<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>EXCELLENT ANALYSIS AND WELL DOCUMENTED ARTICLE
ABOUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION,THE DEMOCRATS, AND THE NATIONAL SO CALLED "
LEADERSHIP " OF LABOR AND CIVIL RIGHTS
ORGANIZATIONS.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=intexile@iww.org href="mailto:intexile@iww.org">intexile@iww.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, October 09, 2010 1:38 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [ Obama, the Tea Party & Why We Need a Labor Party
(from /Socialist Organizer/)</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV><SPAN
style="DISPLAY: none"> </SPAN> <!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~-->
<DIV id=ygrp-mlmsg style="POSITION: relative">
<DIV id=ygrp-msg style="Z-INDEX: 1"><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~-->
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; COLOR: black">THE ORGANIZER
NEWSPAPER</SPAN><O></O></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; COLOR: black">P.O. Box 40009,
San Francisco, CA 94140<BR>Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415)
626-1217</SPAN><O></O></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; COLOR: black">email: <A
href="mailto:theorganizer@earthlink.net">theorganizer@earthlink.net</A></SPAN><O></O></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; COLOR: black">website: <A
href="http://www.socialistorganizer.org">www.socialistorganizer.org</A></SPAN><O></O></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13.5pt; COLOR: black">PLEASE EXCUSE
DUPLICATE POSTINGS</SPAN><O></O></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><O></O></SPAN></P>
<P>(I am not uncritically supportive of /Socialist Organizer/ as they don't seem
to give the IWW as much credit as they could and I am not uncritical of the
creation of a Labor Party either--especially given the fact that the "Winner
Take All" electoral system that dominates most of the US makes the winning of
elections by third party candidates very difficult, but this is a thoroughly
excellent analysis of what is currently wrong with the Democratic Party and why
Obama is not only NOT a socialist, but he makes /Ronald Reagan/ look like a
liberal!)<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>THE ORGANIZER NEWSPAPER<O></O></P>
<P>P.O. Box 40009, San Francisco, CA 94140 Tel. (415) 641-8616; fax: (415)
626-1217<O></O></P>
<P>email: theorganizer@earthlink.net<O></O></P>
<P>website: <A href="http://www.socialistorganizer.org"
target=_blank>www.socialistorganizer.org</A><O></O></P>
<P>PLEASE EXCUSE DUPLICATE POSTINGS<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P>(September-October 2010 Issue)<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Obama, the Tea Party & Why We Need a Labor
Party</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Addressing the Ohio AFL-CIO convention on September 13, AFL-CIO President
Richard Trumka called on union members to mobilize and rally behind "economic
patriots" in a "knock-down, drag-out" fight against the "false populism and name
calling" that Tea Party and Republican leaders like House Minority Leader John
Boehner (R-Ohio) are employing in this fall's elections.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Trumka lambasted the U.S. corporations that sit on more than $800 billion
without creating jobs, when banks hoard more than $1 trillion in profits without
lending to small businesses and consumers, and when health insurance
companies with tens of billions in profits demand huge premium
increases.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"We know what Rep. Boehner will do if he gets the speaker's job," Trumka
stated, "because he's told us! He'll privatize Social Security, protect the
corporations that send our jobs overseas, slash taxes for the super-rich. There
will be no jobs legislation. No retirement security. No health care."<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Trumka urged support for Democrats in the battle-ground state of Ohio and
insisted that if Republicans win back the Congress in November, it will mean
"one ugly future for America!"<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"There are races all over this country that we can win, that we're going to
win if we do what we know how to do," Trumka concluded. "It won't be easy. We
know the anti-worker politicians, and the corporations, and the ideologues don't
want the union vote. They want us to stay home, frustrated and angry at
Washington. But that's not going to happen. Not on our watch!"<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Clearly, working people across the country have every reason to fear the
rapid growth of the right-wing and Tea Party movements. But the $64,000 question
that the unions should be asking -- but are not asking -- is the following: Is
it possible to defeat the right wing by supporting Democratic Party politicians
whose policies are not only demoralizing the workers and oppressed peoples who
voted with such great hopes for Obama, but in fact are paving the way for the
very development of this right-wing populist movement?<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Who Is Responsible for the Deteriorating Economy?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Though many of the problems preceded his inauguration and are due to economic
policies supported by both major political parties, everyone knows that the
situation facing working people in the United States has only gotten worse since
the historic November 4, 2008, election that brought Barack Obama to the White
House and gave the Democrats a super-majority in the Congress.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Many opinion polls and media analysts are predicting that the Republicans
will take back control of the House and Senate by a very slim margin in the
upcoming mid-term elections.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>These predictions are based not so much on a large increase in votes for the
Republican Party -- which is facing its deepest political crisis in decades,
including a split in its own ranks that has witnessed the launching of the Tea
Party; they are due to the fact that a massive abstention of the Democratic
Party base that voted for Obama in 2008 is expected.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Indeed, polls show a growing disillusionment by the American people with both
major political parties: The Democrats in Congress have only a 33 percent
approval rate, while the Republicans' rate is even lower: 24%.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>In his Columbus, Ohio, speech Trumka pointed his finger at the anti-worker
candidates and policies of the Republican Party. True enough. But over the past
two years that the Democrats have been in charge, they have pursued basically
the same corporate policies as George W. Bush. Working people know this --
having experienced the brunt of these attacks directly -- which is why growing
numbers will stay home come election time in November.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Why Obama's Reversal in the Opinion Polls</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The large reversal in support for Obama and the Democrats in the opinion
polls cannot be understood without examining the deep economic crisis ravaging
the country.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The official unemployment rate is 9.6 percent. Close to 200,000 jobs were
lost in the month of July 2010 alone. Close to 9 million jobs have been lost
officially since the beginning of the Great Recession two and a half years ago.
The real unemployment rate is much higher: 15 million. An estimated 6.6 million
people have been unemployed for more than nine months, which means they are not
included among the officially unemployed. In addition, close to 9 million
workers are "heavily underemployed" -- that is, they work part time with less
than 20 hours of work per week, mostly in low-paying precarious jobs. This is
why the AFL-CIO places the official unemployment level above 20 million and the
official number of workers in need of a full-time job at 27 million.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The<EM> San Francisco Chronicle</EM>, in an August 15 article on Nancy
Pelosi, highlighted the impact of the sagging economy on the mid-term elections:
"With eerie accuracy, political forecasting models can predict elections based
on one factor: the economy. On that issue, the news keeps getting worse for
Democrats. The economy is in a serious stall, with unemployment stuck at 9.6
percent and economic indicators turning south almost across the board."
(Ibid.)<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>This is, without a doubt, the main issue that has the Democrats reeling, as
they are the party in office and are therefore seen as responsible for the
current situation. Obama's big stimulus plan bailed out Wall Street and the
banks to the tune of close to $3 trillion (combining the Federal Reserve credit
lines and the direct government bailouts). But this was not a jobs-creation
plan.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>One of Obama's so-called landmark feats, according to the Democrats, was his
fiscal stimulus program and rescue of the financial system. The truth is that
this plan has been a disaster for working people. The banks were bailed out but
they haven't invested any of their billions in the productive economy and job
creation. They have not jump-started the economy as Obama had predicted would
happen.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The<EM> Wall Street Journal</EM> on August 14 noted that the banks are in
fact sitting on $1.8 trillion of government bailout funds and have simply gotten
back to "investing" these funds in derivatives, hedge funds, off-shore currency
trading and other speculative ventures. That is, they have gone back to the very
financial practices that triggered the recent financial meltdown.<O></O></P>
<P>Alan Greenspan is quoted in the same<EM> Wall Street Journal</EM> article as
stating that the economy is spinning into a "double-dip recession" that could
fast become a major economic depression.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The Democrats are quick to blame George W. Bush and the Republicans for
passing this recession onto them. But the Democrats, with their super-majority
in the Congress, did nothing different from what Bush had done. Bush began the
bank bailouts in September-November 2008, before he left office, with the full
support of the Democratic majority. (Obama and Nancy Pelosi, in fact, joined
with Bush and the Republicans in overturning the first bailout rejection by the
Congress on September 30, 2008.) And the Democrats continued the Wall Street
bailouts.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>The Federal Deficit and Obama's Response</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The federal stimulus program has produced a huge federal deficit. The
gigantic sums needed to bail out the banks, instead of working people, have to
come from somewhere -- and that somewhere is the hides of the workers
themselves.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>One of the main rallying slogans of the right-wing Tea Party movement has
been the call to fight Obama's huge federal deficit, which they say, will have
to be shouldered by taxpayers and passed on as a debt to their children and
grandchildren.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>As always with these right-wing populists, there is more than a grain of
truth to what they are saying -- though in their mouths it is nothing but pure
demagogy. It's part of a scare tactic aimed at turning the American people away
from any "Big Government" expenditures such as public schools, public hospitals,
public transportation, welfare, health care for the poor, Medicare, you name it.
Everything, of course, but the biggest Big Government expenditure of them all --
that is, the government's military budget, now annually at over $700
billion.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The Tea Party movement carefully ignores the fact that Bush was one of the
presidents who increased the federal debt to levels unknown in the recent past
-- mainly because of the skyrocketing military expenses. They also conveniently
ignore the fact that the bank bailouts, begun under Bush and the Republicans,
were supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans, including by Sarah
Palin and her Tea Party partners.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The response to this deficit/debt crisis by the U.S. ruling class has been to
create a Federal Deficit Reduction Committee. Obama, as part of his
trademark pattern of governing "across the aisle" with the Republicans, called
upon Republican Senator Alan Simpson from Wyoming, a strong opponent of public
services and public enterprises, to co-chair this bipartisan
committee.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Not surprisingly, the committee has met and decided that it will be necessary
to "reform" the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid systems in the United
States to address the "growing financial viability" of these systems.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>By "reform," the Obama-appointed committee means increasing the minimum
retirement age of Americans and gutting the Medicare and Medicaid programs --
with larger co-payments and fewer payments and benefits.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>True, Obama has called for saving Social Security in response to the
Republicans and the Tea Party spokespersons. True, Obama says he is against the
drive by the Republicans to "privatize" Social Security. But Obama's "reforms"
are moving Social Security down the gradual path of privatization. The real fear
is that Obama will do what Bush could not do -- that is, weaken Social Security
in spite of what the people want.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Obama's call to defend Social Security sounds hollow in the ears of working
people, who have seen Alan Simpson in action and who know that Obama is just the
soft cop in the corporate game to undo Social Security. Working people are angry
and want to see their retirement and their Medicare plans preserved. "Hands Off
Our Social Security!" is a demand that has resonated loudly
nationwide.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Obama is being attacked from all sides as he goes after Social Security and
Medicare. The Republicans and Tea Party activists are attacking him
relentlessly, accusing him of being a "socialist" who wants to nationalize every
industry in the country and who is sticking to his Big Government agenda.
Nothing could be further from the truth.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>It seems that no matter how far Obama moves to the right under the pressure
from the Republicans and the Tea Party, he will never placate the country's
right wing. They want to wring his neck, and they want it badly ... precisely
because he was elected with a huge mandate for implement real, progressive
change. For the Tea Party proto-fascists, the conditions under which Obama was
elected are unacceptable and have to be reversed.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>What About Obama's Tax Policies?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>In his speech in Columbus, Trumka railed at the Republicans for opposing any
taxation policies that would favor working people. He is not wrong. But what
about the Democrats?<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>For months now, the AFL-CIO leadership has pointed out that the best way to
reduce the federal deficit is to create a massive public works program to put 15
million people back to work and to get the productive economy back up and
running, thereby generating a strong tax base once again. This is absolutely
correct. The labor federation has also called upon Obama to increase the taxes
on the super-rich by, at the very least, returning to the tax rates of the early
1990s.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>But Obama has rejected this course. On the tax front, he is refusing to
extend the Bush-era tax cuts to the super-wealthy, but he is in favor of major
corporate tax cuts in the name of spurring the economic recovery. He is also
resisting all calls to increase the taxes on those Americans making over
$250,000 per year.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Obama refuses to tax the rich, bending to the corporations, to the corporate
press and to Tea Party movement, all of whom insist that taxing the rich is
un-American and would kill any possible economic recovery. But working people
across this country are not rubes; they know that tax cuts for the wealthy and
trickle down economic policies haven't worked and will never work.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Is Obama Really Delivering Health Care to Working
People?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Many of the "liberal" sectors of the mainstream media such as the<EM> New
York Times</EM> have lauded many of Obama's -- and Nancy Pelosi's --
achievements. At the top of this list, in addition to the fiscal stimulus plan
and the Financial Stability Bill, is the Obama health-care reform
plan.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Little by little, the harsh realities of this Obama plan are beginning to
emerge in the media. [See sidebar article.]<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Liberals can point to the fact that many of the poorest sectors of society,
mainly Black and Latinos, will now get health care. This is not insignificant.
But who is paying the cost of this expansion of health-care coverage to the
estimated 12 million low-income people? It's not the private insurance
companies. It's not the super-rich, whose tax rates have been lowered
drastically over the past 30 years. It's not the Wall Street tycoons. No. It's
the working-class majority that is being asked to pay ... so that the pockets of
the insurance companies can be lined even further.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The tragic outcome of this new law is that it pits predominantly white
working-class Americans against the mainly Black and Latino recipients of the
health-care plan, thus dividing the working class and preventing a united
fightback for universal health-care rights.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Taking these insurance companies out of the health-care equation would have
permitted the financing of a Medicare for All, single-payer health-care system
that would not have pitted the "middle class" against the lowest strata in
society. It would have created solidarity among working people and provided free
health-care on demand. But this would have required breaking with a private
industry that is one of the major funders of both the Democratic and Republican
parties.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>In this sense, it is instructive to look at the results of the July 2010
referendum that was placed on the Missouri ballot by the Tea Party movement. In
this referendum 70% of the state's voters, in a vote marked by an unusually high
turnout, rejected the Obama health-care plan that would force them to buy health
care or else pay a major fine to the government.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Clearly, with an economy still in shambles, with an extremely high Missouri
unemployment rate (officially 13%, much higher than the national average --
because of the transfer of much of the state's industrial base to Mexico or
China), and with high home foreclosure and eviction rates, the state's voters
felt that they should not be forced by the government to pay out of pocket for
what would likely be inadequate health-care coverage to begin with. They had a
higher priority: sheer survival.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>As a result of the failure by the Obama administration to adopt a
single-payer system, or even a public option, the working-class majority was
easy prey for the right-wing Tea Party movement, which demagogically sought to
capitalize on the voters' anger over a government-imposed individual mandate to
buy health-care from a private insurance company. Working people simply did not
have the money to do this. In addition, the voters understood that they would
get insufficient coverage and high premiums, along with higher co-pays, any time
they needed to visit a doctor or buy medicine.<O></O></P>
<P>The Democratic Party liberals immediately decried the so-called "right-wing
turn of the Missouri voters," refusing to acknowledge their own responsibility
in creating the situation that pushed the "middle class" voters in the state to
reject Obama's plan. By refusing to break with the private health-care insurance
companies, by refusing to enact a program that would provide all citizens of the
country with free health care on demand (single-payer) -- a program that had the
support of the large majority of the population -- Obama, Pelosi and the
Democrats had paved the way for their own demise.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>And Missouri is just one of 18 states where the Tea Party has placed a
similar referendum on the ballot.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>What About Obama's Promise to Pass EFCA?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Another failed promise by Obama that has given the Republicans and the Tea
Party movement a campaign to mobilize around involves the Employee Free Choice
Act (EFCA).<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>For months, the trade-union leadership campaigned energetically for Obama
because of his promise to enact EFCA -- an act that would give the trade unions
far greater freedom to organize new members. In the United States, the trade
unions have the right to organize a union of their choice only on paper. In
reality, because of the way the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been
gradually undermined over many decades, it is almost impossible for workers to
organize into a union of their choice. Bosses can fire workers in union
organizing drives almost at will.<O></O></P>
<P>Obama promised to level the playing field so that unions could finally have
the right to organize. Union members who mobilized for his election across the
country expected that Obama's very first action as president would be to
introduce and campaign for EFCA.<O></O></P>
<P>This didn't happen. A few months into office, Obama's top economic adviser,
Larry Summers, announced that enacting EFCA would be a major obstacle to
economic recovery. Soon other Obama administration officials joined the chorus
of anti-EFCA right-wingers.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Then came a major blow to EFCA from within the trade union movement. Andy
Stern, then president of SEIU, announced that EFCA had to be altered if there
was to be any chance of getting it adopted. He said that the main provision in
EFCA -- in fact, its very heart and soul -- had to be gutted. Stern was
referring to the "card check" provision in EFCA that would allow a majority of
workers who sign a card requesting to join a union to thereby have the right to
organize and have a first collective-bargaining agreement.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Soon after, the AFL-CIO followed suit, announcing that it would favor passage
of an EFCA without card check -- a reversal of its previous
positions.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Before long, the mainstream press pronounced that EFCA was dead, and that
even a heavily emasculated EFCA as proposed by Andy Stern would not likely see
the light of day.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>What is surprising in this mid-term election is that few, if any, Democrats
running for office even mention passage of EFCA. They know that Obama, as the
true spokesperson of corporate America, is not about to deliver EFCA -- so why
make promises that are likely to ring false to the electorate?<O></O></P>
<P>But this isn't all. The failure to enact EFCA has created a void that the Tea
Party activists are seeking to capitalize on. In 12 states nationwide, Tea Party
members have placed on the November 2010 state ballots referenda that would ban
card-check provisions where they exist and render it even more difficult to
organize new members into unions.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The old axiom holds true: Politics abhors a vacuum. In the face of non-action
for working people, the moneyed, corporate right will fill the void.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Resistance Widespread Throughout the Labor
Movement</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The will to resist the corporate onslaught and to preserve the trade unions
as fighting and independent instruments against the bosses has been expressed
throughout the 20 months of the Obama administration.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>It is not the lack of willingness to fight back by labor's ranks that
explains the current dismal situation facing working people. The problem is the
union leadership's subordination to the Democratic Party. The problem is the
officialdom's continued refusal to break with the Democrats and organize the
fightback against their pro-corporate policies.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The creation of the Labor Campaign for Single Payer Health Care only six
weeks after the election of Obama was the first expression of this will to
utilize the unions as instruments of struggle. More than 150 trade union leaders
and activists gathered in St. Louis and launched a campaign that ultimately
resulted, after a protracted nine-month struggle, in an historic vote by the
AFL-CIO national convention in September 2009 to support single-payer -- though
the labor officialdom would later turn their backs on this convention
mandate.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Other signs of resistance include the following:<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>- The return of UNITE HERE to the AFL-CIO and the various militant,
grassroots organizing and contract campaigns by the union's hotel workers'
division in particular;<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>- The August 28, 2010, Jobs, Peace and Justice rally of 5,000 people in
Detroit, co-sponsored by the UAW and Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH. One of the
main demands of the demonstration was the "immediate end to the U.S. wars and
occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, to save lifes, and the redirecting of all
war funds to meet social needs at home."<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>- The fightback among teacher unionists across the country in opposition to
Obama's "Race To The Top" program (a barely veiled effort to bust teacher unions
and to promote the privatization of public education), but particularly in
Chicago, where a dissident opposition caucus (CORE) won the local union
elections in the nation's third-largest public school district.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>- The widespread support for the Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign within
important sectors of the labor movement, with the endorsement by various local
unions and even state labor federations of the WERC-initiated call for the
AFL-CIO to organize a Solidarity Day III mobilization in Washington to advance
labor's most pressing demands -- beginning with the demand for a massive public
works program to put at least 15 million people back to work. Wide sectors of
the labor movement took a stand to affirm that labor must take to the streets in
the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to insist that Obama must live up to
his promises and to his call for progressive change.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>- The massive opposition at the California Labor Federation convention in San
Diego and at the National LCLAA Convention in Las Vegas, both held in August
2010, to the attempts by the federation leadership to get the delegates to go
along with the AFL-CIO-Change to Win Memorandum on Immigration (which dovetails
with Obama's positions on immigration). The delegates rejected the Obama plan
and insisted on reaffirming the federation's adopted position (since the late
1990s) in opposition to "guest-worker" programs, employer sanctions and border
security, and in support of amnesty/legalization and full labor rights for all
undocumented workers.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>- The development within Stern's SEIU of a powerful rank-and-file movement,
led by Sal Rosselli, that insisted that the SEIU ranks should not accept
the company unionist orientation of Stern and co. This resistance movement has
now become the National Union of Healthcare Workers and has galvanized unionists
across the country in a David<EM> vs</EM>. Goliath fight for the heart and soul
of what at one time was one of the most militant and progressive unions in the
country.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>October 2nd One Nation March in Washington</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Most of these union sectors in resistance have strongly supported the call
for the October 2 One Nation March in Washington, DC, because they want to press
Obama to heed the workers' demands and implement the change that working people
voted for in November 2008.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Earlier in the year, the AFL-CIO leadership had rejected the call for a
Solidarity Day III action, arguing that it would take away funds and energy from
their campaigns to elect Democratic Party candidates in November
2010.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>In July 2010, however, SEIU Local 1199 and the NAACP issued a call to
mobilize on October 2nd to demand jobs, peace and justice. George Gresham,
president of Local 1199, explained that a mass action in Washington was now
necessary to urge Obama and the Democrats to deliver on their pledge for change,
particularly the need for a massive job-creation program.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Momentum soon developed around this One Nation call, with more than 170
organizations endorsing the One Nation call by mid-August. It was so strong that
the AFL-CIO leadership could no longer ignore, nor could it keep a distance
from, the call for October 2nd. In mid-August, the AFL-CIO decided to support
this effort and to mobilize its members across the entire East Coast corridor
for the march.<O></O></P>
<P>In August and September, the WERC co-conveners issued many statements
explaining the significance of the AFL-CIO's endorsement of the October 2nd
action, while also insisting on the need for crystal clear demands that give
precise content to the call for jobs, peace and justice.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>This question of "Which Demands For October 2nd?" is indeed a central
question. As expected, the AFL-CIO and the leadership of the One Nation
coalition issued a call for the demonstration with no demands -- just with the
general themes of jobs, peace and justice. They did not want any independent,
fighting demands that would place the demonstrators in contradiction with Obama
and with the Democrats.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>NAACP President Ben Jealous went so far as to explain on a national
organizing conference call that one of the main objectives of One Nation was to
build an ongoing coalition that could ensure the re-election of Obama in
2012.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>But herein lies the contradiction that was underscored in the most recent
statement from the WERC campaign: The AFL-CIO leadership, because of the failure
of Obama to budge even slightly on his pro-corporate agenda, was compelled to
call upon union members and their community allies to march and rally in the
streets of the nation's capital in their own name.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The rank and file -- as well as union officials and union bodies at all
levels -- are going to march in Washington on October 2nd because they are angry
and want their pressing demands to be met.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The call for October 2nd is being seized upon by working people to express
the need for independent demands to build a fightback in defense of workers'
interests -- for independent trade unionism.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>In this framework, the main sectors of the U.S. antiwar movement decided to
organize a "Peace Table" and an antiwar feeder march and contingent on October 2
in Washington that is focused on the call for an immediate end to the wars and
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and for bringing the war dollars home
now.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Efforts are also under way to organize independent contingents -- or "tables"
-- of youth, immigrant rights activists, single-year health-care advocates, and
public housing activists.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Opening the Discussion on Need for a Labor Party</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Tens of thousands - if not hundreds of thousands - of working people will be
gathering on October 2nd with banners and picket signs expressing heartfelt
class-struggle demands. This is extremely significant, as it points to the
contradiction between the sentiments to affirm the independent demands of the
labor movement (and hence the independent of the trade unions) and the efforts
by the One Nation leadership to attempt to channel this movement into open
support for Obama and the Democrats.<O></O></P>
<P>But, at the end of the day on October 2nd, the coalition that will capitalize
on the sentiment in the streets will be One Nation.<O></O></P>
<P>This makes it imperative in these conditions to counterpose the need for an
independent political instrument to fight for the demands advocated in the
streets on October 2nd -- that is, the need for a Labor Party.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>That is why we fully support the latest WERC statement titled, "After October
2, What Next?" This statement reads, in part:<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"We [WERC] are dedicated to encouraging working people and their unions to
act independently of the Democratic Party so that we can take the first steps
toward creating an independent political voice and instrument of our own -- one
that is dedicated entirely to the needs of working people. After all, working
people are ... tired of voting for Democrats who implement basically the same
corporate agenda as the Republicans.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"Working people are looking for alternatives to the Democrats and
Republicans. As the unions begin to embrace the full range of demands that
correspond to our needs and confront the government with them, workers and their
unions will see that the next logical step will be for the unions to lay the
foundation for a party of their own -- a Labor Party."<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The WERC campaign has announced that it is organizing a conference in the
spring of 2011 "to promote this fightback around labor's independent demands and
to discuss how best to advance the struggle for a political party of working
people, a Labor Party."<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>We urge our readers and supporters to contact the WERC organizers at
<wercampaign@gmail.com> if you are interested in attending this conference
and promoting this campaign. You can also visit the WERC website at <A
href="http://www.wercampaign.org"
target=_blank>www.wercampaign.org</A>.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The time is now to build this fightback movement.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>* * * * *<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>SIDEBAR ARTICLES</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Is Obama Reining in Wall Street?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P>What about Obama's recent Financial Stability Bill -- another one of Obama's
so-called big victories during the first two first years of his
administration?<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Economist Jack Rasmus, in an interview with<EM> The Organizer</EM> newspaper
on this topic, points out that the bill should rightly be called the Minimal
Financial Monitoring Bill. The<EM> Wall Street Journal</EM>, Rasmus notes,
explained in an editorial that the bill was "not as tough as we feared." In fact
banks stocks rose 2.4% the day after the bill was passed. The banks liked the
bill.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The bill does not break up the monopoly stranglehold of the big banks, as was
feared. The top 25 banks will continue to control 59% of all financial assets.
The bill's final version also removed a tax of $50 billion that the banks were
to have to pay the Treasury for receiving federal bailout funds. The advocates
of tough bank regulations measures had proposed this tax. But it was
abandoned.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>What has been created is an oversight agency that is supposed to prevent the
kind of speculative binge spending that led to the Great Recession that began in
2007-2008. But this oversight agency was allowed also sorts of exemptions and
loopholes big enough to drive a Mack Truck through.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Over-the-counter swaps, amounting to $600 trillion in derivatives, are now to
be traded through a clearing house, instead of on the open market. This is the
only monitoring that will exist. How the oversight will work is anyone's guess,
however. At any rate, the new clearing house is not to become operative until
one year from now, and at this point its mandate is still very vague. The fact
is that the derivatives will continue to expand, under a slightly altered form.
The banks' trading desks will not be suppressed. This is where the great bulk of
the derivatives' trading takes place.<O></O></P>
<P>Rasmus noted in his interview that during the past year there has been a huge
surge in derivatives' trading. It is estimated that 35% of all Goldman Sachs
trading is in derivatives, all earning exceedingly high profits. Hedge funds
amount to another immense source of profits.<O></O></P>
<P>Another form of regulation was to be the so-called Volker Rule, wherein banks
would not be allowed to use their own resources for financial speculation. But
here again the loophole is egregious: Banks are allowed to move their
speculative ventures off shore to circumvent the Volker Rule.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"This whole bill is a big façade," said Rasmus. "The fact is that the Federal
Reserve will be the supervising agency of last resort, and the Fed is the
favorite agency of the banks." It's a question of the fox guarding the chicken
coop.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Another provision of the Obama bill calls for the creation of a Consumer
Protection Agency for banking transactions. But this agency, too, will be placed
under the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. "The fact is," says Rasmus,
"that the Fed agrees with Wall Street, which means that there will be no real
oversight over the federal bailout funding. And there will be a one-time-only
audit."<O></O></P>
<P>This minimal monitoring bill, as Rasmus calls it, will do nothing to ensure
that the banks begin lending money to the productive economy. The whole
government plan, including its financial monitoring, is premised on the need to
stabilize the banks. Any regulatory effort to undermine the profitability of
Wall Street, where profits are exacted largely outside the sphere of production,
was excluded.<O></O></P>
<P>There is no call, as some had Democratic Party liberals had hoped, to demand
that Wall Street should be taxed for their transactions. There was no call to
nationalize the consumer credit markets, as other liberals had demanded. There
was no call to close the banking offshore tax shelters. This is why Wall Street
and the banks were pleased, over all, with Obama's Financial Stability Bill.
--<STRONG> The Editors</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>* * * * * * * * * *<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Is Obama's Health-Care Reform Benefiting Working
People?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>There was great media hype when the Congress voted to approve President
Obama's health-care reform program. Today, many months after the plan was
adopted, the harsh realities of this Obama plan are beginning to emerge in the
media.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>While the bulk of the plan goes into effect in 2014, some provisions of the
plan are already being implemented. This includes the provision that extends a
young adult's health-care coverage under his/her parents' plan from age 25 to
age 26, and the provision that mandates health-care coverage for children with
prior conditions for certain ailments. No sooner were these provisions
announced, however, than the private insurance health-care rates shot up between
25% and 28% for all insurance policy holders. (quoted in<EM> San Francisco
Chronicle</EM>, August 18, "Insurance Rates to Rise")<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>And these rate hikes are taking place before the main provisions of the
health-care plan have even been put into action. Rate-payers can expect
astronomical fee hikes in the years to come.<O></O></P>
<P>What about the highly touted cost-containment provisions in the Obama
bill?<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>More and more articles are appearing in the specialized press that show that
the loopholes in the sections pertaining to cost containment are huge -- so huge
to dismiss any idea that costs will be kept in check. Instinctively working
people know this without any need of press clippings. For decades they have been
gouged by the private health-care insurance companies, one of the most greedy
and hated institutions in the country.<O></O></P>
<P>Another aspect of the health-care bill that is beginning to gain notice
within the trade union movement is the provision that allows companies with
collective-bargaining agreements with unions to ditch their health-care plans
and dump them onto Obama's new "health-care exchanges" -- while only incurring
very slight penalties.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Dumping the union health-care plans would gut the unions'
collective-bargaining agreements. It would represent a huge blow to the unions
and would downgrade all the organized workers' health-care plans. --<STRONG> The
Editors</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>* * * * *<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Obama: A Champion of the Environment?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>An article in the<EM> San Francisco Chronicle</EM> (August 15) describes
Obama's first 18 months, with Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, as the period with
the "most productive Congress in recent memory." The accomplishments mentioned
include the Obama health-care plan, the federal stimulus program, financial
regulation, and an activist environmental agenda.<O></O></P>
<P>Let's take a look at this last claim.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf Coast is not one that can be blamed on
the Bush administration. It was Obama himself who accepted huge contributions to
his election campaign from the country's oil companies, including the
British-owned BP. In exchange for these hefty donations to the Democratic Party
coffers (it should be noted that these companies finance both major political
parties), BP was released from having to produce an emergency disaster plan for
their deep-water drilling project in the Gulf Coast.<O></O></P>
<P>This corruption scandal was not that of Bush. It was Obama's own
environmental protection agency that waived this requirement for BP because of
its funding to the Obama campaign. Deep Horizon is now the nation's biggest
environmental disaster ever. It has become known throughout the South as
"Obama's Katrina." It's a disaster that has destroyed not only precious flora
and fauna, it has destroyed the livelihood of millions of people who live off of
fishing and fish-processing (and all other spinoff industries), tourism,
transportation and more.<O></O></P>
<P>And to add insult to injury, all the sludge that is being removed in the BP
"cleanup" is being placed in highly toxic dumps right in the middle of the Black
and Latino communities along the Gulf Coast seabord. This is the kind of
environmental racism reminiscent of the Cancer Corridor just north of New
Orleans, where deregulated industries abutted the Black townships, poisoning the
poorest of the poor who could not afford to move elsewhere. (Hurricane Katrina
exposed to the entire world this Cancer Corridor and the deathly toll it had
taken on the primarily Black residents of the area.)<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Five Years After Katrina</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Today, five years after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans remains a city that
has expelled its majority Black population, has refused to preserve or rebuild
public housing, and therefore, in practice, through the "laws of the market,"
has prevented the right of return of the Black majority to this historic
city.<O></O></P>
<P>Without public housing, and without public financing that would allow the
Black residents to rebuild their homes, hundreds of thousands of erstwhile
citizens of New Orleans have been permanently displaced -- much like the
Palestinians from their homeland.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Hurricane Katrina did in one day what the wealthy white establishment had
long hoped to do: gentrify the city through a process of ethnic cleansing. New
Orleans is now run by a majority white City Council, the first time in more than
70 years. The city has rebuilt hotels and casinos, not housing for the
poor.<O></O></P>
<P>Glen Ford, the editor of the Black Agenda Report, wrote the following about
New Orleans today, five years after Hurricane Katrina, and about the
mini-Katrinas that are taking place across the country against Black
people:<O></O></P>
<P>"[I]n New Orleans, on the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a small,
hardly noticed protest outside what used to be a public housing project in the
St. Bernard section of New Orleans, took place. ...<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"A relatively small group of New Orleans activists gathered in the rain
outside the project to protest the visit to the city by President Obama, whose
housing policies spell doom for the entire concept of public housing in the
United States.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"When Katrina struck, the Bush administration's Department of Housing was
quick to call for demolition of all the public housing units in New Orleans,
even though most of the buildings were salvageable. The residents were locked
out, 3,000 of them, like hundreds of thousands of others across the country
since the early Nineties, victims of corporate greed for the land the projects
sit on and a racist prejudice that holds that Black and poor people are
inherently dangerous when concentrated in one place. Katrina was simply a
convenient excuse to get rid of public housing in New Orleans, where four major
projects were demolished.<O></O></P>
<P>"In New Orleans and elsewhere across the country, the poor who are evicted
from public housing are expected to disperse, get out of the way of corporate
development that serves the needs of other people, and be quiet. But this
weekend, the former residents of the St. Bernard project refused to scatter and
be silent. They had earlier built a tent encampment nearby, called Survivors'
Village. Now they denounced President Obama and his friend, Warren Buffett, the
multi-billionaire hedge-fund baron who is developing the site of their former
homes under a new name, Columbia Parc, for a new class of residents.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>"The Obama administration has taken the anti-public housing policies of Bush
and previous presidents to a new level, with a plan to abandon any federal
commitment to building and maintaining housing for the poor. Instead, fat cats
like Warren Buffett and huge private banking institutions will inherit the
nation's public housing properties. In New York City, the Citigroup bankers now
own a piece of 13 public housing projects -- a taste of what Obama has in store
for what remains of America's public housing stock."<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Just as Obama and the Democrats delivered more than 32 million healthcare
clients to the private insurance companies to fuel their already exorbitant
profits, so is he turning over the stock of public housing, a conquest of bitter
class struggles waged by unionists and civil rights activists, to the
speculators and land barons.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Those millions of Blacks, the disinherited and dispossessed who voted for
Obama and cried tears of joy when he was elected, many hoping they would finally
by able to return to New Orleans or to their homes in Selma, Ala.; or to their
public housing projects in Seattle, feel sorely betrayed. Despite all the
exhortations by Jesse Jackson Jr. and Al Sharpton for them to vote again for
Obama and for the Democrats, the scenario of days past -- massive abstention --
is lurking once again on the horizon.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The anger that is simmering in the Black community and that will be expressed
in massive abstention is also looking for a political avenue to express itself.
An opinion poll reported by Black Agenda Report revealed that more than 65% of
the Black people polled were anxiously hoping for the creation of a third party
for Black people. --<STRONG> The Editors</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>* * * * * * * * * *<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Obama's Foreign Policy: The Afghanistan Quagmire</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The media have by and large heralded the Obama decision to draw down the
number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 50,000 troops, all of whom, or so we were told
in Obama's nationally televised speech, are meant to keep out of any combat
duties. Their main duty, we were told, is to train the Iraqi police and army so
that they can now take matters into their own hands. Barely one week had passed
after the combat troop withdrawal was announced, however, than U.S. troops were
again engaged in combat on September 5 in a Baghdad district. A syndicated
cartoon the day after this battle in Baghdad showed Obama proclaiming, "Mission
Semi-Accomplished."<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Obama has gone out of his way to remind the American people that he "kept his
promise" and scaled down U.S. intervention in Iraq. This announcement did not
receive enthusiastic support from the public, as Obama had hoped. Not only did
the images of renewed combat in Iraq belie the claim that troops were no longer
in harm's way, but the intensified war in Afghanistan had now become a sequel to
the Iraq war, not the "good war" that the U.S. ruling class had loudly
proclaimed.<O></O></P>
<P>Success of U.S. policy in Iraq? Hardly.<O></O></P>
<P>Clearly, Iraq had become a lose-lose situation for the U.S. government, and a
gradual withdrawal had become necessary if for no other reason than to step up
the military occupation and war in Afghanistan and its neighboring countries,
where the "real threat of Al Qaeda" is supposedly lurking.<O></O></P>
<P>But even in Iraq, the U.S. war and occupation continues. Not only will U.S.
combat troops return immediately to Iraq if the situation on the ground
deteriorates, but the U.S.-installed puppet regime is in permanent turmoil and
requires constant intervention by the United States to attempt to prop it up and
provide a semblance of stability.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Now the drive is on to have the puppet regime in Iraq accomplish what could
not be accomplished under an open U.S. military occupation of Iraq, with visible
U.S. combat troops on every other corner -- and that is the privatization of the
nation's electrical grid, and, most important, of its oil resources.<O></O></P>
<P>This explains the recent stepped-up attacks by the Iraqi regime on the oil
workers' and electrical workers' unions. Their union leaders have been jailed,
their offices shut down, their leaders barred from leaving the country. The aim
is to destroy the main centers of resistance to the drive to privatize these
huge resources on behalf of U.S. transnational corporate interests.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The Iraqi puppet regime did not dare carry out this privatization plan under
U.S. direct occupation. Now, with the fig-leaf cover of a national "sovereign"
government, this puppet regime must now take on the unions and the resistance of
the people, who know that they must keep their cherished resources for
themselves if they are to have any future whatsoever.<O></O></P>
<P>The battle lines are being drawn in what appears will become a major class
battle in the coming weeks and months. The leaders of the oil and electrical
workers' unions are working closely with USLAW to try to travel to Algeria for
the Open World Conference in November. If they are able to leave the country to
reach Algeria, this linking up with the fighting wing of the international labor
movement will be of immense significance worldwide.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>As to Afghanistan, the only words that come to mind to describe the situation
are "Vietnam-style quagmire."<O></O></P>
<P>The firing by Obama of outspoken Army General McChrystal is just the most
visible expression of the deepening crisis in the summits of the U.S. government
over what to do in relation to Afghanistan. Many analysts are writing stories in
the mainstream press that indicate that Afghanistan is an endless pit that will
only continue to suck much-needed financial resources from the United States
without any hope of establishing a stable government in Kabul and without any
likelihood of military success over a disparate group of rebel
forces.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The debate over what to do in Afghanistan is raging in the press daily,
especially as more stories are reported about the widespread corruption in the
Karzai government (the latest story being the crisis in the Kabul Bank), in a
situation where there is no real "alternative" to Karzai.<O></O></P>
<P>Because of his growing political crisis and because of the growing number of
body bags coming back from Afghanistan, the American people are rapidly turning
against what was once described as the "good war" -- as opposed to the "bad war"
in Iraq. A recent poll showed that 62% of the people now support the "rapid
withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. At a time when federal and state
budgets are being drastically cut for lack of funding, more and more people are
demanding that money must be used for social programs at home, not for wars
abroad.<O></O></P>
<P>The parallels to Vietnam and the word "quagmire" keep coming up in the
letters to the editors or on the radio talk shows.<O></O></P>
<P>But the Obama administration is still plunging ahead in Afghanistan, with a
recent decision to increase the war spending in that country and sending more
combat troops to this war zone. Afghanistan is now Obama's war.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>And this is not all. The U.S. administration is beating the war drums against
Iran. The pressure and sanctions against Iran have been tightened. And this is
not all bravado. There are major sectors of the Army and military establishment
that are openly calling for a military attack on Iran in the name of stopping
the so-called ability of Iran to enrich enough uranium to produce an atomic
bomb. The situation in relation to Iran is very dangerous and ominous. U.S.
policy-makers, led by Hillary Clinton, seem to be reaching the point of no
return when it comes to a military strike against Iran.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>What is making such a decision difficult, however, is the knowledge that this
could further inflame the situation in Iran and the Middle East, at a time when
U.S. military forces are already strained, not to mention that they are becoming
bogged down in a war without end in Afghanistan.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>* * * * * * * * * *<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>What Happened to Obama's Promise to Support Immigrant
Workers?</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Obama is being raked over the coals by the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush
Limbaugh -- two high-profile right-wing TV journalists with deep coffers -- for
his administration's decision to intervene, through the Department of Justice,
in putting a stay on four of the most outrageous provisions of Arizona's racial
profiling State Bill 1070.<O></O></P>
<P>It should be noted that Obama only intervened to halt -- not repeal -- the
most egregious provisions of this bill after more than 1 million people took to
the streets on May 1st, 2010, and another 150,000 people marched in Phoenix,
Arizona, on June 29, to protest the law and to demand that Obama intervene to
reverse this racist and unjust law.<O></O></P>
<P>The right-wing pundits and Tea Party movement have all taken the side of
Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, who insists that the polls prove her right and
who says that Obama's Justice Department intervention has only made her more
popular. Opinion polls, if they are to be believed, show that before the Obama
intervention on SB 1070, 56% of the people polled supported SB 1070, whereas
after the Justice Department decision, the percentage of those polls jumped to
62% in support of Jan Brewer and her law.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>How to explain these polls and this situation in Arizona?<O></O></P>
<P>There can be no doubt that the failure by the ruling class -- under all
recent administrations -- to enact a real immigration policy in the interest of
undocumented immigrants and working people as a whole, combined with their
failure to provide jobs and to stem the disastrous effects of the Great
Recession on the working-class majority, has created a situation where
undocumented immigrants have become the easy scapegoat for all the ills of
capitalism. The undocumented are easily portrayed as the "ones who are taking my
job" -- when, of course, this is not the case at all.<O></O></P>
<P>The lack of a federal immigration reform plan has permitted states to take it
upon themselves to impose their own immigration policies. In fact, there are 21
other states that have similar laws to SB 1070 in their legislative
dockets.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The irony is that Obama's immigration policies are no different from Bush's
policies. If anything Obama's are worse. Under Obama, more undocumented
immigrants have been deported per year than under Bush, though the raids are not
the high-profile raids of factories. Obama has been more careful about keeping a
lower profile. Instead, undocumented immigrants are being rounded up and
deported one by one by the police, working hand in hand with ICE. The
deportations go under the media radar, but they are no less vicious. With the
new Secure Communities program enacted by the Obama administrations, the
repression and deportations are only like to increase.<O></O></P>
<P>Reeling from all the attacks by the Republicans and the Tea Party movement,
Obama put off a campaign promise that he would push hard for, and enact, a
Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2010. For close to six months, Obama refused
to even touch the immigration issue, not wanting to give the right wing further
fodder to go after him.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>But because of the deep anger within the Latino communities and within the
labor movement over the systematic abuses of undocumented immigrants, Obama
calculated that it was worth the Democratic Party's short term and long-term
prospects to raise the need for such an immigration reform. Obama made such an
announcement in a nationally televised speech on July 1st.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The content of the speech made it clear that Obama's plan is fully in sync
with the Kennedy-McCain bill, which despite its strong bipartisan support, was
never enacted by the Congress, so deep are the political calculations and
divisions within the ruling class over this question.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P><STRONG>Obama's Actual Proposals</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Obama's plan calls for tightening border security (meaning increased
militarization of the borders), criminalizing any new "illegal" immigration,
increasing employers' sanctions (for hiring undocumented immigrants), and
extending the guest-worker programs through an AgJobs bill -- all in exchange
for a largely vague promise to create a "path to legalization" for the estimated
12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Also included
as a carrot in this deal is the promise to implement the Dream Act, a measure
that would provide citizenship to undocumented students or to youth who serve in
the military.<O></O></P>
<P>This "path to legalization" is not an amnesty, as occurred in 1986. It is a
measure that could demand that many, if not most, of the 12 million undocumented
immigrants would have to "touch back" to their countries of origin and get at
the "back of the line" to apply for legalization. In the worst-case scenario,
this could mean the outright deportation of millions of people, many of whom
would have little or no means of survival in their countries of origin given the
heinous consequences of the US-imposed free trade agreements on those countries
and their economies.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>The Obama immigration reform plan, and his tepid policies, are not pleasing
anyone -- a phenomenon that is true across the board with most, if not all, of
Obama's plans. The right wing is describing Obama's reform plan as an "amnesty"
plan because of its promise of a path to legalization. Never mind that this plan
had the full support of the Republican Party a short while ago (before the
schisms that led to the formation of the Tea Party wing of the Republican
Party). Never mind that this plan has already resulted in Obama sending an
additional $30 million in federal funding to beef up the border
patrols.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>But many in the Latino wing of the Democratic Party, the Latino Caucus, are
not happy with the Obama plan since they understand the pervasive anger among
the main Latino and immigrant rights' organizations.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>Many of these politicians and community leaders have openly criticized the
Obama administration's decision to tighten border security. Many have denounced
the heightened numbers of deaths (a record high) in the Arizona desert this
summer of immigrants attempting to cross into the United States.<O></O></P>
<P>A few of these politicians and community organizers have even pointed out the
hypocrisy and shortcomings of Arizona Federal Judge Bolton's decision on SB
1070, which, for example, continues to allow day laborers to gather on the city
streets in search of a job but nonetheless penalizes an employer for picking up
and hiring an undocumented day laborer.<O></O></P>
<P>At the root of all this controversy is one undeniable fact: Ever since the
spring of 2006, when 7 million immigrants and their working class allies took to
the streets and actually held a one-day strike, the first-ever nationwide strike
in this country, the situation has not been the same. There has been a growing
polarization over this question, with a growing number of voices calling for
full legalization for all undocumented immigrants.<O></O></P>
<P>True, the raids and deportations over the past three years have put a big
damper on the size of the pro-immigrant demonstrations. But the grassroots
organizing, and the growing alliance between labor and immigrant activists, has
continued to deepen. The 2010 May 1st actions were again enormous in many
cities, including Los Angeles, Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix.<O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P>A related arena in the battle over immigration concerns the 14th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. In recent months, right-wing Republicans, led by Sen.
Alan Simpson of Wyoming, have spearheaded a nationwide movement, to amend the
14th Amendment's provision to disallow children born in the United States to
immigrants to automatically have U.S. citizenship. --<STRONG> The
Editors</STRONG><O></O></P>
<P><O></O></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><O></O></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P></P></DIV><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<DIV style="COLOR: #fff; HEIGHT: 0px">__._,_.___</DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-actbar
style="CLEAR: both; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #666; PADDING-TOP: 15px; WHITE-SPACE: nowrap">
<DIV><A style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
href="mailto:intexile@iww.org?subject=Obama, the Tea Party & Why We Need a Labor Party (from /Socialist Organizer/)">Reply
to <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: 700">sender</SPAN></A> | <A
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion@yahoogroups.com?subject=Obama, the Tea Party & Why We Need a Labor Party (from /Socialist Organizer/)">Reply
to <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: 700">group</SPAN></A> | <A
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistdiscussion/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyNDJsdXJrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRtc2dJZAMxMDc0OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEyODY2NDk0ODM-?act=reply&messageNum=10748">Reply
<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: 700">via web post</SPAN></A> | <A
style="FONT-WEIGHT: 700"
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistdiscussion/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYTA1MjJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyODY2NDk0ODM-">Start
a New Topic</A> </DIV><A
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistdiscussion/message/10748;_ylc=X3oDMTM3NTRnb3Z0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRtc2dJZAMxMDc0OARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyODY2NDk0ODMEdHBjSWQDMTA3NDg-">Messages
in this topic</A> (<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: 700">1</SPAN>) </DIV><!------- Start Nav Bar ------><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<DIV id=ygrp-vital
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #e0ecee"><SPAN
id=vithd
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase; COLOR: #333">Recent
Activity:</SPAN>
<UL
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: none"></UL>
<DIV style="CLEAR: both; COLOR: #1e66ae; PADDING-TOP: 2px"><A
style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialistdiscussion;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNXJqcTlzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyODY2NDk0ODM-">Visit
Your Group</A> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=ft
style="CLEAR: both; PADDING-RIGHT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 11px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A
style="FLOAT: left"
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcTloYTZrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE4MDM1OTUzBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDM3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI4NjY0OTQ4Mw--"><IMG
style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px"
height=15 alt="Yahoo! Groups" src="http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif"
width=137></A>
<DIV style="FLOAT: right; COLOR: #747575">Switch to: <A
style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional">Text-Only</A>,
<A class=margin-rt style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest">Daily
Digest</A> • <A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="mailto:socialistdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">Unsubscribe</A>
• <A style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Terms of Use</A></DIV></DIV><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --></DIV><!-- ygrp-msg --><!-- Sponsor --><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<DIV id=ygrp-sponsor
style="CLEAR: none; BACKGROUND: #fff; FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 25px; WIDTH: 160px"><!-- Start Recommendations -->
<DIV id=ygrp-reco></DIV><!-- End Recommendations --></DIV><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<DIV style="CLEAR: both; FONT-SIZE: 1px; COLOR: #fff">.</DIV></DIV><IMG height=1
src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=18035953/grpspId=1705060375/msgId=10748/stime=1286649483/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3"
width=1> <BR>
<DIV style="COLOR: #fff; HEIGHT: 0px">__,_._,___</DIV><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~--><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<STYLE type=text/css>#ygrp-mkp {
BORDER-RIGHT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; BORDER-TOP: #d8d8d8 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 10px 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d8d8d8 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
#ygrp-mkp HR {
BORDER-RIGHT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d8d8d8 1px solid
}
#ygrp-mkp #hd {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 85%; MARGIN: 10px 0px; COLOR: #628c2a; LINE-HEIGHT: 122%
}
#ygrp-mkp #ads {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad A {
COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc {
FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 78%; MARGIN: 10px 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 122%
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
A {
COLOR: #1e66ae
}
#actions {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 11px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
#activity {
PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FLOAT: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #e0ecee
}
#activity SPAN {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
#activity SPAN:first-child {
TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase
}
#activity SPAN A {
COLOR: #5085b6; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
#activity SPAN SPAN {
COLOR: #ff7900
}
#activity SPAN .underline {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
.attach {
CLEAR: both; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; WIDTH: 400px; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
.attach DIV A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
.attach IMG {
PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none
}
.attach LABEL {
DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px
}
.attach LABEL A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
BLOCKQUOTE {
MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 4px
}
.bold {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
.bold A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DD.last P A {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
DD.last P SPAN {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
DD.last P SPAN.yshortcuts {
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
DIV.attach-table DIV DIV A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.attach-table {
WIDTH: 400px
}
DIV.file-title A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.file-title A:active {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.file-title A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.file-title A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:active {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg P A SPAN.yshortcuts {
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
.green {
COLOR: #628c2a
}
.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0px
}
o {
FONT-SIZE: 0px
}
#photos DIV {
FLOAT: left; WIDTH: 72px
}
#photos DIV DIV {
BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; WIDTH: 62px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid; HEIGHT: 62px
}
#photos DIV LABEL {
FONT-SIZE: 10px; OVERFLOW: hidden; WIDTH: 64px; COLOR: #666666; WHITE-SPACE: nowrap; TEXT-ALIGN: center
}
#reco-category {
FONT-SIZE: 77%
}
#reco-desc {
FONT-SIZE: 77%
}
.replbq {
MARGIN: 4px
}
#ygrp-actbar DIV A:first-child {
PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 2px
}
#ygrp-mlmsg {
FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, helvetica,clean, sans-serif
}
#ygrp-mlmsg TABLE {
}
#ygrp-mlmsg SELECT {
FONT: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif
}
INPUT {
FONT: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif
}
TEXTAREA {
FONT: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif
}
#ygrp-mlmsg PRE {
FONT: 100% monospace
}
CODE {
FONT: 100% monospace
}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {
LINE-HEIGHT: 1.22em
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px
}
#ygrp-mlmsg A {
COLOR: #1e66ae
}
#ygrp-msg P A {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
#ygrp-msg P#attach-count SPAN {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; COLOR: #1e66ae
}
#ygrp-reco #reco-head {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700; COLOR: #ff7900
}
#ygrp-reco {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 20px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov LI A {
FONT-SIZE: 130%; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov LI {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 77%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 6px; PADDING-TOP: 6px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov UL {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-text {
FONT-FAMILY: Georgia
}
#ygrp-text P {
MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em
}
#ygrp-text TT {
FONT-SIZE: 120%
}
#ygrp-vital UL LI:unknown {
BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none! important
}
</STYLE>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~--><!-- end group email --></BODY></HTML>