Sanders Warns That 'Like Trump, Bolsonaro Is Attempting to Undermine Democracy in Brazil'

"The enemies of democracy are working together across borders," said the Vermont senator, "and supporters of democracy must do the same."


Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro speaks during the formal launch of his reelection campaign on July 24, 2022 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 

(Photo: Buda Mendes/Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

July 27, 2022

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders warned after meeting with Brazilian civil society leaders on Tuesday that the Latin American country's far-right leader, President Jair Bolsonaro, appears poised to replicate Donald Trump's attempt to subvert the democratic process in a bid to stay in power as he trails in the polls to leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

"Like Trump, Bolsonaro is attempting to undermine democracy in Brazil, the largest country in Latin America," Sanders (I-Vt.) told the Washington Post's Ishaan Tharoor. "It is important that the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress stand for democracy and support the results of the upcoming election. The enemies of democracy are working together across borders, and supporters of democracy must do the same."

"We hope very much that the results of the election will be recognized and respected and that democracy will in fact prevail in Brazil."

Following a playbook that Trump drew from in his 2020 presidential campaign, Bolsonaro has been preemptively casting doubt on the legitimacy of Brazil's October 2 presidential election—including by questioning the integrity of the country's electronic voting machines—before a single ballot has been submitted.

Alarmingly, the leaders of Brazil's armed forces have joined Bolsonaro in questioning the electoral system, heightening fears of an attempted military coup should voters opt to unseat the incumbent leader in favor of Lula, who served as the country's president from 2003 to 2010 and left office massively popular among the Brazilian public.

During an event formally launching his reelection campaign on Sunday, Bolsonaro—who has presided over a disastrous Covid-19 response and accelerated deforestation in the Amazon—declared to cheers from his supporters that "the army is on our side."

"It's an army that doesn't accept corruption, doesn't accept fraud," Bolsonaro said. "This is an army that wants transparency."

This week, as Tharoor reported Wednesday, a "delegation of Brazilian civil society leaders, coordinated by the Washington Brazil Office, a human rights organization, is touring the American capital city and pressing U.S. officials to back Brazil's democratic institutions."

"On Tuesday, they had meetings at the State Department and called on Sen. Bernie Sanders," Tharoor noted. "They will also meet with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the House panel investigating the Capitol riot."

The U.S., which supported the 1964 military coup in Brazil that Bolsonaro has praised, has in recent weeks spoken out in defense of the Latin American country's elections, with the State Department calling them a "model for nations in the hemisphere and the world."

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Sanders said that Bolsonaro's attempts to sow doubt and suspicion about the integrity of Brazil's upcoming presidential election "sounds all too familiar to me because of the efforts of Trump and his friends to undermine American democracy."

"So I'm not surprised that Bolsonaro would try to do the same in Brazil," the Vermont senator added. "We hope very much that the results of the election will be recognized and respected and that democracy will in fact prevail in Brazil."



In a column for The New Republic on Wednesday, historian Andre Pagliarini noted with trepidation that "Bolsonaro is right, to a point, that the army is on his side: He has stuffed his administration with men in uniform who have so far proved willing to back his authoritarian designs."

"Crucially, however, the active-duty heads of every military branch insist they will not support anything other than the proper constitutional order," Pagliarini continued. "Bolsonaro retains a strong core of support among the law-and-order crowd, a segment of the population more likely than most to be armed in a country where, compared to the U.S., it is still relatively difficult to purchase guns."

"One can only hope," he added, "that the military and the police stay out of the election and that Bolsonaro's fate is the same as Trump's: to crawl unceremoniously out of the presidential palace and await possible criminal indictments."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

CPAC Welcoming Orbán at Dallas Summit Days After 'Pure Nazi' Speech

"Orbán didn't speak into being a new project, he articulated one that's already unfolding," said one critic.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stands in front of a U.S. flag after addressing a keynote speech during a session of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest, Hungary on May 19, 2022. (Photo by Attila Kisbenedek/AFP via Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

July 27, 2022

With right-wing officials suggesting there is not yet enough evidence of Hungarian authoritarian Viktor Orbán's racist views despite his recent speech which has drawn comparisons to Nazi propaganda, the largest annual gathering of conservatives in the U.S. is moving forward with plans to host the prime minister next week.

"Let's listen to the man speak," Matt Schlapp, chair of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), said Tuesday, ahead of the group's summit scheduled to take place in Dallas next week. "We'll see what he says."

"I don't know how you didn't notice that the speech you delivered is a purely Nazi diatribe worthy of Joseph Goebbels."

CPAC's welcoming of Orbán shows that his "racist speech [is] welcomed there," said MSNBC columnist Ruth Ben-Ghiat.

Speaking to supporters in Romania last weekend, Orbán said Hungarians "do not want to become a mixed race" and that countries where Europeans and non-Europeans live amongst each other are no longer nations. He added that a "flood" of migrants and asylum-seekers is being "forced" on Hungarians.

Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu called Orbán's comments "unacceptable" and the prime minister's long-time adviser, Zsuzsa Hegedus, announced her resignation from his government over what she called the "pure Nazi" speech.

"I don't know how you didn't notice that the speech you delivered is a purely Nazi diatribe worthy of Joseph Goebbels," Hegedus wrote in an op-ed directed at Orbán.

Right-wing leaders drew condemnation earlier this month when they invited Orbán to speak at CPAC in Dallas and in May when they held an auxiliary meeting of CPAC in Hungary. At that gathering, the Hungarian leader advised the Americans present to take control of the media in order to hold onto power.

Writer Zack Hunt said conservatives are still welcoming Orbán to CPAC "because" of his speech in Romania, not "despite" his comments.



With his recent speech, wrote Emily Tamkin at The New Statesman on Tuesday, Orbán described "the world European and American conservatives are trying to create":

The language of preserving the purity of white America, of protecting it from other, non-white people, permeates policy... Orbán’s speech isn't about the threat to any one law, or case, or policy. That his vision is wholeheartedly embraced by the American right isn't about that either. It's a threat to many. Or, rather, it’s not only a threat to policy, but to all those, everywhere, who do not wish to live in a society where full membership is dependent on race, or religion, or sexuality. Orbán didn't speak into being a new project, he articulated one that's already unfolding.

Orbán gave his speech in Romania "with apparently zero fear that his words would impact his participation at CPAC," said business consultant Jeff Kemp. "It's very possible that he said what he did because he reckoned that it might heighten audience anticipation for his CPAC appearance."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

CHIPS GIVEAWAY
Progressives Slam Senate Passage of $76 Billion 'Corporate Giveaway'

"Rather than give aid to needy American families," said one progressive group, "the Senate decided to rise to the occasion to cut taxes for already-profitable technology companies like Intel."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks alongside a bipartisan group of senators following passage of the CHIPS Act on July 27, 2022. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

July 27, 2022

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed sweeping bipartisan legislation that Sen. Bernie Sanders and progressive advocacy groups decried as a massive giveaway to corporations such as Intel, whose CEO has been lobbying aggressively in support of the bill's subsidies for the profitable microchip industry.

"Congress should be ashamed to pass this corporate giveaway after a year of complete failure to do anything whatsoever for needy American families."

Known as the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) Act, the $280 billion legislation is purportedly an attempt to bolster domestic manufacturing and alleviate the U.S. shortage of microchips, which are used in cars, phones, medical equipment, and other everyday electronic devices.

Intel congratulated the Senate on its vote, hailing it as a step toward advancing "American leadership in semiconductor manufacturing" and strengthening "American national and economic security."

But Sanders (I-Vt.) has repeatedly warned that the bill's $52 billion in subsidies for the microchip industry—as well as its $24 billion in tax credits for semiconductor plants—lack safeguards to prevent companies from using the taxpayer money to buy back their own stock, offshore U.S. jobs, or fight unionization efforts.

Sanders was the only member of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote against the bill, which passed by an overwhelming margin of 64-33. The House is expected to follow suit later this week.

In a speech ahead of Wednesday's vote, the Vermont senator reiterated his criticism of the measure, characterizing it as a no-strings-attached handout to profitable companies.

"Whenever it comes to protecting the needs of low-income or working families, I hear over and over again, 'We just cannot afford to do that because of the deficit,'" Sanders said. "All of that profound and serious concern about the deficit fades away when it comes to providing a $76 billion blank check to the highly profitable microchip industry with no protections at all for the American taxpayer."

In a statement following the bill's passage, Morris Pearl, the chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said that "after months of paralysis on Build Back Better, today the Senate finally took action."

"But rather than give aid to needy American families... the Senate decided to rise to the occasion to cut taxes for already-profitable technology companies like Intel," said Pearl. "I'm sure this is great for billionaires like [Intel co-founder] Gordon Moore, but it doesn't do a thing for millions of Americans who need support in these challenging economic times. And it won't do much to encourage companies to invest in chip fabrication—Intel is already building chip factories as fast as they can."

As Recode's Rebecca Heilweil wrote Wednesday, "while its biggest champions have connected the CHIPS Act to the ongoing chip shortage, the legislation won't really help, at least in the short term."

"The chip factories produced by this package won't be complete for years, and the bulk of the funding won't necessarily go toward basic chips, also known as legacy chips, which account for much of the ongoing shortage," Heilweil explained. "And that shortage may be nearing its end anyway."

Echoing Sanders, Pearl said that "there are so many things that our government could do to decrease the gross inequality that is spreading like a cancer in our nation; it is hard for me to believe that they want to run for reelection with a platform of giving tax breaks to some of the biggest and most successful companies in our nation."

"Congress should be ashamed," he added, "to pass this corporate giveaway after a year of complete failure to do anything whatsoever for needy American families."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

'Racism—Pure and Simple': Buffett Lender Redlined Philly-Area Homebuyers, Says DOJ

"This settlement is a stark reminder that redlining is not a problem from a bygone era," said Kristen Clarke, an assistant U.S. attorney general, announcing a $20 million deal with Trident Mortgage.


Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett speaks at a Fortune Most Powerful Women in Washington, D.C. on October 26, 2013. (Photo: Fortune Live Media/flickr/cc)

BRETT WILKINS

July 27, 2022

The U.S. Justice Department announced Wednesday that a mortgage company owned by billionaire businessman Warren Buffett engaged in an illegal "pattern or practice of lending discrimination" by "redlining" in the Philadelphia area, and will pay $20 million in a settlement agreement.

"The complaint also alleges that Trident's employees exchanged emails where they referred to neighborhoods of color as 'ghettos' and made racist jokes."

The DOJ, which launched a Combatting Redling Initiative last October, is calling the deal the first it has ever reached with a nonbank lender and the second-largest settlement in the agency's history involving the illegal practice of denying mortgage loans to potential homebuyers of color.

The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleged in a complaint filed Wednesday that from at least 2015 until 2019, Trident Mortgage Company—which is owned by Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.—violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by avoiding "providing home loans and other home mortgage services in majority-minority neighborhoods" in metropolitan Philadelphia, including in New Jersey and Delaware. The lender also "discouraged those living in, or seeking credit to purchase properties in, these neighborhoods from seeking or applying for credit from Trident."

Under the terms of the agreement, Trident will invest over $20 million in boosting credit opportunities in neighborhoods of color in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

"This settlement is a stark reminder that redlining is not a problem from a bygone era. Trident's unlawful redlining activity denied communities of color equal access to residential mortgages, stripped them of the opportunity to build wealth, and devalued properties in their neighborhoods," said Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general of the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, announcing the deal.

"Along with our federal and state law enforcement partners, we are sending a powerful message to lenders that they will be held accountable when they run afoul of our fair lending laws," she added.

Speaking at a Wednesday press conference announcing the settlement, Clarke said that "Trident's office locations were concentrated in majority-white neighborhoods, and that Trident's loan officers were directed to not to serve—and did not serve—the credit needs of neighborhoods of color."

"The complaint also alleges that Trident's employees exchanged emails where they referred to neighborhoods of color as 'ghettos' and made racist jokes," she added. "There's even a photo of a senior Trident manager posing in front of a Confederate flag."

Jacqueline Romero, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserted that "for far too many years Philadelphia's Black, Latino, and other communities of color have lacked equal access to lending and legal deed ownership. These historically redlined areas of Philadelphia continue to experience disproportionate amounts of poverty, poor health outcomes, limited educational attainment, unemployment, and violent crime."


Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said that "this was systemic racism—pure and simple. This is about real people. People who were ignored and who were harmed and left behind."

Although redlining officially ended following the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, studies have shown the policy persists in practice in scores of metropolitan areas across the nation. Additionally, communities that were redlined remain predominantly minority and low-income today. A 2015 study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that in Baltimore, race—and not economic status—was the most important factor in mortgage lending. Formerly redlined communities also face greater climate-related risks.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

With Latest Rate Hike, Progressive Critics Say Fed 'Making a Big Mistake'

"Rate hikes will force millions of Americans into joblessness and make families poorer," said economist Robert Reich. "It's the last thing we need right now."

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell testifies during a Senate hearing on July 15, 2021. 

(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

KENNY STANCIL

July 27, 2022

The U.S. Federal Reserve is on the verge of causing a disastrous surge in unemployment, progressives said Wednesday after the nation's central bank raised interest rates for the second consecutive month—doubling down on its dogmatic quest to reduce prices even as slowing wage growth offers more evidence that inflation is being driven by corporate profiteering and supply chain issues rather than excess demand.

"Our country's lowest-paid, most vulnerable workers have endured too much already to be sacrificed in pursuit of severe rate hikes."

"Rate hikes will force millions of Americans into joblessness and make families poorer," University of California, Berkeley public policy professor Robert Reich wrote on social media after the Fed once again increased its benchmark policy rate by 75 basis points. "It's the last thing we need right now."

"Every time over the last half-century the Fed has raised interest rates this much and this quickly, it has caused a recession," Reich continued.

The string of rate hikes that began in March and has intensified this summer represents the central bank's most forceful cycle of monetary tightening since 1981, when then-Fed Chair Paul Volker imposed an unprecedented regime of financial austerity that is now widely seen as a key turning point in the ruling class-led assault on working-class living standards.

"Working people are already struggling," added Reich, who served as labor secretary under former President Bill Clinton. "The Fed is making a big mistake."

Related Content

'CEOs, Not Working People, Are Causing Inflation': Report Shows Soaring Executive Pay

 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also responded with concern to the Fed's latest rate hike.

"With the Federal Reserve's pace of monetary tightening now the fastest in decades, I have serious concerns that President [Joe] Biden's promise to 'grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out' is now at risk," Jayapal said in a statement. "We are all concerned about the impact of inflation and rising costs, but today's decision to raise interest rates will do nothing to address their primary causes."

Jayapal noted that Fed Chair Jerome Powell has admitted that soaring energy and food prices "are in fact related to the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and the war in Ukraine—that supply constraints, not excess demand, are responsible for persistent inflation."

"By hiking interest rates to deliberately slow the economy, the Fed could cause hardship to millions of Americans by unnecessarily increasing joblessness, while failing to significantly reduce the price of essential goods and services," said Jayapal. "These rate hikes also threaten to deter companies from making the investments needed to expand the economy's productive capacity."

Polling released earlier this month showed that a majority of U.S. voters are opposed to precipitating a recession to tame inflation.

COMMON SENSE

Poll Shows Majority of US Voters Oppose Triggering Recession to Battle Inflation

"At a time when the Biden administration has been working to reach full employment—creating nearly 9 million jobs and decreasing unemployment to among its lowest levels in 50 years—raising interest rates risks reversing that trend," Jayapal continued, "and could force employers to lay off employees who just got back to work, or slow hiring altogether."

"Just as the burden of high costs is not borne equally, so is the impact of interest rate hikes," she added. "Full employment allows for much-needed income gains, particularly within the bottom spectrum of wage earners—and during high unemployment, disadvantaged, lower-paid, and Black and Latino workers are disproportionately harmed."

"A lost paycheck or even lost hours would far exceed the extra monthly costs due to inflation."

Jayapal urged the Fed to "exercise the utmost caution going forward and resist the urge to further raise interest rates. With wage growth declining in recent months, our country's lowest-paid, most vulnerable workers have endured too much already to be sacrificed in pursuit of severe rate hikes that have far too often triggered recessions."

Claudia Sahm, a former Federal Reserve and White House economist in the Obama administration, argued Wednesday in a Financial Times opinion piece that the notion that "the U.S. needs a recession to bring inflation down... hinges on a simplistic model of the economy and a refusal to see Covid and the war in Ukraine as important sources of inflation now. The stakes are too high to rely on such a questionable approach."

"A recession is worse than inflation," wrote Sahm. "A lost paycheck or even lost hours would far exceed the extra monthly costs due to inflation."

Moreover, "there is no increase in the unemployment rate that would produce microchips for new cars, end China's lockdowns, defeat [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, drill oil, and build apartments," she continued. "The Fed raises interest rates and lowers demand, cooling off the labor market. Whether it inadvertently causes a recession or not, higher interest rates would not fix the supply problems and would probably make some worse by discouraging investments."

"Congress should help ease inflation, too," Sahm wrote. "For example, it could pass legislation to keep health insurance premiums low, reduce tariffs, build affordable housing, and fund sustainable energy production. Only a handful of measures would bring down inflation quickly, but they would all pay off in the coming years and make the U.S. economy more resilient in the next crisis."

"We must aim to protect workers and their families and bring inflation down," she added. "These two goals need not be in tension, but it will take more than outdated rules of thumb and a misunderstanding of our economic challenges to do both. We need many things today; a recession is not one of them."

Jayapal and Sahm were both echoing arguments made earlier this week by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whose Wall Street Journal op-ed not only made the case for why the Fed's current approach is "largely ineffective against many of the underlying causes of this inflationary spike," but also implored her party, which narrowly controls Congress, "to help working families survive."

Much of the Democratic Party's domestic agenda remains stalled thanks to ongoing obstruction from Senate Republicans and right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who has repeatedly cited inflation to justify his opposition to new, filibuster-proof spending designed to improve the public good.

As Warren argued Sunday, however, many of the progressive policies that Manchin is blocking would help bring down the sky-high costs hurting working households.

"Investing in high-quality, affordable child care would lower costs by bringing more than a million parents into the workforce," she wrote. "Ending tax breaks for offshoring and investing in American manufacturing would create good jobs and strengthen supply chains. Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs would lower healthcare costs. And giving the Biden administration more tools to bolster competition policy would help crack down on price gouging by large corporations."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

House Dems and Shireen Abu Akleh's Family Urge US to 'Hold Her Killers Accountable'"When Americans are killed abroad it is more or less standard procedure for our government to open an investigation," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "But when the murderers wear Israeli uniforms, there is complete silence."

Activists take part in a candlelit vigil outside the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for West Asia building in Beirut to denounce the killing of Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh. (Photo: Marwan Naamani/picture alliance via Getty Images)


BRETT WILKINSJuly 28, 2022


Progressive U.S. lawmakers on Thursday joined relatives of Shireen Abu Akleh in demanding the Biden administration thoroughly and transparently investigate the Israeli military's killing of the Palestinian-American journalist, with one congressman introducing a bill that would require such a probe.

"From Day One the Israeli government has denied Shireen's murder. There is no reason for them to be conducting an investigation."

"We want to know who pulled the trigger, and why," said Victor Abu Akleh, a nephew of the 51-year-old Al Jazeera reporter, outside the U.S. Capitol. "And we want there to be accountability for the system that gave the green light, so that other families don't suffer the way that we have. The reality, of course, is that in Palestine, our family's grief is not unique."

Speaking at the press conference, Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) announced the Justice for Shireen Act, proposed legislation that would require the State Department and FBI to investigate Abu Akleh's killing and publish a report on their findings.

"We need answers to hold the perpetrators fully accountable," said Carson, who called the killing an "attack on the Fourth Estate, the free press, which is vitally important to our society."

"From Day One the Israeli government has denied Shireen's murder. There is no reason for them to be conducting an investigation," he continued. "It makes it more important for our government to conduct our own investigation. Shireen needs justice. Every American killed abroad is entitled to our protection. Every human killed, American or not, deserves justice, Palestinians included."

Demanding that the Biden administration investigate the killing of U.S. citizens by Israeli forces, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—who is Palestinian-American—said Abu Akleh's death "was not an accident."

Tlaib said it was "shameful" that "Shireen's family is forced to come here and demand that the State Department and our government... hold her killers accountable and prevent this awful tragedy from repeating itself again and again and again."

"Maybe, for some of my colleagues, they need to take out the word 'Palestinian' from 'Palestinian-American' for her life to matter," she speculated. "We have different standards applied when it comes to Israel even as they kill Americans, including 78-year-old Omar Asad or... Rachel Corrie," the 23-year-old International Solidarity Movement volunteer crushed to death in 2003 by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes in Gaza.

Related Content

Leaked Report Suggests Impunity for IDF Troops in Deadly Stop of Palestinian-American Elder

"When Americans are killed abroad it is more or less standard procedure for our government to open an investigation. But when the murderers wear Israeli uniforms, there is complete silence," Tlaib lamented. "Poor Rachel Corrie's family to this day has been waiting for justice since 2003 and still nothing... I knew when her family didn't get justice that Israel would have impunity for future killings of Americans."

Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also spoke at the press conference. Ocasio-Cortez asserted that President Joe Biden should meet with Abu Akleh's relatives.

"Shireen and her family deserve to be treated the same way that any other American would be in this situation," the Squad member insisted. "An American journalist was killed abroad by a foreign army, by a sniper. This situation demands a thorough and objective investigation."

In a Wednesday Washington Post opinion piece, Lina Abu Akleh, Shireen's niece, noted that multiple investigations—including by United Nations officials and media outlets such as the Post and The New York Times—all concluded the journalist was killed by Israeli fire.

"Yet I read with bewilderment a statement that the Biden administration issued on July 4," she wrote. "Based on reviewing and summarizing the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority's investigations, the United States concluded that Israel was likely responsible for my aunt's killing, but that there was no reason to believe that it was intentional."

"I was alarmed. Why was the Biden administration repeating Israel's spin, given the lengths that the Israel military has gone to manipulate the events around Shireen's killing?" she asked. "Israel initially blamed Palestinians, circulating a misleading video that human rights organizations quickly debunked. Then, an Israeli military spokesman went so far as to suggest that journalists such as Shireen are 'armed' with cameras."

Related Content

After Meeting Blinken, Shireen Abu Akleh's Family 'Still Waiting' for Justice

Abu Akleh lamented that a Wednesday meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken failed to secure a commitment to investigate her aunt's killing.

"We fully understand the U.S. government's role in fueling the belief of Israeli leaders and soldiers that they enjoy impunity for their actions," she wrote. "Yet this is why it is all the more urgent for my family to impress this message upon the administration: Biden can stop this pattern. He can pledge to pursue meaningful accountability for my aunt, starting with a commitment to conduct an independent U.S. investigation in Shireen's case."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Propelled to Victory by Dem Leaders,  Rep Cuellar (D-Texas)  Says $7.25 Too Much for Millions of Workers

"If corporate interests were actually serious about workplace flexibility, you'd see them supporting the rights of their employees to have a say in what goes on in the workplace."


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) speak at a news conference in Washington, D.C. on January 4, 2011. 

(Photo: Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

July 28, 2022

Labor experts and advocates on Wednesday expressed disbelief and outrage as the details of an "unconscionable" new bill purporting to expand "flexibility and choice" in workplaces came to light, condemning Democratic co-sponsor Rep. Henry Cuellar for proposing the gutting of minimum wage protections.

"This bill would allow employers to trample on the rights of an untold numbers of workers."

The Worker Flexibility and Choice Act (WFCA) was originally announced by Cuellar (Texas) and his Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Michelle Steel (R-Calif.), on July 20, but it wasn't until Wednesday that law professor Veena Dubal shared the text of the bill on social media, describing the proposal as "terrifying."

Aiming to create a new classification for people working in the gig economy for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, the bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by establishing "worker flexibility agreements" in which a worker "will not be treated as an employee for federal tax purposes" and "is not subject to the minimum wage and overtime protections."

The proposal would not only affect gig workers, said Dubal, who is a professor at University of California Hastings College of Law, but would "carve workers out of minimum wage and overtime protections" whenever an employer sets work schedules "using algorithms and incentives instead of providing secure hours."

In other words, said former New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse, "it seems to empower any employer—not just gig companies—to tell any worker: if you want to work for me, you must agree we won't follow minimum wage or overtime rules."

Rebecca Dixon, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), noted that the bill is being backed by "the corporate lobby group the Coalition for Workforce Innovation (CWI), which was established to fight against growing workers' movements."

The proposal is an attempt to capitalize on the notion that "flexible" working hours benefit workers, Dixon said, but "because the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is already compatible with worker flexibility, it would be a fatal mistake for Congress to create a carveout for companies that demand 'worker flexibility agreements' of their workforce."

Instead of actually providing flexibility, said Dubal, "as Uber, DoorDash, and Instacart have already done to their workforce, it would empower employers to force workers to work long and hard to eke out a living."

Progressive critics of Cuellar were hardly surprised by his sponsorship of the bill, with Usamah Andrabi of the Justice Democrats noting that the anti-choice, anti-climate, pro-NRA lawmaker voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act twice.


The bill intensified outrage over the support Cuellar garnered from Democratic leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) earlier this year when he faced progressive immigrant rights advocate Jessica Cisneros in the Democratic primary for a second time, winning by just 289 votes.

Cuellar's bill could particularly harm Texans, Cisneros noted, considering the state's minimum wage is among the lowest in the nation.

"Texas still has a $7.25 minimum wage and Cuellar thinks working people in our district don't even deserve that," said Cisneros. "How are Democrats supposed to energize South Texans for the midterms with this?"

The proposal amounts to a "boldfaced lie," said the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).


"If corporate interests were actually serious about workplace flexibility, you'd see them supporting the rights of their employees to have a say in what goes on in the workplace; paying people wages that keep up with the rising costs of living; and encouraging working parents to take time off to care for sick children," said John Samuelson, international president of the union.

"Instead, this dangerous piece of legislation seeks to deny all of these rights to working Americans AND forbid states and cities from taking any action to hold criminal corporations accountable," he added. "This bill would allow employers to trample on the rights of an untold numbers of workers."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

RENTIER CAPITALI$M PROVES PROPERTY IS THEFT
Report Details 'Abusive' Eviction Tactics by Corporate Landlords During Height of Pandemic

"These firms are buying up a lot of housing, and they're particularly buying up housing in places that have relatively weak tenant protections," said one eviction expert. "And I don't think that that is coincidental."


A demonstrator holds a sign reading, "Eviction Is Violence" at a protest demanding suspension of rent payments amid the coronavirus pandemic on July 5, 2020. 

(Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

July 28, 2022

Four large corporate landlords filed nearly 15,000 eviction actions in the first 16 months of the pandemic, with some executives and property managers engaging in harassment and deception of their tenants and deliberately inflicting cruelty on people who had been unable to pay their rent.

The U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis released a new report Thursday following a yearlong investigation into the eviction practices of Pretium Partners, Invitation Homes, Ventron Management, and the Siegel Group, all of which were thriving financially when the committee began examining its practices.

"As countless Americans acted admirably to support their communities during the coronavirus crisis, the four landlord companies investigated by the select subcommittee evicted aggressively to pad their profits."

Pretium was investing in a major expansion when the committee, led by Chair James Clyburn (D-S.C.), launched its investigation in July 2021, while Invitation was reporting record profits and both Siegel and Ventron had received more than $2 million in Paycheck Protection Program funds, which they were not required to pay back.

Despite their financial well-being, publicly available data at the time showed that the four companies had filed a combined 5,413 eviction cases between March 2020 and July 2021—a total that was dwarfed by the number the committee uncovered when it analyzed more than 50,000 pages of documents and held numerous meetings with company representatives.

The committee began its investigation following reports that corporate landlords were not complying with a federal eviction moratorium put in place during the pandemic and with rental assistance programs.

"As countless Americans acted admirably to support their communities during the coronavirus crisis, the four landlord companies investigated by the select subcommittee evicted aggressively to pad their profits," said Clyburn as the panel revealed that the true number of evictions by the companies was three times higher than previously known.

"While the abusive eviction practices documented in this report would be condemnable under any circumstances, they are unconscionable during a once-in-a-century economic and public health crisis," Clyburn added. "Rather than working with cost-burdened tenants, abiding by applicable eviction moratoriums, and accepting federal rental assistance, these companies—with properties across 28 states—expedited evictions above all else."

The report detailed numerous abusive practices by the companies as they sought to force tenants out of their homes during the public health crisis, which sent the unemployment rate skyrocketing in March 2020 and left millions of people struggling to afford rent and other necessities.

The investigation's findings included:

Executives' attempts to "bluff" tenants out of their apartments by posting in buildings a court order saying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lacked authority to impose the eviction moratorium, but leaving out the fact that the moratorium was still in effect while the case was appealed;

An executive's directive that a property manager bring the court order to a tenant "after 5pm" on a Friday "so the courts and constable office are closed and she cannot call to verify anything" and so the company could "see if she vacates over the weekend";

A property manager's message to executives that he "love[d] getting to say that this means the eviction may happen sooner than expected and seeing the look on their faces"; and

An executive's attempt to "get rid of" a tenant whose rent was past due without obtaining an eviction order by ordering a property manager to call Child Protective Services to complain about them—an action that would have violated Texas criminal law prohibiting false child abuse reports.

"In some instances," said Clyburn, "the select subcommittee found that their abuses may have violated the law."



The committee called on federal agencies and Congress to require states and localities to provide direct-to-tenant assistance to renters with landlords who refuse to cooperate with rental assistance programs; support state and local rental assistance infrastructure; and prioritize investigating deceptive or abusive business practices used to expedite evictions.

Peter Hepburn, a research fellow with Princeton University's Eviction Lab, told NPR that the committee's report likely only reveals the "tip of the iceberg" and that abuses by corporate landlords could be rampant across the country.

"These firms are buying up a lot of housing, and they're particularly buying up housing in places that have relatively weak tenant protections, places where eviction is easier, faster and cheaper," Hepburn said. "And I don't think that that is coincidental."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

'These Motherf*ckers': Jon Stewart Goes Off on GOP Turning Back on Sick Veterans

"Republicans are literally blocking care for veterans poisoned by burn pits as part of their temper tantrum over a deal to tax corporations and create clean energy jobs," said another commentator.


Jon Stewart speaks to the press before a news conference about the Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act on July 28, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL

July 28, 2022

Liberal comedian Jon Stewart chastised the GOP on Thursday, less than 24 hours after Senate Republicans tanked a bill that would have expanded healthcare access for U.S. military veterans exposed to Agent Orange and toxic burn pits—a move that was made in retaliation for Democrats reviving their reconciliation package following the passage of bipartisan legislation designed to boost domestic semiconductor chip manufacturing.

"Fuck the Republican caucus and their empty promise to our veterans."

"Everyone needs to watch this," progressive commentator Krystal Ball tweeted, sharing a clip of Stewart, who has lobbied for improved assistance for veterans harmed by toxins, speaking in Washington, D.C. "Republicans are literally blocking care for veterans poisoned by burn pits as part of their temper tantrum over a deal to tax corporations and create clean energy jobs."

Speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference held in the wake of the GOP's refusal to advance the Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, Stewart told the crowd: "I'm used to the hypocrisy... I'm used to the lies... I'm used to the cowardice... I'm used to all of it, but I am not used to the cruelty."

"These motherfuckers," said Stewart, referring to U.S. senators, "don't support the troops, [they] support the war machine."

"They haven't met a war they won't sign up for, and they haven't met a veteran they won't screw over," added the former host of The Daily Show, who now has a program on Apple TV+.

Republican opposition to the PACT Act is "an embarrassment," Stewart continued. "And if this is America First, then America is fucked."

A version of the PACT Act easily passed the Senate 84-14 last month. It was overwhelmingly approved by House lawmakers 342-88 two weeks ago, but because of a small technical fix made in the lower chamber, the upper chamber was required to vote on the measure again before it could be sent to President Joe Biden's desk to be signed into law.

Instead, the latest iteration of the bill was defeated 55-42 in the Senate, with 41 Republicans in opposition.

The 25 GOP lawmakers who switched their votes on Wednesday are "stab-vets-in-the-back senators," Stewart tweeted Wednesday.

"Fuck the Republican caucus and their empty promise to our veterans," he added.

The GOP torpedoed the burn pit legislation after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced a surprise deal on a filibuster-proof economic and climate package just hours after several Republicans joined Democrats to pass the CHIPS Act—a bill that seeks to bolster the domestic production of semiconductor chips but has been criticized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others as a massive "corporate giveaway."

Previously, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had vowed to kill the CHIPS Act unless Democrats abandoned their reconciliation bill. The filibuster-proof economic and climate package looked dead in the water prior to the CHIPS Act vote, but Schumer and Manchin quickly brought it back to life afterward, infuriating McConnell and dozens of other far-right members of Congress.

Schumer was the lone Democrat to vote against the PACT Act on Wednesday. As C-SPAN's Craig Caplan explained, "Schumer switched his vote from 'yes' to 'no' and entered a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote," which allows him to bring the bill to the floor at a later date.

According to "PBS NewsHour Weekend" anchor Geoff Bennett, Schumer said the Senate will vote again on the PACT Act on Monday.

Stewart was far from alone in expressing outrage over McConnell and his fellow party members' last-minute decision to sabotage the bill.

"Republicans chose today to rob generations of toxic-exposed veterans of the healthcare and benefits they so desperately need—and make no mistake, more veterans will suffer and die as a result," Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said Wednesday in a statement criticizing the GOP's "eleventh-hour act of cowardice."

At Thursday's press conference, much of the blame for the failed vote was placed on Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who "used a floor speech Tuesday night to urge his fellow Republicans to join him in blocking the bill because of its potential for allowing more discretionary spending than would otherwise be permitted under budget caps," Roll Call reported.

"Sen. Toomey, how many veterans are going to die because of you?" asked Rosie Torres, co-founder of BurnPits360 and the wife of veteran Le Roy Torres, who suffers from a rare terminal condition caused by burn pits. "Please explain to us: what is an acceptable amount of deaths?"

Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, shouted, "This is total bullshit."

Republicans, she added, "have just sentenced veterans to death."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

'This Victory Is Historic': Massachusetts Trader Joe's Becomes First to Unionize

"Our worker-led union ensures that we are protected and properly compensated—on our terms," explained a crew member at the Hadley store.


Workers at a Trader Joe's in Hadley, Massachusetts on July 28, 2022 became the first in the supermarket chain's history to unionize. (Photo: Mike Mozart/flickr/cc)

BRETT WILKINS

July 28, 2022

Workers at a Massachusetts Trader Joe's on Thursday voted to become the first of the supermarket chain's more than 500 locations to unionize, a historic development that comes amid a nationwide labor organizing wave.

"Our crew needs to be represented by an entity that is solely dedicated to our best interests."

Employees at the Trader Joe's in Hadley, a suburb of Springfield, voted 45-31 to form a union, according to the National Labor Relations Board.

"WE WON!!! Today, Trader Joe's Hadley became the first unionized Trader Joe's location, ever," the new union, Trader Joe's United, tweeted. "This victory is historic, but not a surprise. Since the moment we announced our campaign, a majority of the crew have enthusiastically supported our union, and despite the company's best efforts to bust us, our majority has never wavered."

Gabrielle, who works at the Hadley store, explained that she was voting for a union because "our crew needs to be represented by an entity that is solely dedicated to our best interests."

"Our worker-led union ensures that we are protected and properly compensated—on our terms," she added.

Another Hadley crew member, Maeg, said she was voting "yes" because "we, the crew, are what keep this company running and profitable. It's time for us to sit down at the negotiating table as equals with Trader Joe's and create a contract that protects and takes care of us as workers."

Labor unions and organizers hailed the Hadley vote, with Starbucks Workers United congratulating the store's crew on its "incredible and groundbreaking victory."

Wen Zhuang, a member of the NewsGuild of New York and Emergency Workplace Organizing, called Thursday's vote "amazing."

"Trader Joe's has a deep history of simply atrocious union busting, firing of organizers, and lots of other shenanigans," she tweeted. "What happened here will most definitely be replicated."

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was among the progressive politicians who saluted the newly unionized Trader Joe's workers.

"Now is the time for management to recognize the union and to negotiate a fair contract with decent benefits and safe working conditions," the two-time democratic socialist presidential candidate tweeted.

A Trader Joe's spokesperson said the company is "prepared to immediately begin discussions with union representatives for the employees at this store to negotiate a contract."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) tweeted that "workers in Hadley just made history by becoming the first Trader Joe's ever to form a union. They join a growing nationwide movement of workers standing up to demand better working conditions and fair pay."

The Washington Post reports:

The union's victory in western Massachusetts follows a wave of successful union drives this year at high-profile employers that have long evaded unionization, such as Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, and REI. Union victories can produce a ripple effect across employers and industries, emboldening new workers to organize. Petitions for union elections this year are on track to hit their highest level in a decade, as a hot labor market has afforded workers more leverage over their employers.

In just over six months' time, Starbucks went from having one unionized location in Buffalo, New York to 200 stores with unionized workforces.

Other Trader Joe's crews have taken notice of the Hadley vote, and workers from at least two other stores have already launched their own union drives. More Perfect Union has reported that Trader Joe's is improving pay, perks, and working conditions in the face of the increased unionization activity.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.