Bernie Sanders

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      We must raise the minimum wage to a living wage | Bernie Sanders

      by

      Congress can no longer ignore the needs of the working class of this country. At a time of massive and growing income and wealth inequality and record-breaking corporate profits, we must stand up for working families – many of whom are struggling every day to provide a minimal standard of living for their families.One important way to do that is to raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage. In the year 2023, nobody in the US should be forced to work for starvation wages. It should be a basic truism that in the US, the richest country on earth, if you work 40 hours a week you do not live in poverty. Raising the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do morally. It is also good economics. Putting money into the hands of people who will spend it on basic needs is a strong economic stimulant.When over 60% of American workers are now living paycheck to paycheck, when the life expectancy of low-income Americans is in decline, when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country, we can no longer tolerate a federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a wage that has not been raised since 2009. Incredibly, the federal minimum wage has lost over 27% of its purchasing power since it was last raised 14 years ago. That is unacceptable. Millions of Americans cannot be allowed to fall further and further behind economically, unable to afford the housing, food, healthcare, childcare and education they desperately need in order to live in health and dignity.Whether they are greeting us at Walmart, serving us hamburgers at McDonald’s, providing childcare for our kids or waiting on our table at a diner in rural America, there are too many Americans trying to survive and raise families on $9, $10 or $12 an hour. It cannot be done. This injustice must end. Low-income workers need a pay raise and the American people want them to get that raise.Poll after poll shows overwhelming support for raising the minimum wage to a living wage. But it’s not just polls. In 2021, the Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives voted to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The bad news is that we lacked the votes to pass this legislation through the equally divided Senate. Not only did a $15-an-hour minimum wage bill fail to win the vote of a single Republican in the Senate, eight Democrats voted against it as well.That was then. Now is now. And things are changing. As a result of years of congressional inaction, cities and states all across the country are taking the low-wage crisis into their own hands and raising their minimum wage. Some are doing it through legislative action. Others are doing it through ballot initiatives.Since 2013, the people of 12 states – New Jersey, South Dakota, Arkansas (twice), Alaska, Washington, Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, Florida, Nevada and Nebraska (twice) – have voted on ballot initiatives to raise their state’s minimum wage. Every single one of these initiatives passed, none with less than 55% of the vote. And these are not just strong “blue states” voting for economic justice. In the recent November 2022 midterm election, two states that voted in Republican governors, Nebraska and Nevada, voted to raise the minimum wage. In 2020, the citizens of Florida, with a Republican governor and two Republican senators, also voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.The MIT living wage calculator estimates a living wage as a salary that is adequate enough to support a family without luxuries. For two working adults and one child, a living hourly wage for each adult would be $18.69 in West Virginia, $17.55 in South Carolina, $21.57 in Maryland, $20.01 in Utah and $19.33 in Wisconsin. Even in my own state of Vermont, the living wage is $19.58, more than $6 above the current state minimum wage.But there are many families that do not have two working adults and rely on single moms who are raising their children on their own. In that case, the required living wage is much higher. As an example, a single mother in West Virginia would need to make $33.39 an hour to support herself and one child.So it is not radical to suggest that raising the minimum wage to $17 an hour over a period of several years is the right thing to do. In fact, had my 2015 bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour that was indexed to median wages became law, the federal minimum wage this January would be at least $17.40 an hour. And while we deal with the minimum wage, we must also address the scandal of the tipped wage, which has been stuck at an abysmally low $2.13 an hour for more than 30 years thanks, in large part, to the powerful restaurant lobby which has spent millions in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses since 1991 to keep workers in poverty.Together, these two proposals would provide an increase in pay for tens of millions of desperate Americans – disproportionately women and people of color. It would also be a huge boost to single moms. Let us not forget that these are the essential workers who kept the economy going during the worst of the Covid pandemic. At that time we called them heroes and heroines. Well, rhetorical praise is nice. A livable paycheck is better. Let’s do it.
      Bernie Sanders is a US senator from Vermont and the chair of the Senate committee on health, education, labor and pensions More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders accuses ex-Starbucks chief of unprecedented union-busting

      by

      Starbucks’ former chief executive Howard Schultz was accused at a Senate hearing on Wednesday of running “the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country”.The hearing, “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks”, was chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders, a longtime critic of Starbucks’ anti-union activities.Starbucks had initially resisted calls for Schultz to appear. He agreed after the committee threatened to subpoena him.Nearly 300 Starbucks stores around the US have won union elections since the first Starbucks stores unionized in December 2021, though the rate of election filings slowed after an initial surge. Since that time, Starbucks has fought hard to stop the unionization drive and faces more unfair labor practice allegations than any other private employer in the US.Sanders said: “Over the last 18 months Starbucks has waged the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country.”Schultz responded by saying to Sanders: “These are allegations, and Starbucks has not broken the law.”He defended the company’s record and said the company gave workers better wages and benefits than its competitors.The Starbucks boss was defended by Republicans on the committee. Senator Rand Paul called the hearing a “witch-hunt” and Senator Bill Cassidy said it was a “smear campaign”.Cassidy said no one is above the law, “but let’s not kid ourselves: this is not a fair and impartial hearing.”Before the hearing, Sanders released a report by the committee’s majority staff outlining Starbucks’ record of unfair labor practice charges.The report found Starbucks broke the law 130 times in six states and is facing an additional 70 cases. Misconduct ranged from firing workers in retaliation for union organizing to shutting down stores, withholding pay and benefits, and comments made by Schultz himself.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“There is mounting evidence that the $113bn company’s anti-union efforts include a pattern of flagrant violations of federal labor law,” the report claims. “Starbucks has engaged in the most significant union-busting campaign in modern history. It has been led by Howard Schultz.”Naomi Martinez, a shift supervisor at a unionized Starbucks in Phoenix, Arizona, said she wanted to hear Schultz publicly explain Starbucks’ response to the union campaign and the numerous labor law violations that the National Labor Relations Board and judges have affirmed in complaints and rulings.“I always see the company state that they are continuing to respect the law, respect legal processes, respect the rights to organize, and we see a different story on the worker side of things,” said Martinez.“I just want to hear from Howard’s mouth himself whether or not he thinks that Starbucks has continuously, really respected rights to organize, fully adhering to the law at every turn. Every time that they have their spokespeople say something like that it really is just, to me at least, a slap in the face, because they are abusing these legal processes at every turn.”Starbucks has denied all allegations of labor law violations and appealed all National Labor Relations Board and court rulings against the company. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      It’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the book

      by

      ReviewIt’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the bookThe Vermont senator and former presidential candidate offers a clarion call against the American oligarchsThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has a predictably unsparing view of the effects of “unfettered capitalism”: it “destroys anything that gets in its way in the pursuit of profits. It destroys the environment. It destroys our democracy. It discards human beings without a second thought. It will never provide workers with the fulfillment that Americans have a right to expect from their careers. [And it is] propelled by uncontrollable greed and contempt for human decency.”Has Bernie Sanders really helped Joe Biden move further left?Read moreThe two-time presidential candidate makes his case with the usual horrifying numbers about the acceleration of inequality in America: 90% of our wealth is owned by one-tenth of 1% of the population; the wealth of 725 US billionaires increased 70% during the pandemic to more than $5tn; BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street now control assets of $20tn and are major shareholders in 96% of S&P 500 companies.Sanders recites these statistics with religious fervor, and poses fundamental questions for our time: “Do we believe in the Golden Rule? [or] do we accept … that gold rules – and that lying, cheating, and stealing are OK if you’re powerful enough to get away with it?”Bernie believes (and I strongly agree) that it’s long past the time when we should be paying at least as much attention to American oligarchs as we do to those surrounding Vladimir Putin. Our homegrown plutocrats “own” our democracy.“They spend tens of billions … on campaign contributions … to buy politicians who will do their bidding. They spend billions more on lobbying firms to influence governmental decisions” at every level. And “to a significant degree”, the oligarchs “own” the media. That is why our prominent pundits “rarely raise issues that will undermine the privileged positions of their employers” and “there is little public discussion about the power of corporate America and how oligarchs wield that power to benefit their interests at the expense of working families”.We were reminded this week of how this system works. Joe Biden released a budget with perfectly modest proposals for tax increases, like a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest Americans and a seven-percentage-point raise in the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would still leave it seven points lower than it was before Donald Trump gutted it with his gigantic tax giveaways.Instantly, experts owned and operated by the billionaires started spewing their familiar bilge, like these moving words from the Cato Institute: “Higher tax rates on the wages of a narrow segment of the United States’ most productive executives and business leaders will have strong disincentives against their continued work and other negative behavioral effects that translate into a less dynamic, slower growing economy.“Higher taxes on investment income target the financial rewards to successful entrepreneurs who undertake risks and persevere through failure to build high return businesses that provide welfare enhancing goods and services to people around the world.”Sanders quotes one of the most prescient Americans of the mid-20th century, from 1944: “As our industrial economy expanded [our] political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”The name of that dangerous revolutionary: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Several decades before that, Theodore Roosevelt similarly bemoaned the “absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting” which “has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power”.There is something extremely refreshing about an author who assumes it should be obvious that billionaires should not be allowed to exist – and has perfectly reasonable proposals about how they should be eliminated. At the height of the pandemic, Sanders proposed the Make Billionaires Pay Act, which would have imposed a 60% tax on all the wealth gained by 467 billionaires between 18 March 2020 and January 2021.“But why stop at one year?” he now asks. After all, the 1950s were economic boom times in America – and under a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, “the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was around 92%. America thrived. Unions were strong. Working-class Americans could afford to support themselves and buy homes on a single income.” And the richest 20% controlled a measly (by current standards) 42.8% of the wealth.Bernie Sanders: ‘Oligarchs run Russia. But guess what? They run the US as well’Read moreSanders’ 99.5 Percent Act would only touch the top 0.5% of Americans. “But the families of billionaires in America, who have a combined net worth of over $5tn, would owe up to $3tn in estate taxes.” He would accomplish this with a 45% tax rate on estates worth $3.5m and a 65% rate on those worth more than $1bn.There is much more here, including a convincing case for Medicare for All and an excoriation of a for-profit healthcare system which spends twice as much per citizen as France or Germany and still manages to leaves tens of millions of Americans un- or underinsured, all while nourishing an obscene pharmaceuticals business in which profits jumped by 90% in 2021.I first toured the castles of the Loire Valley as a teenager in the company of the family of my uncle, Jerry Kaiser, a 60s radical and a very early opponent of the war in Vietnam. As we absorbed the opulence of one chateau after another, Jerry had only one question: “What took them so long to have a revolution?”The noble purpose of Bernie Sander’s powerful new book is to get millions of Americans to ask that question of themselves – right now.
      It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism is published in the US by Crown
      TopicsBooksBernie SandersUS politicsDemocratsUS SenateUS CongressUS economyreviewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Shut your mouth’: Republican senator and Teamsters leader in fiery clash

      by

      01:22‘Shut your mouth’: Republican senator and Teamsters leader in fiery clashMarkwayne Mullin, a former MMA fighter, argues with union’s Sean O’Brien as Bernie Sanders seeks order in Senate hearingA Republican senator who once had to reassure voters he didn’t think he was “Rambo” and was a mixed martial arts fighter before entering politics got into a vocal brawl with a union boss during a public congressional hearing, saying: “You need to shut your mouth.”Mitch McConnell in hospital after fall in Washington DCRead moreMarkwayne Mullin of Oklahoma exchanged verbal fire with Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters, during a hearing staged on Wednesday by the Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee.The chair, the Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, was seeking support for his Protecting the Right to Organise Act. But Mullin made headlines of his own.The 45-year-old, who owns a plumbing business, said he was “not against unions …some of my very good friends work for unions. They work hard, and they do a good job.”But he said he did not like “intimidation” by union leaders trying to unionise businesses including his own.“I’m not afraid of a physical confrontation,” Mullin continued. “In fact, sometimes I look forward to it. That’s not my problem.”In late 2021, Mullin memorably said “I’m not Rambo”, in reference to a character played by Sylvester Stallone in a violent film series, amid controversy over an attempt to enter Afghanistan with a private security team. He also said he had not tried to be “a cowboy or anything like that”.Mullin is a state wrestling hall of fame member whose website says he is “a former Mixed Martial Arts fighter with a professional record of 5-0”.Addressing O’Brien, he said: “But when you’re [confronting] my employees? For what? Because we were paying higher wages? Because we had better benefits and we wasn’t requiring them to pay your guys’ exorbitant salaries?”The website of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters describes O’Brien, 51, as a fourth-generation teamster who started out in “the rigging industry as a heavy-equipment driver in the Greater Boston area”.Mullin asked O’Brien about his salary and accused him of forcing members to pay union dues.“You’re out of line,” O’Brien said.“Don’t tell me I’m out of line,” Mullin said. “You need to shut your mouth.”O’Brien mocked Mullin’s “tough guy” act.Sanders tried to gavel the two men to order, saying: “Senator, hold it, hold it.”O’Brien told Mullin: “I bet you I work more hours than you do. Twice as many hours.”Mullin said: “Sir, you don’t know what hard work is.”O’Brien said unions “create opportunity because we hold … greedy CEOs like yourself accountable”.Mullin said: “You calling me a greedy CEO?”O’Brien said: “Oh yeah, you are. You want to attack my salary, I’ll attack yours … What did you make when you owned your company?”Mullin said he made “about $50,000 a year because I invested every penny”.“OK, all right,” O’Brien said. “You mean you hid money?”Pointing at O’Brien, Mullin said: “Hold on a second.”“All right, we’re even,” said O’Brien, smiling. “We’re even.”Mullin said: “We’re not even. We’re not even close to being even. You think you’re smart? You think you’re funny?”“You think you’re funny,” O’Brien said. “You framed your opening statement saying you’re a tough guy.”Sanders said: “Senator, please continue your statement.”Mullin said: “I think it’s great you’re doing this because this shows their behavior and how they try to come in and organise a shop.”Sanders said: “They see your behavior here. Stay on the issue.”After the hearing, the spat continued on social media.TopicsUS unionsUS politicsUS SenateUS CongressBernie SandersRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Starbucks CEO to testify before Senate over opposition to stores unionizing

      by

      Starbucks CEO to testify before Senate over opposition to stores unionizingBernie Sanders had threatened to subpoena Howard Schultz if he refused to appear while workers file unfair labor practice chargesThe Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, has agreed to testify before a Senate committee investigating the company’s intense opposition to national efforts to unionize its stores.Senator Bernie Sanders had threatened to subpoena Schultz if he refused to appear before the US Senate health, education, labor and pensions (Help) committee. Sanders said Schultz had “refused to answer any of the serious questions we have asked” for over a year.Since late 2021, 290 Starbucks stores around the US have won union elections, but dozens of workers and the Starbucks Workers United union have filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over alleged retaliatory firings, discipline, unilateral changes, store closures, refusing to bargain with the union and intimidation against workers’ efforts to form unions.‘Old-school union busting’: how US corporations are quashing the new wave of organizingRead moreNine decisions by NLRB administrative law judges so far have found Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act, and 22 Starbucks workers have received judgments ordering their reinstatement. No Starbucks appeals have yet overturned any rulings.“I’m happy to announce that Howard Schultz, the CEO and founder of Starbucks, has finally agreed to testify before the Senate Help committee. The Help committee was scheduled to vote tomorrow to subpoena him and I want to thank the members of the committee who, in a bipartisan way, were prepared to do just that,” Sanders said in a statement. “In America, workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining to improve their wages and working conditions. Unfortunately Starbucks, under Mr Schultz’s leadership, has done everything possible to prevent that from happening.”Starbucks initially pushed back on efforts to compel Schultz to testify before the US Senate Help committee, offering other Starbucks executives in lieu of Schultz. Sanders criticized Starbucks’ response.Starbucks Workers United has called out Schultz on social media, using a #DearHoward hashtag to criticize how Starbucks has responded to unionization efforts and its impact on workers in anticipation of the Senate testimony.TopicsStarbucksUS unionsBernie SandersUS politicsUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Starbucks condemned for ‘intimidation’ of US union organizers

      by

      Starbucks condemned for ‘intimidation’ of US union organizersBernie Sanders moves to summon chief executive Howard Schultz to Senate committee to explain repeated anti-union violationsStarbucks is under fire over the company’s response to unionization efforts as senator Bernie Sanders threatens to call its chief executive before his committee on alleged labor violations and staff petition for it to end “intimidation” of organizers.Sanders, chairman of the Senate health, education, labor and pensions (Help) committee, announced on Wednesday that the committee will be voting on whether to issue a subpoena to compel the Starbucks chief, Howard Schultz, to testify about Starbuck’s federal labor law violations, and to authorize a committee investigation into labor-law violations committed by major corporations.‘Old-school union busting’: how US corporations are quashing the new wave of organizingRead more“For nearly a year, I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have repeatedly asked Mr Schultz to respect the constitutional right of workers at Starbucks to form a union and to stop violating federal labor laws,” Sanders said in a press release confirming the 8 March vote.“Mr Schultz has failed to respond to those requests. He has denied meeting and document requests, skirted congressional oversight attempts, and refused to answer any of the serious questions we have asked. Unfortunately, Mr Schultz has given us no choice but to subpoena him.”The move came after 44 employees at Starbucks headquarters in Seattle and 22 additional anonymous employees signed on to a petition calling on the company to reverse a return-to-office mandate and “to commit to a policy of neutrality and respect federal labor laws by agreeing to follow fair election principles, and allow store partners, whether pro- or anti-union, to decide for themselves, free from fear, coercion, and intimidation”.According to Starbucks Workers United, more than 200 Starbucks workers have been fired in retaliation for organizing. The National Labor Relations Board has alleged that Starbucks has fired over 60 union leaders across the country. Starbucks has aggressively opposed unionization efforts from the first stores to unionize in late 2021 in Buffalo, New York, to over 350 stores around the US that have held union elections. More than 280 stores have won union elections, though a first union contract has not been reached at any store so far.On Tuesday, administrative law judge Michael A Rosas issued a sweeping decision in Buffalo, ordering the reinstatement of seven fired Starbucks workers with back pay, and issuing a bargaining order for three Starbucks stores. The order requires 27 workers to be reimbursed for lost wages, for Schultz and the senior vice-president of operations, Denise Nelson, to read a notice or make a video for employees in Buffalo informing them of their rights, and for the company to post a national physical and electronic notice.“It’s what we, the workers, have been saying for more than a year now: that Starbucks, at every chance they get, bust the union and get us to be intimidated by it,” said Austin Locke, an employee for nearly six years in New York who was fired and recently won reinstatement after the city sued Starbucks under “just-cause” protections. “They’ve just been stonewalling us the whole time.”“The news of this win is single-handedly the most exciting thing that’s happened in this campaign thus far,” said Michael Sanabria, a barista from the Transit Commons location in Buffalo, New York, in a press release on the decision.“Having to reinstate all of these workers, reopen the first Starbucks location closed in the name of union-busting, and most importantly, post notices in every single store across the country for the duration of the Starbucks organizing campaign is such a massive win for us, and for the labor movement as a whole.“After waiting through months of Starbucks’ stalling tactics, this will reinvigorate and re-energize the momentum of this movement.”The Guardian has contacted Starbucks for comment.TopicsStarbucksBernie SandersUS politicsUS unionsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Has Bernie Sanders really helped Joe Biden move further left?

      by

      Has Bernie Sanders really helped Joe Biden move further left?The senator’s relationship with Biden has proven constructive, with an ambitious agenda – but some Sanders aides and supporters offer a mixed verdictThe band played On The Road Again. The New York studio audience chanted: “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!” Senator Bernie Sanders was making his 16th appearance on CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert – tying the record set by comedian John Oliver.Colbert confronted his guest with a card bearing a provocative headline, “Joe Biden Is Bernie Sanders”, from a Wall Street Journal column that argued the president will effectively be running for a re-election as a democratic socialist. The host asked Sanders: “Was this news to you?”What to expect from this year’s CPAC: Biden bashing, 2024 Republican primary chatter and lawsuit gossipRead moreWith a hearty laugh, Sanders, 81, recalled that, after the 2020 Democratic primary, his team and Biden’s had joined forces to produce an “agenda for working families”. They did not agree on everything but “put together probably the most progressive outline that any president has introduced since FDR” – a reference to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s.Nearly eight years have passed since Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, launched his first run for US president. The economic populist outsider rocked the establishment as he mounted a fierce challenge to frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Sanders lost but put issues such as class inequality, universal healthcare and the negative effects of globalisation in mainstream political discourse.Four years later, Sanders ran and lost again. But whereas the battle with Clinton had turned bitter, their mutual antipathy palpable, the relationship with Biden proved constructive. The president included progressive voices in his administration and, along with his chief of staff, Ron Klain, committed to keeping the door open to Sanders and his allies.The upshot has been an agenda more ambitious in scope and scale than many imagined and a Democratic president working more closely with progressives than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama did.But Sanders aides, alumni and supporters interviewed by the Guardian offered a mixed verdict, welcoming Biden’s faith in government to deliver – a repudiation of Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics – while expressing frustration over setbacks on healthcare, progressive taxation and other issues.Few disputed that Biden and Sanders share an authenticity and do not come over as polished, scripted or elitist. Faiz Shakir, chief political adviser to Sanders, recalls that during the 2020 campaign, many Sanders voters said Biden was their second choice and vice versa.“Biden has a kind of plainspeak about him,” he said. “That is also the style of Bernie Sanders, to relate with a working-class person, not to suggest that ‘I know more and I’m smarter than you’, which occasionally does happen from the people who have more advanced degrees, become schooled in technocratic talk and start using various abbreviations for government agencies.”After Biden won the nomination, the president and Sanders appointed six joint taskforces that came up with a 110-page policy document. Shakir described Biden’s team as “a pleasure to work with” and said he had “moved in a progressive direction both during the campaign and as president”.Now 80, Biden was long perceived as a centrist and moderate who would not challenge the status quo. He represented Delaware for 36 years in the US Senate and served as Barack Obama’s vice-president. He has made much of his belief in bipartisanship and still speaks warmly of Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, who has thwarted many liberal dreams.Yet with a gossamer-thin majority in Congress, Biden has also pulled off four big wins worth trillions of dollars: coronavirus relief, a sweeping infrastructure law, a massive boost to domestic production of computer chips and the biggest climate crisis law in history. He won further goodwill on the left by withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan to end America’s longest war. What happened?Shakir identifies two major influences. First, Sanders’ insurgent campaigns in 2016 and 2020 built a mass movement that attracted millions of people. “Biden was not clueless as to the need to make sure that if he was going to win, he needed all those people in his tent, and he’s been a good coalition builder in that regard.”Then there was an accident of history, an opportunity in crisis. “When Covid came along, it just affirmed that to the extent that we needed government solutions to address crises in America, they needed to be progressive. The politics changed in a big way such that people were needing and desiring and wanting government action. As a result he’s been able to pass a bunch of legislation that shows government is going to be a very strong actor on the scene in a way that it hasn’t been in decades.”Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an ally of Senator Elizabeth Warren, agrees. “The Covid crisis gave Joe Biden a permission structure to think bigger and a bit differently than he did his entire political career and made him more open to fully baked progressive solutions that had been worked on for years and were very fitting in the moment,” he said.“The idea of helping workers and helping businesses keep workers. The idea of helping parents take care of their kids. The various solutions that were passed in reaction to the crisis were not made up on the fly. They had been percolating for years among progressives and ended up setting the tone for Joe Biden’s entire presidency.”As the party has shifted left, Biden, an old-school pragmatist, was willing to shift with it. Last year he announced a plan for student loan forgiveness. He has pledged to take on corporate greed and malfeasance, stand with workers at Amazon and elsewhere and revive American manufacturing in left-behind communities.But it may be less a Damascene conversion than simply slipping into the comfort zone of a self-described “union man” who has been dubbed “blue-collar Joe” because of his humble roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania.Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “What was most interesting about Biden’s first two years were how many areas he departed from Obama. If you put yourself back into the Vice-President Biden years, you could almost hear Biden’s criticisms of Obama.“There’s no doubt that for Biden, where he comes from matters a lot. You can see the imprint of ‘I’m from Scranton’ on a lot of his policies. These may be some of the most progressive policies to encourage unions to protect workers that we’ve seen in decades and decades. It’s the kind of stuff that Obama just didn’t make a top priority.”Even so, Joe Biden is not Bernie Sanders. The president is an avowed capitalist; the senator is currently on tour promoting a book entitled It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who knows both of them, said: “They’re not the same. Just because someone has similar visions of a just and equitable society, we shouldn’t confuse two very different politicians. They’re different people. The society that Bernie wants is a society where everyone gets a living wage and has healthcare. The society that Joe Biden is fighting for is one where it’s equitable and no one is left behind.”There have undoubtedly been areas where a President Sanders would have gone further. He has long advocated Medicare for all – a single-payer, government-run healthcare programme that would cover all Americans but that Biden never embraced. Sanders’ wishlist also includes taxing Wall Street transactions more aggressively and using those funds to expand free public colleges and universities.But some of the failures have come at the hands of Congress rather than the White House. Sanders’ fight for a $15 an hour minimum wage fell in the Senate. His $6tn Build Back Better plan to tackle the childcare crisis, make community colleges tuition-fee, tax billionaires, address homelessness and expand vision, hearing and dental care for the elderly was backed by Biden but blocked by Republicans and the Democratic senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.Congress did pass legislation to invest nearly $400bn in climate and energy measures and make the biggestreforms to national healthcare policy since Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act. But Sanders told the Guardian it was “extremely modest” since it was a long way short of the Medicare for All and $16.3tn “Green New Deal” he campaigned on in 2020.Some on the left are disappointed by such compromises and want alternatives to Biden in 2024. Norman Solomon, national director or RootsAction.org and organiser of a “Don’t Run Joe” campaign, said: “Given the extreme crises that we face, from climate to income inequality to the fraying of the social fabric to the diminishment of actual healthcare in the post-Covid era, there are signs that Biden to a significant degree is throwing in the towel around Covid, around anything approximating moving towards healthcare inequality. Bernie’s trying to mitigate the slide.”The next two years could be an uphill battle for the Sanders agenda. Republicans control of the House of Representatives and are intent on paralysing the White House with multiple investigations. Klain, lauded for giving a sympathetic ear to the left, departed as chief of staff earlier this month and was succeeded by Jeff Zients, whose background as a wealthy corporate executive alarms progressives.Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families party, said: “Joe Biden’s choice of a chief of staff suggests that perhaps he might be listening even less to people like me.“That simplistic way the Wall Street Journal framed it doesn’t really tell the story of the real debate and contention that’s happening every single day inside the Democratic party and likely inside of that White House around what direction to take the country and to take to the Biden administration. The fact that it’s live means this is a White House that’s organisable but it could be organised in the direction of a Bernie Sanders or in the direction of a Joe Manchin.”TopicsBernie SandersJoe BidenDemocratsUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      It’s OK to be Angry About Capitalism by Bernie Sanders review – straight talking from the socialist senator

      by

      ReviewIt’s OK to be Angry About Capitalism by Bernie Sanders review – straight talking from the socialist senatorSanders tackles the grim facts about the economic order that the political establishment wilfully ignores“When we talk about uber-capitalism in its rawest form – about greed that knows no limit, about corporations that viciously oppose the right of workers to organize, about the abuses of wealth and power that tear apart our society – we’re talking about Amazon,” writes Bernie Sanders in his new book. “And when we’re talking about Amazon, we’re talking about Jeff Bezos.”These are typical lines in what comprises an attack on the status quo from every conceivable direction. Sanders addresses his own two ultimately thwarted campaigns to lead the Democratic party; the crisis in American healthcare and the chasms of health inequality shown up by Covid; the declining union movement and stagnation of wages; the burgeoning billionaire class and its impact on democracy; and the looming environmental crisis. Nothing he says will come as any surprise to his supporters, who are legion. Everything he says is quite unfashionable, from the macro – greed is bad, actually – to the micro, still using “uber” to mean “ultra”, as if Uber itself didn’t exist. He has no compunction about his reference points, which go from the obvious (F Scott Fitzgerald observing that thing about the rich) to the niche (a union organiser and folk singer named Florence Reece, who wrote a song in the 1930s called Which Side Are You On?). If his ideas were a band, they’d be the Ink Spots, with songs written a long, long time ago, and all the intros the same.These aren’t complex propositions. Of course it’s wrong to profit from other people’s illness; of course when access to healthcare is tied to work, that puts citizens in a state of semi-bonded servitude. Of course corporations are actively anti-social, of course they have driven down wages over 50 years and immiserated the workforce. Of course when three firms – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – control assets equivalent to the GDP of the entire United States, we’re into the rotting phase of late-stage capitalism.Sanders’ popularity and his immense value to the political ecosystem stems from his willingness to say all this out loud, defying the credo which has defined mainstream discourse since at least the Clinton era: that the class war is over, that capitalism is as inevitable as the weather, and that markets don’t need morals, because they have their own separate schematics, drawn by an invisible hand.In other words, his book is easily as frustrating and depressing as it is galvanising and uplifting; reading one story or statistic after another, about growing inequality, child poverty, financial insecurity – 77% of Americans are now anxious about their financial situation – one’s very lack of surprise reinforces a sense of hopelessness.Yet, particularly in the early chapters, which cover the intricacies of both Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 campaigns, and his (also often thwarted) work as the chairman of Congress’s Budget Committee since the election of Joe Biden, you cannot ignore the fact that the wind has changed. Precisely because Sanders is such a straightforward thinker and writer, he insists on some facts that the political establishment – on both sides – wilfully ignores. It is objectively better, more democratic, more plural, when a campaign is funded by grassroots donations than when a candidate has to go cap in hand to Peter Thiel. The Democrats do better in the polls when they allow in their left flank, rather than try to erase it in the name of electability. And at the level of the principle, to let the man himself take over, “wars and excessive military budgets are not good”; “carbon emissions are not good”; “racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia are not good”; “exploiting workers is not good”. This isn’t the book to come to for new ideas, in other words. But it’s a capitalist fallacy that everything has to be new, in any case.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTopicsBooksUS politicsBernie SandersDemocratsreviewsReuse this content More