Cutting budgets at our expense

Originally published in Socialist Worker.

Gary Lapon analyzes the failure of Massachusetts' health care system--and what could be done about it.

July 23, 2009

THIRTY THOUSAND documented immigrants in Massachusetts have just been hit with a one-two punch that leaves them paying more taxes for fewer benefits--the latest in a series of attempts to force poor, oppressed and working-class people to pay for the economic crisis.

The new state budget drops health insurance coverage for permanent residents who have had a green card for less than five years; previously, they were covered by Commonwealth Care as part of Massachusetts' 2006 "universal" health care reform.

And, according to the New York Times, "In addition to dropping the immigrant insurance program, Commonwealth Care will save an estimated $63 million by no longer automatically enrolling low-income residents who fail to enroll themselves," which essentially means that thousands of low-income people will go without health coverage they qualify for. This comes on top of significant cuts to services for the disabled, the elderly and the poor.

Massachusetts health care reform, which includes a mandate that residents purchase insurance (enforced by tax penalties) and subsidies for low-income residents, is similar in many ways to what is shaping up as the Obama administration's national health care proposal--which aims to expand insurance coverage while maintaining the role of the for-profit health insurance industry.

With leading health care policymakers like Democratic Sen. Max Baucus stating that any legislation won't cover undocumented workers (see "Look what made it on the table" [1]) nor provide full coverage for all, the move by Massachusetts to drop a section of the documented immigrant population is an indication of what we might see on the national level if the Democrats get what they're proposing.

As these 30,000 immigrants figure out whether they should skip needed care, attempt to pay for some of it out of pocket or cut back on other expenses like food and rent, they should be careful to adjust their calculations to account for the sales tax hike (from 5 percent to 6.5 percent) that will take effect on August 1.

The argument coming from Massachusetts politicians in favor of the cuts to health care, education and human services is that because of the economic crisis and recession, there simply isn't enough money to pay for everything, and that although they care deeply about the poor, sick and disabled, sacrifices must--regrettably, of course--be made.

But is there really not enough money to pay for needed services for immigrants? And are sales taxes--which are regressive, in that the poorest pay the largest share of their income and the richest pay the smallest--the only way, or the best way, to increase tax revenues?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ACCORDING TO the National Priorities Project, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Massachusetts over $24 billion, more than enough to make up for budget shortfalls without cutting services (the total state budget this year is $27 billion). But even conceding that state-level politicians have no direct control over foreign policy, there is plenty of money to prevent cuts and expand funding for those who need services the most.

The only problem, at least for Massachusetts politicians, is that the money is in the pockets of the rich, the last place they look when it comes to finding revenue to pay for services for the needy and other public programs. It seems they have a case of selective amnesia, because they know all too well that the money is there when it's time to raise cash for their campaigns.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Massachusetts ranks seventh in the country, with a median household income of $62,365, and according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Massachusetts ranks third in the U.S. with a per capita Gross State Product (like GDP, but for the state level) of $48,995 in 2007, a measure of value added by state industries.

Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest and most productive states in the wealthiest nation in the world. There is also great inequality, which has been on the rise. According to "Income Inequality in Massachusetts, 1980-2006" in the MassBenchmarks journal, while income for the top 20 percent of Massachusetts households increased 16 percent during the 1990s, "for the bottom 80 percent of families in the Commonwealth, income growth was modest to minimal...by the year 2000, the top 20 percent of families received almost eight times the income of the lowest 20 percent."

If Massachusetts politicians truly cared about the most vulnerable people in the state, they'd be taxing the rich instead of cutting insurance for immigrants and raising taxes that disproportionately impact the poor and working class.

Massachusetts currently has a flat tax (enshrined in the state constitution) of 5.3 percent on income. Although in the past Massachusetts voters rejected attempts to institute a progressive tax structure where those with larger incomes are taxed at higher rates, I'm confident that today's voters--who voted "no" by a two-to-one margin in 2008 to reject a right-wing attempt to eliminate the income tax--would be open to taxing the rich at a higher rate to pay for health care and social services.

In addition, there are ways around the flat tax. Because of exemptions and deductions, the state income tax is already somewhat progressive, with the bottom 20 percent paying at about a 0.2 percent rate, the middle 20 percent at 3.5 percent, and the top 20 percent at 4.3 percent, according to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. So, lawmakers could raise the flat tax while simultaneously raising the threshold under which income is not subject to tax.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ANOTHER WAY to tax the rich would be to raise taxes on income from dividends and interest, which would primarily impact the wealthy, since in Massachusetts those making over $200,000 per year averaged $23,897 in income from dividends and interest, as opposed to $375 for those making less than $50,000, and almost 10 times the average even for those making $100,000 to $200,000.

According to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, the 1999 reduction of the tax rate on interest and dividends from 12 percent to 5.95 percent cost the state over $500 million in revenue in 2006 alone. Why not raise that rate back to 12 percent, or better yet to 30 percent or more? After all, the wealthy who collect money from this source are simply using the money they already have as leverage to get a larger share of the value produced by workers.

These investors produce nothing of value to society to "earn" their interest and dividends. Why not tax it and use the revenue to fund services for those who actually need them?

In fact, I would propose a retroactive tax on the wealthy, who in recent years profited from speculation linked to the housing bubble. Plenty of them made big money and got out of the game before the crash, leaving the bill for their reckless speculation to be picked up by the millions who lost their home, retirement savings and public services.

For example, in 2006, the 25 top-paid hedge fund managers averaged $540 million a year, a total of $14 billion for just 25 people, much of it from investing in the complicated financial instruments that triggered the current crisis. Those profits should be seized and used to prevent budget cuts, keep people in their homes and provide housing for the homeless.

And for those who protest that this would be unfair to the hedge fund managers, I say that is getting off easy after the destruction their greed has wrought for so many working people.

The story is the same across the country. The money is there--what is lacking is sufficient pressure from below to force the politicians to cut from the top.

How the U.S. Media sees Honduras

Originally published in Socialist Worker.

AS EVENTS unfold following the coup in Honduras, some in the U.S. mainstream press are providing ideological cover for the Honduran military's illegal and undemocratic actions, which must be condemned.

Álvaro Vargas Llosa's June 30 New York Times op-ed, "The Winner in Honduras: Chavez," is one prominent example. Llosa claims that President Zelaya set a trap for the Honduran military by "pushing the limits of democracy by trying to force a constitutional change that would permit his re-election" and "the military fell for it."

This is absurd. Zelaya called for a non-binding referendum, a poll, to measure popular support for a change in the constitution, which is hardly a valid reason to kidnap and exile a head of state.

Llosa states that the referendum violates the Honduran constitution and "the legal procedure for constitutional amendments," and that Zelaya's desire to permit a vote to change the single-term limit to be able to run for re-election is the only evidence he provides of Zelaya "pushing the limits of democracy."

His argument rests on equating the violation of the constitution with the violation of democracy. To suggest that the Honduran military overthrew Zelaya, a democratically-elected president, out of respect for democracy and the constitution is ignorant at best and intentionally misleading at worst. Article 2 of the Honduran constitution identifies such violations of popular sovereignty as crimes of treason and Article 3 stipulates that nobody must recognize a government that assumes power by force of arms and gives the Honduran people the right to overthrow such a regime.

I thought, since Llosa is a fellow at the Independent Institute, which according to their Web site "adheres to the highest standards of independent scholarly inquiry" and upholds "rigorous standards without regard to any political or social biases," he must have called for the U.S. military to overthrow the Bush regime for its many violations of the U.S. Constitution, but so far my Google search has turned up 0 results on that.

The real purpose of Llosa's piece is to target Venzuelan President Hugo Chavez, whom he calls "the unlikely champion of Jeffersonian democracy in Latin America" for his "incessant exploitation of the situation," painting him as the main threat to democracy in the region.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MARY ANASTASIA O'Grady's June 30 Wall Street Journal opinion is even worse. Titled "Honduras Defends Its Democracy: Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton Object," O'Grady's piece applauds the coup because she sees it as a noble defense of formal "democracy" and "checks and balances," as well as standing up to "dictators" such as Chavez, who was elected with 56 percent (and re-elected with 63 percent) of the vote in Venezuela.

Reading her piece, one would think that the military soberly, and in the name of the rule of law, stepped in to arrest Zelaya, rather than kidnapping him and beating and kidnapping Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas and the ambassadors from Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Also ignored are the protests in favor of Zelaya's return; the curfew and reports of gunshots--on June 29 on Democracy Now!, Honduran human rights activist Dr. Juan Almendares stated that those on the street after 9 p.m. were being considered free game for the military to shoot; the media blackout in Honduras imposed by the military; or the fact that the leaders of the coup were trained in the United States at the School of the Americas, which trained leaders of right-wing death squads and supporters of the contras who killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguans during the 1980s, using Honduras as a staging ground.

It is clear that O'Grady left these points out to back up her incorrect assertion that "the struggle against Chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators." Apparently, military coups are an important component in the "struggle against Chavismo," given the recent events in Honduras and the failed coup against Chavez in 2002. The latter was overturned by a mass outpouring of support from ordinary Venezuelans in the streets and resistance within the military, including the inspiring example of an 18-year-old bugler in a military band who refused to play for the new "president" and handed his bugle to an enraged general telling him to play it. I'll leave it to O'Grady to explain how a military coup is an effective way of preventing the rise of a dictator, after she finishes burning her house down to protect it from future fires.

Llosa and O'Grady's attempt to sugarcoat the Honduran coup and portray leaders like Chavez and Zelaya as enemies of democracy ignores both Latin American history--which clearly shows the U.S., with its support for right-wing dictators and military coups, to be the greatest threat to democracy--and the contemporary political situation. Despite what they say, such twisting of the facts is motivated by "political and social biases" and "left-right politics."

Chavez has nationalized industries and passed social reforms and price controls to benefit the poor, and spearheaded the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) trade group that includes Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Dominica, Bolivia and Honduras. ALBA functions as a counterweight to neoliberal U.S. policy such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Zelaya, at the helm of a country with a 70 percent poverty rate, has shifted to the left, passed a 60 percent increase in the minimum wage, and joined ALBA.

As Nikolas Kozloff points out in his CounterPunch article "The Coup in Honduras," Zelaya wrote a letter to Obama after the latter's election warning against U.S. intervention in Honduras and criticizing Washington policy, likely referring to Plan Columbia, where the drug war is used as a pretext to heavily arm the right wing Uribe regime. As Kozloff noted, "Zelaya then moved on to drug trafficking: 'The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking...should not be used as an excuse to carry out interventionist policies in other countries.'"

The coup should be seen for what it is: an attempt by a right-wing section of the Honduran ruling class to turn back what it sees as a threat to total corporate and U.S. dominance in Latin America, a region the latter is used to treating as its "backyard."

Just as millions of supporters of democracy and human rights have stood behind the people of Iran in their recent struggle, so should we condemn the coup in Honduras and call for the return of Zelaya to office.

Bombs can't bring liberation

Originally published in Socialist Worker.

THANK YOU for republishing Jeremy Scahill's "The not-so-antiwar Democrats," a vital analysis of the June 16 passage of the $106 billion war funding supplemental for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Scahill rightly calls out the shameful hypocrisy of Democrats who, to win the votes of the antiwar majority, claimed to be antiwar when their votes didn't matter, but voted for empire when they could have had some impact. And he exposes Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's bullying of their antiwar colleagues and double-speak regarding the release of photographic evidence of torture under Bush II.

His article is an indispensable tool for antiwar activists.

Democrats in Congress and the White House weren't the only ones who showed themselves, when the cards are down, to side with the occupiers against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also exposed were various groups on the left with ties to the Democratic Party--those who "acted as if empire began," and I would add ended, "with George W. Bush," as Anthony Arnove put it in a recent interview with SocialistWorker.org.

In a June 22 article, "MoveOn Resumes Antiwar Stance" in the Nation, Tom Hayden points out that "antiwar sentiment at the grassroots is smothered by the unwillingness of several organizations to openly oppose the war escalation," calling out MoveOn, True Majority, and others for their silence on the supplemental war funding.

Although Hayden points out that MoveOn has resumed its "antiwar stance" by calling for a timetable of withdrawal from Afghanistan, a visit to MoveOn's Web site on June 26--a group that gained millions of supporters because of its opposition to the Iraq War during the Bush years (and turned that support into millions of dollars in contributions to Democrats' campaigns)--yields no mention on the main page of the word "Afghanistan" and only one reference (in a tiny font near the bottom) to ending the war in Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN HIS famous speech declaring his opposition to the war in Vietnam, Martin Luther King, Jr. said "there comes a time when silence is betrayal." By refusing to stand against the supplemental war funding bill, MoveOn, True Majority and others have betrayed not only the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, but also their own supporters who want the U.S. out of the Middle East and Central Asia.

The Feminist Majority, a major feminist non-profit, even went so far as to support the war funding supplemental bill because it included an amendment, later dropped, for aid for women in Afghanistan.

The Feminist Majority is right to be outraged by the horrible atrocities, such as rape and the throwing of acid in the faces of school girls, being committed against Afghan women.

However, their press releases distort reality by largely leaving the U.S. and NATO off the hook for supporting warlords whose policies towards women are just as deplorable as the Taliban, not to mention the inherent difficulties involved in "liberating" the Afghan women who are among the hundreds of civilians killed in U.S. airstrikes in the past few months, and those who will be killed by bombs purchased with the newly-approved funding.

The occupation of Afghanistan has always been about U.S. control of Central Asian energy resources. Women's liberation from the Taliban, a justification for the war in Afghanistan held up by anti-abortion/anti-woman crusader George W. Bush, was simply an excuse that deserves to be given as much weight as the claim, coming from a man who took office in 2000 in a stolen election, to seek to spread "democracy" in Iraq.

Furthermore, the U.S., a country with a $10 billion pornography industry and access to abortion in fewer than 15 percent of its counties is in no position to lead others on the path to women's liberation.

Shazia (an alias), a member of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), who struggles for women's rights from her home in Kabul, had this to say to Green Left Weekly:

Those organizations and people who are antiwar, that support the democratic groups, they must support...democratic groups and organizations like RAWA because they will be the future of Afghanistan and they will bring change for the Afghan people.

[Antiwar] demonstrations and such gatherings will have a big impact on the situation in Afghanistan...We think the first step is that [foreign troops] should leave Afghanistan because we do not need war.

They should leave Afghanistan because we have three enemies now, not only two or one.

We, ourselves will bring peace and security for our people because no other country can grant us...peace, democracy and security.

Florence Reece's song "Which Side Are You On?," written in the 1930s in the midst of class struggle in "Bloody" Harlan County, Kentucky, comes to mind:

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.
Which side are you on?

We must answer RAWA's call by rebuilding the antiwar movement. This will be impossible unless we have a clear and principled answer to Florence Reece's question.

We must never compromise: Not another nickel, not another dime--no more money for the U.S. and NATO's crimes!