democracynow.org
Stories:
Much of President Obama’s State of the Union address focused on the economy and efforts to bolster the middle class with a push for education, child care and tax breaks. But did he go far enough? We speak to Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic and former presidential candidate. His latest book is called "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We continue our look at President Obama’s State of the Union, in which he laid out his vision for his final two years in office. Much of his speech focused on the economy and efforts to bolster the middle class with a push for education, child care and tax breaks.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So what does middle-class economics require in our time? First, middle-class economics means helping working families feel more secure in a world of constant change. That means helping folks afford child care, college, healthcare, a home, retirement. And my budget will address each of these issues, lowering the taxes of working families and putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year.
Here’s one example. During World War II, when men like my grandfather went off to war, having women like my grandmother in the workforce was a national security priority. So this country provided universal child care. In today’s economy, when having both parents in the workforce is an economic necessity for many families, we need affordable, high-quality child care more than ever. It’s not a nice-to-have; it’s a must-have.
So it’s time we stop treating child care as a side issue or as a women’s issue, and treat it like the national economic priority that it is for all of us. And that’s why—that’s why my plan will make quality child care more available and more affordable for every middle-class and low-income family with young children in America, by creating more slots and a new tax cut of up to $3,000 per child, per year.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama last night in his second-to-last State of the Union address. For more, we’re joined by Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. His latest book is called Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. And joining us from Rochester, David Cay Johnston, investigative reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize while at The New York Times. He’s currently a columnist for Tax Analysts and Al Jazeera, as well as a contributing editor at Newsweek. His latest book, Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality. He’s joining us from PBS station WXXI in Rochester.
Ralph, let’s begin with you. The whole issue of tax cuts and taxing the rich?
RALPH NADER: Well, he was too vague on that. What he should have done is said that Ronald Reagan supported capital gains and dividend taxes like ordinary income, so there wasn’t this split where the rich get lower tax on their capital gains or dividend. And he didn’t tie in any idea of revenues for the public works program that he touted.
You know, Amy, State of the Union speeches are signaling presentations. They signal by what they say, how they say it and what they don’t say. And on that criteria, it wasn’t a very coherent speech. He stressed civil liberties and never mentioned what he’s going to do about the renewal of the notorious PATRIOT Act provisions. He said that there should be more oil and gas production, and then he warned about climate change. He said there should be strengthening unions and voices of workers, and then he took it away with the Trans-Pacific trade agreement, which exports jobs, and he wants to ram through Congress a voiceless fast track that prohibits amendments and labor from having a role in that deliberation.
And he didn’t even mention the hundreds of billions of dollars of commercial fraud on Medicare and Medicaid and patients in the private sector—hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate crime he never mentioned. He could have done a convergence with the Republicans on auditing the Pentagon, which sounds dull, but it’s a huge issue that the rank and file on both sides support, in contrast to the leadership in Congress. He could have easily converged, because as senator, Senator Obama teamed up with Senator Coburn, the Republican, to put the full text of hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate contracts online, so competitors, taxpayers, the media, the academia can analyze and prune the huge waste, fraud and corruption.
Also notice that he said again, "Close down Gitmo." We’ve heard that song before. Again, he didn’t mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all.
And I think what is most troubling is what he avoided saying, like he desperately needs funding for his programs, like day care and so on. And he didn’t mention the squeeze on the IRS budget by the Republicans, so the IRS now cannot begin to collect what they say is $300 billion of evaded taxes every year. That’s $300 billion of evaded taxes, not avoided taxes, which David Cay Johnston will be talking about.
So, I think he missed a lot of opportunities. And it was not specific enough. It was not coherent enough. And he could have gone for more convergence with the Republicans, as I point out in great detail in my book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Coalition to Dismantle the Corporate State.→
|
Republicans have accused President Obama of waging class warfare for using his State of the Union to push for an increase in taxes and closing loopholes that benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Pulitzer Prize-winning tax reporter David Cay Johnston says there is indeed a class war going on in Washington — but by the rich against the poor. Johnston’s latest book is "Divided. The Perils of Our Growing Inequality."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Let’s go back to President Obama last night speaking about the taxing of the rich.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As Americans, we don’t mind paying our fair share of taxes, as long as everybody else does, too. But for far too long, lobbyists have rigged the tax code with loopholes that let some corporations pay nothing while others pay full freight. They’ve riddled it with giveaways that the super-rich don’t need, while denying a break to middle-class families who do.
This year, we have an opportunity to change that. Let’s close loopholes, so we stop rewarding companies that keep profits abroad, and reward those that invest here in America. Let’s use those savings to rebuild our infrastructure and to make it more attractive for companies to bring jobs home. Let’s simplify the system and let a small business owner file based on her actual bank statement, instead of the number of accountants she can afford. And let’s close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top 1 percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth. We can use that money to help more families pay for child care and send their kids to college. We need a tax code that truly helps working Americans trying to get a leg up in the new economy, and we can achieve that together.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was President Obama in last night’s State of the Union. David Cay Johnston, it seems to me that this was perhaps, at least on the domestic front, his most avowedly populist presentation in terms of on the spending front and at least on raising the issue of taxes. But what, in reality, given the fact that there’s a Republican majority, can he expect to happen in the coming year? And also, what about this tax debate that will be occurring this year in Congress?
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, I think Obama did something very savvy last night. He is trying to force the Republicans into a position where they either have to go with Main Street or with the plutocrats. And we’ve already seen from their responses that they are siding with the plutocrats. The idea that we shouldn’t adjust the tax rates for people at the top and doing so is somehow class warfare is absurd. And, of course, the Republicans are always talking about dynamic economic activity, and yet now they’re proposing a constant state, at least as it applies to the rich. The proposals that he put forth last night are pro-child, pro-family, pro-work, pro-savings. Many of them are things put forth by the Republicans, including tax simplification, and yet the Republicans rejected this out of hand. So what Obama was really doing, Juan, was setting up the 2016 election.
Now, this could be turned against him by the Republicans. My column in Al Jazeera America this morning is about how if the Republicans were savvy about this, they’d take the bill that will be introduced with these proposals by one of the Democrats, strip out the tax increases for those at the top, pass it, and then put the president in the position of having to veto a middle-class tax cut. But keep in mind, you’re seeing Republicans oppose the lower taxes and tax relief for middle-class Americans. So in that sense, politically, he’s been quite successful, I think, in the talk he gave last night.
AMY GOODMAN: And how would taxing the rich work, David Cay Johnston?
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, he’s proposing two key elements. One is to end what’s called "step-up in basis." If you inherit stock that has never been taxed, it’s received by you at its current value; you can sell it and pay no taxes. And this is the single most important element by which the very wealthy perpetuate their wealth from generation to generation, so that it’s not merit and hard work, which the Republicans talk about all the time, that creates a lot of the wealth at the top. It’s: Who did you pick to be your parents?
The second thing the president is proposing is that for those people in the top one-half of 1 percent—and almost all the money would be paid by the top tenth of 1 percent, people who make over $2 million—that their capital gains tax rate be at the Ronald Reagan rate of 28 percent. And Republicans are saying that that’s outrageous. Well, I’m sorry, they’re always telling us Ronald Reagan is a saint. I think it’s ideologically difficult to make the argument that we shouldn’t have a 28 percent tax rate, particularly when surveys are showing two very important things about the disconnect between Republican congressional leaders and Republicans. More than half of Republicans in one poll and around 40 percent in others favor higher taxes on people with million-dollar-plus incomes. Fifty-three percent of Republicans, in one case, said the tax rate should be 50 percent on your income above a million dollars. And three out of four Republicans want to increase Social Security benefits, while congressional Republican leaders are focused on trying to dismantle those benefits.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: On Tuesday, Senator Orrin Hatch, chair of the Finance Committee, said President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans in order to help the middle class amounted to class warfare. In remarks prepared for a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he wrote, quote, "This plan ... appears to be more about redistribution, with added complexity, and class warfare, directed at job-creating small businesses, than about tax reform." David Cay Johnston, your response?
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, I’m with Warren Buffett on this one. Warren Buffett, 15 years ago, when I was at The New York Times, told me, "We are engaged in class warfare. My side is winning. We’ve been engaged in class warfare for a long time." The reason incomes at the top have gone up so much and others are stagnating is government rules that have been bought and paid for with campaign contributions, with companies providing jobs for politicians’ friends and family, and the politicians themselves when they leave office. So, we need to recognize that there is class warfare going on. It’s being waged by segment of the very wealthy—not all of them, a segment of them—who are systematically draining the pockets of people down below to increase their fortunes. Nothing Obama said, and nothing I’ve ever said, is opposed to the idea of people acquiring wealth because they made a better product or a better service, and they earned it in the marketplace. But what’s going on in our country is government rules, that I’ve written about in my trilogy on the American economy—in Free Lunch and The Fine Print and Perfectly Legal—that subtly reach into your pocket and take your money. I mean, we have 3,000 corporations now that keep the state income taxes they withhold from their workers’ paychecks, and the workers have no idea that they’re being taxed by their bosses. And there are thousands of policies like this. So, we do have class warfare going on: It’s being waged by a segment of the wealthy against the middle class and the poor.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Phyllis Bennis?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, I think that one of the things that we didn’t hear from President Obama last night, Juan, that’s really important is the question of the poor. We heard some about the middle class, and that was important. But, you know, the fact is that in President Obama’s own city, in Washington, D.C., the new statistics indicate that 50 percent of the children in the city I live in are living in poverty. We didn’t hear enough. We heard a reference to inequality, but it was in the context of the economy is back. Yes, we still have to deal with inequality, but the reality is, inequality is the meat, it’s not the side dish. Inequality is the central reality of the economy that exists in our country and around the world.
And these new statistics that have come out, the new report from Oxfam, which President Obama, not surprisingly, did not reference, that says that right now the 80 wealthiest people in the world control as much wealth, own as much wealth, as 50 percent, the bottom 50 percent of the population of the world, it’s a staggering—
AMY GOODMAN: Which is more than seven billion people.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: It’s a staggering reality. You know, it’s just incomprehensible to think about that. So, when we talk about the rising middle class, the need to support the middle class, that’s important. The middle class is hurting. But the number of poor people, who are not anywhere close to the middle class in this country, is rising at exponential numbers.
AMY GOODMAN: On Tuesday night, President Obama called for an increase to the federal minimum wage.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Of course, nothing helps families make ends meet like higher wages. That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. I mean, it’s 2015. It’s time. We still need to make sure employees get the overtime they’ve earned. And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it; if not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama last night in his State of the Union address. Ralph Nader, the subtitle of Unstoppable, your new book, The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, can you weave this into it? Talking about increasing the minimum wage and taxing the rich, do you really see a left-right alliance here?
RALPH NADER: Oh, definitely. Obama simply isn’t credible on minimum wage. When he ran in 2008, he said $9.50 by 2011, never said anything or did anything for the first four years of his term. Then when he started talking about it, it wasn’t really serious. He spent a lot of days before the last election, last year, running around raising money from high—high wealthy salons and didn’t spend the time, as Senator Reid wanted him to, on pushing the minimum wage and nationalizing the issue and making it a cutting edge against the Republican.
It is a left-right issue, Amy. It comes in about 80 percent in the polls. That means a lot of conservative workers in Wal-Mart are for restoring the minimum wage, which, if you adjust it for inflation, would be $11 an hour now instead of the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Notice, President Obama didn’t put a figure. He didn’t say how much he wanted. It is a left-right issue, beautifully argued by people like Nick Hanauer, the billionaire in Seattle, Ron Unz, conservative in California. Mitt Romney has come out for it, Rick Santorum, Phyllis Schlafly, Bill O’Reilly. And still, he will not put a figure on it. And so, I—the speech reminded me of Shakespeare’s words: "Words, words, words."
AMY GOODMAN: On foreign policy, before we go to break, Phyllis, the issue of Iran, not raised last night?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, it was raised very, very briefly. But I think the problem is, we didn’t hear beyond a very good commitment from President Obama that he will veto any new sanctions resolution. That’s important, because right now those who are supporting new sanctions against Iran, or the threat of future new sanctions in Iran, are people who want war, because the alternative to a real negotiated solution with Iran is a war with Iran. It’s a very dangerous moment. We have deadlines coming up, March 1st and then in July, for a full agreement with Iran, and there is the possibility of it. It’s important that President Obama said he will veto any of the congressional efforts that we know are underway. AIPAC and the Israeli government are pushing for new sanctions, which would deliberately undermine any possibility of an agreement.
But the reality is that the situation in the region as a whole right now is so tense, and the role of Iran is so fundamental to that. We’re seeing the—we don’t know what the impact is going to be of the killing by Israel of an Iranian general in the Golan Heights yesterday. It’s a very dangerous moment. And the idea that some in Congress want to impose new sanctions, that would completely destroy the possibility of a negotiated settlement, means that those in Congress posing that want war. I wish we had heard from President Obama that notion, that those who don’t want an agreement, those who want new sanctions, are pushing for war. That kind of dramatic reality check would have been very important to say in front of the world. We didn’t hear that, but we did hear a commitment to veto, and that’s very important.
AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis is with the Institute for Policy Studies. Thanks so much for being with us. Ralph Nader is going to stay with us, a longtime consumer advocate, a number of times ran for president. In a moment, we’re going to go to Madison, Wisconsin, and we’ll be joined by Lisa Graves, as we talk about the Republican response. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
|
On the foreign policy front, President Obama used his State of the Union to defend his decision to begin normalizing relations with Cuba, to pledge again to close Guantánamo and to call for authorization to expand war against the Islamic State. He mentioned the words "drones" and "torture" once each. We get reaction from Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to look at President Obama’s State of the Union.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, my fellow Americans, we are 15 years into this new century, 15 years that dawned with terror touching our shores, that unfolded with a new generation fighting two long and costly wars, that saw a vicious recession spread across our nation and the world. It has been, and still is, a hard time for many. But tonight we turn the page. ... America, for all that we have endured, for all the grit and hard work required to come back, for all the tasks that lie ahead, know this: The shadow of crisis has passed, and the state of the union is strong.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama speaking at last night’s State of the Union. Today we spend the rest of the hour analyzing President Obama’s speech. We begin on the foreign policy front. On Tuesday night, President Obama defended his decision to begin normalizing relations with Cuba. He vowed again to close Guantánamo. For the first time since 2001, there was no mention of al-Qaeda in the State of the Union address. He called for lawmakers to pass a new authorization of military force against Islamic State militants.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: In Iraq and Syria, American leadership, including our military power, is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. Now, this effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.
AMY GOODMAN: Authorizing the use of force against ISIL. That’s President Obama speaking at last night’s State of the Union address. Phyllis Bennis joins us, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies who’s written a number of books, including Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s United Nations. What about this authorization, Phyllis?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: You know, for the last several years, President Obama has been relying on earlier authorizations, those that followed the 9/11 attacks back in 2002, and then in—sorry, in 2001, and then in 2002, the authorization for the war in Iraq. He’s been relying on those decades-old authorizations to say, "I can go to war without anything else. But I would like it if Congress would pass a new authorization." Congress seems eager to pass it. The issue that’s being debated is: Will there be any restrictions? Will there be a sunset clause? Or will these be the kind that we saw that was—where we had everyone in Congress, except for the heroic Barbara Lee, stood up and voted for an authorization that had no restrictions against whom were we going to war, no restrictions on geography, no restrictions on time, no restrictions on weapons, no restrictions on anything? It was a rather shocking level of authorization to go to war anywhere in the world for as long as you want against whoever you say, without any checks and balances. And what President Obama is saying now is, "I’m waiting for Congress to bring me the language." Congress—and some members of Congress are saying, "We want you to draft the language, and then we’ll approve it." So there’s a little bit of back-and-forth.
But what it makes clear is that despite this language we just heard in President Obama’s speech, that we are not at ground war in the Middle East, instead of that—yeah, instead of that, we’re in at least five or six separate wars that may not involve large numbers of ground troops. There are ground troops on the ground. There are boots on the ground, and there are more going, not fewer. But they are primarily air wars. You know, closing Guantánamo is easier if you just kill all the people that your predecessor arrested. So there’s something very disturbing about this framework in his speech where he spoke so much of values. This is about the values of our country. Well, what values are we talking about here? What does the rest of the world—what do people in Iraq, people in Syria, people in Gaza—what are they seeing of our values as they watched the speech last night?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in that vein, Phyllis, he barely mentioned two issues that have raised much international uproar, when he said, "As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when we’re threatened, which is why I have prohibited torture and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly constrained." And that’s about the only mention he made of all of these drone strikes.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: It was extraordinary. I mean, this notion of constraining drone strikes, which means that we only have a kill meeting at the White House once a week, not every day. Only on Tuesdays does the White House staff meet, literally, to decide who should be on the so-called kill list. When I said earlier that this is a scenario where closing Guantánamo becomes easier if you have fewer people, it’s not because they’re not going after people. They are simply assassinating people with—at far higher numbers. There has been a serious escalation in the drone war. And to say that instead of going to war, we are pulling back, we are doing something else, really belies the reality of what the drone war looks like on the ground.
|
We get reaction to President Obama’s State of the Union address from Rep. Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the first Muslim elected to Congress. He discusses Obama’s policies on war, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the proposed Robin Hood tax, and growing economic inequality.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to turn right now to Congressmember Keith Ellison, speaking to us from the Russell Rotunda. Congressmember Ellison is co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, first Muslim member of Congress. On this issue of calling for authorization to attack the Islamic State, your response to that, as well as this comment? And we want to play what Juan was just quoting, this comment of President Obama.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As Americans, we respect human dignity even when we’re threatened, which is why I have prohibited torture and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly constrained.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Keith Ellison, welcome to Democracy Now! Your response?
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, thanks for having me on. Let me say that when the president proclaims we don’t torture, that’s a good thing. We should embrace that. The real question is: Are the words matching up with the actual deeds? That’s the real question. So I think it’s upon us, people who care about how America operates in the world, to make sure that we are lining up right when it comes to torture, the use of military force and the force of flying robots, on any number of things that have sort of been the instruments of this last decade or more when it comes to America involved in military force in the world. So, I think it’s a good thing he made that claim. Now the question is: What are we really going to do about it?
You asked me about ISIS. I think the best strategy for ISIS is to expand friends, isolate enemies and to make sure that we urge the Iraqi government to make—to have an inclusive government, to make sure that the Sunni community isn’t going to turn to some nihilistic killers like ISIS for aid and comfort. We need to make sure that there is good governance and encourage that process as much as we can. And we also need to work internationally in a multilateral way. I think there are real dangers to escalating military conflict with ISIS, and we need to be aware of them. But at the same time, you have to understand, you know, that this whole thing started with Bashar al-Assad and how he is the one who continued to escalate against the people of Syria who were trying to get democratic reform. And so, we’ve got to go back to the root, and we’ve got to talk to Russia and China and the region to, I think, make a real transition in Syria. At this point, we’ve reached some very, very dire ends when it comes to deaths, dislocated people and things like that.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Congressman, I’d like to ask you about another aspect of the president’s speech that got perhaps the biggest applause from the Republican side of the aisle: his pressing of Congress to give him fast-track authority for trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and others. Could you talk about that?
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, let me say—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I think we may have a SOT of him saying these—making this part of the speech.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, so, let me tell you, I think that 95 percent of the domestic speech, I liked, maybe even more than that. But when it came to the talk about fast-track authority, I am still waiting for the president to explain how the fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are going to be different from the enormous trade deficits that we rung up with the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. I mean, they told us we were going to have hundreds of thousands of new jobs. That has not happened. Many states, including my own in Minnesota, is a net job loser as a result of NAFTA. And this has been studied, peer-reviewed studies and everything. And then even the more recent deals, like the South Korea deal, we were told we were going to sell more beef and more cars in South Korea. Well, we have a bigger trade deficit than before. So, how is it going to be different? Now, the president said that, "Well, you know, I know that things haven’t gone as promised in the past." Well, so we’re going to do it again? I just don’t—I just don’t see that.
But I’m going to tell you this: Me and many other members of the Progressive Caucus are willing to listen to what the administration has to say, but, you know, we can’t let history be ignored here. There is a bad record, and not to mention that, you know, there’s so many another problems when it comes to food security. What is this going to do to the access to life-saving drugs? What is this going to do to wages? We see six out of the 11 countries contemplated in the Trans-Pacific Partnership—we already have trade deficits with them. So we’re going to do even more? And so, the explanation is still sorely lacking.
But I don’t want to emphasize the negative. I mean, the president, what he said about college affordability, free college tuition, paid sick leave, these things are awesome. And I don’t want to be the one to just talk about what I didn’t like. There were really good things that I’m certain that members of the Progressive Caucus really embrace. But, you know, there does remain this problem with the trade stuff.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s hear some of what President Obama said last night around the issue of colleges, President Obama talking about free tuition for community colleges for the first two years.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Forty percent of our college students choose community college. Some are young and starting out. Some are older and looking for a better job. Some are veterans and single parents trying to transition back into the job market. Whoever you are, this plan is your chance to graduate ready for the new economy without a load of debt. Understand, you’ve got to earn it. You’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time. Tennessee, a state with Republican leadership, and Chicago, a city with Democratic leadership, are showing that free community college is possible. I want to spread that idea all across America, so that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Obama talking about free community college education. After the speech, the Republicans who were interviewed on television, one after the other said, "Sounds fine. Where is he going to get the money?" Congressman Ellison?
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, there’s a lot of ways to get the money. You know, as a matter of fact, the idea of a financial transaction tax on Wall Street trades is gaining momentum. I have a bill called—nicknamed the Robin Hood tax also. It’s a bill that taxes stock trades, derivatives and bonds, and would generate in the neighborhood of $300 billion a year. So, the fact is, the money is certainly available, and the people who have really benefited from all these decades of deregulation have got concentrations of wealth that, you know, just really staggers the imagination. Maybe they should step up and help America out and make sure that college is affordable and that the ladder of opportunity remains in place for everybody, not just them and their kids.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Congressman Ellison, another aspect of the president’s domestic agenda was his pressing once again for raising of the federal minimum wage. You brought as a guest Veronica—
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Mendez.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Veronica Mendez from the Center for Workers United in Struggle in Minnesota.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yep.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you talk about the importance of the minimum wage issue?
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, you know, Veronica is sort of like my barometer on so many economic questions. Will Veronica and the workers she represents—will they understand fast track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership and these trade deals? Will they understand the president’s wage policy? Are they going to understand what the president said about infrastructure? And are they going to see it as good for them? If it’s good for them, I think it’s probably good for everybody. And I can tell you that she walked away thinking some really good things about the domestic process, but she walked away thinking she didn’t really get the trade stuff.
And one of the things that she found really exciting is the fact that the president seems to really understand that we’ve got to increase wages, that wages drive demand. They also are important to the individual family. Decent wages keep people out of homeless shelters. Decent wages allow families to afford books and, I don’t know, school fees and things like that. So, the bottom line is that, you know, this is an important thing and a very important message that Veronica picked up.
If I may, Veronica is the leader of an organization that recognized that the contractors for major retailers like Target were not paying the workers who clean the Target stores enough money. So, she was caught in this game of, well, Target was saying, "They’re not our employees; you’ve got to go talk to the contractors." Well, after a lot of negotiation and discussion, Target agreed to come to the table, and they came up with a good contractor policy in which Target is going to insist that if you get a contract with them in the Twin Cities, that you’re going to observe worker protections and some fair pay for the workers who clean up the Target stores every day. Now, there’s a lot of—this is outside of the normal, the traditional labor movement. A lot of people think these workers were not organizable, but they are. And Veronica is proof of that. And the workers who support her were very excited that she had a front row seat to hear the president talk about these important issues that are going to help them and their families.
AMY GOODMAN: Keith Ellison, Michelle Obama, the first lady, had sitting next to her a DREAMer.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yep.
AMY GOODMAN: The response to her guest—
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Awesome.
AMY GOODMAN: —Iowa Congressmember Steve King said, in a tweet, "#Obama perverts '[prosecutorial] discretion' by inviting a deportable to sit in place of honor at #SOTU w/1st Lady. I should sit with Alito," he said.
REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, me and Steve King often disagree. And I’ll say that, look, these young people, brought to this country as minors, before they had any choice in the matter, and they have still aspired to the highest ideals of this country. And this is something important. This is a tremendous honor for our country that these folks want to stay here, want to be Americans and have invested heavily here in terms of time and their own education and their own development. And Steve King, I guess, wants to educate these kids in our schools, train them and then send them back to somebody else’s country to develop there. That doesn’t make any sense to me. So, anyway, with all due respect to my colleague, he and I see this issue very differently, about as different as you possibly can.
AMY GOODMAN: He was talking about Dallas college student Ana Zamora. Will you be voting to authorize an attack on the Islamic State?
REP. KEITH ELLISON: You know, that’s a good question, because the bottom line is the Islamic State is a nihilistic, violent extremist group, and they’re not going to be dissuaded through simple diplomacy. But is authorizing force against them the right course of action, when you have many other tools available? What I’m going to tell you, Amy, is I’m not under any illusions about ISIL and their dangerousness, but I’m also clear that, really, we need to evaporate their recruiting base, we need to isolate them, we need to draw in allies on a multilateral way, we’ve got to cut their money off, and there’s a lot of ways to defeat ISIS without deploying troops on the ground. So, we’re going to—I’m going to keep on studying this issue carefully, and I’d be happy to come back and talk with you about it more.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us. As we go, were you one of the pencil wavers last night?
REP. KEITH ELLISON: You know what? I didn’t really wave a pencil, but I can tell you that I saw my colleagues doing that. I was kind of busy following along in the speech. So, good for them, you know, but I wasn’t waving the pencil last night.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Congressmember Keith Ellison of Minnesota, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, first Muslim member of the Congress. It was Gwen Moore, a congressmember, who led that action, waving the pencil in honor of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, Phyllis Bennis, Ralph Nader. We’ll also be joined by others in our roundtable as we talk about the president’s State of the Union address. Stay with us.
|
It was five years ago today that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. Some of the biggest spenders since have been the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch. On Tuesday night, newly elected Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, who was strongly backed by the Koch brothers, gave the GOP response to President Obama. Meanwhile this weekend, four leading Republican presidential prospects — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — are set to appear at an exclusive gathering of rich conservatives organized by the Koch brothers. We speak to longtime consumer advocate Ralph Nader and Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which published an article Tuesday headlined "Koch Party Delivers SOTU Response."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: It was five years ago today that the Supreme Court issued its landmark Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. Some of the biggest spenders since have been David and Charles Koch. This weekend, four leading Republican presidential prospects are set to appear at an exclusive gathering of rich conservatives organized by the Koch brothers: Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Senator Rand Paul. The Koch brothers were also among the key backers of newly elected Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, who gave the Republican response last night to President Obama’s State of the Union.
SEN. JONI ERNST: The new Republican Congress also understands how difficult these past six years have been. For many of us, the sting of the economy and the frustration with Washington’s dysfunction weren’t things we had to read about—we felt them every day.
AMY GOODMAN: That is Senator Joni Ernst, the new senator from Iowa. For more, we go now to Madison, Wisconson, where we’re joined by Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy. They published a piece Tuesday headlined "Koch Party Delivers SOTU Response."
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Lisa. Why that title?
LISA GRAVES: Well, this is really—it really is the Koch party response, because although Joni Ernst gave a nice speech last night, I think she showed a little more enthusiasm when she was caught on tape at a closed-door meeting with the Koch brothers and their billionaire buddies, thanking them for really being the source of her trajectory to power. And so, she made very clear in those private remarks how dependent she is on the Koch party, basically, the Koch brothers network that they’ve created, which is really a shadow party that in many ways is overtaking the Republican Party in terms of its influence and power.
Koch Industries gave money to her campaign directly. Charles Koch gave money to her campaign directly that was disclosed. They also gave money to a number of groups that don’t disclose their donors, as well as some of the super PACs that they’ve helped bankroll. In fact, one of the super PACs that’s been big in Joni Ernst’s race was one of the Freedom groups, where literally David Koch and Charles Koch each gave $2 million out of their trust fund, not even out of their direct checking account, you know, out of—out of the millions and millions and millions and billions, in fact, they have in their trust.
And so, in some ways, at the anniversary of Citizens United, it’s more than appropriate to take stock of what’s happening, when you have, basically, this Koch party, that has come to power as a result of Citizens United, really giving the response to the president of the United States.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lisa Graves, The New York Times today has a front-page story talking about how the various Republican presidential hopefuls are falling over themselves to try to get meetings with the Koch brothers, to get exposure to their network of donors. How have they gotten such a huge—become such a huge force within the Republican Party?
LISA GRAVES: Well, it’s just money. And it’s really the conversion of money into the idea, by the Supreme Court, that money is speech and can’t be limited or restricted. This is the terrible fruit being harvested, basically, by a minority—basically, a majority of the Supreme Court that has been backing corporate power with very few limits. And so, you know, it’s about money. And these are two of the richest guys on the planet, David and Charles Koch. They are cultivating these politicians to do their bidding.
But when you see the results in the states, states like Wisconsin and Kansas, where you have these Kochites who are at the helm, whether it’s Walker or Brownback, you see a real devastation to the economy from these Koch types of policies. And these policies are really out of step with what many Americans want when they actually have a chance to vote at the polls. At the polls, while the Republican Party, through this dark money and these super PACs, rose to power in this last election, but at those polls, those same polls, ordinary citizens, when voting on paid sick leave or increases to the minimum wage or protections to have notice about GMOs, they voted for progressive policies. But unfortunately, the dark money and these super PACs really had a huge impact on this last election cycle.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the Koch brothers convergence will take place in California in—what is it? In Palm Springs, at this exclusive area for particular presidential candidates. Recently, Rand Paul went to visit at the Wichita headquarters of the Koch brothers. Senator Ernst, calling for elimination of the EPA and the Department of Education, she told a very different story last night in a very eloquent State of the Union address. Yes, she called for the Keystone XL to be passed, said that’s key, but also talked about her own very humble beginnings. Ralph Nader, your response, and the power of the Koch brothers and the new Republican majority and what you think needs to be done?
RALPH NADER: Well, first of all, there should be a state legislature that asks the Koch brothers to come and testify and answer questions. Congress should have a congressional hearing on this, but the Republicans are in control. But nobody ever does anything more than expose the Koch brothers. Well, put them out in the public light and cross-examine them.
My favorite approach is that every major corporation does business with the federal government, and the federal government should simply say that if you want contracts with Uncle Sam, you cannot give money to political campaigns. There are some towns in California who basically say anybody who does business with city hall cannot make contributions. So that’s one way to limit the effect of Citizens United and other judicial decisions.
But for the overall citizen strategy against Citizens United, go to citizen.org — that’s Public Citizen’s website — which has a diverse approach to mobilize people to amend the Constitution, but, in the meantime, to do other things that will limit the effect of putting our politicians on an auction block for the highest bidder.
And last thing I’d say, Amy, is, let’s get the American people more skeptical. Just have a rule: You don’t believe any political ad on TV. Forget it. Close it off. It affects about 10, 15 percent of the swing vote. Most people are hereditary voters—Republican, Democrat, maybe Green Party—but, by and large, it’s that 15 percent swing vote that’s extremely vulnerable to these political ads, because people don’t do their homework on the candidates, their records, and what they’ve done and not done in the interest of the people contrast to the interest of big business and the plutocracy.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. I want to thank you, Ralph Nader, former presidential candidate, longtime consumer advocate. His latest book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State. And thanks so much to Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.
|
Obama Outlines Policy Agenda in State of the Union Address
President Obama has delivered his sixth State of the Union address, outlining his domestic and foreign policy agenda for his final two years in office. On the foreign policy front, Obama defended his decision to begin normalizing relations with Cuba, called for Congress to pass a new authorization of military force against the Islamic State and vowed again to close Guantánamo. He also urged Congress to give him trade promotion authority, the power to negotiate free trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But much of his speech focused on the U.S. economy and efforts to bolster the middle class with a push for education, child care and tax breaks.
President Obama: "It’s now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years, and for decades to come. Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?"
Words "Lesbian," "Bisexual" and "Transgender" Appear in State of the Union for 1st Time
For the first time since 2001, the State of the Union address included no mention of the word "al-Qaeda." But Obama did say three other words that made history — "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" — marking the first time those words have appeared in a State of the Union address.
President Obama: "That’s why we defend free speech and advocate for political prisoners and condemn the persecution of women or religious minorities or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. We do these things not only because they are the right thing to do, but because ultimately they will make us safer."
Yemen: Houthi Rebels Take Palace, Stand Guard Outside President’s Home
In Yemen, Shiite Houthi rebels have overtaken the presidential palace and are standing guard outside the residence of President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi in what top Yemeni officials are calling a coup. But the rebels appear to have stopped short of forcing Hadi’s resignation, instead demanding he comply with the terms of a power-sharing deal reached in September when the Houthis seized most of the capital Sana’a.
Congo: At Least 15 Killed in Crackdown on Protests
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, at least 15 people have been killed as police crack down on protesters demanding President Joseph Kabila step down next year. The protests are continuing for a third day today over the government’s plans to hold a census which would delay elections and keep Kabila in power for years.
Cuba, U.S. Diplomats Meet for Historic Talks
The United States and Cuba begin historic talks today aimed at restoring full diplomatic ties for the first time in more than half a century. The head of the U.S. delegation, Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, will be the highest-ranking U.S. diplomat to enter Cuba in 35 years.
Tests Fail to Identify Charred Remains in Search for Mexican Students
Mexican authorities say an Austrian forensic team has been unable to recover enough DNA to determine whether charred human remains found in the state of Guerrero belong to students missing since September. Federal authorities have claimed local police turned the 43 students over to members of a drug gang, who killed them and burned their bodies, but so far only one student’s remains have been identified. Responding to the latest news, Emiliano Navarrete, father of one of the missing students, said he still doubts the government’s account.
Emiliano Navarrete: "Since the beginning, I have not believed what the government has put forward. I think the kids are still alive. And if this is so, if those remains (found in the dump) belonged to some of the youngsters, there is someone who wanted to get rid of them. Someone got in their way."
Bahrain: Human Rights Activist Nabeel Rajab Sentenced to 6 Months
In Bahrain, human rights activist Nabeel Rajab has been sentenced to six months in prison for insulting the government on Twitter. Rajab remains free on bail as he appeals. Last May, Rajab was released from prison after two years for charges including taking part in illegal protests. Click here to watch our interview with him in June 2014.
Montana: Cancer-Causing Chemical Found in Water After Oil Spill
In the United States, residents of Glendive, Montana, and surrounding areas are being told not to drink their tap water after the cancer-causing chemical benzene was detected following an oil spill. The warning comes days after up to 50,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Yellowstone River, and follows earlier assurances by state officials the spill posed no public safety threat. Glendive sits on the edge of the Bakken Shale, a top oil production site, and near the route of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
Obama Vows to Veto 20-Week Abortion Ban
President Obama has vowed to veto a Republican-backed measure to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, calling it a "direct challenge" to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. The House plans to vote on the ban Thursday, on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s decision establishing the legal right to abortion.
Report: Police in U.S. Using Radars That Can See Through Walls
A new report finds at least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have quietly obtained radar devices which effectively allow them to see inside homes. According to USA Today, the radars can detect human breathing at a distance of more than 50 feet, and penetrate walls to locate someone inside a home and determine if they are moving. Dozens of agencies including the FBI and U.S. marshals have been deploying the radars with little scrutiny by courts or the public.
France Unveils Sweeping New Counterterrorism Plan
France has announced a wave of "exceptional measures" to combat terrorism in the wake of the attacks earlier this month on Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket. Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the government will spend the equivalent of $490 million over three years and hire more than 2,600 new staff. The plan includes a major increase in surveillance, including a measure easing the use of phone taps. The news comes as France has detained four people charged with aiding supermarket shooter Amedy Coulibaly.
French Comedian Faces Up to 7 Years in Prison for Facebook Post
A French comedian is facing up to seven years in prison for a Facebook post in the wake of the attacks. The comedian, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, was arrested and charged with inciting terrorism after posting that he felt like "Charlie Coulibaly," a term which combined the name of targeted magazine Charlie Hebdo and the name of kosher supermarket shooter, Amedy Coulibaly.
Mayor of Paris Suburb Backs Down on Bid to Ban Oscar-Nominated Film "Timbuktu" over Terrorism Fears
The mayor of a Paris suburb appears to have backed down on his bid to ban screenings of an Oscar-nominated film over concerns about terrorism. The film "Timbuktu," just nominated for best foreign language film, is viewed as an unequivocally anti-jihadist film, which depicts the horrors of jihadist occupation in Mali. But Jacques-Alain Bénisti, mayor of Villiers-sur-Marne, who had not seen the film, said he feared it made an "apology for terrorism." Following a wave of criticism, he has vowed to reschedule the film and host a debate with religious leaders.
____________________________
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment