This week marked a historical turning point on the United States’ decades old punishment of the tiny island country of Cuba.  This Wednesday, it was announced that President Obama had ordered full restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba, and plans to open an American embassy in Havana.  There are plans by the Obama Administration to lift travel restrictions, remittances, allow banking and the export of internet hardware to Cuba, and open up dialogue for more economic exchange and trade.  The embargo the U.S. has had on Cuba for the past 54 four years that began under President Eisenhower, still needs congressional action to be lifted entirely, but President Obama is reported to be using broad executive authority that will significantly weaken the current embargo.

The narrative told by mainstream American media, particularity the television news, begins, as American foreign policy propaganda often does, in the middle of the story, where the United States is of course the good guy, and generally offers no historical context.  In this case the narrative given in soundbites is “Communist revolutionary leader Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba in 1959, and relations with the United States deteriorated quickly, leading President Eisenhower to quickly enact an embargo. . . ” And then the Cuban missile crisis is mentioned, and opponents of renewing relations with Cuba, from politicians like Mark Rubio to Cuban dissidents, making claims of how Obama is caving into a dictator, etc.

The news doesn’t explain how the United States has spent considerable resources over the past twentieth century and spilled plenty of blood in it’s quest to dominate Latin America and control it’s natural resources.  The devastated countries of El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, and others, all have the footprints of U.S. imperialism.  Over the past century the United States has waged proxy wars throughout Latin America, arming and training terrorist groups who murdered and tortured vast populations.  President Ronald Reagan supported, illegally behind Congress’s back, the Contra terrorists (called “freedom fighters” by U.S. officials) in an effort to overthrow the popular democratically elected Sandinista government.  A U.S. backed coup under President George W. Bush tried unsuccessfully to overthrow President Hugo Chavez, another democratically elected President of Venezuela, because he had the audacity, much as the Iranians did in the 1950’s, to assert the authority of his country to take control over their own oil.  In short, the United States has a long history of supporting brutal dictators across the globe, so long as they serve Washington’s interests.

Until 1898, Cuba was a colony of Spain, before control was taken over by the United States.  Up through 1958, there were oustings and coups of leaders in Cuba, military interventions by the United States, and dictators supported by the United States.  When Castro seized power, he quickly moved to bar U.S. control over Cuba, nationalizing American corporations that ultimately led to the U.S. embargo, and the five plus decades since.  In the 1960s. President Kennedy resided over a failed U.S. sponsored  invasion known as the “Bay of Pigs.”  After that, Kennedy and subsequent U.S. Presidents and the C.I.A. waged a vicious war of terrorism, sabotage. and assassination plots against Fidel Castro and Cuba, and even considered faking terrorists attack against the U.S. to blame on Cuba, such as blowing up a U.S. ship launched from Guatemala and blaming it on Cuba, as a pretext for a full military invasion.  Hundreds of Cuban civilians were killed in U.S. sponsored covert terrorist attacks against various Cuban targets.   Yet in the official U.S. narrative that completely ignores documented facts and history as if they do not exist, has kept Cuba on it’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.  One has to wonder if the U.S. official who came up with that label for Cuba had a good and hearty laugh at the absurdity of the terrorist state, labeling it’s victim a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

As belligerent politicians like Senator Mark Rubio and others proclaim their love of freedom and longing for freedom for the Cuban people from what they call a brutal dictator, and accuse Obama of bowing to a dictator and sending a sign of weakness to brutal dictators world wide, the press seldom interjects any questioning of their statements or challenges to their assumptions, or fills any facts or historical context.  It goes unmentioned that the U.S. considers many current world dictators its allies, and has a robust history of supporting and arming some some of post World War II’s most brutal dictators, from Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein of Iraq.  So it is no surprise that many Americans have only a vague idea of what this latest turn in history regarding Cuba is about.  Instead, they are made aware that there is a debate between U.S. leaders who think we can help bring freedom to Cuba through normalized relations, and leaders who claim that they love freedom too much to ever normalize relations with Cuba so long as a Castro is in power.

It is long past due, the move to normalize relations with Cuba.  The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union fell, China is our biggest trading partner and still a communist country.  Cuba’s real crime was being 90 miles too close in the same Northern Hemisphere as the United States, and choosing to run its own affairs instead of taking orders from a U.S. puppet dictator.  Their close proximity has inspired a much greater wrath and longer period of revenge than usual, and ending this long stalemate it is the right thing to do morally and economically.  The Pope certainly thought so, and he deserves credit as well for nudging Obama and Raul Castro to come to the negotiating table.

 

 

In one of the most stunning capitulations to date, President Obama has pressured enough spineless Democrats to support Republicans in ramming through a spending bill that contains, among many harmful plans, a special provision that undoes one of the most important regulations enacted by the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law that was enacted as a response to the Great Recession, to prevent future banking crises and bailouts.

Threatened with another government shutdown tonight at midnight, 57 House Democrats voted against the majority of House Democrats and their leader, Nancy Pelosi, to essentially give back to big banks, the right to gamble F.D.I.C. insured deposits in the risky derivatives market.  What is shocking about this giveaway to a small handful of “too big to fail banks” on Wall Street – the perpetrators of the financial crisis of 2008 that caused the Great Recession and nearly led to the collapse of the global financial markets – is not that the provision was written by Citigroup lobbyists, which it was, but that it was aggressively lobbied for by the Obama Administration, who made rounds of high level phone calls from Obama’s Chief of Staff and others, to House Democrats, pressuring them to accept the spending bill as a “compromise.”

Just a refresher:  the Dodd-Frank financial regulations act was enacted after Obama took office, for the purpose of preventing large banks from recklessly investing tax payer insured deposits into the investment side of the banks’ high risk ventures – derivatives in particular.  It was the bundling of high risk real estate loans that were falsely sold in the derivatives market as secure, collateral backed loans, that led to the near collapse of the financial markets.  The government bailed out the big banks to the historical tune of almost 700 billion under threat of another Great Depression.  After the original Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was enacted to make banks more secure.  One of it’s key features was to keep the deposits made by ordinary citizens from being gambled away by high risk investments of the banks.  Ordinary deposits were guaranteed by the Federal government, a firewall against bank runs in bad economies.  The major push by big banks for deregulation began under Ronald Reagan, but arguably the most damaging deregulation was enacted under President BIll Clinton, who undid the Glass-Steagall rule separating the commercial side of banking from the investment banking side.  The derivatives market, a new form of investment invented by the banks, boomed, with very little oversight or regulation.  Since then, there have been predictable bubbles, leading to crashes, that the federal government has had to step in and bail out, to keep the financial markets functioning, and the economy from collapsing.

Republicans fought tooth and nail against President Obama and Dodd-Frank.  The bill was finally approved, but not before much of the law’s teeth and regulatory powers were gutted from it  Now, President Obama and his administration have joined pro-Wall Street, screw-everyone-else on Main Street Republicans, in undoing the meaningful and necessary provision in Dodd-Frank to prevent federal government insured gambling by derivatives and hedge fund managers at the big banks.

Perhaps this should come as no surprise, given that President Obama received more campaign money from Wall Street than John McCain did.  Perhaps, given the enormous amount of money donated to him by the big banks to help elect him president, it is no coincidence that President Obama immediately filled his cabinet with Wall Street insiders such as Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, among others.

Through all of this, President Obama has been able to talk out of both sides of his mouth at once.  He tells voters that he is changing the rules of Wall Street to prevent future financial disasters, and at the same time he is actually lobbying members of his own party to vote to dismantle those very rules.  On top of that, President Obama, and his apparent, impotent lap dog, Senator Harry Reid, are saying publicly that they are not happy with that provision in this current spending bill, but that it is a compromise that will be even less attractive when Republicans take control of the Senate as well in January.

This pathetic excuse for actually pushing reluctant Democrats into supporting this debacle of a spending bill, fails to take into account the fact that Speaker John Boehner lacked enough Republican votes in the House to pass without significant support from House Democrats.  Tea Party factions and other Republican obstructionists in the House were voting no on the spending bill for different reasons, primarily because they wanted to defund the Department of Homeland Security in retaliation for the president’s recent executive actions of immigration.  So the Republicans actually needed Democratic support of the spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, and once again, boom! President Obama and Harry Reid rolled over for Republicans, although this time it remains unclear if Obama sincerely regrets the rollback of the banking rules, or if that is just lip service.

Obama has always been a weak an ineffective “negotiator” when it comes to budget showdowns, willing to undermine his own party and betray his campaign trail promises.  Just recently though, it appeared with his executive action on immigration, that President Obama was going to spend his last two years in office fighting for his declared principles and exhibiting backbone against Republican obstructionism.  What a disappointing and short lived fantasy that turned out to be.

In addition to the “compromise” in the spending bill on banking regulation that the President is leading his party to support, are other provisions meant to undermine existing laws, such as a provision to allow even bigger individual donations to politicians running for office (though thanks to the Supreme Court, it is unclear how much this will matter anyways), and prohibiting the Environment Protection Agency from regulating lead content in fishing tackle and ammunition, not to mention cuts in the budget to the already underfunded agency.  For a more extensive list of the giveaways to republicans and special big money interests, see the New York Times list:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/us/key-points-from-the-spending-bill.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news.

There are good Democrats fighting the Wall Street sponsored Republicans and President Obama.  Nancy Pelosi has had the backbone to stand against the White House, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, a bold and tireless crusader against the injustice and power of the financial industry, rightfully opened her statements on the Senate floor with the question: “Who does congress work for?”  Sadly, President Obama, most of the Republicans, and enough Democrats work for the billionaires and millionaires and giant corporations.  I offer this video of her, to show you how a real politician stands up for the majority of Americans, when the majority of Congress and the President, do the bidding of the Big Banks:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/10/elizabeth-warren-fellow-liberals-rail-against-bank-provision-in-spending-bill/

 

Behind the widely broadcast dramatic images and videos of riots and nationwide protests against recent police killings of unarmed black men, lies a greatly underreported movement of low wage workers that yesterday set a new record of protests and strikes in over 190 cities across the country in what the New York Times called ” the largest labor protests in the nation in years.”

Yesterday, fast food workers carried out  another round of one day strikes in an organized movement to raise the national minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, this time joined by other low wage workers from retail stores and gas stations, as well as home health-care workers who joined in on the protests in September.  The movement of low wage workers seeking a raise began two years ago with walkouts from restaurant employees in New York City, and has since grown into an organized national movement, supported in part by the Service Employees International Union. Similar strikes have been mounted against Walmart over the years, and against other retail stores, particularly during the holiday season which has seen a push of Black Friday into the day of Thanksgiving.

The significance of these protests, and the impact they are having on the national debate, and policy, has been important and measurable.  A mis-reading of the recent Midterm election results has conservatives boasting of America’s rejection of “liberal” policy ideas from the Obama Administration and Democrats.  Their optimistic interpretation of the election results leaves out two glaring facts that cannot be ignored: Republicans won control of the Senate and gained House seats with the lowest voter turnout in a Midterm since 1942, and (2) even more important, voters in very red states and Republican leaning states, such as Arkansas and Alaska, voted yes on  ballot initiatives to raise their state’s minimum wage.  The ballot initiatives were necessary, because ironically, the Republican lawmakers that these voters support, have been vocal opponents of raising the minimum wage, and have of course, towed the conservative party line of always rejecting an increase in the federal minimum wage whenever it is pursued.

It would be a stretch to suggest that these ballot initiatives in red states, as well as recent legislative action by local lawmakers in the cities of Seattle and San Francisco to raise their minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, would have occurred without the pressure coming from this new labor movement.  At the federal level, the Democrats have pitifully fought (unsuccessfully of course) to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour – a much lower goal than that of what is now called the “Fight for 15.”

Other industrial, wealthy nations comparable to the United States have a “livable wage” instead of a minimum wage.  These other nations also have universal healthcare for their citizens, greater pay, more worker’s rights, more holiday and vacation time, more affordable or near free college education, and a stronger social welfare infrastructure all around.  In the U.S., such ideas are routinely demonized as “socialism.”  And the more moderate of the two corporate sponsored political parties that dominate American politics, the Democrats, have failed to make an effective case to the voters and failed to enact better policies for the people when they are in power and have the chance.

All the major rights that Americans too often take for granted, such as child labor protection, women’s right to vote, and civil rights for minorities, have been won through the willingness of the people to stand together and fight the entrenched power systems of the elite and uber wealthy minority.  With our broken political system damaged even further through the irresponsible ruling of the Supreme Court that undermined what was left of our inadequate campaign finance laws, it is no wonder that the majority of our citizens have lost interest in showing up on election days to exercise our “freedom” of selecting our own government.  Most voters recognize that candidates on the ballot box more often than not, represent a “choice” that the all powerful corporations have allowed as sponsored options.

When fast food workers first started demanding a raise to 15 an hour with the option of unionizing, the industry executives, their P.R. wing, and the political propaganda machine of the extremely rich and privileged, balked and portrayed it with the usual disdain and pack of lies about how it would hurt the “job creators,” small businesses, and the economy.  They also immediately dismissed the idea of 15 an hour as grossly over ambitious and unrealistic.  The wet mop excuse of the people’s party, the Democrats, meagerly and with apprehension pursued the poverty wage increase to $10.10 an hour.  Some Democrats (in name only) in red states, openly rejected the call for raising the minimum wage.  It makes you wonder if some of the bigger cowards in the Donkey tent who lost their Midterms after campaigning on how much they had in common with Republicans, are scratching their heads and wondering how over 70 percent of voters in red states approved a ballot measure of raising their state’s minimum wage.  It also makes you wonder how frightened the multi-million dollar executives from America’s largest employers of poverty wages such as McDonald’s and Walmart are now becoming.

The poverty wage, billion dollar corporations are so far still sticking to their script of misinformation and lies.  In an article yesterday (December 4) in the New York Times titled “Strong Voice in ‘Fight for 15; Fast-Food Wage Campaign,” quotes Brad Jones, a spokesperson for a business trade group in Missouri, as warning :  “They’re not looking at your independent pizza guy, your deli on the corner, your little bar and grill,” and “If these folks have to increase their wages by $5 an hour, it’s really going to be detrimental to them.”  Mr. Jones reportedly also warned that restaurants wouldn’t be able to hire as many young workers at entry level jobs if 15 an hour became law.

Yes, the P.R. spokespersons for the large, billion dollar corporations are still pretending to care about “small business owners” on the corner, even as their giant chains such as Walmart continue their takeover and economic destruction of independent businesses of small towns across America.  And they still prop up the myth of the young “entry level” worker who would be harmed if the greedy workers who depend on their slave wage jobs as their source of income get their way.  They even warn of the dire consequences of the rising costs for consumers that would accompany a move into a living wage instead of a minimum wage.

What they don’t tell you and don’t want you know, is that their enormous profits, enormous share of the market, and millions of workers who work for them trying to earn an honest living, are in reality subsidized by the taxpayers. A large number of food stamp recipients and other “welfare” dependents are their employees who cannot make ends meet and live on the wages they are paid.  Apparently, this simple concept has yet to reach the more hostile-towards-the-poor Tea Party voting block of the Republican party.  Far too many low and middle income people in this country still blame poverty on the laziness of the poor, still portrayed as “welfare queens” gaming the system.  Far too many  Americans are clipping their coupons to spend at Walmart and complaining of having to pay taxes to support those “who don’t wanna work,” not realizing that the cashier ringing up their purchase is often times the beneficiary of their tax payer funded food stamps.

I salute the bravery of the underpaid and poor in this country who are risking their job by going on strike and protesting their government subsidized, profitable, billion dollar corporate slave masters.

It’s bad enough that the fast food industry is pedaling unhealthy food choices that are partly behind the nation’s costly rise in obesity and diabetes; and  its bad enough that retail giants such as Walmart have forced American middle class-paying manufacturing jobs overseas by squeezing the sweat shops in Bangladesh to abuse their workers ever further for a chance to sell their clothing to the American markets.  What is worse than bad is that enough Americans are still voting against their own best interests and supporting corporate sponsored politicians who are custom designing our Third World economy in the world’s wealthiest nation.

The silver lining in all of this is that the workers are finally realizing that the only way things get better for the average person in our country is through a popular struggle and uprising, a fight that is long and hard and in the end usually only yields most of what was sought, always a day late and a dollar or two short.  And then, even as these victories are won, the “owners” of the country, the smallest minority who own the vast majority of the wealth and capital and control the government, continue with a sustained and determined effort to roll back hard fought progress.

Please, support the low wage workers of this country and their struggle for a livable wage and fair working conditions.  Let’s also hold accountable the corrupted and bought politicians, and share on social media, at the dinner table, the water cooler and the local watering hole, your belief that America deserves better than an economy which funnels the vast share of the pie to the top one percent, leaving millions of hard working people working for them while not earning enough money to afford housing and food.