Bloomberg: de Blasio's campaign racist and class warfare

The "racist" campaign literature

by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

You gotta laugh at politics in America.  The race for mayor of NYC is heating up. Present mayor, Michael Bloomberg who is owner of Business Week magazine and is described in the media as a “self made”billionaire, has accused one of the candidates hoping to replace him of running a “racist” campaign based on “class warfare.” In an interview with New York Magazine Bloomberg said that Democrat Bill de Blasio’s is "in some ways ... a class-warfare campaign……..class-warfare and racist.”.

What the hell is a “self made” billionaire anyway?  Is there a collectively made billionaire? A billionaire by committee? What does “self made” mean? Is there anyone that believes you can accumulate billions of dollars all on your own, working lots of overtime and stashing away savings. But I must let that sidetrack me.

When asked what is racist about Democrat Bill de Blasio’s campaign, Bloomberg says, according to the Associated Press, "Well, no, no, I mean he's making an appeal using his family to gain support. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone watching what he's been doing. I do not think he himself is racist. It's comparable to me pointing out I'm Jewish in attracting the Jewish vote."

Is Bloomberg Jewish? I’d never have thought it. Bill de Blasio is married to a black woman and apparently his campaign ads have featured his family. Have we ever seen such a thing in American politics, a candidate having their partner, kids and dog on stage with them or in campaign ads with them?

I would say its one of the standard sickening practices we see every election time as these people try to appeal to the conservative elements in society showing that they are “normal” people in a normal god-fearing marriage, a man, a woman, two kids and a dog.

The real issue is not that de Blasio has an interracial family. It’s that he’s striking a bit of a populist tone. He’s not obscuring the fact that there is a class war, that’s the problem.  De Blasio has attacked Bloomberg for not doing enough to help the poor and that New York has become “two cities”, one for the rich and one for everyone else. De Blasio is well aware of the mood out there in the aftermath of the Great Recession and is tapping in to the anger and hatred for the rich that lies beneath the surface, but so is Bloomberg which is why he has reacted so strongly.  Bloomberg, a coupon clipper, is the 7^thrichest man in the US worth about $27 billion. He is as detached from American working class life as Putin is.

He comes to the defense of his coupon clipper colleagues, many of whom live in NYC. But first he attacks the poor in NYC, “By most of the world’s standards, you ain’t poor,” he says reminding us that when compared to most places in the world “…our poor are wealthy.”  You see, you don’t have to be bright to be wealthy and won a major magazine.

Bloomberg is quite hurt by de Blasio’s assault on the NY City’s billionaires as they contribute so much to the city in the form of tax revenue. "The way to help those who are less fortunate is, number one, to attract more very fortunate people. They are the ones that pay the bills. The people that would get very badly hurt here if you drive out the very wealthy are the people he professes to try to help," Bloomberg says.

He gets a little madder and reveals to us his real view of the world when he says that “…this city is

Bloomberg, worth $27 billion

not two groups, and if to some extent it is, it's one group paying for services for the other." We should all be grateful to the Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trumps and Warren Buffets of this word for giving us miserable wretches an existence.

The fact that poverty and unemployment and all the negative aspects of their so-called free market hits black folks, as a percentage of the population, far worse than most groups, with the exception of Native Americans perhaps, is definitely an issue when a white candidate with a black wife, a multi-racial family, is speaking about how the world actually is, is raising the class divide as Jesse Jackson did in his first presidential campaign before the Democratic Party hacks gave him a good talking to before the national convention. Plus, the Great Recession has hit a lot of people who thought they were safe; pointing fingers at the 1% in this climate is a dangerous game.

De Blasio has been getting a lot of support from the black community according to reports but I’ll wager it is predominantly for his populist rhetoric.  Were his wife to take a cue from Bill Cosby and chide black folks for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and going out there and “gettin’ it” as opposed to complaining all the time, there’d be no accusation of racism from Bloomberg then.

I saw a plug for “Crossfire” on TV tonight as I was flipping through channels and it had two Democrats and two Republicans in the plug and it was making the point about issues and differences being discussed.  But there is not significant difference between these two parties on the fundamentals.  They both agree that workers and the middle class must pay for their crisis and would both oppose a real candidate that made the class war that is forced on us daily an issue. It’s as if there is only a Democratic and republican view of the world.

This support that Occupy initially got and the support that de Blasio is getting is an indication of the mood that exists in society and that a genuine mass party of working people could have significant success in the political arena.  The 128 million or so of Americans that didn’t vote in the last election cycle aren’t all asleep, they have simply given up, recognizing correctly that on the basic issues, food, shelter, health care, workplace and civil rights, both parties are against them.

As for Bloomberg threatening that if you attack those “more fortunate” we will have no services or they’ll leave town, our response is that we won’t let you, or we won’t let you with all the money you’ve stolen from those who work and create the wealth in society. His solution to poverty, he says, is to make more rich people.

Every human being deserves a secure and productive life.  A society that cannot provide that is not a civilized society.  It is not simply the billions they waste on predatory wars and such that we must take and allocate more efficiently in a humane sense, but the personal billions they have stashed away, what they call private money or their “personal” wealth.  They never earned that money; it’s a collective product. Michael Bloomberg should be guaranteed a decent and secure life, and most socialists and ordinary workers would agree, just not off the backs of the rest of us.  We would guarantee them what they deny us.

Read More

Kshama Sawant, Seattle socialist gets 33% of the vote in council race. Faces incumbent in runoff.

by Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

In a stunning victory for workers and the poor, Seattle’s Kshama Sawant won 33% of the vote in the Seattle City Council race and faces the incumbent Richard Conlin in a runoff. Conlin flush with cash and name recognition received 49% of the vote and was expected to get an easy victory for a fifth term as mayor.

Ms Sawant ran as the Socialist Alternative candidate for the Washington State Legislature in November last year against House Speaker Frank Chopp and lost, but she received 14,000 votes, about 27% of the total. She now has a real chance of defeating Conlin in the council runoff

Sawant said of her victory last year, “We achieved this election result as an openly Socialist campaign that was largely ignored by the corporate media, with no corporate donations, on a shoe string budget,” and added in a statement "Occupy gave a voice to working people’s rage at Wall Street, and our campaign gave voice to mass anger at the corporate politicians. It shows the potential to build a powerful left electoral challenge to the two corporate parties.”

In her campaign for city council Sawant received endorsements from Two Seattle union locals, American Federation of Teachers Local 1789 and Communication Workers of America Local 37083. A major part of her platform is a campaign for a $15 an hour minimum wage as well as affordable housing, rent control, and against cuts in education and other social programs and public services.  Ms. Sawant is an economics professor at Seattle Central Community College.

While socialists, or most socialists do not believe we can change society at the ballot box, participating in the electoral process is important in that it is a means to publicly challenge the ideology of the 1% and offer an alternative view of society and how it should function. It is a platform through which we can build an independent working class movement that can challenge the dictatorship big business has in the electoral sphere but also the 1%’s control of economic life and the production of human needs in society.

The support Ms Sawant has received in the past two elections shows that socialist candidates can win the support of American workers if these campaigns are run in a way that appeal to workers and our families. Her victory is a victory for all of us.

Most importantly, it is now the responsibility of the trade union movement, socialists, left and all other anti-capitalist activists to follow in the steps of the two Seattle locals that supported Ms Sawant and get involved and help build her campaign and spread it beyond Seattle and Washington State.  It is an opportunity we must take advantage of. There are numerous campaigns nationally around issues like the minimum wage, housing and the defense of other social services as well as civil rights, and Ms Sawant's political victories are an opportunity to bring these campaigns together in a united movement against the 1% and the dictatorship the corporations have over US society.

Facts For Working People congratulates Ms Sawant and her campaign for a $15 an hour minimum wage, will assist her campaign in any way we can, and urges our readers to support it.

Readers can read more or get involved in her campaign by visiting http://www.votesawant.org/
or e mail VoteSawant@gmail.com

Read More

Will Rand Paul try to convert the Jews to save them?

Remember Paul's supporters dealing with this woman?

by Richard Mellor

I see the Christian Zionist, Libertarian and Tea Bagger, Rand Paul is in Israel affirming his support for the land where Jesus will return. 

Paul, like his father is a doctor (I wonder if he receives Medicare money) and will no doubt by-pass Gaza.  No one wants to have to look at victims living in concentration camps for fear of having to do something about it. Paul supports the right to life but not for Palestinian children. Paul’s trip is funded by the American Family Association, and organized by “evangelical kingmaker David Lane and former pharmaceuticals executive Richard Roberts, a prominent member of the Orthodox Jewish community who donates heavily to the GOP” according to Business Insider. Politics makes strange bedfellows as the saying goes. I don’t suppose Paul will remind the Jews there that they will burn in hell if they don’t convert to his religion when Jesus gets back. I suppose the evangelical organizations that make this happen are tax-exempt not being political. This is a religious pilgrimage no doubt.

Paul is looking at a presidential run next election as a Republican and is looking for support; after all, Obama raised $1 billion.   For that he needs to schmooze with American Zionists and the powerful pro Israel lobby, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

He will be meeting this week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, as well as other influential people favored by Washington and the Pentagon, president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and former king of Saudi Arabia Abdulluh, one of the family of theocratic thugs that runs the country. Abdullah is one of the world’s wealthiest individuals at about $21 billion according to Forbes.  He is also considered one of the world’s worst dictators but that’s never stopped US presidents and politicians before. After 911 Saudi royals got a cheap flight out of the US.  Gays, women and other religions are not the favorite of these thugs and Unions are a definite no-no. The whole group, Rand included, is like the employment line for the job with Hedley Lamarr in Blazing saddles, barring the two at the end of the line that is.

Rand, like Obama and Madonna before him won’t be chatting with Hamas, the freely elected government of the concentration camp we know as Gaza.  Hamas are “terrorists” says Washington and too cruel to talk to. 

How could he meet with Hamas? Paul is a doctor and values human life which is why he opposes abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment that would overturn Roe V Wade.  It shouldn't surprise anyone, defending Herman Cain during his scandal he complained that, "these days it seems like women can’t take a joke." If he’s like his Libertarian daddy he would also support workers organizing but not forcing employers to increase wages through withholding our Labor power, that’s terrorism too isn’t it?

Paul, like his father also wants small government and opposes government involvement in health care. Health care is best served by market forces like most of society’s needs. He likes medicine being a business as he is in the medical business himself. Paul also supports the misnamed Right to Work legislation that is aimed at keeping workers from organizing for better wages and conditions.  He should get along well with King Abdullah.

By my estimation, some 140 million Americans opted out of the electoral process last election.  I wonder why.

Read More

Millions of Americans disgusted with Democrats and Republicans

There is no doubt that class polarization has increased in US society.  The massive widening of the inequality gap is accepted barring a few nutcases, the same types that might deny that global temperatures are on the rise, or that label climate change as a hoax.

In the electoral arena we have a dictatorship, a monopoly of the electoral process by the Democrats and the Republicans, the two political parties representing the corporations and Wall Street.  They have mapped out the electoral turf and designed it so that there are fewer and fewer areas that might be called “swing” states so that, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Republican areas are growing “darker red”while Democratic areas “darker blue.”

This is very useful in that there is no need for politicians of either party to waste much time in these “safe”areas.  The name of the game is to simply increase the number of “safe” areas for each party and battle it out on a much smaller scale for the rest. Their media will reach the others; that's what ads are for. That's one reason why elections cost hundreds billions of dollars really.  Outside of these safe areas, the red or the blue, the so-called “swing states”are rapidly declining in number. “The number of states that are so clearly red or so clearly blue that they aren’t seriously contested in presidential races, is climbing while the number of swing states in the middle is falling” the Journal reports. In 1960, 20 states were tight races, with the outcome decided by less than 5% of the votes. In 2000, only 12 were considered competitive states and this year only 4.

The Journal explains (something we all pretty much know) that there are many states, “..that have become so clearly aligned in presidential politics…..that neither parties presidential contenders seriously compete in them.”

This is all interesting stuff.  But there is a very stark and obvious statistic that doesn’t find its way in to the mix and that is those who have withdrawn from the political process altogether. It’s hard to determine that but we can get some idea. According to the Elections Project and leaving out the 5 million or more felons denied the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, there are 240,926,957 Americans of voting age.  Although the turnout for the fall election has not yet been calculated, the Bipartisan Research Center estimates it at 57.5% of the eligible voters.  I am assuming “eligible” is the same as voting age minus felon disenfranchisement, those living abroad etc. By my estimation that means that 138,000,000 Americans able to vote chose not to.

How can a figure like this be ignored?  It’s not hard to figure that out. If we take the right to vote, it was won from the capitalist class through a long heroic struggle.  White men without property were unable to vote, blacks were unable to vote, not even considered citizens, women etc. Full enfranchisement was realized in 1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the ratification of the 24th Amendmentin 1964.  (See here)

One hundred and thirty eight million possible voters are ignored because the political parties and their representatives have nothing to say to them that might inspire them to.  In some of these local elections, candidates are endorsed by the local trade Union movement (which means the leadership), as well as the Chamber of Commerce.  This is absurd when you think about it.  The US Chamber of Commerce supports the Right to Work (for less) laws and is anti-Union.

Some people argue that these people don’t vote because Americans are “apathetic”or we “don’t care”.  But this is the wrong conclusion to draw. They have simply drawn the conclusion that in the main their lives will not change that much, certainly on the issues that matter most, food, shelter, a job that pays the rent, health care, etc. Because the two Wall Street parties both agree that the burden of the capitalist crisis will borne born by workers, the poor and sections of the middle class, people who feel they must vote (for the right reasons) tend to vote on “moral”issues of importance to them personally, identity politics is the result: abortion or gun rights, prayer in school gay marriage etc.  It’s not that these issues are not important to people but the issues that matter most are food, shelter, security, health a job etc. If you’re going to earn $8 an hour no matter who gets in, then the other issues take on a greater importance.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that millions make the mistake that all politics is bad, all politicians are corrupt. Many young people are completely opposed to political activity due to this view that is strengthened with the absence of a genuine mass workers party.  That we have no party of our own is primarily the fault of the heads of organized Labor who are wedded to capitalism, the market and the Democratic Party.

This absence of a political alternative for workers has meant huge and at times violent battles in the streets and workplaces. We have seen a resurgence of this side of our heroic traditions with the Occupy Movement, that with all its weaknesses used direct action and open defiance of their laws while the Labor officialdom bow down to their laws, their courts and legality; the capitalist class responds to this with violence.   And despite the success of the Democrats and their allies atop organized labor to derail it, we saw 100,000 workers, many fresh layers, on the streets of Madison Wisconsin.  It’s clear that organized labor has been working inside Walmart and other retailers and the fast food industry trying to organize as recent actions in this sector show. The Union hierarchy sees tremendous revenue potential here. But, as is always the case, regardless of the intentions of those that initially give it life, a movement can get out of their control.

These 138 million people, and those that felt the need to vote if just to keep the nastier and most openly racist of the parties out of the White House, are not the conservative mass that the mass media would have us believe.  The continued attacks on basic Union rights is likely to intensify clashes on the streets and in the workplaces in the period ahead, especially as further economic crisis looms, and it is most likely out of such movements the workers’ independent political voice will be born.

Read More

The election's over, Obama's ready to make nice with the Republicans now.

Obama and Boehner: "We'll work it out"

The Democrats have their man in the White House for the next four years so the "class war" rhetoric can fade in to the background as the millionaires of the two Wall Street parties continue their assault on workers and the middle class----the actual class war continues.

Obama is "showing new flexibility" in the discussions over what the mass media terms, the "Fiscal Cliff.", automatic cuts in spending and tax increases that will kick in at the end of this year if the  politicians can't cut a deal.  The failure to act so far has investors in a frenzy as the coupon clippers hate uncertainty and are refusing to invest threatening economic growth.  The two sides have no disagreements over the fundamentals, that workers and the middle class will pay for the crisis of capitalism.  The differences are over the details with Republicans generally opposing taxes on higher earners and corporations and the Democrats claiming the mantle of party of the people by publicly calling for the defense of cuts in entitlements like Medicare and Social Security for example.

The Great Recession has cut in to revenue as the US taxpayer apart from bailing out the system, is paying for predatory wars and the hundreds of global military installations that accompany them. Presently,  the US national debt stands at about $16.28 trillion or about 100% GDP. 

"I am ready and able and willing and excited to go ahead and get this issue resolved in a bi-partisan fashion....." says President Obama.  "Ready, able, willing and excited" all at once is quite a condition to be in I must say.  If the Democrats were actually a party that had the material interests of workers and the middle class at heart, it would not be likely they would be able to get any issue resolved with voluntary cooperation from their Republican counterparts. When two forces with equal rights meet in the world's marketplace, force decides.

The Republicans favor cuts as opposed to tax increases.  If they are forced to accept some form of tax policy they would rather it be curbs on deductions and will swap that for a deal on cuts in spending.  The reason for this of course is that the rich can always find a way out of that, a way to hide income from the taxman. (see Not another Tax Reform Act, on this blog)  or find deductions that work.

The Obama Administration wants to raise taxes on household income above $250,000 and leave other rates as they are. The tax rate on earned income between $250,000 and $388,000 is presently 33%.  Above this amount the rate rises to 35%.  The Clinton Administration rates were 36% and 39.6% respectively.  Obama's "flexibility" amounts to increasing the tax rates above current levels but below Clinton's.  That's above 33% but below 36% for households earning above $250,000 and above 35% but below 39.6% for levels above that.  No class warfare there I would say; and it's no wonder the Republicans have shown a willingness to make a deal as long as they get their curbs on deductions which are not curbs at all. 

One Republican says that they'll accept a deal that raised rates on those earning $500,000 to $1 million as long as their Democratic friends "back substantial entitlement cuts.".  So the options for us are really cuts as the rich will make it work.   The reality is that the US working class has no political party and therefore no representation at all in these discussions.  Two groups of millionaires/billionaires are determining the fate of 300 million people, mostly workers.

The liberals never give up hoping

CEO's were meeting with their representative in the White House this week no doubt pushing for lower corporate taxes and other measures that will make them more competitive in the global marketplace which if it happens, "..could help unleash even more growth and job creation than perhaps anyone has previously expected." says Brian Roberts, the head of Comcast, one of the monopolies that controls what we watch on television.  The 35% corporate income tax rate in the US is one of the highest compared to other countries.  But its interesting to note that despite this, U.S. corporate income tax collections of 1.2% GDP in 2011 were lower than nearly all OECD countries (which average 2.5% GDP).  For the corporations it's very handy to have two political parties while workers have none.  And what does it mean to be competitive? It means we have to compete with Indian and Chinese workers.  Instead, we must join with Indian and Chinese workers in order to raise "all boats" to use a favorite expression of the bourgeois. Our boats of course, don't have any bourgeois in them.

The CEO's, as they always do, floated the threat of shifting production overseas if the business environment in the US isn't made more favorable, more competitive and profit friendly. They'll move fewer jobs offshore with a "more competitive corporate tax structure.", they told President Obama.
Lower taxes, no Unions,  removal of all obstacles to profit taking---this is what they want, a sort of "Full Spectrum Dominance" for the USA. (The bosses are so aggressive and overconfident, even passive Unions and cooperative officials are not enough),

The capitalist offensive has not abated with the election of Obama.  Obama has been able to appease the coupon clippers with somewhat less aggravation than  George W Bush would face.  It is also not so easy to accuse him of supporting or introducing policies that are racist which are inevitable in a system that has inequality, racism and sexism built in to it.

This responsibility for this dismal state of affairs in electoral politics in the US, where workers have no choice but one of two political parties that represent hostile class interests, falls squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of the workers' organizations.  They have tremendous resources at their command, financial, structural and in terms of human resources.  Yet they offer these resources to the Democratic Party in the hopes that they will receive some crumbs from the bosses' table.  As we have explained many times this has led to the incorrect view among millions of workers that all politics is bad as are all politicians.  Politicians are all corrupt workers say as opposed to recognizing that political parties represent forces in society, have a social base. They do what they do as a consequence of the class whose interests they represent.

Consequently, some 90 million Americans refuse to participate in what they see as a fruitless effort at the polls.  The Union hierarchy hopes and would be content with gaining millions of the lowest paid workers in order to maintain revenue and keep what they see as a business afloat. Meanwhile they cooperate with the same bosses in driving down wages at the higher end as well as willingly eliminating safety protections and union rights on the job that are impediments to competitiveness and profit making. Overall, they accept that what took us a couple of centuries to win through heroic sacrifice and struggle can be no more.

The left too must reflect on our failures. In some urban areas like the San Francisco Bay Area, Chicago, LA, New York City etc., there must be thousands upon thousands of individuals, socialists and other activists who have an anti-capitalist bent or simply want to confront this offensive of capital.  The left, with its tradition of sectarianism, its common failure to tap in to the mood that exists in society which tends to isolate it from the mass of workers in one way or another raising demands that do not connect, or making concessions that are seen as opportunist, has failed to offer a alternative to workers in the electoral arena.  A united front campaign------- running candidates on a platform that genuinely confronts the capitalist offensive, make the rich pay, against austerity, cuts in public services, education, and for jobs, a $15 per hour minimum wage, mass transit, an end to all wars (that are extremely unpopular and are only tolerated as a small percentage of US families bear the brunt of the physical and psychological sacrifice this entails)------this would have a tremendous effect and would bring far more results than the "lesser of two evils" philosophy as the strategists of capital would throw reforms at such a movement to head it off, derail it.  It always pays to fight.

Such a campaign, linked to direct action tactics on the ground, would transform the balance of forces and inspire millions of workers.  It would influence the struggle inside of organized Labor and give the left a credibility it has failed to achieve so far while at the same time laying the basis for the formation of a genuine independent mass working people's political party.  Threats to shut production destroying communities while they move to exploit workers in countries like Bangladesh where more than 100 of our brothers and sisters recently died in a factory fire, can be met with occupations and through an independent political alternative, the taking in to public ownership of the firms concerned, with compensation based on proven need.

The stage is already being set for the next election.  They start campaigning two years before. The Democratic Party candidate will be Hilary Clinton who is leaving her position as secretary of state to prepare.   Are we going to have no real choice yet again?

Read More

Prop 37 recount: $55 million spent by corporations to defeat it

This blog urged voters to support prop 37 which aimed at labeling food. As we pointed out, millions was spent calling for a no vote  by food corporations like Monsanto, General Mills and Con-Agra to name a few. This should have convinced most thinking voters to vote yes but the scare tactics convinced many people to oppose it.  They warned of massive increases in costs and how it will destroy the "little guy" and that the proposition was flawed etc.  It may not have been perfect by any means, but these tactics are also used to convince workers not to fight for higher wages becasue they will simply increase prices and past the cost on to us. They may and they may not. What they can do depends on how organized we are, how strong and committed we are. They will get way with what they can if we let them.

We have been asked to make readers aware of the following and share it for your interest.

Please request via phone or online that all votes are counted for PROP 37 GMO labelling by:

1)  please sign the petition to Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State which says:

"We petition Debra Bowen, Secretary of State of California, to require ALL votes cast in the November 6 election be counted immediately. We specifically demand that ALL ballots in the following counties be counted and recorded: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Santa Clara. We demand that the results of this complete ballot counting be made public immediately."

The petition can be found here:  http://signon.org/sign/prop-37-count-all-the?source=s.icn.em.cp&r_by=6040778

2)  Whether you live in California or not...please call this number and demand a recount.  Main Number: (916) 657-2166!... all you need to do is call the Secretary of State and ask for the absentee ballots to be counted in regards to prop 37. There is something like 2 million votes that are uncounted.

Many of the trendy, so-called organic businesses opposed prop 37 (see image) but they include.

  LaraBar
  Ben & Jerry's
  Kashi
  Cascadia Farms
  Back to Nature
  Muir Glen
  Odwalla
  Goya
  Horizon Milk

They sell their expensive trendy wares to those who can afford to shop at Whole Foods and other trendy places but when it comes to business, profits and the supremacy of capital comes first. They spent a total of $55 million it seems. The best democracy money can buy.

This image can be found here:
http://www.math.utexas.edu/users/drana/Pub/Prop37Traitors.jpg

Also check out this:
Did Prop 37 really lose?

Read More