will via the military or via harsh economic policies has been at least partly responsible for the popularity of presidents Morales, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Néstor Carlos Kirchner of Argentina, and other leftist leaders. And it's been responsible for the decline in U.S. reputation and influence in the region.

Will President Obama rebuild our relationship with the south on a foundation of genuine respect for democracy and sovereignty? Or will it be more of the same superpower policies, this time cloaked in more collaborative and intelligent rhetoric?

The spirit of partnership Obama brought with him to the summit, plus his willingness to listen directly to his counterparts, are hopeful signs that real change could be in the works.

A Plea to President Obama: Don't Bankrupt America

2009-04-08T11:14:00.000-07:00

Dear President Obama,

I'm getting a sinking feeling. Watching your appointees' latest bank bailout makes me wonder if all your administration's good work on health care, education, and jobs will be swept away by the extraordinary giveaway of trillions in taxpayer money to a group of powerful Wall Street operatives, who appear willing to bankrupt our country to continue building their wealth and power.

Could this be happening on the watch of someone who, like yourself, came to Washington with the promise of personal integrity and a concern for the common good?

From outside the Beltway it looks pretty clear: Your financial team's identification with Wall Street corporations is compromising their ability to advise you on what can save our country. Please listen to some of today's most astute independent analysts:

Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University economist:

"Two weeks ago, I posted an article showing how the Geithner-Summers banking plan could potentially and unnecessarily transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from taxpayers to banks. ... In fact, the situation is even potentially more disastrous than we wrote. Insiders can easily game the system created by Geithner and Summers to cost up to a trillion dollars or more to the taxpayers."

Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary:

"So you and I and other taxpayers have kept these hedge-fund honchos flush enough to be able to reap the bonanza that Geithner now wants to bestow on them for cleaning up the mess they and others on Wall Street made -- a bonanza to be financed by you and me and other taxpayers, who are taking on all the risk."

David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy, and board chair of YES! magazine:

"Wall Street will continue to play out its extortion racket so long as the public is willing to put up with the bailout-first, reform-later capitulation of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. There must be a strong and immediate public demand to restructure first."

William Greider, writer for The Nation, formerly with The Washington Post, and author of some of today's best books on the economy:

"If Wall Street gets its way, the 'reforms' may further consolidate power and ratify a corporate state--a grotesque hybrid that combines the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism. The reform ideas announced by Geithner would plant the seeds by creating a 'systemic risk' regulator, presumably the Federal Reserve, to oversee the largest, most politically adept banks and financial firms that qualify as 'too big to fail.' Capitalism, with its inherent tendency toward monopoly, would have the means to monopolize democracy."

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter:

"If we do not immediately halt our elite's rapacious looting of the public treasury we will be left with trillions in debts, which can never be repaid, and widespread human misery which we will be helpless to ameliorate. ... The stimulus and bailout plans are not about saving us. They are about saving them. We can resist, which means street protests, disruptions of the system and demonstrations, or become serfs."

And here's William Black, a regulator who takes bank regulation seriously, in an interview with Bill Moyers:

"We're hiding the losses, instead of trying to find out the real losses. ...Follow what works instead of what's failed. Start appointing people who have records of success, instead of records of failure. ... There are lots of things we can do. Even today, as late as it is. Even though they've had a terrible start to the administration. They could change, and they could change within weeks."

It's not too late, Mr. President. We can still keep these corrupt financial institutions from bankrupting America. We need you to stand up to the Wall Street insiders in your own administration who might understand what boosts the profits of banks, but not what helps our economy. Please replace them with independent advisors, who haven't spent their careers working for investment banks, hedge funds, and the Federal Reserve.

We don't need to re-inflate the disastrous bubble casino and we don't need to pump more taxpayer dollars into the too-big-to-fail institutions that have caused this mess. Instead, it's time to take a long, cold look at these banks, which George Soros says are now "basically insolvent."

Nationalize them. Reorganize them. And decentralize them -- make sure none are too big to bring down our economy. And make sure we never again find ourselves in the bizarre circumstance of having the biggest failures -- the ones whose actions threaten to destroy the economy -- calling the shots in Washington. Instead, reorganize these banks so that all of them are linked into the real economies they should be serving, not undermining -- the locally rooted enterprises that provide the sustainable livelihoods we need.

Yes, we can! Mr President. And for the sake of our country, we must.

Sincerely,
Sarah van Gelder
YES! Magazine

If you share these concerns, please:

Forward this message to the White House and to your lists, and repost.
Get involved in the work of "A New Way Forward," a group organizing protests around the country on April 11.
Explore more ways to rebuild our economy, while making it more sustainable, at YES! Magazine's Path to a New Economy.

On the 6th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq: A New Direction?

2009-03-19T11:57:00.000-07:00

This week marks the sixth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an event some have called the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history. I won't repeat here the tragic statistics of American lives lost and damaged, Iraqi death tolls, and the stories of the millions of displaced who are still trying to pick up the pieces of their lives. Nor will I recount the extraordinary failure of the media to question the rationale for war. To those who say they didn't see it coming, I can tell you that two of my colleagues, working from our Bainbridge Island, WA., office, with no access to hidden information or insider sources, provided compelling evidence that undercut every one of the rationales for war, well before the invasion began. That evidence was missing from the lopsided media accounts that dominated the mainstream press.

Today, we have the Obama administration in Washington and a Democratically controlled Congress in large part because the American people have so soundly repudiated this aggressive military posture.

But if we are clear, now, about the failure of the neoconservative agenda of global dominance, the question remains: How should the U.S. relate to the rest of the world? Will we try to hold on to our place as the world's sole superpower -- and if so, can we? Writing in the "Superpower: Get Over It" issue of YES! magazine, John Feffer said that's not what Americans want:

"Americans want their country to stop being the neighborhood bully and instead act like a good neighbor. In this, Americans are not giving voice to utopian aspirations. The polls in fact reflect a new realism. The nation’s economy is flagging, our military is over-stretched, and our global legitimacy is exhausted. The public no longer wants to shoulder these various costs of empire."

In the year since Feffer wrote this piece, the global financial collapse has further undercut the capacity of U.S. taxpayers to continue pouring billions into weapons systems, two foreign wars, massive long-term medical needs of veterans, nuclear weapons programs, and, oh yeah, our 700-800 overseas military bases. And ironically, we are discovering that with "asymmetrical warfare," much of this military expenditure offers us plenty of opportunities to kill and destroy, but few opportunities to win the peace.

So, as Feffer describes, we face a choice of future roles in the world. We could insist on claiming the role of empire ...

"Burdened by debt, armed to the teeth, and isolated from the world, the United States would become the “sick man” of North America, as the Ottomans were once labeled in Europe. Like many failing empires, we would be all the more dangerous the weaker we got.

"Or the United States could try something unprecedented. We could turn our back on empire, much as Spain and Portugal did in the 1970s and the Soviet Union did in the late 1980s. But rather than waiting until the bitter end as these countries did, the United States could use its still considerable power to help create a more equitable world order that operates on a truly level playing field."

As we start into the seventh year in Iraq, and begin a military build up in Afghanistan, let's consider that second option -- that we gracefully let go of the empire role. In my December '08 blog, I laid out a five-point plan for doing this.

In these tough economic times, we could start by transferring the spending on budget-busting weapons systems to an investment in the super-efficiency, green energy, and sustainable transit projects that can create jobs now and improve our security by preparing us to live in a climate-constrained world. The Obama stimulus package is a good down payment, but we will have to make a sustained investment if we are to transfer to an economy that can provide lasting peace and prosperity.

A Shout Out to Climate Activists

2009-02-27T18:22:00.000-08:00

Thank you.

That's what I want to say to everyone out in the snow doing civil disobedience today.

Thanks to Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben for their call to action:

"There are moments in a nation’s—and a planet’s—history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction. We think such a time has arrived."

Thanks to Bill Greider, Paul Hawken, Vandana Shiva, and Martin Sheen and others for taking a stand:

"Ahead of the UN conference in Copenhagen and with climate and energy legislation coming down the pipe, 2009 is a now-or-never moment to ensure that climate and energy decisions by our government are bold, just and far-reaching. Right now, it is up to civil society to take the lead in demonstrating in ever-more powerful ways to provide political cover for lawmakers who will face fierce pressure from business groups, like the coal lobby, to water down or vote down bold solutions."

Thanks to the Rukus Society, Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network, and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) for organizing this large-scale civil disobedience. Matt Leonard of Greenpeace:

“This demonstration marks the beginning of a sustained effort to draw a line in the sand against this dirty and dangerous fuel.”

Thanks to the youth who are showing up at Powershift and in their own communities to press for climate action. Joshua Kahn Russell -- thank you for standing up for survival at the global climate summit in Poland in December, and for mobilizing youth for today's civil disobedience. Here's how Joshua explains what's happening:

"We will be sitting-in at the dirty coal power station that literally powers our congressional building in DC. This Power Station is just blocks from Congress and is a national symbol for the stranglehold dirty energy sources like coal have over our communities, our climate and our future. Coal is the single biggest contributor to global warming and it will be impossible to have a safe and secure future for humankind if we continue to burn it."

A qualified "thank you" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who last week asked the Capitol architect to switch the power plant in question to natural gas -- achieving the immediate aim of the protesters without a single arrest. I'm not sure if they took that action out of concern about the climate emergency or as an attempt to pre-empt today's protests. But the protest is on, in spite of today's snow and frigid temperatures. (You can follow the action on twitter, here.)

This coal plant is just one among the thousands around the world that threaten to push climate disruption beyond the point of no return (if we aren't already there). The BBC recently reported yet another survey that shows that the damage to the climate is happening more rapidly than cautious scientists had predicted.

And, according to NASA's Jim Hansen -- the climate scientist the Bush administration was unable to muzzle -- this is a climate emergency:

“Coal is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country and that must change. The world is waiting for the Obama administration and Congress to lead the way forward on this defining issue of our time. They need to start by getting coal out of Congress.”

Dr. Hansen is joining the protest, which organizers hope will be the largest civil disobedience action on climate ever. Thank you, Dr. Hansen, for stepping out of the cloistered role of scientist to help the rest of us understand the urgency.

We are being thrust out of business-as-usual, like it or not, by the financial melt-down coupled with increasing evidence of climate disaster. The moral leadership of those risking arrest today along with the Obama administration could could bring us closer to a turn around. Thanks to everyone who is making it so.

Breakthrough on Nuke Reduction?

2009-02-07T08:32:00.000-08:00

The Obama administration is considering a major reduction in nuclear weapons to as little as 1,000 warheads each for Russia and the U.S., according to a recent article in The Times of London. Surprisingly, this story has received almost no attention in the U.S. media, although it may represent the most important progress in non-proliferation in many years.

The Obama team will reconsider the Bush administration's plan for a missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe -- a deployment the Russians have strongly opposed, according to the article. Obama pledged during his campaign to open talks with Moscow on the Start treaty, which expires at the end of the year. That agreement calls for both countries to reduce their stockpiles from about 10,000 to about 5,000.

But going to 1,000 would mark a major additional reduction. According to David Krieger, head of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, "This news is not just noteworthy, it could be a game-changer."

The Times quoted an unnamed administration official as saying:
“Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty."

"Imagine what a message these talks would send to other nuclear countries," Krieger said in an email to supporters. "Suddenly, U.S. leadership would be unequivocal, and there would be pressure on all nuclear nations to join in the process."

The world's nuclear stockpile stands at about 25,000 nuclear weapons, the vast majority of which are held by Russia and the United States.

This news falls in line with President Obama's promise during the campaign to seek a nuclear-free world:

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

There's at least some support for a nuclear-free future from the other side of the aisle. George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration, told me in a YES! interview that he believes the world can be safe from the global hazard of nuclear warfare, terrorism, or accident only by eliminating nuclear weapons.

With You, In Spirit

2009-01-18T22:14:00.000-08:00

I'll admit it. Part of me wishes I was in Washington, DC, watching our new president take his oath of office, going to an inaugural ball, celebrating with millions of others. Probably crying again, as I did on election night.

Instead, here's what I'm doing to celebrate.

This morning, I took my shovel and joined a group of neighbors at a nearby church in response to a call from the Suquamish Tribe's Environmental Stewardship Council. We are preparing some land for a community vegetable garden -- the Port Madison Reservation's first -- as one of many community service projects around the country that have sprung up in response to Michelle Obama's call for a day of service to celebrate MLK Day.

Tuesday morning early (Pacific time), I'll go to the Bella Luna Pizza and coffee shop in the center of Suquamish to watch the Inauguration on television.

Then, it's back to work on the spring issue of YES! which will focus on how people are reclaiming food and farming for the sake of their health, the climate, the health of soil and water ways, and to make sure everyone has enough to eat -- even during economic hard times.

In the evening, I'll go to a concert in Seattle's Town Hall entitled "Odetta to Obama," celebrating the music of the late singer and of others who built the civil rights struggle that makes this extraordinary week possible.

With any spare moments, I'll be preparing for the summer issue of YES!, which takes on the small question of redesigning the economy. Since the Wall Street economy has failed, what type of economy should we rebuild that can serve us better? And this time, can we build an economy that is good for children, sustains the environment, and supports things we value -- like time, and having a life, and democracy?

So yes, I wish I was there with the celebrating crowds on the mall. But I'm glad I'm here too. As Van Jones says when I asked him if he planned to join the Obama administration:

"Even though we have a great president, we also need a great popular movement to support that president. All of us can't go into the White House and hang out there. We got a lot of work to do out in these communities, and that's what I plan to do."

If you're in DC, I'm with you in spirit. If you are making things work in your own community, that's what I'm doing, too.

No More Aggression in My Name

2009-01-07T20:57:00.000-08:00

I sometimes wonder what I would have done if I had been alive when the Atlantic slave trade was going on. Would I have been among the abolitionists? If I had been living in North America when the U.S. government was sending Cherokees on a death march to Oklahoma or massacring women and children at Wounded Knee -- would I have spoken up?

I wasn't alive then, but today I am an unwilling supporter of Israel's brutal attack on the people of Gaza, which my tax money, and my silence, helped make possible.

It is painful to write this. I am a descendant of Polish Jewish immigrants. I know how my ancestors were treated in the waves of pogroms and massacres, and what almost certainly happened to any who didn't make it out before the Holocaust. I grew up hearing the stories.

But that history does not justify what Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur for human rights, calls a "flagrant violation of international humanitarian law." As Falk makes clear, the story we're getting in the U.S. does not give a full picture of what's happening.

The situation in Gaza is "shocking," say representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Hundreds of civilians are dead, thousands are wounded, and thousands more are traumatized, trapped in a conflict beyond their control, unarmed and vulnerable. A ceasefire is desperately needed.

This attack is a tragic setback for prospects for peace in the region, and for Israel's future. Here's how Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery puts it:

"Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse.

If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.

What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet.

In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel."

We in the United States should not be supporting with our diplomatic shield, our tax money, and weapons this self-inflicted "crime against the State of Israel." Instead, we should use our role as the world's biggest financial, military, and political supporters of Israel to help stop this aggression.

It's time to insist on an immediate ceasefire--as the United Nations Security Council has done--and a long-term negotiated peace. We should halt our billions of dollars of annual support unless there is an end to the bloodshed and steps taken toward long-term peace.

Support for an immediate ceasefire does not indicate a lack of sympathy for the Jewish state. A new pro-Israel, pro-peace group, J Street, is calling for an immediate ceasefire. This group appears to be in a good position to counter the hawkish AIPAC lobby.

Americans for Peace Now, a U.S. affiliate of Israel's oldest peace group, is calling for a ceasefire "with teeth":

"This escalation risks playing into the hands of extremists, while increasing dangers to both soldiers and civilians -- Israeli and Palestinian," they say.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives, co-founded by Rabbi Michael Lerner, is raising funds to put an ad in The New York Times calling for lasting peace for the Middle East

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, is calling for a boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign like the one that helped bring down apartheid.

Just as many of us opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, many Israelis oppose the assault on Gaza. The third peace rally in as many weeks took place in Tel Aviv on Saturday, according to an article by the Inter Press Service.

These are the forces Americans should be aiding; our active support of an immediate ceasefire and long-term peace may make all the difference at this difficult moment.

10 Reasons to be Hopeful about 2009, and 3 Reasons to be Terrified

2008-12-31T09:12:00.000-08:00

We’re entering a new year at a time unlike any other in recent memory. Here are 10 reasons I’m filled with hope as I look ahead at 2009 -- and three reasons I’m terrified.

Young people are stepping up. They know that they formed the backbone of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and that their work infused the country with the “Yes, we can” spirit. Now that these young people know what success feels like, many will be in it for the long haul.
Election protection is working. Grassroots vigilance, successful lawsuits, and media exposure are making voter suppression efforts less successful. More remains to be done, but the trends are in the right direction. (One terrifying note, though, is the death in a December 19 plane crash of GOP IT expert Michael Connell, who many believe was poised to reveal secrets related to vote stealing.)
There is now overwhelming support for universal health care. This grassroots commitment coupled with Obama’s leadership could make this the year when we finally overcome the roadblocks big insurance and drug corporations have placed in the way of progress. A majority of Americans favor a tax-supported single-payer system like Canada’s. The Obama plan, while it’s not single-payer, is nonetheless a good plan—as long as it retains the option for all Americans to join a public health insurance plan.
Corporate power is on the wane. Barack Obama ran for office without relying on corporate donations in a campaign that saw candidates competing to establish their tough-on-corporate-power bonafides. Even before the Wall Street meltdown, a majority of Americans thought corporations had too much power. The economic collapse is further eroding goodwill towards corporations and big finance, showing instead how both were instrumental in concentrating wealth, creating unsustainable bubbles, and putting our way of life at risk. After the trillions of taxpayer money paid out in corporate bailouts, the American people are looking for more fair and sustainable alternatives.
The failing economy is giving us lots of reasons to be terrified (see below) but also reasons to be hopeful. That rip-roaring economy we’re all supposed to be trying to bring back was tearing through the world’s rainforests, mountaintops, aquifers, fisheries, soils, and other resources, driving thousands of species toward extinction, changing the climate, and leaving billions behind in the rush for “economic growth.” So, painful as it might be, this downturn represents a chance to build a different sort of economy – one that offers dignity, livelihoods, and a future for our children.
We’re finally getting real about the urgency and scope of the climate challenge. The incoming Obama administration takes science seriously, which means taking climate change seriously, too. The nay-sayers have quit denying the existence of global warming, and have resorted to random delay tactics. Many now see the conversion to a climate-friendly economy as a major opportunity, with new jobs and investment needed to weatherize buildings, re-tool factories, develop renewal sources of energy, and rebuild transportation infrastructure (see below for the terrifying flip side).
Social movements are building people power. Nonviolent civil disobedience is back. Climate organizers conduct “die-ins” and climate camps to shut down coal plants. Workers at Republic Windows & Doors occupied their factory when they were abruptly dismissed without severance and vacation pay. President-Elect Obama backed the Republic workers, implicitly inviting others to stand up for their rights. He also continues to organize people at the grassroots – right now through health care discussion groups. Thousands of these meetings being held across the country could build a health care reform movement with enough clout to overcome entrenched interests and move forward. (We may wind up calling Obama, Organizer-in-Chief.)
DIY (do it yourself) communities are piloting the shift to a people-centered society. These folks understand that real security during tough times is found in the “social capital” of community. At the same time, they are creating experiments in green and just ways of life. They aren’t waiting for policy changes or bailouts, instead, they are helping each other now and getting on with the most extraordinary project of our time: building a better world.
International cooperation is now possible, and it’s none too soon. The day of the lone wolf is over. Likewise, the day of the sole superpower that could bend the rest of the world to its will. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, failed states, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the collapse of ocean fisheries, outbreaks of genocide, environmental and human rights refugee crises, HIV/AIDS and other pandemics—all require international cooperation. That means everyone has a seat at the table, no one gets bullied, and the solutions have to be real ones.
Obama! It’s true, he hasn’t lived up to all our hopes with his cabinet picks. On the left-right scale, he’s been pretty centrist, and especially his choices for foreign policy and agriculture posts suggest he may repeat the mistakes of the Clinton and Bush appointees he is surrounding himself with. But on the people-versus-big-money scale, he leans towards people and the common good, as the examples above illustrate. And he has elevated the national dialogue, setting a new standard for intelligent, inclusive, nuanced leadership.

Not bad to be coming into the new year with 10 reasons to be hopeful. That's as good as it's been for awhile. But there are also some good reasons to be terrified:

Runaway climate change. The biggest question of the 21st century may be whether policies can catch up to the dangerous realities of a rapidly changing climate in time to avoid disaster. Will we come together to stabilize the climate? Or are we be the last generation to live on a planet that can support complex civilization?
Loose nukes. We are all in danger from loose nukes, the spread of nuclear materials around the world, and nuclear warfare between India and Pakistan or other nuclear-armed adversaries. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons may be the only way of avoiding a nuclear catastrophe; figures across the political spectrum support such proposals, including former Secretary of State George Shultz. Will we have the political will to rid ourselves of this danger?
Mad Max world. Disruption of life-as-usual could come from economic collapse, runaway climate change, war, peak oil, pandemics, or some unforeseen combination of these and other factors. What makes these prospects especially terrifying are potential human responses to them. We could see either societal breakdown -- in which each person turns on others in a battle for dominance or survival -- or fascism, in which people allow all-powerful leaders to run things out of fear of chaos.

So which will it be? Are you hopeful or terrified by the coming year and by what we face in the coming decades?

What I keep coming back to is this: we humans have the free will to make choices that assure our collective survival, or to do otherwise. We do have the creativity, compassion, and intelligence to build on the best possibilities while averting the worst.

This historic moment will test everything we have built and everything our ancestors have passed down to us. The answers are readily available, embedded in all the world’s spiritual traditions, in all the mothers and fathers who have sacrificed to make a good life for their children, and in all the peacemakers who have worked to build a better world for everyone.

Will we make the choices for a just and sustainable world? We know, as Obama says, that, indeed, Yes! we can. But will we?

Health Care by and for the people

2008-12-17T18:44:00.000-08:00

The Obama transition team is asking you to help create a new health care policy. Really. Host a meeting, invite friends and associates, look at the Obama team's proposal, and let the transition team know what you decide. If you are among a lucky few, Senator Tom Daschle, Secretary-designate for Health and Human Services, may show up at your meeting.

This may be more important than it sounds. The key dividing lines over how to fix our country's broken health care system are becoming clear. It may take the same sort of grassroots involvement that got Obama elected president to keep the private insurance industry from hijacking the process as they have during previous reform efforts.

Here's one of the key decision points. The Obama plan calls for giving everyone the option of signing up for a public or private insurance plan. But according to The New York Times, the private insurance industry is lining up against that option. It's no small matter. According to a report released Wednesday by health policy analyst Jacob Hacker, having a public option could make the difference between a system that covers everyone and controls costs, and one that will continue to leave millions out while costs soar.

As Americans are painfully aware, our health care system is broken. 45 million Americans or more are without health care coverage. Half of all bankruptcies are caused, at least in part, by unaffordable health care bills. We're spending more -- 16 percent of U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) to cover 85 percent of our population, while Canada and France each spend less than 10 percent of GDP to cover everyone.

The harm to our economy of our backward health care system is especially evident today, as all three U.S. auto makers suffer from the competitive disadvantage of covering health care costs that their overseas competitors can leave to more effective government-run insurance programs.

Americans voted for change this November. But what system makes sense?

According to the research we did at YES! for our special coverage of health care reform, government involvement is critical. A majority of Americans agree -- two out of three believe the government should provide national health care coverage, even if it would mean higher taxes. Other wealthy countries have adopted various methods , but a system like Canada's is one of the most efficient at providing good coverage for everyone while keeping a lid on costs. Under this system, the government is the insurer, but patients choose their doctors from private, public, or non-profit health care providers.

Having a public system is the way to cut bureaucracy and cost. But government involvement is where things get controversial. The private insurance industry opposes such a move. And some say that the switch to national insurance is too big a leap for Americans. People will be afraid to give up the coverage they know for an unknown system.

So the Hacker proposal, which was adopted in part by Barack Obama, may be the perfect compromise. Keep your private insurance if you want. But if you aren't covered, or if your premiums are too high, or your deductions and exclusions are too onerous, you can opt for the public insurance system. You would still choose your doctor. Subsidies would insure the plan is affordable to all. At the lowest income levels, it would be free.

Including a public system in our range of options is what it will take to control costs, and thus make sure everyone is included, according to Hacker. The private insurance industry has made a lot of money by excluding things that are expensive, shifting costs on to individuals and families by, for example, excluding pre-existing conditions, and working to write coverage only for those who are less likely to need health care. They have a big incentive to figure out how to exclude a treatment or test and little incentive to invest in our long-term health, since people tend to shift insurance companies over time. Their business, after all, is not keeping us healthy. It’s generating profits for shareholders.

Medicare has kept costs under control more effectively than either private insurance companies, or pools of private insurers, like those who contract with the federal government to provide health insurance to federal employees. According to Hacker's report, Medicare spending per enrollee increased only 4.6 percent per year from 1997 to 2006, while the cost of private insurance increased 7.3 percent each year during the same time period.

Innovations in the public sector have helped contain costs, and there are substantial additional savings to be had from better use of information technology, care coordination strategies, and databases of practices and outcomes, according to Hacker. And public health insurance agencies are in a better position to negotiate for reasonable prices from private health care providers.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimates that Hacker's plan would save the U.S. economy $1 trillion over 10 years, while covering 99.6 percent of Americans.

The Massachusetts system, enacted in 2006, is a stark example of what happens when there is no public option. Everyone in the state is supposed to be covered, but their choices are limited to private plans. Premiums have been rising 8 to 12 percent per year, which means the system will soon be out of reach of individual families, employers, and the state government.

A public option assures that there is a benchmark against which private companies must compete. Without such a benchmark, private companies have no incentive to contain costs or improve services.

It's hard to argue with giving people a choice.

But the health care industry is arguing. The New York Times says medical associations are encouraging their members to attend the health care discussion groups being organized by the Obama transition team around the U.S. Past efforts to reform the health care system stalled in the face of powerful health industry lobbyists with huge campaign war chests. Will the industry be as adept at dominating the health care policy discussion when it's happening in living rooms and coffee shops around the country?

Here's how President-elect Obama put it at his December 11 press conference:

Year after year, our leaders offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise only to see them fail, derailed by Washington politics and influence peddling.

If Obama is able to bring together ordinary Americans, who so clearly are desperate for change, and if they get as engaged in health care reform as they were in the bottom-up presidential campaign, perhaps this time we'll get the change we need. Maybe people power will overcome corporate power, and we'll finally be able to join the rest of the developed world who enjoy health care security.

So far, more than 4,000 meetings are scheduled around the U.S. Here's where you can sign up to lead a session. All the information you need is online, including the moderator's guide and instructions for reporting the results back to the transition team.

Note: If you are part of such a discussion, please let YES! know. We'd love to read your report and post a selection. Send us an email at editors [at] yesmagazine.org. Put the phrase "health care discussion" in the subject line.

Republic Workers and the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

2008-12-09T21:24:00.000-08:00

It's the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and a handful of factory workers in Chicago may be giving the declaration new meaning.

The workers at the Republic Window and Door company began occupying their factory on Friday when Republic abruptly shut down the small factory, and declined to pay workers vacation and severance pay due them. The shutdown came about not because there was no business -- there are orders waiting to be filled. The shutdown came after Bank of America refused to extend credit to the company. Bank of America has received billions of bailout dollars designed to get the bank to make loans -- loans that could help the real economy of Main Street.

This story has gotten a lot of play in the media, and the workers have received support from President-elect Barack Obama, the state of Illinois, and various elected officials although the company has fewer than 300 workers. Their act of resistance resonates deeply with people fed up by a mismanaged economy and a mismanaged bailout -- fed up that protecting Wall Street speculators has come ahead of protecting the ordinary men and women who make things we actually need and are struggling to support their families.

During the economic collapse in Argentina, as factories shut down, the workers took matters one step further. They occupied factories abandoned by financially strapped owners -- and then they began operating the factories themselves. They discovered that they didn't need a lot of highly compensated executives to manage things. And when they didn't need to pay inflated executive salaries and keep a raft of speculators satisfied with ever-growing profits, they could pour their earnings back into the plant and into employee salaries and benefits. When police tried to evict them, the neighbors and other workers joined forces to protect them -- and sometimes elected officials backed them up.

Many people are pinning their hopes for a just and sustainable economic recovery on the coming Obama administration, and President-elect Obama's expression of support for the workers is encouraging. But the changes he promises and we so desperately need will come about only if grassroots movements press for real economic change.

The Republic factory sit-in could launch an economic human rights movement that takes off where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. left off when he was assassinated supporting striking Memphis sanitation workers. It could build on Article 23 of the UDHR, which says that all people have the right to work and to form and join labor unions, and Article 25, which says all of us have a right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.

This new movement -- especially if it joins forces with the likes of the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign -- could become a powerful force for reorienting our society toward serving, sustainably, the needs of ordinary people.

The banks don't trust each other, so why should we?

2008-12-08T19:15:00.000-08:00

"Banks no longer trust each other because of bad debts."

So say BBC financial experts. Which raises the obvious question. They don't trust each other, and in spite of the $150 billion-plus of U.S. taxpayers money, they are still not lending money to one another and credit markets are still stalled. Maybe they understand better than anyone just how untrustworthy they are.

So why would we want to pour yet more hundreds of billions of dollars into their coffers? Just last week the Government Accountability Office reported:

"Treasury has yet to address a number of critical issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP [the Capital Purchase Program] is achieving its intended goals and monitoring compliance with limitations on executive compensation and dividend payments."

So, for all we know, we taxpayers may be taking thousands of dollars out of our wallets (and our kids' and grandkids' wallets) to pay for gold-plated executive bonuses and big shareholder pay-offs.

There are likely more credit crises coming down the pike, and we'll probably see a steady stream of credit card companies, car loan executives, and others coming to Congress for bailouts.

And wait, we still need some money to pay for Obama's promising economic recovery program, which has the big advantage of funding needed infrastructure and school repair, and energy efficiency upgrades, instead of the global casino economy. That's all good, but if the Obama administration follows usual practice, the U.S. government will borrow money from those self-same banks we are bailing out, plus a bunch of foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds. Is it just me, or does this not make sense?

It turns out there is another option. The U.S. government does not need to borrow money from private banks -- it can own the banks and thus create the money itself. Or it can just print the money. The right to issue money is in the Constitution, and no, it doesn't have to be inflationary. Attorney and author Ellen Brown explains how it can be done in a remarkable article featured on the YES! magazine website. And before you dismiss it as too good to be true, imagine what it would mean to our taxes and the debt of future generations if we could stop borrowing money, at interest, from the banks, and instead issue money ourselves. Check it out.

The Obama Economic Stimulus -- Will it Take Us Where We Need to Go?

2008-12-06T12:31:00.000-08:00

Dear President-elect Obama,
The economic stimulus package you laid out today in your weekly radio and internet address is a great starting point -- very much needed as the downward spiral of the economy takes away the breath of even the most level-headed observer.

Your plan to save or create 2.5 million jobs by investing in energy efficiency, infrastructure, and schools are all things we called for in the agenda we laid out in the Fall issue of YES!, and are all favored by a large majority of Americans.

Let's look a bit more closely at your specific plans:

"First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work."

This is an excellent place to start. Increasing the efficiency of buildings reduces greenhouse gas pollution, and cuts dependence on both imported energy. It sets a higher standard for building owners to emulate, and jump starts what could be one of the best new sources of stable, family-wage employment -- refurbishing the built environment for energy efficiency. And it is an investment that will quickly begin saving us tax dollars.

"Second, we will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money."

Investment in national infrastructure is desperately needed after years of neglect by leaders hostile to government projects. But we are entering a new era, when everything we build must be assessed for its climate impacts. The potential catastrophe of run-away climate meltdown could make the economic melt down look minor by comparison. Infrastructure investments must be used to build to climate friendly projects -- bridges that accommodate mass transit, bike lanes, and pedestrians, for example. And roads that encourage compact communities rather than expensive and wasteful sprawl.

"Third, my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools."

Great plan. Our kids should not be going to run-down schools that kill the spirit and signal to them that we don't care. Instead, schools should be filled with beauty and light -- qualities that can improve learning and cut energy costs. More than any other group, our young people have a stake in a sustainable future, and we can rebuild schools that give them hope. While we're at it, we can address another of your top priorities, health, by connecting the schools with local farmers, so kids get healthy, fresh, local meals.

"As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m President – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world."

Agreed. Kids must have access to the extraordinary range of information available on the internet and to the tools needed to create their own on-line spaces, where they can express their own ideas and talents, not just be passive consumers of information and entertainment. We need to find the right balance, though, between kids spending time in the electronic world of the internet, and interacting with real people, real spaces, and real plants, animals, soil, water, and sunshine. In other words, the virtual world is no substitute for the real world.

"... the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year."

Fine, but let's not get distracted from the real crisis: access to health care.

Will you, as promised, create an affordable system of health insurance that will cover everyone? The analysis we did for the YES! issue, Health Care for All, shows that keeping the private insurance industry as the dominant player in the system, makes universal coverage difficult, if not impossible. Canada and every other wealthy country deliver health care security to everyone by eliminating the expense, bureaucracy, and dominant role of the profit motive from the health care payment system. Medical services are still provided by a combination of private, public, and non-profit medical facilities.

These systems work -- few Canadians or Europeans would trade their system for the expense, ineffectiveness, and insecurity of the U.S. system. And little wonder; they live longer and healthier lives than Americans, and can take access to medical care for granted. In spite of the absence of these proposals from most public debate, Canadian-style, single-payer health care is favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans, who now live in fear of losing health coverage due to a job loss or some other change in circumstances.

One other element of the economic plan that Americans favor -- please, Mister President-Elect, extend unemployment benefits for those losing their jobs and unable to find a new one in a downsizing economy. Doing so will immediately put money into the pocket of hard-pressed Americans, who will immediately spend it on providing necessities for their families -- a great investment in our children and our future, and an immediate stimulus to the real economy of Main Street. (If you have any doubt about the pain ordinary Americans are feeling, check out these stories on the Huffington Post.)

In summary, your plan is a great starting point. But the economic collapse (and pending environmental collapse) shows the need for much deeper restructuring. Some ideas about what that might mean are here.

A Five-Point Foreign Policy Agenda

2008-12-01T10:26:00.000-08:00

President-elect Barack Obama was elected to bring change. As he announced his foreign policy team, though, I wondered if this insider group can bring any new ideas to the table. Will they be open to fresh thinking or are they too closely tied to the militaristic Bush administration and the pro-corporate Democratic Party leadership?

At a time of historic global challenges, Americans badly want solutions that reflect our new realities and fit with our values as a peace-loving, democratic people.

The Military Budget: Our over-reliance on military weaponry and projected force has contributed to the draining of our national treasury. We spend nearly half of all money spent on the military worldwide, more than China, Russia, Britian, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arbia, and South Korea combined. We should begin by cutting the vast amount of unnecessary, wasteful, and corrupt military spending. Here are some places to start.

We need to bring home the vast majority of troops stationed overseas, close most of the 700-plus military bases we operate around the world, and transition veterans and civilian employees of war contractors to the desperately needed green-collar workforce.

More broadly, though, we need to ask what our military is for in an age where the threats are very different than they have been in the past.

Terrorism: The threat of terrorism has driven much of U.S. foreign policy since 9/11. There will probably always be terrorism in the world, just as there will always be other types of crime. But terrorists don't function well when their targets are well respected and when the population of would-be terrorists have good alternatives to blowing themselves up. A sensible anti-terrorism policy couples intelligence and smart law enforcement aimed at violent fundamentalists with policies that enable ordinary people to meet their needs and build a stake in a sustainable future.

Nuclear proliferation: The 2008 National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2050, predicts that terrorism is likely to become less important over the coming years, especially if the economy in the Middle East improves. Nuclear proliferation, on the other hand, will be a growing danger. Former Secretary of State George Shultz is among those leading a non-partisan effort to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, while we still have the chance. The Obama administration could make history by beginning the painstaking diplomatic work necessary to erase this threat from our midst, beginning by reducing the largest stockpiles in the world here in the U.S.

Sustainability: The physical capacity of the Earth to sustain human life is under assault. There is no security without the natural resources on which our lives depend, from farmland to forests, from water to our fragile climate. Already, there are millions of environmental refugees worldwide, and many of the brutal wars raging around the world center on conflicts over resources.

A new foreign policy must give first priority to using these resources to provide sustainable livelihoods that meet human needs and sustain, or restore, ecosystems. We can no longer afford the exploit-and-abandon pattern of global corporations.

The Global Financial Casino: The collapse of global financial markets is the most recent sign that the unregulated, free-wheeling global casino form of capitalism is bankrupt. Future global economic policy must aim to rebuild the real economy of goods and services, and the means for people to secure a dignified quality of life within the ecological constraints of the planet. We must abandon the discredited policies that asked the vast majority of the world's people, including most Americans, to wait for the gambling chits of the global casino to "trickle down" on them. There's much more on this question here and there will be more in coming issues of YES! Magazine.

Policies to support peace in Israel and Palestine, support Africa's efforts towards self-reliance, re-build relationships with Iran, and get out of Iraq can be found here.

Our time as sole superpower is ending -- even the National Security Council's Global Trends 2050 report says so. But this could be a good thing. Americans do not want their country acting as a global policeman or, worse, a global jailer and torturer. We no longer can afford to be the world's biggest military spender, and although the world looks to us for leadership, it has rejected domination.

Instead, our foreign policy should center on working as part of a community of nations to build a just and sustainable future for all people. It's amazing how many of our most urgent foreign policy issues can be addressed by doing so.

Note: many of these ideas are drawn from the summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine on a just foreign policy.

The Work for the Common Good

2008-11-28T07:01:00.000-08:00

There is much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. We have come through a threshold moment that changes everything. With the election of Barack Obama, we have regained the respect of the world (at least for the moment), regained a sense of unity of purpose, regained our sense of self-respect. And for the first time, a majority of us are saying that our nation is one that includes all citizens, regardless of skin color.

Now, in spite of the terrible challenges we face, everything seems possible.

So here's the question. Will we now go back into our separate groups to battle for our separate agendas? Will we have a tug-of-war over the Obama administration agenda?

Here's another idea. How about if we keep the spirit of the Obama campaign alive by making a commitment to press for the common good. Instead of asking if the new administration will serve my agenda, how about if we ask what actions will serve all Americans, or better yet -- now that we are an interconnected world -- all people and all life?

I don't believe it is overstating it to say we are facing the biggest crises in our nation's history. NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen, Al Gore, and others tell us we have very little time to turn around the climate crisis. People are losing their homes and jobs; their health care and even their lives. The conflicts in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa continue to kill and maim.

These are crises that we need to confront together.

We have reason to believe the Obama administration is going to have the freedom to set policies based on the common good. He has shown his commitment to remaining free of the overpowering influence of big money and corporate lobbyists by limiting their role in his campaign. And he has the community organizer instincts to build on the grassroots mobilization and financial support that got him elected. He carries an enormous mandate from "we the people," especially from young people, people of color, the middle class and poor. And many members of Congress know they owe their election successes to his coattails.

We can't afford to sit back and wait for an Obama administration to solve all the world's problems. He's the first to say we all need to be involved. But we can make the chances of success much higher if we pledge to work not only for our particular interest but for all people and all life. And it will be critically important that we continue to build independent social movements that have their own capacity to act, apart from the Obama administration.

Obama stepping up to the Climate Crisis

2008-11-19T15:46:00.000-08:00

President-elect Barack Obama is stepping up to the climate crisis, even before taking the oath of office. In a video address to the governors' climate meeting held in California he noted that "few challenges facing the world are more urgent than climate change."

It is a relief that we are now discussing how, rather than whether, to address this global crisis. But will Obama's actions be up to the crisis at hand?

The American people are ready. As we reported in the Fall 2008 issue of YES!, 79 percent of Americans favor mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions, and 75 percent favor clean electricity, even if they have to pay higher rates.

That being said, this is a question that may stretch beyond what is easily politically acceptable. The carbon we emit today can stay in the atmosphere for decades, and, as NASA scientist Jim Hansen has warned, if we don't reduce emissions adequately, we are leaving a planet to our children that will be past the point of return.

President-Elect Obama's target of reaching 80 percent reduction in 1990 levels by 2050 is great, but reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is not enough -- the 1sky initiative says we will need a 25 percent reduction by that date. And, while "clean coal" sounds promising, it is actually a dangerous distraction. There is no reliable means to capture and sequester coal CO2 emissions at this time. And there is an enormous amount of inexpensive coal available to be burned (inexpensive unless you live near one of the mountains that's being blown to pieces for the coal or near one of the streams filled with the debris.) So it will be hard, but necessary, to just say no.

We must stop the construction of any new coal plants unless truly CO2-free technology is proven. In the meantime, we should phase out existing coal plants and end any discussion of exploiting tar sands.

There are some great renewable energy production and conservation options available now. President-elect Obama is on the right course with the cap & trade proposal that will fund green jobs. Lets just make sure we charge polluters the full cost of carbon pollution, and that we're funding real solutions with the income. To do that will test Obama's willingness to stand up to special interests and make the changes needed to avert climate disaster.

This may be politically difficult and costly -- but less so than the increasing wild fires, mega-storms, droughts, flooding, and dislocation that will result if we (who are the largest greenhouse gas polluters) don't deal with this issue. And many of the necessary initiatives will help stimulate the economy, building the long-term foundations of sustainable future.

The American people are prepared to make changes, even if it involves some sacrifice. Thousands met with members of Congress this week to urge them to take tough action to confront the climate crisis. This will be among the first tests of leadership for the new president-elect.

Pranksters hack the New York Times

2008-11-16T13:36:00.000-08:00

The YES Men have done it again -- only this time with a new level of smarts and pizazz.

Last week, they printed over a million copies of a spoof issue of The New York Times and distributed them around the country. What made the prank remarkable is that the content is truly visionary. The great news from July 4, 2009, is that the Iraq War is over. The U.S. Congress has adopted universal health care. Thomas Friedman has admitted how wrong he has consistently been on the war, and other matters, and thrown in the pen, and there is a new S.A.N.E. economic policy.

The YES men started out as two small-time pranksters. One was involved in the "Barbie Liberation Front," which swapped out the voice boxes of GI Joes and Barbie dolls (so GI Joe was talking about shopping while Barbie was looking to blow people up). The other inserted into an action video game avatars of guys in swim suits blowing kisses.

They joined forces and graduated to a website that mimicked the WTO site, but with their own special slant. The website resulted, to their surprise, in speaking invitations from around the world. So, dressed in thrift store suits and ties, they showed up at conferences and conventions as WTO representatives, where they proclaimed the organization -- having contributed to global poverty and environmental decline -- would be closing down. Among other pranks. You can read their story in their own words here.

They pulled the same scam on Dow Chemical, when they announced to global fanfare that the company would take full responsibility for the casualties resulting from the Bhopal chemical spill -- a claim the real Dow Chemical than would find itself vigorously denying.

These pranks, while showing increasing sophistication and pointed commentary, focused on the deep flaws of major global players. This latest prank, which clearly was produced by a larger team, shows instead what could go very right in the world. How about a Safeguards for a New Economy (S.A.N.E.) economic policy that caps CEO pay and places a tax on stock transactions? Or a bike path running the length of Manhatten? Or free tuition at public universities.

Here's the pranksters' video release. As one of the women interviewed says, "What if? What if?"

New York Times Special Edition Video News Release - Nov. 12, 2008 from H Schweppes on Vimeo.

Looking for a job in the Obama administration?

2008-11-07T12:52:00.000-08:00

Now that the votes are counted and the post-election celebrations are winding down, are you waiting for a phone call from the hiring office of the president-elect?

Wait no more.

The thousands of people appointed throughout the Executive Branch set policies in everything from regulation of genetically modified plants and animals to the design of prisons, from sex education to foreign aid. You can be part of that.

YES! magazine board member Dal LaMagna believes these positions are so important that he created a website, Executive Branch Online, to make the process transparent and accessible to everyone.

After you've identified the job that's right for you, go to the Office of the President-Elect home page and fill out an application.

Maybe you don't want to work in government, but you do have something to say. The President-Elect website invites you to write in with your stories from the election and your vision for the future:

Start right now. Share your vision for what America can be, where President-Elect Obama should lead this country. Where should we start together?

Thanks for asking, President-Elect Obama.