Sunday, January 17, 2021

'Thoughts and Prayers to the NRA': Reviled Gun Lobby Group Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

"The world will be a better place when the NRA is finally destroyed. Looks like that day is closer."


Published on Friday, January 15, 2021 
by
The NRA has long been the focus of anger and ire from gun control advocates who say the lobby group has blood on its hands for the pandemic of gun violence that has gripped the U.S. for decades. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)

The NRA has long been the focus of anger and ire from gun control advocates who say the lobby group has blood on its hands for the pandemic of gun violence that has gripped the U.S. for decades. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)

"Thoughts and prayers."

"The NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt."
—NY Attorney General Letitia James

That is what many opponents of the National Rifle Association wryly stated in response to news that the pro-gun lobby group had officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday in the United States.

In a statement on its website, the NRA—which promotes the interests of the gun industry and gun owners unbothered by the unparalleled level of gun violence seen in the country—said it was leaving New York state, where it is currently registered, to restructure in Texas as part of a "new strategic plan" it is implementing.

"Thoughts and prayers to the NRA fanatical fiends who bear the blood of tens of thousands on their paws," said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) in response. "The world will be a better place when the NRA is finally destroyed. Looks like that day is closer."

While the NRA claims in the statement that it is "in its strongest financial condition in years," it said the strategic plan "involves utilizing the protection of the bankruptcy court" and "dumping New York" so that it can reincorporate in Texas to continue its activities without such a "corrupt political and regulatory environment."

Brady United, which has called for the NRA's dissolution for decades, said Friday that "news of the NRA filing for bankruptcy is just the latest proof that the NRA has cheated its members and American taxpayers in pursuit of an extremist agenda that has made our country markedly less safe."

David Hogg—one of the survivors of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida who later became a vocal gun control advocate—was among those who welcomed the news late Friday afternoon and thanked all the tireless activism over the years focused on the NRA's deadly brand of influence peddling.

"Don't read this as the NRA is going away," Hogg added. "They are not yet," he said, "but this is one step closer."

In August, as Common Dreams reported at the time, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the NRA which sought to dissolve the organization based on widespread evidence of corruption and financial self-dealing that violated the state's requirements for nonprofit status.

In a tweet on Friday responding to the NRA's move to divorce itself from New York, James said: "The NRA's claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt."

"While we review its bankruptcy filing," she added, "we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office's oversight."

From Paul Ryan to Nikki Haley: 
GOP Nightmare of Senate Budget Chair
Bernie Sanders About to Come True

"When Republicans controlled the Senate they used the reconciliation process to provide huge tax breaks for the rich and large corporations," said Sanders on Saturday. "We're going to use reconciliation to protect working families, the sick and the poor."


Published on Sunday, January 17, 2021 
by
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attends the full Senate Budget Committee markup of the tax reform legislation on Capital Hill November 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attends the full Senate Budget Committee markup of the tax reform legislation on Capital Hill November 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The long-held Republican nightmare that a champion of working-class people and the common good—one who has dedicated his political career to curbing poverty and injustice while denouncing corporate greed, endless war, and the cruelty of a for-profit health system that leaves millions upon millions uninsured or without affordable access to care—would assume the powerful position of chairing the Senate Budget Committee is about to become a reality.

"Time to face the harsh reality, socialist Bernie Sanders will become the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He has vowed to use his position to enact his progressive agenda on healthcare, climate, infrastructure spending, and cutting defense spending," Nikki Haley tweeted Saturday.

While it came from Trump's former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as a kind of ominous warning, Sanders' wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders, was among those who shot back with a clever and simple quip. "Yes he has," she tweeted in response.

Not that Jane Sanders was alone:

"You forgot to mention raising the minimum wage and taxing your rich friends," the organizing group People for Bernie tweeted back at Haley.

Republican fears of Sanders taking over the committee go back to at least 2016 when Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, then-Speaker of the GOP-controlled House, said ahead of that year's election: "If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chair of the Senate Budget Committee? A guy named Bernie Sanders. You ever heard of him?"

The GOP trepidation over such a reality is about to materialize now that Democrats have seized razor-thin majority control of the Senate. And, while the gavel is yet to be placed in his hand, Sanders and his staff have signaled in recent days that he will be ready and willing to wield it to push the incoming Biden administration—as well as Democratic leadership in the House and Senate—to enact the kind of bold, working-class friendly policies that fueled both of his presidential runs.

Among the chief powers that the chair of the committee will utilize is fostering legislation through the Senate using the budget reconciliation process—a procedural tool that will allow, even under current rules, legislation to pass with a simple majority.

On Sunday, Sanders posted this social media:

"Yes, we can, and we must use budget reconciliation to increase the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour with a simple majority vote in the Senate, just like Republicans did to pass massive tax breaks to the 1%," declared Warren Gunnels, one of Sanders' most senior aides who went out of the way to identify himself as the "Incoming Majority Staff Director" for the "Senate Budget Committee" in a tweet Friday morning.

Following the Democratic wins in Georgia that gave the party back the majority in the Senate, Sanders told Politico in an interview that he has no plans to be sheepish from his perch atop the committee.

"I'm going to use reconciliation in as aggressive a way as I possibly can to address the terrible health and economic crises facing working people today," Sanders told the news outlet. "As we speak, my staff and I are working. We're working with Biden's people. We're working with Democratic leadership. We'll be working with my colleagues in the House to figure out how we can come up with the most aggressive reconciliation bill to address the suffering of the American working families today."

Nina Turner, national co-chair of Sanders' 2020 campaign and now running for U.S. House in her home state of Ohio, has been among those in the progressive movement championing the legislative potential of his powerful new roll in the Senate:

In a tweet on Saturday evening, Sanders himself stated: "When Republicans controlled the Senate, they used the reconciliation process to provide huge tax breaks for the rich and large corporations. We're going to use reconciliation to protect working families, the sick and the poor."

POST PANDEMIC; 
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME 
After Biden Unveils Covid-19 Relief Plan, Tlaib Doubles Down on Demand for $2,000 Monthly Payments


 "The people deserve, demand, and require 

$2,000 recurring monthly survival checks."



Published on Friday, January 15, 2021 
by
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) looked on before then-Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris spoke at IBEW Local Union 58 on October 25, 2020 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo: Nic Antaya/Getty Images)

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) looked on before then-Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris spoke at IBEW Local Union 58 on October 25, 2020 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo: Nic Antaya/Getty Images)

Joining a chorus of progressive critics disappointed by the direct payment provision of President-elect Joe Biden's new coronavirus pandemic relief plan, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib on Friday evening reiterated the need for two bills she has introduced that would aid Americans affected by the ongoing public health and economic crises.

Biden's $1.9 trillion proposal calls for $1,400 checks, the difference between the $600 that lawmakers agreed to in a recent relief package and the $2,000 sought by some Democrats for months. Though President Donald Trump backed boosting the checks on his way out the door, the increase failed to garner enough congressional support.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) expressed disappointment that Biden's plan doesn't include $2,000 checks. Tlaib (D-Mich.) joined in, tweeting: "That $600 is already in the clutches of landlords and bill collectors. Stop compromising the working class, and our most vulnerable neighbors."

Tlaib also promoted two bills she introduced last session: the Automatic BOOST to Communities (ABC) and the Building Our Opportunities to Survive and Thrive (BOOST) acts. The former would provide $2,000 per month to eligible individuals during the Covid-19 crisis, then $1,000 monthly payments for the next year.

As a Forbes report about the ABC Act, shared on Friday by Tlaib, detailed:

The payments would be made via direct deposit if the [U.S.] Treasury has the individual's banking information on file, unless the individual would prefer to have their payment made on an Interim BOOST Card (BOOST Card).

The BOOST Card would be a prepaid debit card that would not be subject to any fees, penalty charges, or usage restrictions. The full amount would be available for immediate withdrawal at any ATM in the country without any usage or withdrawal fees. Individuals who do not have banking information would receive their payments via a BOOST Card.

The Michigan Democrat officially introduced the ABC Act in April 2020 with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), after a few weeks of public discussion about it. Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is currently battling Covid-19 after sheltering with maskless GOP lawmakers while pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol last week.

"We have to deliver $2,000 survival checks to the American people. Not anything less," Jayapal tweeted Thursday evening. She has stuck to that call throughout the pandemic:

Tlaib on Friday also highlighted the BOOST Act, which she and Jayapal introduced in June 2019—months before the pandemic—with Reps. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). That bill would provide a Middle-Class Tax Credit of up to $3,000 annually for a single taxpayer and up to $6,000 annually for married couples, families, and joint filers.

According to a page of Tlaib's congressional website dedicated to the BOOST Act:

  • Individuals can receive up to $250 per month.
  • Families can receive up to $500 per month.
  • The credit is refundable, meaning that taxpayers who qualify for it can get it even if they owe no taxes. Filers with no income are still eligible for the credit.
  • Can be claimed by single filers making wages up to $49,999.
  • Families making wages up to $99,999 are eligible.

When the bill was introduced, long before the economic devastation of the pandemic, Adam Reuben, director of the Economic Security Project, said that "while Americans work hard—whether it's a full-time job, or caring for a sick family member—an outdated notion of who deserves help from our society means that too many still struggle to make ends meet."

"The BOOST Act would essentially provide a cost-of-living refund to those who need it most," he added, "so that in the richest country in the world, we can make sure that no one lives in poverty."

With millions of Americans now out of work because of the public health crisis, and struggling to keep food on the table and a roof ever their heads, the need for relief is even greater. As Pressley put it in a tweet Friday afternoon: "The people deserve, demand, and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks."

$2,000 Means $2,000': Ocasio-Cortez Says $1,400 Payments in Biden Plan Fall Short of Promised Relief

"$2,000 does not mean $1,400."


Published on Friday, January 15, 2021 
by
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference outside of the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, November 19, 2020.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference outside of the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, November 19, 2020. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

While there is much for progressives to applaud in President-elect Joe Biden's newly released $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package—from a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage to billions in funding for vaccine distribution—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Thursday that the $1,400 direct payments included in the plan fall short of the promise that helped Democrats win control of the U.S. Senate.

"$2,000 means $2,000," the New York Democrat told the Washington Post. "$2,000 does not mean $1,400."

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) echoed Ocasio-Cortez's criticism in a tweet late Thursday:

On the eve of the Senate runoffs in Georgia, Biden told the state's voters that "$2,000 checks" would "go out the door" if they elected Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, who both embraced the push for $2,000 checks on the campaign trail and ultimately defeated their Republican opponents.

"There's no one in America with more power to make that happen than you, the citizens of Atlanta, the citizens of Georgia, and that's not an exaggeration," the president-elect said of the $2,000 payments. "That's literally true."

But the Biden camp and others contend the plan was always to provide $1,400 checks on top of the $600 approved under a relief measure that President Donald Trump signed into law last month, not an additional $2,000 check—even though, in their messaging, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris continued to call for "$2,000 stimulus checks" after the $600 payments were already distributed to many Americans.

In response to one journalist's claim that Ocasio-Cortez is engaging in "goalpost-moving" by demanding $2,000 checks instead of the proposed $1,400 payments, progressive organizer Claire Sandberg tweeted that "Biden is the one who moved the goalpost."

"In a last-ditch effort to win the Senate, he said that '$2,000 checks' would 'go out the door' if Warnock and Ossoff won," said Sandberg, former national organizing director for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "Warnock posted this realistic image of a $2,000 Treasury check!"

On the whole, progressives largely welcomed Biden's nearly $2 trillion relief proposal as a solid first step while stressing that it is not sufficient to fully bring the U.S. economy out of deep recession and confront the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, which has killed more than 388,000 people in the United States. Some economists have argued (pdf) that Congress must approve between $3-4.5 trillion in spending in the short-term to set the stage for a strong recovery.

It is far from clear how much of Biden's initial offer will become law, given that Democrats will control the Senate by the narrowest possible margin and thus be unable to afford any Democratic defections. Potentially making matters more difficult is Biden's insistence on attaining enough bipartisan support to push the proposal through the Senate with 60 votes.

The New York Times reported that top House and Senate Democrats "are preparing to pivot quickly to a parliamentary process known as budget reconciliation" if Biden fails to win the support of enough Republican lawmakers. Only a simple majority in the Senate is needed to pass bills through the reconciliation process, which Republicans used to ram through their massive tax cuts for the rich in 2017.

Sanders, the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, vowed earlier this week to use the reconciliation process to "boldly address the needs of working families."

In a statement late Thursday, the Vermont senator said Biden "has put forth a very strong first installment of an emergency relief plan that will begin to provide desperately needed assistance to tens of millions of working families facing economic hardship during the pandemic." On top of $1,400 direct payments to many Americans—including adult dependents—the president-elect also proposed increasing the current $300-per-week federal unemployment supplement to $400 and extending emergency jobless programs through September.

"The president-elect's Covid relief plan includes many initiatives that the American people want and need, including increasing the $600 direct payments to $2,000, and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour," Sanders continued. "As the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I look forward to working with the president-elect and my colleagues in Congress to provide bold emergency relief to the American people as soon as possible."

Despite Pain and Record Death, 

Why Is the Stock Market So High?

How did rich corporations and finance capitalists come out of the pandemic in very good health in contrast to the general population?


tPublished on Sunday, January 17, 2021 
by
Citizens wearing protective masks form lines to receive free food from a food pantry run by the Council of Peoples Organization on May 8, 2020 in Brooklyn. (Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Citizens wearing protective masks form lines to receive free food from a food pantry run by the Council of Peoples Organization on May 8, 2020 in Brooklyn, New York. (Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

On November 24, 2020, the S&P 500 hit a record, "defying” the pandemic the Wall Street Journal notes. The Journal added that stocks’ stellar year defied the virus and economic slump—describing it as dazzling and as a “euphoria.

At the same time, the rich are getting wealthier. Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon and now second richest man in the world, became richer by 13 billion dollars in just one day (while denying his workers paid sick leave at the same time). The richest American family, the Walton’s, increased their account balance by $21 billion within 20 weeks. Elon Musk became the second richest person in the world and has since overtaken Bezos as the world’s richest person on the planet. In fact, this is a defining trend for the rich since the start of the pandemic.

As of December 8th, the Institute for Policy Studies calculates that U.S. billionaire wealth has increased by $1 trillion since March 18th. The numbers are eye popping: the total net worth of their wealth has increased by billions per day.

Indeed, the stock market finished the year near all-time highs, “enriching” the wealthy despite a deadly pandemic that has witnessed nearly 350,000 US deaths (and rising) while millions are unemployed. As the coronavirus crisis lingers on, we are once again reminded that there is a clear divergence amongst the two sides of society and the economy: the rich and the poor.

So how did we get here? How did rich corporations and finance capitalists come out of the pandemic in very good health in contrast to the general population? Why is there such a major stock market-economy disconnect?  Why have the fortunes of the rich been completely detached from the issues experienced by the rest of society?

Firstly, it is important to recall that the stock market is not the economy. As economist Dean Baker has noted multiple times, the stock market is a measure of expected future corporate profits. In other words, the stock market can be in great shape while the economy is reeling because investors anticipate higher profits.

Yet more importantly, as part of the CARES Act bill passed by Congress, on March 23, 2020, the Federal Reserve, in a first-time move, announced that it will directly buy corporate debt as part of its emergency lending programme. That was all it took in creating profound effects across markets. The reason is clear: its announcement was all that was needed to stabilise corporate stocks and bond markets causing them to surge because it sent the message that if corporations are in trouble, they need not worry because once again they have the “free market” government to rescue them. Furthermore, this massive corporate rescue helped secure further corporate bonds that wouldn’t have been possible without this Fed guarantee as it allows corporations to take on more bonds without its negative consequences. Needless to say, this had its intended effects. Many companies, such as Apple, explicitly noted that its bond issuance will be used for “share buybacks and dividends.” Corporations like Boeing secured $25 billion while Exxon got $9.5 billion on the bond market.

In addition to buying corporate debt directly, the Federal Reserve pumped massive amounts of new money by setting rock-bottom interest rates in which subsequently little of this actually flowed into productive investments that could have put the economy on a progressive track and could have helped millions in dire need of assistance. Rather, this new money went where returns are rapidly rising: the stock market. This perpetuated the cycle and gave us a “euphoric” year. Through another major intervention by the state, corporations, financial intuitions, and rich investors used most of this new money to buy more stocks driving up stock prices. Hence, this is why we constantly read news of a record-breaking stock market.

Of course, there weren’t any set of conditions such as worker retention leveraged in the Fed schemes. As a report from the Center for American Progress notes: “Importantly, none of these large corporate bailout facilities include any conditions for the companies receiving government support, such as restrictions on share buybacks and dividends, limits on executive compensation, or payroll maintenance requirements.” So, it was perfectly legal if corporations chose to fire their workers during an ongoing pandemic. This was, in fact, what Boeing did for example. It cut thousands of jobs even though it secured tens of billions in bonds—only made possible through the Fed scheme.

In addition, on December 18, 2020, the Fed gave a green light for banks in 2021 to resume share buybacks in another move that will balloon the stock market. The banks wasted no time with this gift—just 10 minutes after the announcement, JPMorgan Chase announced a new $30 billion share buyback program. It shares climbed 5 per cent the same day.

At the same time, government support for the general population has been inadequate, slow, and too little to what should have been done. Many had to desperately wait for a one-time ‘stimulus’ check or $600 a-week supplemented unemployment insurance from Congress that had several issues—which eventually dried out months later, and then were forced to wait nearly 5 months for another insufficient Congressional relief bill. Amidst all of this, millions are barely getting by and are living in profound misery. To highlight one example, according to Feeding America, more than 50 million people have experienced food insecurity by the end of 2020 while millions are in lining up breadlines. Yet, the latest relief package signed in December does not include direct state and local aid, threatening neoliberal austerity cuts onto millions while including a significant tax cut for the wealthy. The Economic Policy Institute forecasts a dire picture if federal aid to state and local governments isn’t secured: over 5 million jobs will be lost by the end of 2021.

As Matt Tabibi opines: “the financial markets are getting the World War II-style ‘whatever it takes’ financial commitment, based upon the continuing fallacy that “wealth creators” must be the first in line for rescue in any crisis. This was a wrong assumption on the decks of the Titanic, a wrong assumption after 2008, and a criminally wrong assumption now”.

Recently, United States Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin declined to extend the CARES Act’s Federal Reserve lending programmes. The reasoning he gave is openly honest and indeed true: the lending programmes have “achieved their objectives.” Undeniably, he noted that credit markets, which nearly halted during the start of the pandemic prompting a financial shock, have been rehabilitated. Amidst this, millions are in dire need of unemployment benefits and state budgets face massive shortfalls amid a looming austerity crisis which will produce disastrous effects on millions of lives. As with the Great Recession, Wall Street is saved once again at the expense of the general population.

Rajko Kolundzic is an American university student at the University of Essex in the UK, studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics.