Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Taking to NYC's streets against stop-and-frisk

Originally published at Socialist Worker. Also published at ZNET.


NEW YORKERS came out in the thousands for the "End Stop-and-Frisk Silent March Against Racial Profiling" on June 17. A multiracial procession of about 15,000 people stretched for nearly 25 blocks down New York City's Fifth Avenue.

Spearheaded by the NAACP and National Action Network, and endorsed by dozens of labor unions, activist groups, civil rights organizations, cultural groups, and community and religious organizations, the march brought together a diverse group united in its opposition to the racist policies and practices of the New York Police Department.

According to the NAACP, the march was silent "as an illustration of both the tragedy and serious threat that stop-and-frisk and other forms of racial profiling present to our society. The silent march was first used in 1917 by the NAACP--then just eight years old--to draw attention to race riots that tore through communities in East St. Louis, Illinois, and build national opposition to lynching."

Participants in the demonstration explained how this has become a civil rights issue of today. "I've been stopped and frisked for a case of mistaken identity," said Justin, a high school senior in Brooklyn. "The cops stopped and searched me without a warrant, without anything--and they just said, 'Mistaken identity.'" As Justin continued:
It's getting crazy. My little brother just got stopped the other day for no reason...He's only 11, but he's a big kid, so they thought he was older, and they searched him. He was scared, he went home crying to my mother. People are scared to come out of their home thinking they'll be searched by the cops. It shouldn't be like that.
Another marcher, Dina Adams, said she had a lot of personal experience with stop-and-frisk. "I have three teenage sons, and so this is a battle that I go through three times as hard," she said. "It impacted [my middle son] so much that where his schooling and everything--his whole life, seemed to have gone upside down."

"The NYPD has too much power," Adams said. "They need to stop focusing on Blacks and Latinos, stop focusing on our youth, stop screwing their lives up."

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

STOP-AND-FRISK is the NYPD policy under which police annually stop and search hundreds of thousands of mostly Black and Latino youth, the overwhelming majority of them innocent of any crime. The policy has effectively criminalized a generation of New Yorkers of color.

According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, in 2011, the NYPD stopped and frisked New Yorkers 685,724 times. Of these, 88 percent of those detained were released without any action by the cops. A total of 87 percent--or seven out of every eight people stopped--were Black or Latino. Blacks and Latinos make up just over half of the population of New York City.

With over 200,000 stop-and-frisks in the first three months of 2012, according to the police's own statistics, the NYPD is on pace to surpass 800,000 this year, an increase of more than 16 percent last year, and more than eight times the number of stops in 2002.

Young Black men are especially targeted by stop-and-frisk policies. A recent NYCLU report found that "the number of stops of young Black men exceeded the entire city population of young Black men (168,126 as compared to 158,406)."

Stop-and-frisks hardly ever turn up evidence of a crime or a real danger to the community. The NYPD found just one gun for every 3,000 stops in 2011. Despite the fact that stop-and-frisks overwhelmingly target people of color, Blacks and Latinos who are searched are less than half as likely as whites to be found with a weapon.

Thousands of the arrests that do take place during stop-and-frisks are for possession of marijuana, which is only supposed to be an arrestable offense when it is in "public view"--and that only happens as a result of the officers' often illegal searches, say victims of the policy.

As NAACP President Benjamin Jealous told Democracy Now! earlier this month, "This is really the biggest, most aggressive racial profiling problem that we have in this country, and it just has to be stopped."

Beyond profiling, humiliating and terrorizing Blacks and Latinos, stop-and-frisks often lead to police misconduct and brutality--from NYPD Officer Michael Daragjati's boast that he "fried another nigger" after allegedly lying about a stop-and-frisk on a police report, to the beating of 19-year-old Jateik Reed and the murder of 18-year-old Ramarley Graham by the NYPD earlier this year.

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

OVER THE past several months, the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy has been subjected to heightened scrutiny by activists, lawyers and even politicians.

Last October, 32 activists, including author Cornel West, were arrested in a civil disobedience action against the racial profiling policy outside the NYPD's 28th Precinct in Harlem.

Since then, the spreading "Stop Stop-and-Frisk" movement has raised awareness and generated opposition through numerous protests against the policy and involvement in struggles against police brutality, including campaigns for justice for Jateik Reed, Ramarley Graham and Shantel Davis, an unarmed Black woman gunned down by the NYPD in Brooklyn last week. Activists have passed out thousands of "Stop Stop-and-Frisk" buttons, which are an increasingly common sight on the streets of New York.

This builds on years of efforts by community organizations and coalitions and the New York Civil Liberties Union to document statistics on stop-and-frisks, exposing the racist nature of the program. In addition, Jazz Hayden of the Campaign to End the New Jim Crow has documented stop-and-frisks for years, posting videos online at AllThingsHarlem.com, in spite of a retaliatory arrest by NYPD officers who Hayden was monitoring.

Pressure has also been building on the legal front. Last month, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against the NYPD for its stop-and-frisk policy. This will allow hundreds of thousands of victims of the policy to be represented in the suit collectively.

Also, the tireless efforts for justice on the part of family members of victims of stop-and-frisk-related police brutality--such as Rev. Bernard Walker, the father of Jateik Reed, and Constance Malcolm and Franclot Graham, the parents of Ramarley Graham--have provided the movement with further centers for organizing. These parents' calls for justice have gone beyond demanding accountability from the officers who brutalized or killed their children, indicting the stop-and-frisk policy as a whole.

Adding to the momentum were related anti-racist mobilizations of the past months, from the 1,000-plus New Yorkers who took to the streets after the execution of Troy Davis in September 2011 to the 5,000 people who marched from Union Square on March 21 as part of the nationwide "million hoodies" marches demanding justice for Trayvon Martin.

All this pressure has prompted local politicians to address the issue of stop-and-frisk. In February, City Council member Jumaane Williams and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer held a press conference calling for an end to the policy "as presently constituted," in the words of Stringer.
Then, earlier this month, Gov. Andrew Cuomo called for the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana in public view, a pretext for thousands of stop-and-frisk-related arrests each year.
However, the movement has yet to force Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to back down.

One week before the march, Bloomberg had the nerve to defend stop-and-frisk at a Black church in Brownsville, Brooklyn, one of the hot spots for the policy, where there is roughly one stop-and-frisk per resident per year in a single eight-block area.

The mayor again defended the policy on Fathers' Day, even as marchers stopped by his apartment on the Upper East Side to express their outrage. However, he addressed the issue of police abuse and claimed that the number of stop-and-frisks would decline in the coming months--a sign that even Bloomberg may be yielding to pressure from activists.

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

THE URGENCY of the marchers' feelings about racial profiling was clear from the first gatherings for the Sunday march.

Ramarley Graham's parents organized a feeder march that kicked off two hours before the main silent march. About 300 people rallied at 125th Street and Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard to demand justice for Ramarley, before marching down Malcolm X Boulevard to 110th Street to join the bigger march, with Ramarley's parents in the lead.
As Constance Malcolm told the crowd:
This is not just about Ramarley. [It's] about the youth and the Black people in this community...We've been brutalized for so long. We have to stand up and let Mayor Bloomberga nd Kelly know that we are sick and tired of this! You can't keep killing our kids. They are the future, and we are going to stand up and let you all know we're going to fight back, no matter what it takes.
Malcolm encouraged the crowd to come to the 161st Street Courthouse in the Bronx on September 13 for the next court date for Richard Haste, the NYPD officer who was indicted last week for manslaughter for shooting her son. "We don't want [Haste] to get away with this," she said. Speaking about police support for Haste, she said, "They were glorifying this man, clapping and chanting...You take a young man's life, and you sit and laugh about it--what kind of man are you? This is an epidemic."

Garth Thomas Messiah, who only a few days before witnessed the killing of Shantel Davis, a 23-year-old Black woman, in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, also spoke. "It was hurtful, how they've slain a young, 23-year-old-Black woman," he said. "That was not an accident, it was cold-blooded murder...After he murdered her, he put the gun back in his holster with blood all over him."

At the gathering point before the silent march, Heavy Dev, a junior in high school in Bushwick, Brooklyn, spoke about his experience being stopped and frisked: "Just because I was walking down the street with two people, and we had hoods on...he said we were a gang looking for trouble. But when he got close to us he said, 'Oh, you don't look like troublemakers.'...So basically the way we look is how they judge us."

David Francis, of Transport Workers Union Local 100 and the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, explained why labor turned out for the silent march:
The youth as well as minorities have gotten involved in labor because that was our only means of getting some fairness, of having equality within society--and yes, it's all connected together. It's like a domino--you knock one down, and they're all going to fall. They're trying to divide us, and we're just at a point in time where we all need to come together.
Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, spoke about the connections between stop-and-frisk and NYPD spying on Arabs and Muslims:
It all goes back to the same thing--it's religious and ethnic profiling, discriminatory policies by the NYPD, and the lack of accountability. So we're here to show the NYPD that it's not just Blacks and Latinos who are out in the streets screaming, it's Arabs and Muslims, and Caribbean people and immigrants, and white people of conscience...It's New Yorkers. We're here to show our solidarity and demand accountability from the NYPD.
One less-talked-about consequence of stop-and-frisk is its impact on transgender youth, particularly transgender youth of color. "The young people I work with, especially my trans clients of color, are targeted," said Raven Burgos. "This happens all of the time--they're exposed to violence, they're policed, they're moved."

Rachel Cholst said she saw the impact of stop-and-frisk as a student teacher of an eight-grade class in Brooklyn. "Some of these kids, by the time they're 13, it's a normal experience for them," Cholst said. "Especially if they happen to be larger or have gone through puberty, it's not unusual for them to be stopped by police and illegally searched. I think it gives them a sense of being criminalized. I can't imagine what it feels like as a child to walk around assuming that adults have it in for you."

Jose LaSalle, an activist with the "Stop Stop-and-Frisk" campaign talked about about the importance of struggle, both winning justice in individual cases like Ramarley Graham, and in the wider fight:
With stop-and-frisk, they racially profile people...That's the reason why they followed Ramarley--because they saw a young Black man around his own neighborhood, and they assume that he was out there dealing drugs. And then they follow him, and they thought they were going to get lucky and discover some guns or drugs in the house, but they didn't.

The human family is tired, and the more support that we get, and the more people we can have in these courts when the hearings are taking place, the more people are going to understand that we're not going to stop until we get real justice.
Adriano Contreras contributed to this article.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Deregulation and the Democrats

Published in "Readers' Views" at Socialist Worker.

I WAS happy to read about the victory for port truck drivers in Los Angeles employed by the Toll Group, who gained union recognition ("Union victory for port drivers").

This is an important victory for workers with a lot of social power given that by withdrawing their labor, port truckers are able to stop the transport of goods through one of the key ports in the country.

At the beginning of the interview, Leonardo Mejia stated that Ronald Reagan deregulated the trucking industry by signing the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, paving the way for trucking companies to bust unions at the ports (and elsewhere) by replacing unionized drivers with non-union "independent contractors." While Reagan did more than his share of union-busting, the Motor Carrier Act was actually signed into law by Reagan's Democratic predecessor Jimmy Carter.

Reagan was an enemy of the working class, but it's important to understand that the assault on working-class living standards over the last three decades, a central component of neoliberalism, was a bipartisan effort from the beginning.

In fact, Jimmy Carter launched a number of policy initiatives beyond the anti-union deregulation of the trucking industry that were later taken up by the Republicans, policies that many attribute to that party even though Democrats were complicit and in many cases initiated them.

For example, Carter appointed Paul Volcker, Jr. as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker, who was later reappointed by Reagan in 1983. In 1979, Volcker said that "the standard of living of the average American has to decline." His solution to the crisis of the 1970s was to jack up interest rates, which triggered a recession that saw unemployment rise, laying the ground for big business to attack unions and drive workers' living standards down to increase the rate of profit.

The deregulation of the trucking industry and the "Volcker shock," along with Ronald Reagan's crushing of the PATCO air traffic controllers' strike, mark the beginnings of the neoliberal assault on workers' living standards and unions.

Finally, Carter announced in 1980 what became known as the "Carter Doctrine," where he declared control over Middle East oil to be of vital interest to the United States, and something to be defended by military force.

Rather than shifting course, Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter's Middle East policy, as did George H.W. Bush in launching the first war against Iraq, Bill Clinton in carrying out bombings and crippling sanctions, and George W. Bush in launching the second.

Every gain that the labor movement has won has been the result of the struggles of workers' themselves, in spite of the efforts of Republicans and Democrats, the two parties of American capitalism. That is why this victory for the Port truckers is so important.

Monday, May 14, 2012

What took him so long?

Published at Socialist Worker, with Alan Maass and Derron Thweatt.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY was back at the center stage of national politics last week when President Barack Obama said in an interview with ABC News that he thought "same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Obama's statement was greeted by a deluge of praise from organizations and individuals that support LGBT and civil rights, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, National Council of La Raza and ACLU.

According to the HRC's Joe Solomonese, "Thanks to President Obama's leadership, millions of young Americans have seen that their futures will not be limited by what makes them different." Playwright Tony Kushner told Democracy Now! "[I]t's incredibly moving to see the president of the United States--in my opinion, a great president--becoming the first president to say that same-sex couples...should have the legal right to marry. I'm very proud of him, if that's not a silly thing to say."

Obama's reelection campaign instantly moved into action to capitalize on the announcement, featuring a quote from the interview prominently on the front page of its website and posting ads to Facebook urging supporters to donate to "help President Obama keep fighting for LGBT rights."

The statement understandably energized many supporters of LGBT equality who hope this means the Democrats will finally get off the fence on this issue. And since one of the right's favorite myths about marriage equality is that African Americans are generally hostile to it, Obama's words may help fix that misconception.

But something more needs to be said: Barack Obama doesn't deserve the praise he's getting--nor the credit for "fighting for LGBT rights."

Obama isn't being a "leader" on the issue of marriage equality, as some supporters claim, but a latecomer. His position only "evolved" to an open statement of sympathy after opinion polls showed it was a politically safe position among a large majority of the population outside of conservative Republicans.

That sea change in public sentiment was driven not by politicians, but because masses of LGBT people and their supporters spoke up and took action. Their position on what ought to be considered an elementary right hasn't "evolved," and they have good reason to be frustrated when supporters of the Democrats claim that Obama is making a "courageous" statement.

Nor should we forget the damage that Obama did to the cause of marriage equality by remaining silent at best during his campaign for the presidency and his time in office so far--up to and including the successful effort that led to the passage of an anti-gay marriage referendum in North Carolina last week.

And supporters of LGBT civil rights and equality should also take a close look at how Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. He didn't vow to take any action on the issue. In fact, Obama insisted that he was only stating his personal beliefs, and that he still thinks same-sex marriage is an issue for states to decide--like North Carolina just did, apparently--not the federal government.

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

OBAMA'S STATEMENT on national television that he personally supports same-sex marriage is, of course, historic. It represents a break from the attitudes and actions of the White House over many decades.

Ronald Reagan refused to even use the word AIDS until 1987, after thousands of mostly gay men had died in a crisis devastated the LGBT community. In 1989, George H.W. Bush refused to acknowledge the NAMES Project AIDS quilt laid out on the National Mall.

In 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, allowed states to ignore the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states, and denied federal benefits to same-sex married couples. When Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to allow same-sex marriage in 2004, George W. Bush called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution.

And then there's Barack Obama, who, as a presidential candidate in 2008, said, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman"--and whose Justice Department went to court to defend DOMA.

In fact, Obama's position on same-sex marriage has evolved...back to what he said he believed 15 years ago. In 1996, during his first campaign for state Senate in Illinois, Obama wrote in a letter to an LGBT magazine: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight any effort to prohibit such marriages."

But when he ran for U.S. senator in 2003, he changed his position, saying he would oppose repealing DOMA and believed marriage must be between a man and a woman. As his presidential campaign was getting underway in 2007, Obama "evolved" a little more, stating that he now thought DOMA should be repealed, but still opposed same-sex marriage.

Obama's decision to revert back to support for marriage equality today is an easier position to take given the vast shift in public opinion during Obama's political career. In 1996, national Gallup polls showed just 27 percent of people supported marriage equality. Last year, polls found for the first time that a majority of respondents believed same-sex couples deserve the right to marry.

More importantly for Obama and the Democrats, two-thirds of people who call themselves Democrats and 57 percent of self-described "independents" support marriage equality. In other words, among base supporters of the Democratic Party, and even among the "swing voters" that the Obama campaign obsesses over, there is strong support for marriage equality.

This shift in public opinion is the hard-won result of years of activism at the local, state and federal level--and, more broadly, the willingness of LGBT people and those who support them to speak up in all kinds of settings, personal and public, against discrimination and bigotry. In fact, the tide of support might be even greater if leading Democrats like Obama hadn't treated marriage equality as a political football, rather than the fundamental civil rights issue it is.

Obama and his advisers also know that his statement of support for same-sex marriage will energize supporters, despite the three-and-a-half years of disappointment about the behavior of the Democrats, even when they had a majority in both houses of Congress. For certain, the announcement resulted in a campaign donation bonanza.

The Obama campaign reportedly raised over $1 million in the first 90 minutes after news broke about his "change of heart" on marriage equality--and the day after the interview was broadcast, Obama raked in $15 million at a fundraiser hosted by George Clooney. Previously, many pro-LGBT funders had threatened to withhold donations when Obama refused recently to issue an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees.

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

SUPPORTERS OF the Democrats shouldn't be so quick to forgive Obama. His previous anti-marriage equality position has had lasting consequences.

On the night Obama was elected in 2008, the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban passed in California by a narrow margin. Supporters of Prop 8 used Obama's statement about marriage being between a man and a woman in advertisements promoting the ballot measure. Not only did the Obama campaign stay silent about the pro-Prop 8 propaganda, but the Democratic Party establishment failed to build opposition that could have shifted the vote.

The same thing happened in late 2009, when Maine voters passed a referendum repealing legalized same-sex marriage--and again this year with the anti-marriage equality referendum in North Carolina. In fact, Obama has already made several campaign appearances in North Carolina this year, but he didn't say a word against the anti-LGBT referendum.

After taking office in 2009, Obama did nothing to get DOMA overturned. On the contrary, the Justice Department defended the law in federal court--in a brief filed by federal lawyers compared same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. The Justice Department only stopped defending DOMA last year.

This pattern showed up on other issues--like repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on LGBT people serving openly in the military. Obama refused to use an executive order to end "don't ask, don't tell." Even after Congress passed a repeal bill at the end of 2010, the Pentagon, supposedly under Obama's command, continued to enforce the ban--only stopping when a federal judge ordered it to in the summer of 2011. When "don't ask, don't tell" was finally ended, more than 80 percent of people in the U.S. supported its repeal.

Supporters of the Democratic Party will credit Obama as a fighter for LGBT equality, but the real credit belongs to the tireless efforts of advocates and activists for LGBT rights over the years, as well as the bravery of millions of LGBT people who have come out to family, friends and coworkers, and who have spoken up against discrimination.

Obama might never have said a thing about marriage equality or DOMA or "don't ask, don't tell" if not for the tens of thousands of people who got active following the passage of Prop 8 and organized grassroots protests in California and around the country--culminating in more than 200,000 people descending on Washington, D.C. in October 2009 for the National Equality March to demand full federal equality for LGBT people.

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

NOT ONLY is Obama late to the game when it comes to marriage equality, but he undercut his stand by saying it should still be the right of states to decide on the issue.

As columnist Dan Savage pointed out, the ABC News report about Obama's interview included a "straddle"--according to ABC, "The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own." "So," Savage wrote, "the president supports same-sex marriage while also supporting the right of states to ban the same-sex marriages that he supports."

The idea of state's rights, of course, has been used to defend many reactionary policies and institutions of the past--like Jim Crow segregation, which had to be overturned by the federal government over the opposition of the Southern states.

Until the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, for example, it was still legal for states to outlaw interracial marriages. No one would claim the struggle against this racist injustice was complete while states could still "decide" on the legality of such marriages. The same should be true about same-sex marriage.

Thus, Obama's statement that marriage equality should be left up to the states raises questions about the consequences of his "change of heart." For example, one of the main planks of DOMA is that states can choose to ignore the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other states. So what does Obama think now about repealing DOMA--something the Democrats promised in 2008, but failed to accomplish, even when they controlled both houses of Congress with strong majorities?

This position also puts Obama at odds with the current legal case against Proposition 8. Lawyers challenging the referendum say the right to marriage for same-sex couples is guaranteed by the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which states that "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Obama has taken a long-overdue step by returning to his previous position of personally supporting marriage equality. Activists may be right in hoping the statement will make it harder for Democrats to back away from future action in defense of equality.

Another positive consequence is that Obama's statement will help to challenge the myth that African Americans are generally hostile to same-sex marriage. Polls show that public opinion in the Black community has shifted from two-thirds opposed to roughly the same level of support as the U.S. population as a whole.

Still, we shouldn't forget that Obama left a loophole in his statement with his talk about the rights of states to decide the question.

And most important of all, we should challenge the idea that Obama led the way in this struggle. In reality, he was dragged into saying (mostly) the right thing--thanks to the actions and arguments of supporters of LGBT equality everywhere.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

In the streets for May Day

Published at Socialist Worker, with Alan Maass.

MAY DAY--the international workers' holiday with its origins in the struggles of the U.S. labor movement more than a century ago--was marked by demonstrations and events in cities around the country this year.

The biggest single demonstration was in New York City, where as many as 30,000 people came out to a rally and march to Wall Street. But there were other actions in New York--and in cities around the country, people came together in their hundreds and thousands, surpassing the expectations of organizers in a number of cases.

This year was the largest mobilization for May Day since the hey day of the immigrant rights mega-marches starting in 2006. Immigrant rights and labor groups were in the thick of the organizing, but so were activists from the Occupy movement of last fall, who looked to May 1 as an opportunity to reassert the message of the 99 percent against the greed, power and corruption of the 1 percent.

That the Occupy movement, like many other struggles before it, looked to May Day as a celebration of solidarity is a signal of the depths of the radicalization. Whatever the size of the demonstrations, they represented an attempt to connect the organizing of today to the rich history of working-class struggle in the U.S.

Of course, May Day was preceded by calls for a general strike of the U.S. working class and mass, nationwide consumer boycotts, but few people expected anything like that to happen. Almost everywhere, activists were happy to report stronger-than-expected turnouts for marches and rallies.

Predictably, the corporate media focused on confrontations between police and demonstrators in a handful of cities. Unfortunately, as has become increasingly clear over this year, a section of the Occupy movement has drifted toward a strategy that seeks a face-off with police and the threat of mass arrest, even when there is no potential of mobilizing the much wider layers of support that the Occupy struggle enjoyed last fall at its height.

The May Day demonstrations this year show the potential for taking new steps forward--crucially, with the renewed connections between unions, immigrant rights organizations and Occupy. The question for activists now has to be how we can deepen these ties and take new steps to broaden participation in the effort to build a left alternative to the world of the 1 percent.

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

-- In New York City, as many as 30,000 people gathered in Union Square on May 1 for the May Day 2012 Solidarity Rally and March to Wall Street. The event was the high point of a day of struggle to mark International Workers' Day and a test for Occupy Wall Street after a relative lull over the winter months.

The day began in the early morning rain in Bryant Park in midtown Manhattan, a staging area of sorts for protesters to meet before heading off to other events.

There were "99 Pickets" actions, including pickets at the Bank of America Tower, Chase bank headquarters and others. In addition to the banks, picket lines were organized to support of different groups of workers, including those demanding a decent contract at the Strand bookstore, protesting the mistreatment of workers at Hot & Crusty restaurants, and standing against the closure of post offices.

Some of the larger events during the day included the Immigrant Worker Justice Tour, a march of over 500 that made several stops, including at Wells Fargo to protest the bank's investment in Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group, which profit off the detention of immigrants.
The march also stopped by the Chipotle restaurant near Bryant Park in solidarity with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which is trying to pressure the chain to require higher pay and better conditions for Florida farmworkers who pick tomatoes.

Outside the Federal Building in Lower Manhattan, which houses the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, some 250 people gathered to protest the criminalization of immigrant workers. The picket, organized by Break the Chains, demanded an end to attacks on all workers organizing for their rights, the freedom to file complaint with government agencies without fear of retribution, and abolition of sanctions against employers for employing undocumented workers.

"We felt on this May Day we want to call out to workers--both immigrant and native born--to unite and come together, not just in word, but with a common demand," organizer Sarah Ahn said in an interview. "All workers, regardless of immigration status, have the right to file complaints with the government and organize."

Another highlight was guitarist Tom Morello, the "Nightwatchman," formerly of Rage Against the Machine, who led a "Guitarmy" march of hundreds of musicians from Bryant Park to Union Square. At Madison Square Park, at least 200 participated in a "Free University," with classes from colleges and universities from throughout the city taught in the park.

A few people were arrested throughout the day, including arrests at the "wildcat march" of over 200 people clad in black masks and hoodies, who took to the streets in lower Manhattan, throwing trash cans and traffic cones.

In New York, as in other cities, the media focused on these confrontations with police. But for activists, the May Day events demonstrated that Occupy Wall Street still has the potential to mobilize significant numbers.

That potential, even broader than Occupy, was clear at the afternoon solidarity march and rally. The 30,000 union members, unorganized workers, immigrants, Occupy activists, socialists, anarchists, radicals, students and youth who gathered in Union Square to listen to speeches and march on Wall Street showed the potential to build a real movement of, for and by the 99 percent.

The march was organized by the Alliance for Labor Rights, Immigrant Rights, Jobs for All; the May 1st Coalition for Immigrant and Worker Rights, immigrant and community groups, and Occupy Wall Street. With endorsements from dozens of union locals, among other groups, the march most of all succeeded in bringing together immigrants--whose mega-marches in 2006 reintroduced May Day as a day of mass action in the U.S.--and organized labor.

In recent years, immigrant rights groups and labor in New York City have held separate rallies, so it was a step forward that they marched together this year.

Some of the largest union turnouts came from the Laborers union and Transport Workers Union Local 100, which represents workers in New York's mass transit system and was the first union to publicly support Occupy Wall Street.

Sandra, an immigrant from Grenada, was there with Families for Freedom. She said the group is "an organization that supports families who are facing deportation. A couple years ago, my son was picked up by Homeland Security and was facing deportation...It's because of Families for Freedom that my son was released." Sandra continued, "It's important for us to be out here to support each other, and for us to get freedom."

Constancia Romilly, a retired nurse from Bellevue Hospital with the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA), attended the rally with members of her union. She said, "The rich people are destroying our health care...we all have to be out here if you're part of the working class, if you're a teacher, a nurse, a construction worker. Today is May Day, we're all supposed to be out here."

Roberto Rodriguez, a retired postal worker, said that "the attack on the postal services is an example of the attack on so many public services. It's public schools versus charters, and now it's the public postal service versus the privatization of its activities."

Janice Walcott of Communications Workers of America Local 1180 attended the protest to stand up against the attack on women. "We're here to protest what's going on with women's rights, as far as birth control and what have you," she said, "and to let the mayor know we're against a lot of the things he's doing."

Ahmad Jarara, Joseph Baez and Gabriel Silver of Brooklyn Tech High School, attended the rally in Union Square. Their school, along with Paul Robeson High School in Brooklyn, held walkouts for May Day, and in support of Tamon Robinson, a 27-year-old Black man who was a barista at a Connecticut Muffin store next to Brooklyn Tech in Fort Greene. Robinson was run over by an NYPD cruiser last month and died from his injuries. Police allegedly handcuffed a comatose Robinson to a hospital bed and denied his family access. Minor charges against him, which involved claims that Robinson stole paving stones, were dropped before he passed away April 18.

When the tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets, the march at one point stretched all the way from Union Square to Canal Street, a distance of nearly 1.5 miles. The march passed Zucotti Park, the original site of Occupy Wall Street, which was cordoned off by barricades and dozens of police officers.

Hip-hop artist and Brooklyn native Yasiin Bey, also known as Mos Def, was on the march. "There are a lot of artists here in support, cause we're human beings," he said. "We thrive off one another's happiness and success, and prosperity and peace and not each other's misery, and a system that proposes that the only way to get ahead is to crush other people, or to make other people small so you can feel big, is anti-human."

He also spoke about recent police murders of Black men, including Ramarley Graham, the unarmed 18-year-old shot and killed by police in the Bronx just a two months ago: "There are so many, so many, Ramarley Graham, Trayvon Martin...let alone the hundreds and hundreds of youth unfairly imprisoned, tried as adults across the country."

Asked about the May Day protest, he said, "It's timely. It's not an isolated thing, it's happening all over the world...the world is smaller than it's ever been these days."

-- In Seattle, thousands of people took to the streets on May Day for a full day of actions and events.
The biggest demonstration was during the evening rush hour commute, when more than 5,000 people marched and rallied for immigrant and worker rights, despite rain showers. The diverse, multiracial and multi-generational crowd chanted against ICE raids and the federal E-verify system while demanding educational opportunities and better working conditions. Occupy chants against inequality and the greed and corruption of banks and the 1 percent were also popular.

Throughout the day, Occupy Seattle held a hip-hop showcase and rallies at Westlake Park downtown as part of the May Day "general strike." About 500 mostly young protesters took part, with student walkouts from Seattle Central Community College and a few local high schools swelling the numbers. From Westlake, several marches left at different points during the day.

Unfortunately, the broad mass immigration and labor march was overshadowed in the media and public awareness by clashes between protesters and the police during demonstrations earlier in the day.

A lunchtime anti-capitalist march of a few hundred wound through downtown, chanting "Hella hella Occupy, the system has got to die." Several dozen Black Bloc anarchists painted graffiti, slashed car tires and smashed windows at numerous stores, banks and a federal courthouse. Police responded with tear gas, pepper spray and batons as demonstrators ran back to Westlake, and the anarchists stripped off their black clothing and masks.

Following the noon march, Mayor Mike McGinn ordered police to use "swift and aggressive" force in response to "unruly" protesters, and banned any protest signs, sticks, and flags that could be used as "weapons." Many stores and businesses downtown closed early and boarded up their windows. In all, fewer than a dozen demonstrators were arrested, some charged with felony assault of police.
During a subsequent march against police brutality and racism, protesters clashed with police near Pike Place Market and Westlake as they tried to block intersections.

-- In Oakland, Calif., there were numerous demonstrations and events to mark International Workers Day.

The mainstream media's coverage of May Day focused on the battles between police and demonstrators who seemed ready to provoke a confrontation. There was much less coverage for what was by far the largest demonstration in the city and the Bay Area as a whole--a march starting in the afternoon in the immigrant neighborhood of Fruitvale and ending downtown for an evening rally. The speakers' list for the rally ranged from immigrant rights activists to hip-hop artist Boots Riley of The Coup to Oakland homeowners fighting against foreclosures on their homes.

The march was organized by a coalition of immigrant rights groups and Occupy and other activists, and was led by a banner declaring "Dignity and Resistance." The crowd grew to around 4,000.
The march was led by workers from the Pacific Steel Company in Berkeley and other immigrant workers. Union members at Pacific Steel have been fired due to the company's voluntary implementation of e-Verify, and have been fighting to regain their jobs. They have been in the forefront of the planning of this march and other struggles since the beginning of the year. Many other unions took part in this year's annual march.

Organizers attempted to reach out to undocumented workers and Latino families. The big turnout showed that the immigrant rights movement, though reeling from the heightened attacks in Arizona and elsewhere, is still alive. Muteado, a Latino activist, stated: "I'm here to protest and demand...that there needs to be change in immigration reform. My ancestors, my people, have been migrating through the Americas for centuries. These borders were created to criminalize our people."

Marchers know only too well that the economic recession has hit immigrant communities and communities of color the hardest. "I've been unemployed for a year," said Ricardo of the Street Level Health Project, an organization which provides health care for impoverished people in Latino communities. "There are few jobs available, and wages have gone down a lot. You need $15 an hour to survive in the Bay Area--we're getting $8.50 and doing outreach in those communities and to migrant workers and day laborers."

Also joining the march was the Million Hoodie and Hijab contingent, in solidarity with victims of racist murders, particularly Trayvon Martin and Shaima Alawadi. Participants wore notes pinned to their sleeves asking, "Does this hijab make me look suspicious?"

Earlier in the day, activists gathered downtown for actions that quickly devolved into running confrontations with police. The Oakland cops were again quick to lash out, having mobilized other law enforcement around the area to be part of the May Day operation. Several personnel from he Alameda County Sheriff's Department spent the day driving a tank, provided by the Department of Homeland Security, around the streets of Oakland. Yes, you read that right: a tank.

The battles with police escalated in the evening after the main rallies and marches of the day were over. As many as 1,000 demonstrators remained in the downtown area around the former encampment site of Occupy Oakland. When police issued a dispersal order, according to reports, a group of several hundred demonstrators, equipped with homemade shields, faced off with police, who fired tear gas and other weapons. At least 25 people were arrested over the course of the day.

-- In the Bay Area, hundreds of nurses participated in pickets on May Day during a one-day strike against Sutter Health hospitals. The nurses, represented by the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, have been fighting for a fair contract with Sutter Health for over a year.
Since June 2011, Sutter Health has been unwavering in its drive to cut benefits and standards.

Management has demanded over 100 concessions from the union, including eliminating paid sick leave for nurses, thousands of dollars a year in additional out-of-pocket costs for health care, reduced maternity leave, and elimination of health coverage for nurses who work less than 30 hours a week.
"This is the third time we've had a one day strike," said nurse Grace McGuiness. "We're fighting, and every time we do a strike, the company locks us out for a few days." This time, Sutter announced it would not allow the nurses to return to work until Sunday, May 6.

"It shows that they don't care," said Lisa, also a Sutter nurse. "Last time, they locked us out, a patient died because they would not allow us to return to work to take care of our patients."

Many on the picket line talked about the significance of striking on International Workers Day, pointing out a rich history of labor struggles and the need to continue the fight around the issues driving the health care crisis today. Millicent Borland, a nurse on the bargaining team, commented, "I'm here today because in nonunion hospitals, many nurses have [as many as 10 patients they must take care of]. Here at Sutter, we have [a ratio of one nurse to four or five patients] because of the union. I don't want the young nurses that come behind me to be worse off than I had it. We must fight."

-- In San Francisco, International Workers Day began bright and early with Golden Gate ferry workers picketing at the Larkspur and San Francisco ferry terminal, starting from 5:30 a.m.

The May Day strike was called earlier in the week by the Inlandboatmen's Union and was supported by the Golden Gate Bridge Labor Coalition, comprised of various unions that represent 380 bridge, bus and ferry workers. Members of this coalition have been without a contract for over a year and are demanding a fair contract, including decent health care coverage.

Ferry workers are also fighting for their jobs as management tries to replace ferry worker assistants. Rene Alvarado, a terminal assistant at the Larkspur Ferry Terminal and member of the Inlandboatmen's Union, said in a press release, "Since they laid off the ticket agents, our work has quadrupled. We don't want management to lay us off, too. Everyone knows it's better to have a human being helping passengers than a machine.

Ferry service was essentially shut down until 2 p.m. To further escalate the fight for a fair contract, bus workers from Teamsters Local 665 said they would be going on strike in early May.

Labor protested the day before May Day as well. Inspired by the Capitol occupation in Madison, Wis., last year, more than 300 members of SEIU Local 1021 occupied City Hall to demand a fair contract and no increases on health care costs. The rotunda was decorated with beautiful handmade signs, each one sending a message to Mayor Ed Lee, "Downtown greed or the city we need."
Though the City Hall occupation did not turn into an overnight occupation, SEIU 1021 members were confident they delivered their message loud and clear.

On May Day itself, the action continued with a 10 a.m. march in the Mission, a well-known area in San Francisco with a large Latino and immigrant community. More than 200 people marched from 24th and Mission to 16th and Mission, where they took over the intersection and held a street theater, with different skits around issues the community faces on a daily basis.

After the march in the Mission, May Day participants made their way to Westfield Mall at around 11 a.m. to support the janitors of SEIU Local 87, who held a rally and a banner drop to highlight their ongoing dispute with building management. SEIU Local 87 and supporters picketed outside of Westfield Mall until around noon, when May Day demonstrators moved ahead to the financial district.

The noon protest was the biggest convergence of the day--hundreds of people took over the Montgomery and Market intersection and held a People's Street Festival to celebrate International Workers Day. People listened to music and speeches, and painted a mural on the street.

After the People's Street Festival, many people headed across the bay to a regional march in Oakland. Several hundred activists occupied a vacant building owned by the archdiocese of the Catholic Church. The building was previously taken over by Occupy activists. According to police accounts, two people on adjoining rooftops threw rocks and pipes onto police and other people gathered outside the occupied building. Police moved in before dawn to clear the building, arresting 26 people.

-- In Portland, Ore., activists were up early to celebrate International Workers' Day. Hours before the main march and rally for immigrant and workers rights had set up, hundreds of students assembled at the Portland Public School District Office to protest planned cuts to education. They took over streets, bridges and finally the rotunda in front of City Hall. Mayor Sam Adams made an appearance to address the students, thanking them for their protest and opening City Hall for small groups to use the facilities.

On the other side of town, hundreds more marched through the streets of North and Northeast Portland, a historically African American part of town which has been hit hard by the banksters' financial crisis.

Around 450 people participated in an action organized by the Occupy N/NE "Black Working Group," We Are Oregon and the Portland Liberation Organizing Council with the aim of defending Alicia Jackson as she moved back into her foreclosed home. After 45 minutes of rallying at Woodlawn Park, we marched in the streets for several blocks to Alicia's house.

The property had previously been illegally claimed by Wells Fargo, but after a year of vacancy, demonstrators cut a ribbon was cut, and the front door was opened to move the rightful residents back inside. A large group sang and danced around a May Pole made with red and black ribbons tied to the top of the sign advertising the property for rent. Volunteers moved Alicia's stuff out of vans, while others worked on cleaning up the inside of the house, and even more volunteers tore out the overgrowth in her back yard in order to build a garden.

The whole event resembled a neighborhood block party as folks stood in the street, laughing, eating donated food, talking politics, throwing foam balls to each other and generally celebrating the process of building community support networks for those facing eviction from foreclosure. The protest was the result of several weeks of activism leading up to May Day, with We Are Oregon going door to door on the blocks surrounding Alicia's home to build support.

Meanwhile, the main May Day demonstration, an annual event in this city, a crowd estimated at 2,000 people by the media marched through the streets in a demonstration for immigrant rights and jobs.

-- In Chicago, more than 3,000 people turned out for Chicago's May Day demonstration. The day's main march began with a rally at Union Park west of downtown, paused for a moment of silence in the middle of an intersection near what was once Haymarket Square, and concluded with a rally at Federal Plaza.

The march brought together immigrant rights groups, unions and Occupy Chicago in an inspiring display of solidarity in defense of workers' rights. Popular chants included, "Money for jobs and education, not for racist deportation," "How do we fix the deficit? End the wars, tax the rich!" and "Hey Rahm Emanuel, take your cuts, and go to hell!"

The march was generationally and racially diverse, with veteran activists marching alongside young people who've become active through Occupy Chicago. As the march approached the former site of Haymarket Square--the best-known symbol today of the eight-hour day struggle in 1886 that gave rise to Intenrational Workers Day--the entire crowd took a knee to pay their respects to everyone who paid with their lives in the struggle.

Along with immigrant rights and Occupy activists, the rally had the backing of several key unions, including UNITE HERE, Workers United, Teamsters Local 705 and the Chicago Teachers Union. Several unions sent small but visible contingents, including United Auto Workers Local 551, which represents workers at the Ford assembly plant on Chicago's South Side.

During the march, some 80 black-clad protesters made an attempt to take control at the front of the protest, chanting, "From Chicago to Greece, fuck the police!" and setting off firecrackers. But despite some tense moments, the march marshals gained control and maintained the ranks of the protest, heading off a confrontation with police that could have endangered undocumented workers on the march.

-- In Boston, despite pouring rain, over 1,000 people marched for immigrant rights in a demonstration that began in East Boston and marched through Chelsea to Everett--all parts of the city with the highest concentration of immigrants from Latin America.

Across the harbor, a smaller number of Occupy Boston protesters marched through the financial district and rallied at City Hall. "Today, I'm hoping just to get people aware of what May Day is, get people aware that there is an issue in this country and that they can do something about it," said Emerson College student Suzi Pietroluongo.

-- In Montpelier, Vt., more than 1,000 Vermonters came out to the annual Vermont Workers' Center May Day March and Rally. This year's actions drew together participants from dozens of groups--local unions and anti-sexist groups, climate justice organizations and immigrant rights organizers, leftists, anti-student debt campaigners and occupiers.

The most inspiring chants came from the Justica Migrante contingent, which filled the streets of Vermont's tiny capital city with the call "El pueblo unido, jamas sera vencido!" This coalition of immigrant workers, the marginalized backbone of the profitable Vermont dairy industry, has been struggling for the right of immigrants to obtain drivers licenses in this rural state. It was an important reminder that the struggle for immigrant rights extends to every corner of the U.S.

Also present were members of local postal workers unions. One worker, John, expressed cautious optimism that recent developments in Congress could stave off draconian cuts. But more inspiring to him were postal workers themselves, who, supported by their communities, organized and demonstrated against plans to dismantle the post office.

-- In Rochester, N.Y., members of Occupy Rochester, the Rochester Labor Council (AFL-CIO), local unions and many local activists came out for a daylong celebration of International Workers Day. More than 100 people participated throughout the day in two separate rallies, a three-hour block of workshops and an evening picnic.

A noon rally outside Rochester City Hall demanded a living wage for all workers, a rise in the national minimum wage and a defense of public sector workers. Midday workshops, 10 in all, highlighted the history of May Day, immigrant rights, the history of the sit-down strike, and housing rights, among others. The 5 p.m. rally at the Liberty Pole in the middle of downtown featured the president of the Rochester Labor Council Jim Bertolone. The evening picnic had food provided by Occupy Rochester, labor songs and several performances of spoken word.

-- In Pittsburgh, around 200 people rallied in the Hill District and then followed up with a spirited march through downtown to decry high health care costs, cuts to mass transit, police brutality, economic disparities and other issues.

The march stopped at the Consol Energy Center, home of the Pittsburgh Penguins. Speakers revealed how the hockey team got sweetheart deals by schmoozing politicians at the expense of the people. The next stop was the headquarters of health care giant UPMC, where speakers described the crisis of the health care system and the need to organize for universal coverage. Then it was off to PNC Plaza, near the office of Republican Gov. Tom Corbett--better known to protesters as "Tom Corporate."

Along the way, police attempted to keep the crowd on the sidewalk, but gave up as marchers repeatedly took to the streets. The police finally obliged and blocked traffic for the protesters at key intersections.

A coalition of groups helped to organize the march, including Occupy Pittsburgh, Pittsburghers for Public Transit, the Thomas Merton Center, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Workers International League, and the ISO.

-- In Austin, Texas, nearly two hundred people gathered in front of the Capitol building to celebrate May Day. Speakers from the Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition, Workers' Defense Project, International Socialist Organization, Students for Justice for Palestine, Occupy Austin, Activate Austin and UT Sweat Shop Free Coalition all spoke.

Speakers addressed issues ranging from anti-immigrant racism to the Lockheed Martin strike in Fort Worth. A lively march through downtown Austin followed as chants, like "What's disgusting? Union busting! What's outrageous? Sweat shop wages!" echoed off the buildings.

Adam Balogh, Sam Bernstein, Tahir Butt, Tim Gaughan, Thomas Grace, Charles Grand, Brian Lenzo, Danny Lucia, Diana Macasa, Amy Muldoon, Khury Petersen-Smith, Meredith Reese, Eric Ruder, Peter Rugh, Alessandro Tinonga and Camille White-Avian contributed to this article.

Monday, April 23, 2012

The right wing's legislative laboratory

Published at Socialistworker.org.

THE GROUNDSWELL of anger and protest following the murder of Trayvon Martin has forced the discussion of racism onto the center stage of national politics after years when it was consigned to the margins.

One part of that discussion has been the spread--and the consequences--of supposed self-defense laws like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which was the excuse used by police and prosecutors for not charging George Zimmerman with Trayvon's murder for a month and a half.
The questioning of the "Stand Your Ground" law has, in turn, cast a spotlight on the legislative laboratory that produced it--a shadowy, conservative non-profit organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Think of a right-wing legislative initiative at any level of government, and there's a chance ALEC had a hand in it. In spite of its innocuous-sounding name, ALEC represents a fusion of corporate money, super-rich reactionaries and right-wing politicians behind the spread of not only "Stand Your Ground"-style laws, but a whole host of other issues.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, the more than 800 model bills and resolutions promoted by ALEC:
reach into almost every area of American life: worker and consumer rights, education, the rights of Americans injured or killed by corporations, taxes, health care, immigration, and the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Only by seeing the depth and breadth and language of the bills can one fully understand the power and sweep of corporate influence behind the scenes on bills affecting the rights and future of every American in every single state.
According to the Center, ALEC's membership includes approximately 2,000 legislators, almost all Republicans, as well as over 300 corporations. The organization is dedicated to promoting model pieces of legislation to serve as templates for bills introduced at the local, state and federal level.

Almost all of the organization's funding comes from corporate sources, but the most notorious funders of all are the billionaire Koch brothers. With their help, ALEC was essential in developing the strategy behind the attack on public-sector unions following the Republicans' 2010 election victory, with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leading the charge.

But as ALEC faces growing scrutiny, we're learning that all this was the tip of the iceberg.

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

ALEC WAS instrumental in pushing for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which authorizes the use of deadly force by those who "reasonably [believe] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." Those who use deadly force in these circumstances don't have a "duty to retreat."

"Stand Your Ground" laws are a particularly extreme version of the "Castle doctrine," which is on the books in various forms in most U.S. states. These laws authorize deadly force when confronted with a threat in one's home. But the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida and other states applies "in any other place where he or she has a right to be."

Since the law went into effect in Florida in 2005, there has been a spike in killings labeled "justifiable homicides." According to an analysis of law enforcement data by the Sun Sentinel newspaper, between 2007 and 2010, "388 killings in Florida were ruled justifiable homicides. Over the previous seven years, there had been only 237 such cases."

According to Sun Sentinel, half of the victims of "justifiable homicides" committed by civilians were Black, though African Americans are only about 17 percent of the state's population. Florida police committed 60 percent of the "justifiable homicides" during this time.

These facts, as well as similar experiences in other states--like Wisconsin, where an unarmed Black 20-year-old was killed by a white homeowner who won't be charged because of the state's Castle doctrine--have caused many people to wonder whether such laws mean that, in the words of one writer, it's "open season on Black youths."

The racist character of these supposedly "colorblind" laws is highlighted by the case of Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old Black mother of three who faces up to 20 years in prison in Florida for firing a warning shot into the ceiling of her home in an attempt to ward off her abusive husband. A judge dismissed the "Stand Your Ground" defense in her case.

But not-so-veiled racism is familiar territory for ALEC. The group was a major force behind "voter ID" legislation introduced in a majority of states last year. Sponsored by ALEC's Republican lackeys, the bills would require a photo ID to vote, disproportionately denying the franchise to people of color, the poor and college students, groups more likely to vote for Democrats.

A Democratic Party-backed effort from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Color of Change and Credo Action is using public outrage about the Voter ID and Stand Your Ground bills to pressure major corporations and foundations to stop funding ALEC.

As of April 19, a dozen corporations, including Coca-Cola, McDonald's, PepsiCo and Blue Cross Blue Shield, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have pulled funding for ALEC.

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

ALEC--WHOSE website banner proclaims "Limited Government, Free Markets, Federalism"--came into being in 1973 as a part of the corporate-backed effort to challenge the gains of civil rights movement, and of the struggles it inspired for economic justice, rights for other oppressed groups, a clean environment and more.

ALEC's founders included Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, sponsor of the amendment bearing his name that since 1976 has banned federal funding for abortion--the first of many efforts to restrict working class and poor women's access to abortion.

Since then, ALEC has had a hand in some of the most atrocious policy initiatives imaginable, benefitting its super-rich sponsors at the expense of almost everyone and everything else--working people, their unions, people of color, women, the poor and the environment, to name a few.

Before the "Stand Your Ground" push, ALEC played a role in promoting "tough on crime" legislation central to the rise of the modern system of mass incarceration--what author Michelle Alexander has dubbed the "New Jim Crow." This system, with its labeling of Black men as "criminals," provided the context for George Zimmerman to view Trayvon Martin as a threat.
According to Mike Elk and Bob Sloan, writing in the Nation, "ALEC helped pioneer some of the toughest sentencing laws on the books today, like mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders, "three strikes" laws and "truth in sentencing" laws."

As Elk and Sloan point out, having helped engineer the unprecedented growth in the prison population, ALEC helpfully came up with legislation to legalize the use of prison labor in the private sector--at wages as low as 20 cents an hour:
ALEC has also worked to pass state laws to create private for-profit prisons, a boon to two of its major corporate sponsors: Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections), the largest private prison firms in the country. An In These Times investigation last summer revealed that ALEC arranged secret meetings between Arizona's state legislators and CCA to draft what became SB 1070, Arizona's notorious immigration law, to keep CCA prisons flush with immigrant detainees. ALEC has proven expertly capable of devising endless ways to help private corporations benefit from the country's massive prison population.
ALEC's latest proposal for the mass incarceration industry? Privatize the parole system. As Mike Elk told Democracy Now! last August:
[W]hat ALEC wants to do now is reform the parole system in this country, privatize it. So now prisoners have to put up bond, with private bail bond companies that are owned by big Wall Street firms, where they have to pay outrageous fees in order to get out of prison.
Before the latest scandals, ALEC got unwanted public attention last year during the uprising in Wisconsin against Gov. Scott Walker's union-busting legislation targeting public-sector workers. Walker's candidacy for governor was backed to the hilt by ALEC funders David and Charles Koch, the ultra-right wing billionaires who wanted Walker's Wisconsin used as a laboratory for anti-labor legislation.

As for the environment, ALEC--which has received immense sums from energy companies like ExxonMobil, BP, Texaco and Chevron, and other notorious polluters like Monsanto and Dow Chemical--has pushed a litany of policies to allow corporations to destroy the planet unimpeded by any constraints on profits.

According to the Center for Media and Democracy, ALEC's anti-environmental measures include: blocking limits on pesticide use, making it easier to build nuclear power plants, preventing opposition to genetically modified crops, eliminating zoning regulations, "privatizing water and sewer systems" and "protecting polluting corporations from civil and criminal liability."

And those are just some of the lowlights. ALEC has written and lobbied for a staggering variety of legislation--from cutting taxes on the wealthy, to undermining the government's Medicare and Medicaid health programs, to limiting corporate liability from consumer lawsuits, to busting unions through "right-to-work" legislation, to eliminating minimum wage guarantees, to privatizing anything and everything in the hands of the state.

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

THE EFFORT to expose ALEC for its many crimes is backed by the Democratic Party, for obvious reasons. As its "Voter ID" initiative shows, ALEC is part of a network of corporate-backed entities that promote the Republican Party at the expense of the Democrats.

But anyone who thinks the Democrats are wholly on the right side about ALEC should look more closely at the link between the two when it comes to the attack on public education. The truth is that the Obama administration's education policy is in line with "reforms" pioneered by ALEC.

Take the Obama administration's Race To The Top funding scheme, which dangles the possibility of additional educational funding in front of state governments, but only if they pass laws allowing the wholesale expansion of charter schools and imposing merit-pay schemes on teachers.

This takes several pages out of the ALEC playbook. As early as 1983, the right-wing group was pushing for policies such as school vouchers, merit pay and "higher standards"--all key components of the now bipartisan attack on public education and teachers' unions.

This likewise explains why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was, until very recently, an ALEC funder. Though Bill Gates likes to drape his efforts to deform public education with the language of the civil rights movement, he, like the Democrats, is a proponent of the same anti-union education "reforms" that ALEC has long supported.

The same areas of agreement between ALEC and the Democrats exist on other issues.

The Democrats opposed efforts by Scott Walker and other Republicans to completely gut public-sector unions, whose get-out-the-vote efforts are critical for Democrats at election time. But leading Democrats--from mayors like Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, to governors like Andrew Cuomo in New York and Jerry Brown in California, to Barack Obama in the White House--are carrying out similar attacks on public-sector workers' jobs, wages and benefits.

Likewise, ALEC and the Republicans weren't alone in causing the growth of the racist system of mass incarceration. The U.S. prison population increased more under Democratic President Bill Clinton than under any other administration--and Barack Obama has continued a war on drugs that has swept millions of Black and Brown men into a lifetime of second-class citizenship.

These areas of overlap shouldn't be that surprising. After all, the same corporations that bankroll ALEC and the Republican Party also fund the Democrats.

For example, AT&T, which sits on ALEC's board, has given millions to both parties in recent election cycles. As for contributions to individual candidates for the 2012 election, only Republican House Speaker John Boehner ($99,200) has gotten more from the telecommunications giant than President Obama ($37,069).

To take another of many examples, Comcast, the corporate co-chair of ALEC in four states, is the 12th-largest overall donor for the 2012 election cycle to this point. Of the $2.35 million it has spent so far, nearly two-thirds has gone to Democrats. The breakdown for ALEC member Microsoft is similar. And the list goes on and on.

ALEC is repellant, but it is not the source of the disease. It is best understood as one component in big business' multi-pronged approach to ensuring its interests are served, no matter which of the two parties, Republican or Democratic, hold office at the local, state or federal levels.

It's a good thing that ALEC's sleazy record is being exposed to the light of day. But no one who wants to see political and social change in this country should rely on the Democrats to counter the right-wing, pro-corporate, anti-worker agenda that ALEC stands for.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

The "Buffett Rule" charade

Published in Socialist Worker.

WITH TAX Day approaching and the Republican Party seemingly settled on nominating a super-rich parasite as its presidential candidate, Barack Obama gave us a taste of the coming general election campaign this month with a lot of talk about making the tax system fairer so the rich "pay their share."
Specifically, Obama and the Democrats are pushing the so-called "Buffett Rule." Named after multi-billionaire speculator Warren Buffett, the Buffett Rule would set a goal of getting those earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes--something closer to the rate at which middle-income households pay.

But don't expect the IRS to start sticking it to the super-rich any time soon. The Buffett Rule doesn't stand a chance of becoming law before the 2012 election--not with a Republican-controlled House and GOP senators willing to block any such measure in their chamber, as they did on April 16. So this is really a campaign maneuver, not anything that's expected to become law.

Moreover, even if the Buffett Rule became law--and its fairly vague "guidelines" translated into real enforcement--the U.S. tax system would remain overwhelmingly favorable to corporations and the rich, and tilted against working people. That's no surprise, since the politicians who oversee the tax system--Republican and Democrats alike--are committed to serving the interests of the 1 percent, at our expense.

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

WARREN BUFFETT, one of the wealthiest people in the world with a net worth of $44 billion, has famously pointed out that he pays taxes at a much lower rate than his secretary and other employees. Buffett says he supports modest increases in taxes on the wealthy to end this disparity--or at least make it less grotesque.

The government's own statistics back up Buffett's point--even when looking just at the federal income tax, and leaving aside the range of other regressive taxes, like the sales tax, that by definition take a bigger bite out of the earnings of lower-income people than higher-income people. According to the Internal Revenue Service, in 2007, the wealthiest 400 households in the U.S. made an average of $345 million for the year and paid federal income taxes at an average rate of 16.62 percent. That's the same rate paid in 2007 by a single person earning $42,676 for the year.

So the super wealthy can make more than 8,000 times what you do and still pay the same federal income tax rate. How? One of the main reasons is that taxes on capital gains--income from investments in stocks, bonds, real estate and the like--are set at 15 percent, whereas income from wages and salaries is taxed as high as 35 percent for the highest bracket of income. Rich people make disproportionately more from capital gains than salaries, so the tax code has a huge built-in advantage for them.

The Buffett Rule to raise the overall tax rate on millionaires to 30 percent was introduced as legislation in February as the "Paying a Fair Share Act." However, everyone in Washington knew the Republicans in the Senate would block the measure when it came up for discussion--and the House Republican leaders wouldn't even let it come up.

Rather than signaling a shift towards a "fair" economic policy, as Obama has claimed in recent speeches, the proposal is best understood as a campaign move. Thus, on BarackObama.com, the Obama campaign's website, there is a "Pass the Buffett Rule" calculator that invites users to see their tax rate in comparison to Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney--and then see what how much Romney would supposedly pay if the Buffett Rule were passed.

Romney, of course, has taken full advantage of the tax system over the years. In 2010, he reported income of $21.6 million and paid less than 14 percent in taxes. His "success" in business comes from founding Bain Capital, a financial firm that specializes in corporate buyouts, so he's always gotten most of his income from capital gains. Naturally, he firmly opposes any proposal to raise the tax rate on capital gains.

Romney is a parasite, and any tax increase on him and his ilk would be more than welcomed by the vast majority of the population.

But anyone who thinks Obama and the Democrats are serious about the Buffett Rule should remember that this is an election year, when Democrats always shift to the left rhetorically and pay lip service to the interests of working people and unions in order to win votes.

Those who would take Obama at his word that he intends to make the rich pay their fair share and use the revenues to fund jobs programs and education should remember the promises that Obama made--and broke--in 2008.

On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama pledged to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to join unions. Once elected, with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, the legislation was left to die. Obama also promised to "put on comfortable shoes" and walk the picket line if workers' collective bargaining rights were under attack. Yet when public-sector workers stood up to Republican Gov. Scott Walker's attack last February in Wisconsin, Obama was nowhere to be seen.

Most relevant of all is Obama's capitulation on his promise to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire when they came up for renewal at the end of 2010. This was hardly a radical proposal--taxes on income over $250,000 a year would have gone up slightly, to where the rates that existed during the Clinton years.

But the Democrats put off a vote on letting the tax cuts expire--until after the Republicans won a sweeping victory in the 2010 congressional elections. Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican leaders--and the "compromise" he made extended all of the Bush tax cuts for two years. The cost for maintaining lower tax rates for the top 2 percent of highest-earning Americans was around $120 billion over two years.

Even if the Buffett Rule were implemented, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to this ongoing giveaway to the super-rich.

According to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett Rule would bring in around $47 billion in revenues over the next 10 years. That's about one-third of what the wealthy are saving this year and next as a result of the extention of the Bush tax cuts.

And according to some analysts, the Democrats' proposal to implement the Buffett Rule as a replacement for the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is expected to net over $1 trillion over the next decade, could reduce tax revenues overall.

To call this "fair" is laughable. It brings to mind Malcolm X's point that "you can't drive a knife into a man's back nine inches, pull it out six inches and call it progress"--although in this case, it's more like pulling it out a half an inch, if that.

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

ANY DISCUSSION about a fairer tax policy today ought to take into account how we got here.
Over the past several decades, income and wealth inequality has increased dramatically. The top 1 percent now own over 40 percent of the nation's wealth, and their share of national income increased from 9 percent in 1976 to 24 percent in 2007.

Meanwhile, the tax burden has shifted in exactly the opposite direction--first, from corporations onto individuals, and second, from the wealthiest individuals onto everyone else.

As left-wing economist Richard Wolff points out, in 1943, U.S. corporations paid nearly $1.50 in taxes for every $1 paid by individuals. By 1960, this amount had already fallen to just over 50 cents in corporate taxes for every $1 from individuals. But the trend continued over the following decades. By 2010, corporations were taxed about 22 cents for every dollar paid by individuals, about one-seventh the relative proportion they paid in 1943.

These figures contradict the deceptive claims of pro-business commentators who love to complain about how U.S. corporate tax rates--nominally 35 percent of income--are "the highest in the world."
In reality, the biggest corporations pay a fraction of that rate, if they pay any taxes at all. In a joint report, Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy examined the tax records of 280 profitable Fortune 500 companies from 2008 to 2010. The average tax rate for all of these corporations was 18.5 percent, and 30 profitable corporations paid no taxes at all over the three-year period--they actually received a refund. A total of 78 companies paid no taxes during at least one of the three years.

There's an old saying that "nothing is certain except death and taxes"--but that applies to everyone except major U.S. corporations, which are saved from death by insolvency with taxpayer-funded bailouts and freed from the burden of paying taxes despite massive profits.

For example, General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt was chosen by Obama to chair the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, made $10.5 billion in profits from 2008 to 2010, yet reaped $4.7 billion in tax benefits, for a tax rate of -47.8 percent. Verizon, whose workers went on strike last year after the company demanded cuts in wages, health and retirement benefits, made more than $32 billion over the same three-year period, and received tax benefits of nearly $1 billion.

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

IN ADDITION to the tax burden shift from corporations to individuals, wealthy individuals are paying relatively less, and middle-income and lower-income individuals more.

Long before the Bush tax cuts, tax rates for the wealthiest U.S. households had already declined dramatically. According to a report by Wealth for the Common Good, "Over the last half-century, America's wealthiest taxpayers have seen their tax outlays, as a share of income, drop by as much as two-thirds. During the same period, the tax outlay for middle-class Americans has not decreased."

As recently as the early 1960s, the tax rate on income at the highest levels--known in tax terminology as the top income bracket--exceeded 90 percent. By the end of Ronald Reagan's eight years in the White House in the 1980s, the rate had dropped below 30 percent. George H.W. Bush increased the top tax rate to 31 percent, and Clinton hiked it to 39.6 percent. The Bush tax cuts reduced the rate to 35 percent, where they remain today.

Meanwhile, the tax rate on capital gains, which was raised in the late 1960s and mid-1970s to a maximum of close to 40 percent, has been cut over the past few decades to the current rate of 15 percent. These reductions have almost exclusively benefited the top 1 percent. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, were the capital gains tax rate restored to its high point, 80 percent of the tax increase would be borne by the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, and 90 percent by the richest 5 percent.

Right-wing commentators often seek to confuse the tax issue by pointing to the fact that only half of U.S. residents paid federal income taxes in 2009. Low-income households who don't make enough money to pay the federal income tax are viewed as "freeloaders."

This turns reality on its head. The real "freeloaders" are the giant corporations raking in record profits while paying little to nothing--or less than nothing--in taxes, and the banks who receive giant government bailouts and then pay billions in bonuses to executives while throwing working people out of their homes.

In reality, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) points out, the statistic about 2009 is misleading because that was the low point of the recession and a number of temporary tax breaks were in place. Two years earlier, 40 percent of households didn't owe federal taxes.

More importantly, the right-wing complaints about income tax freeloaders on the bottom of the income ladder conveniently ignores the many other taxes, most of them highly regressive, that working people do pay--like the federal payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare, and state and local sales taxes.

According to the CBPP, "When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average" (emphasis in original)--a major burden on households on the lower end of the income ladder, and still higher than Mitt Romney paid on his income taxes.

The Buffett Rule wouldn't even come close to making the rich "pay a fair share." For that to happen would require a fundamental overhaul of a tax code that is currently designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of those who produce the wealth.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Raising our voices for Trayvon

Published at Socialist Worker. Co-written with Julian Guerrero.

THOUSANDS of people gathered in Union Square in New York City March 21 for a "Million Hoodie March" to demand justice for Trayvon Martin, as outrage at his racist murder continues to spread across the country and the world.

Trayvon was gunned down in the central Florida town of Sanford in late February as he walked to the home of his father's fiancé. His killer was George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who was patrolling a gated community when he spotted Trayvon. To judge from chilling 911 recordings, Zimmerman decided that the African American 17-year-old was "suspicious," began stalking him and then shot him at point-blank range.

Police questioned Zimmerman, and then released him because he claimed he killed Trayvon in "self-defense"--though Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by nearly 100 pounds and was armed with a handgun, while Trayvon possessed only a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Nearly a month after the crime, Zimmerman has still not been arrested.

Trayvon's parents led the protest in New York City. Demonstrators wore hoodies as a show of solidarity--Trayvon was wearing one when he was murdered--and to dramatize the statement from the organizers' Facebook page that "a Black person in a hoodie isn't automatically 'suspicious.'"
New York's was the largest, but not the only demonstration to express the growing anger at Trayvon's killing--and more actions are planned in cities around the country in the coming days.

In Orlando, only a few miles from Sanford, hundreds rallied at a protest organized by the Florida Civil Rights Association to demand that the state to revoke the concealed weapons permit issued to George Zimmerman. Later that night, in Miami's Liberty City neighborhood, more than 200 supporters gathered, carrying bags of Skittles and cans of ice tea. "I wanted to come 'armed and dangerous,'" said teacher Suneeta Williams.

The night before, in Sanford itself, some 1,000 people packed a town meeting led by NAACP President Ben Jealous, along with leaders of the ACLU and Nation of Islam. As Jealous told the crowd, "I stand here as a son, father, uncle who is tired of being scared for our boys. I'm tired of telling our young men how they can't dress, where they can't go and how they can't behave."

There were plans for another protest in Sanford on Thursday, this one led by Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network. In Atlanta, activists booked several buses to make the nearly eight-hour drive to Sanford--and sold every seat in advance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AT UNION Square, thousands of people turned out for the quickly organized protest. The multiracial crowd wore hoodies, scores of people defiantly held up bags of Skittles. One Black youth of elementary school age held a sign asking, "Am I next?" A man held a sign that read, "Racism is not a fringe issue," and listed, "George Zimmerman, NYPD, Newt Gingrich, Jan Brewer, and on and on and on..."

As one protester, Aisha Mays, said:
Things like this happen all the time because Black men are targets. You see the worst of this here, but you also see it everywhere--in the schools, the workplaces. I'm glad that people are here. We have to continue these speakouts and rallies, we have to continue to talk about these issues and bring them out in the open, we have to break down these racist barriers. We have to take action.
Alia, a white woman who attended the rally with her 7-year-old son Sam, said "I've got kids, too, and I know that Trayvon was somebody's baby. We have to be here for them because of that. This is the only way to have a better world."

Sam added: "I'm here because I'm really angry at the man who killed Trayvon. He must be crazy, out of his mind to do what he did. We should protest the government until it gives up and stops racism!"

Speakers at the protest highlighted the racist double standard of police doing a background check and drug/alcohol test on Trayvon, but not on Zimmerman, the shooter. A lawyer for Trayvon's family pointed out that without the support from activists and the hundreds of thousands who signed petitions demanding justice for Trayvon, the case would never have gained the prominence it has.
After he finished speaking, the crowd parted and began chanting "Justice for Trayvon," as Trayvon's parents made their way to the front to speak.

Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said, "If Trayvon was alive, he'd be on these steps with you rallying for justice. Trayvon Martin did matter. We're aren't going to stop until we get justice for Trayvon!"
His mother Sybrina Fulton thanked the crowd for their support. Choking back tears, she said, "Our son did not commit any crimes...Our son is your son. Justice for Trayvon!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHANTING "WE are Trayvon Martin!" the crowd in its thousands poured into the streets to march for justice.

This echoed the chant of "We are Troy Davis!" that rang out in Union Square six months before as about 1,000 people marched in the "Day of Outrage" protest on September 22, the day after the state of Georgia executed Troy Anthony Davis, an innocent African American man. A number of people at the rally for Trayvon had marched for Troy.

Initially, the march made its way west down 14th Street, taking over two full lanes of traffic. Demonstrators chanted, "They don't care if Black kids die, protect and serve, that's a lie!" Police attempted to corral marchers back onto the sidewalk. They succeeded for a brief time, but were overwhelmed as the crowd took the streets again. Eventually, marchers made their way back to Union Square.

New York has also seen growing anger and action against police abuse and violence at home. There is a growing movement against the racist "stop and frisk" policy of the NYPD, whose 2,000 or so victims each day are overwhelmingly Black or Latino. Plus, activists in the Bronx have organized a number of demonstrations this winter against the police murder of Ramarley Graham, an unarmed Black teenager killed in his own home, and the beating of another Black teen, Jateik Reed.

The spirited demonstration for Trayvon is a further sign that a new movement for racial justice is emerging in New York, as it is in other cities. As protester Lupe Rodriguez said, "People are fed up about hearing these stories of people of color being beat down and shot down by cops. There have been too many of them brought to light in the last couple of months, and Trayvon is the tipping point for these communities."

One influence on the new movement is Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow, which argues that mass incarceration of people of color is a system of racist social control akin to Jim Crow segregation and slavery. The many signs and chants that drew connections between the murder of Trayvon and instances of police brutality and racism made it clear that people don't view this as an isolated incident but as a broader system of racism and injustice.

As another marcher, Armani Williams, said:
It makes me really angry to be a young Black male who knows that in 2012, I can be shot and killed, and the police don't do anything...Black people are sick of how police terrorize us...This country was built on racism, and honestly, I feel that if the roles were reversed, if it was a white boy named Travis Martin who was killed by a Black man called George Jenkins, without a doubt, the killer in this instance would be in jail right now.
Nicole Colson contributed to this article.