Moral Monday in Georgia

I had the good fortune of being in Atlanta for the first Moral Monday in Georgia. More about that in a moment but first some background.

 Moral Mondays started in North Carolina In response to an aggressive right wing  state legislature and governor the people of Moral Monday started protests at the state legislature building. These weekly protests gradually grew until they were regularly attended by 2500 protesters. In 2013 over 900 people have been arrested in civil disobedience cases in North Carolina. Moral Mondays came out of coalition organizing work going back at least 8 years.  Moral Mondays are to a large extent lead by Reverend Doctor  William Barber who is also the North Carolina head for the NAACP. In North Carolina these protests have focused on countering several pieces of  legislation that were railroaded through by the Republican controlled North Carolina state government. The legislation included attacks on voting rights, cuts to unemployment benefits, opting out of the Medicaid expansion associated with the affordable care act, an increased tax to lower income workers, restrictions to abortion access, and  cuts to public education.  This right wing legislative blitzkrieg reminds me a bit of what Michigan went through once Rick Snyder and the Republican Party took charge of our state.  To the Moral Monday coalition the North Carolina Legislature was engaged in an immoral war on the poor. 

In Georgia apparently planning efforts have been underway for a while to build a similar political response to a conservative state government, and on January 13^th 2014 the protest was launched.  It was a rainy day, not the most encouraging of outdoor demonstrations, but by my count I think about 500 of us were present, many huddling under umbrellas, but all generally in good spirits.  The focus of the protest was the governors opting out of the Medicaid expansion.  This expansion would bring coverage to approximately 600,000 citizens in Georgia, with my quick back of the envelope calculations this is about 6 % of the population of the state.  Initially the Medicaid expansion will be covered by the federal government, later the states will be required to take up 5%  of the costs, then later still 10% of the costs.  Even if you’re a fiscal tight wad providing healthcare benefits for some 6% of your states poorest people is a fiscal win.  A healthy population is a more productive population; productive populations bring in more tax review and cost the government less. Reverend Barber traveled to Atlanta this week to join us on the Georgia state house grounds. While my general patients for clergy is not so high I found his talk encouraging. Specifically he contrasted the so called construction of “morality” by the right to the morality of his faith.  Jesus was clear about one thing, helping the poor, and Reverend Barber pointed out that there is no inconsistency in using the government to provide the help. A next Moral Monday Georgia style is scheduled for the end of January.

I was lucky to be in Georgia on the 13^th, I was there for my mother’s 80^th birthday. We celebrated on the Saturday before and she actually turned 80.  Moral Monday felt like part of the celebration , as an activist family participating in a protest that is a launch of an effort for economic justice in Georgia was certainly celebratory, rain and all.

As I reflected on this demonstration I thought about the 2011 protests in Wisconsin, and the Occupy Movement.  I remembered the many demonstrations against the keystone pipeline in 2012, I thought about the efforts to prevent anti-abortion legislation from passing in Texas this past year, I also thought about the growing fast food workers strikes and demands for living wages. It has been argued that many of these efforts haven’t really brought about significant change; Occupy fizzled out, the Republican legislatures continue to pass their anti-worker, anti-poor, anti-women, anti-gay legislation, and no change to minimum wage seems immanent. Moral Mondays? How long will they last you might ask. But its important to see each of these protest movements as part of, and the first tiny steps in an uprising.  More and more people are getting that things are amiss, and people are starting to do something about it.  I have two hopes, one is that these protests and direct actions continue and grow, and the other is that as the protest movements grow activists from different sectors learn to listen and communicate with each other. I hope that the anarchist from Zuccotti park, can understand the Minister from North Carolina, that southern anti-poverty activists, can see the struggle against global warming as a struggle for a sustainable and fair economy, that women’s rights to choose are linked to rights for a living wage, rights for access to health care. All this and more. Somewhere in here is also a struggle for democracy, against the rule of the 1%. As I participated in the demonstration this past Monday I had the feeling that there was space for a broad coalition and I felt encouraged. Good luck Georgia going forward.

Debt and Budget Compromise

The recent government shutdown was of course driven by a political attempt to keep poor people from having healthcare. But the architects of the shutdown had another agenda that they insisted was related: uncontrolled government spending. They claim we need to balance the budget and limit federal debt or our children will suffer.

As economist Mark Weisbrod points out when it comes to national debt, more important than the dollar amount is what percentage of our GDP is reflected in our interest payments on that debt. Currently that it's about 1% which is as low as it has been in 60 years. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/18/shutdown-takewaway-fair-society)

I have heard other economists make similar points about the irrelevance of the debt. And of course strategic government spending can pay for itself with economic growth. Perennial growth is an issue which I don't care to address in detail at the moment. Suffice it to say there are natural limits to growth, and we will have to come to terms with this eventually.

Weisbrod understands the economic implications of budget and debt far better than I ever well, but if the tea party and by extension the Republican party are so set on balancing the budget perhaps as a compromise that could be worked out. The Republicans have proposed a constitutional amendment, the so-called balanced budget amendment. I'd like to borrow their initial idea and modify it. How about the balanced equitable and just budget amendment.

Below are what could be the first 4 sections of that amendment. The first two borrow from the language of the Republicans proposal. I've added to section 1 the notion that spending could exceed receipts if a government surplus existed. Presumably if outlays never exceeded receipts a surplus would inevitably develop. Section 2 I have modified to reflect the fact that the economy as a whole grows. The next two sections are my additions. I think they speak for themselves. People might squabble about what an appropriate ratio between the top and the bottom should be. The main point is that it is currently out of control.

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless a surplus exists from previous years and then not exceeding that surplus or unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

`Section 2. The debt of the United States held by the public as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote

`Section 3. Any fiscal year where budget estimates for outlay exceed estimates for receipts shall result in automatic cuts to current military expenditures unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a reduction in other budgeted or approved  spending by a rollcall vote.

`Section 4. Income tax shall be structured so that the mean post-tax income of the 1% of the taxable population with the greatest income will average no more than 5 times the mean post-tax income of the 20% of the taxable population with the least income

I don't know if limits on the budget and the debt make economic sense but they say politics is about compromise so the left might want to put forward something like this.

understandign race

Our towns college, the University of Michigan, recently dedicated a semester to "Understanding Race" part of the semester program was an exhibit at the university's Natural History Museum  about "Understanding Race." This exhibit and the theme semester it is a part of are both commendable.  We need more conversations about race,  I recently saw the exhibit as part of a group I am involved with.  I was not able to make the follow up discussion so I put some of my thoughts in writing and  to make those thoughts public I am sharing  them here. If you haven't seen the exhibit these comments may be less relevant.

I would like to share my honest impression of the exhibit.

It was a nice exhibit covering a variety of relevant issues.  However I felt that it had some limitations. I wont claim that I read and watched everything in the exhibit, but I was there for an hour and a half and the subject is engaging to me so I was trying to take in as much as I could.

For me little of the information presented was novel or new, I know race is a biologically inaccurate construct.  I am familiar with the disgraceful history of discrimination and the bulk of the historical specifics were familiar. I appreciate that race identity issues get complex.

Beyond the lack of  new information or perspectives I felt that the exhibit really fell short on the politics of racism.  I did not see any portrale of the very real and ongoing racist attitudes that can span from out right race hatred to the almost universal race bias (for an experience of you own level of bias check out https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/). Neither did I see much on institutional racism. I did not see the wall of statistics that should have been there about the discrimination of the criminal justice system.

Racism as I understand it is not just discrimination , but discrimination plus power. unless we can talk about racism we can't understand race, and racism is about power. There was a display about the 2008 elections, but no mention of how elements of the Tea Party were a backlash to a "bi-racial" president.

Education is good but it is best when it can inform action. Two displays that I felt were important to [our group] . . . . were: 1) the stacks of money representing assets of different racial groups. I want to point out it was assets, not income.  .  .  . and 2) the local exhibit pointed out that our neighbor Ypsilanti is a food desert.  I don't know what we can do about this but I think it is relevant to [us].

Morning-after pill rules are good for big pharma and rich kids.

Under court order the FDA is allowing and over the counter version of the morning-after pill. According to the public health science of the FDA it is clear that making emergency contraception available over-the-counter will help to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and the health risks associated with the morning-after pill are dwarfed in comparison to the health risks associated with unwanted pregnancies.

Unfortunately the Obama administration and Kathleen Sebelius rejected the FDA science and tried to prevent the morning-after pill from becoming over-the-counter. The courts disagreed and mandated the FDA to allow an over-the-counter version. The policymakers had one more trick up their sleeves. Instead of releasing all varieties of emergency contraception to over-the-counter sales, the FDA is only allowing the brand Plan B One Step to be over-the-counter. There is a generic version of the same medication available for half the price, but the generic is required to be kept behind the counter and customers must prove their age to purchase it.

Teva pharmaceuticals the Israeli based company that owns Plan B One Step is able to maintain its monopoly pricing as the only over-the-counter emergency contraception option. What this means is that the over-the-counter morning-after pill continues to be inaccessible to girls who can't afford it. If unwanted teen pregnancies contribute to the cycle of poverty then this FDA granted monopoly only contributes to an increasingly rigid class structure. Rich kids won't be turned away by Plan B One Step's $60 cost. 

Since a generic version exists, why couldn't that be allowed for over-the-counter sales? Apparently there is an idea that the increased price will prevent very young girls from inappropriately using the morning-after pill. While it's true that the younger you are the less money you are likely to have access to it's also true that the poorer you are the less money you are likely to have access to. What's particularly interesting is that this monopoly privilege is only given for three years. Now you really have to ask why?

The Trans Pacific Partnership a blow to democracy.

It's time to get the word out on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that is being negotiated by representative of 12 Pacific Rim countries including the United States.  But describing  it this way doesn't quite do justice to the anti-democratic nature of this type of trade agreement. The so-called representatives are not elected they are appointed, their meetings are secret and in addition to the government official involved representatives from more than 600 corporations are there to help write the rules of the new economy . Without public conversation about the potential trade agreement and its negotiations they become even more secretive.

Like a variety of trade agreements before it, again for  this one the negotiators are pushing for Congress to grant fast track authority to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This would mean that once an agreement was reached it would be brought to Congress for an up or down vote, no negotiations. When 11 other countries all agree to enter into a trade agreement the peer pressure on Congress gets intense. 

Trade watchdogs see the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) an attempt to take up where the World Trade Organization (WTO) failed. Just a reminder about why and how the World Trade Organization talks came to a stand still: In 1999 the WTO met in Seattle, and it encountered streets filled with demonstrations. Seemingly out of nowhere, but really built from long campaigns of hard work by small grassroots organizations across the country, thousands of labor, environmental and human rights activist took to the streets of Seattle to critique the process and the product that was being proposed. Things got heated up and cops with tear gas and nightsticks made it onto the news this gave smaller and poorer countries the courage to stand up to Bill Clinton and the rest of the corporate globalist. Although future talks tried to avoid American shores, the wind and the will had been taken out of the WTO sails.

After trade talks by the World Trade Organization stalled the United States government decided to pursue smaller trade agreements, a number of bilateral agreements were reached. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) moves beyond bilateral agreements to a broader framework. What only two years ago was nine country now is 12. More countries are interested in joining. As a larger agreement, its impact promises to be more ominous than those of the smaller bilateral free trade accords. We would be right to be suspicious of the economic claims that advocates for such trade agreements make. The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA was supposed to create jobs, but evaluations of the economic effects of NAFTA showed that the trend was in the opposite, job loss in the United States and job loss in Mexico.

Beyond the economic concerns, the broader issue is that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)poses tremendous threats to our already shakey democracy. Local laws can become subordinate to demands of international corporations through trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). We saw this with NAFTA as Canada and Mexico had the opportunity to challenge any law that they found to be a barrier to free trade. The classic example was a case where California had band a particularly toxic fuel additive that was showing up in the environment, unfortunately the maker of the additive was a Canadian corporation, by the rules of NAFTA the Corporation was able to sue California and overturn this law as a barrier to free trade.

In Michigan progressives are well aware that emergency manager law usurps democratic power and we see the results of this amounting to the undermining of workers’ rights, and a sellout of public assets. So-called free trade agreements, are even more antidemocratic emergency manager law undermines democracy one town at a time, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) promises to do that for 12 or more countries all at once. So far this agreement has mostly maintained secrecy and invisibility. It's time to bring it out of the shadows.  We need to see it, critique it, and prevent it.  The fact that it hasn't gotten more visibility is reflective of a media that is under strict corporate control. But that means it’s up to us to get the word out. It’s up to us to hold on to our democracy, to build it stronger.