Left-Wing Agents of Trump

July 29, 2020

Left-Wing Agents of Trump

Trump is sinking fast in the polls. He hopes to save his reelection by convincing swing voters that they need him to reestablish law and order in streets, which are supposedly filled with violent anarchists, arsonists, looters, and rioters. Don’t fall into his trap. We want our good motives to produce justice, not support for his reelection.

Helping Trump, intentionally or not, are:

The Provocateur—who wants to expose police violence, thinking that this will destabilize the system. The provocateur wants to show the true colors of the police by egging them on—by throwing things–to attack the crowd, even if the majority in the demonstration want it to stay peaceful. There’s a reason why police agents have often played this role.

The Street Fighter—who, like the provocateur, believes that destabilizing demonstrations will expose the flaws of the system and that people need to fight back against police violence. This might feel good, but it neglects the fact that this is a situation in which the police have all the advantages. The street fighter doesn’t think about public reaction or electoral consequences.

The Purist: This is the person who refuses to vote or will only vote for a third-party candidate because Biden is an undeniable Cold War corporate Democrat. The consequence will be to aid Trump’s reelection. Some purists prefer Trump: to make the struggle against “fascism” and capitalism more clear. The history of dictatorship tells us it is much better to continue our struggle after January 20 against a corporate Democrat than a proto-fascist.

Ponder these words from a longtime trainer of community organizers: “There is a distinction between those who see participation in political activity as a matter of strategy and those who see it as a form of self-expression. The current demonstrations against federal military presence are basically self-expression. They are a tactic without a strategy. On the other hand, provoking violence in these demonstrations is clearly a reelection strategy by Trump. We are seeing asymmetrical warfare. It is a trap.”

Consolidating Public Support for Medicare for All

March 4, 2020

Beacon Broadside, March 2, 2020

If the Bernie Sanders momentum continues, his signature Medicare for All proposal will become an even more intense subject of national debate than it already is.

Attaining universal health insurance has never been a technical problem in the United States. We know that because every other major country and a number of minor ones have attained it at much lower cost and with better health outcomes than the private health insurance system that we have. If they can do it, so too could the United States.

It is rather a political problem that has two sides: opposition from the private health insurance industry that profits excessively from the existing system and opposition from members of the public who fear losing their existing private insurance.

Click Here to Read More

What’s Missing from the Social Security Expansion Proposals

February 12, 2020

Democrats, looking forward to possible Congressional and White House victories in 2020, have embraced expanding Social Security after years of defensively fending off privatization and cutback threats. The Social Security 2100 Act, with 209 co-sponsors, is waiting in the wings. It would make needed revenue increases, including raising the cap on labor income taxed, to stabilize Social Security’s finances for seventy-five years. It would also mildly expand benefits.

On the campaign trail, all of the Democratic Party candidates have addressed Social Security. Elizabeth Warren has proposed going beyond the Social Security 2100 bill by adding a tax to investment income, which is a bigger portion of the income of the rich than labor income.

What’s missing, though, from the Democratic proposals is a way for people to use their 401(k), IRA, and other retirement savings to increase their Social Security benefits.

To continue reading, click here.

Review of Burns/Novick, The Vietnam War (PBS)

July 19, 2018

I recently watched the 18-hour Burns/Novick PBS documentary, The Vietnam War, over a ten-day period, one episode a night.  I had previously read many of the criticisms of the film from veterans of the antiwar movement.  I had also returned in March from a two-week tour of Vietnam as part of a delegation led by John McAuliff of activists from the antiwar movement to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the My Lai massacre. We participated in the commemoration with a delegation from Veterans for Peace.

My overall impression of the film was that it was well made, engrossing, and fundamentally wrong in key respects.  Just as a well written article is not necessarily right, a technically well-made documentary is not necessarily right, especially in its overall interpretation.

Three of the fundamental problems of the film, as I see it, are:

Interpretation of the U.S. soldiers:  The main message is that the U.S. troops fought valiantly a mistaken losing war and they are to be thanked for their sacrifices.  I’m sure the German Army fought valiantly and sacrificed heavily in World War II.  But there would be huge protests if a Burns/Novick-like film was made about that losing army.  A better interpretation would have been that significant numbers of soldiers turned against the war when they realized that the U.S. invasion was unjust and their leaders had duped them. The film does cover the antiwar movement of soldiers but in a more confused manner where the motives are mixed.  While the pilot and other prowar POWs are celebrated, no mention is made of the pilot and other POWs who became opposed to the war.

Anti-intellectualism: No academic experts were interviewed on the meaning of the war.  Rather, the “expert” commentators were from the State Department, CIA, and military.  The only academic interviewed was a graduate student who became an assistant professor.  But he was not interviewed as an expert on the war but rather as expressing the point of view of a protester.

Attitude toward the antiwar movement:  Antiwar protesters come off as having suspect motives. Burns/Novick present as fact the right-wing narrative of antiwar demonstrators attacking returning solders at Travis Air Force base, which did not happen according to recent scholarship. The most egregious attack on the antiwar movement occurs in the last episode when a former antiwar demonstrator states that she is ashamed of calling soldiers “baby killers.” That is the parting interpretation of the antiwar movement, leaving the impression of it as being at least mildly unpatriotic and anti-soldier.  A soldier who deserted to Canada states that he regrets renouncing his U.S. citizenship—presented as now a man without a country. No mention is made of prominent historians and other scholars who actively opposed the war.  Nor is there mention of the impact of the war on a whole generation of young scholars and the influence it had on their subsequent work.

The roles that a number of individuals play directly or indirectly in the film are problematic.

Peter Coyote (the narrator):  He was with the San Francisco Mime Troupe which was radically antiwar and pro-NLF.  I’d love to know if he agreed with all of the script that he read.  He was at Wisconsin when R.G. Davis, the director of the Mime Troup, stated to a show audience that they should go the Dow demonstration the next day.  “We believe this is your university.  If you can’t control it, you ought to destroy it.”  The university was allowing Dow to recruit future employees.  Antiwar students were demonstrating against the recruiters because of Dow’s production of napalm for the war. The Madison police violently broke up the sit-in with clubs and tear gas.  It was the first time in the country that police attacked rather than carried off antiwar sit-in protesters.

Jane Fonda:  The film repeats as fact the right-wing narrative on Jane Fonda having been a traitor who went to North Vietnam.  (I’d be curious to know if Peter Coyote had any qualms reading that narration.) No mention is made that Telford Taylor, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes trial, also went to North Vietnam and spoke out against the U.S. bombing.

John McCain:  The McCain myth of the innocent pilot shot down and tortured goes unchallenged, whereas John Kerry’s Senate committee testimony of U.S. war crimes is immediately challenged with a military figure getting the last word that any abuses were isolated aberrations.

John Negroponte:  Burns/Novick present him several times as a sage commentator on the war.  No mention is made that he is one of the most controversial figures of the recent U.S. diplomatic corps.  He started his career in Vietnam, served in Honduras as ambassador facilitating the Contra war, served as ambassador to Mexico overseeing adoption of Nafta, served as ambassador to Iraq after the invasion, and, in his last position, served as Director of National Intelligence.  His name is especially controversial in Latin America.

Bob Kerrey:  He is mentioned positively as a veteran of the war, along with John McCain and John Kerry, who has worked for reconciliation of the U.S. and Vietnam.  No mention is made of his background as a war criminal who led and participated in a massacre of civilians in Ben Tre province.  His role leading the massacre is highlighted in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City and on a memorial at the site of the massacre.

Despite all of the problems with the film, I agree with John McAuliff that its overall impact on American consciousness about the war is more positive than negative.  Burns/Novick present the war as a well-intentioned mistake by American policy makers. It was, in their words, “begun in good faith by good men.”  While there is plenty to object to in the notion that the war was begun by good men with good intentions, the overall impression remains that it was a mistake.  And it was a mistake that kept getting worse with more and more soldiers being sacrificed to it in horrific fighting, and of course many more Vietnamese (though that does not seem to have been a prominent concern in the film).  That’s, I think, the main impression that the film leaves with viewers.  It certainly doesn’t leave any impression of the war as having been glorious.

While a much better film could/should have been made, I suppose Burns/Novick are to be thanked at least for not publicizing the current revisionist view on the right that the war could/should have been won with better leadership.

July 2018

Autopsy of a Retirement Plan

May 24, 2018

AAUP Academe
May-June 2018

As I approached age sixty-five after thirty-seven years of university teaching, I took stock of what my retirement income would look like. Many retirement experts claim that at least 70 percent of preretirement income is necessary to maintain one’s standard of living. For example, someone whose final annual income will be $100,000 should have as a goal an income of $70,000 in retirement.

I ran the numbers for my Social Security and my employer’s defined-contribution plan, in which I had participated for thirty-one years. This 401(a) plan, which functions in the same way as a 401(k), had been administered at various times by TIAA, ING, and Prudential.

Together, my projected Social Security and employee retirement plan would amount to just 43.5 percent of my final income. The monthly Social Security check accounted for 19.5 percent; the annuity income option for my defined-contribution plan, 24 percent.

Something had gone terribly wrong. Despite having accumulated almost a half-million dollars, which is much more than the $125,000 average for people approaching retirement, I did not have enough to finance a retirement that would allow me and my family to maintain the middle-class standard of living that my $117,615 final salary as a university professor afforded.

Click to continue reading “Autopsy of a Retirement Plan.”


EU: Creciente Crisis en Pensiones [The Growing Retirement Crisis in the United States]

October 14, 2017

La Jornada (Ciudad de México)
14 de octubre de 2017

Como en México, Chile y otros países latinoamericanos, en Estados Unidos existe una creciente crisis en los sistemas para el retiro. Ello porque las cuentas individuales han remplazado las pensiones seguras.

Para planificar la jubilación, la analogía más recurrente alude al taburete de tres patas. El ingreso de la pensión individual derivaría de tres fuentes: el Sistema Nacional de la Seguridad Social (SNSS existente desde 1935); una pensión tradicional de beneficio definido (patrocinada por el empleador) y ahorros e inversiones individuales. Según los expertos, todas ellas deben sumar, al menos, 70 por ciento de los ingresos previos a la jubilación. El objetivo es mantener el nivel de vida que se tenía antes de la jubilación.

(Para continuar leyendo EU: Crisis en Pensiones, cliquee aquí


English version:

The Growing Retirement Crisis in the United States

As in Mexico, Chile, and other Latin American countries, there is a growing retirement crisis in the United States as individual investment accounts have replaced secure pensions.

The analogy for U.S. retirement planning most often used is that of a three-legged stool.  One’s retirement income will come from three sources—the three legs:  the national Social Security system, in existence since 1935; a traditional employer-sponsored defined benefit pension; and individual savings and investments.

All sources of retirement income should add up to at least 70 percent of preretirement income according to experts. The goal is to be able to maintain a preretirement standard of living in retirement.

The three-legged stool was never a perfect analogy since one assumes that for a stool to be stable, the legs should be of equal length.  The amounts of retirement income from the three different sources have been very different.

For those with the most secure retirement incomes, the largest sources comes from a traditional employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plan, followed by Social Security and savings in that order.  These include most public sector workers, who make up a small minority of the labor force.

For most of the rest, including most private sector workers, Social Security makes up the largest source of retirement income, followed by incomes from an employer-sponsored plan and savings.

Let’s look at the sources of retirement income in depth.

Ninety-four percent of workers in the U.S. labor force contribute 6.2 percent of their wages to Social Security. Their employers match that with another 6.2 percent. Those contributions go into a collective fund out of which benefits are paid, including retirement income, payments for disability, and payments for children and other dependent survivors of participants who die early.  Social Security is a classic social insurance plan in which people pay premiums to protect themselves from risks.  The risks being protected against are income loss in retirement and disability, and being unable to support dependents.

Social Security works remarkably well.  Nearly one out of every four households receives some form of Social Security income.  It is the largest component of the minimalist U.S. welfare state.

According to studies, without Social Security, 40.5 percent of the over age 65 population would be poor. But because of the income it provides, the over 65 poverty rate is 8.8 percent, which is actually less than that of the general population.

Social Security enjoys tremendous public support.  Majorities of all major demographic groups, including Republicans, support it.  It is however deeply opposed by neoliberal think tanks, such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and by some parts of the financial services industry for economic reasons.  They don’t like trillions of dollars of the country’s retirement savings being tied up in government accounts rather than going through Wall Street from which they can profit.

There is thus a continuing battle over maintenance of the Social Security program as it is or to privatize it as was done with IMSS in Mexico, following the Chilean model imposed under the Pinochet military dictatorship.

So far, the advocates of Social Security have been able to resist all privatization attempts due to the deep public support for the program.

Employer-sponsored retirement plans cover nearly all public sector workers but only about half of private sector ones.  For those who are covered, there are two types:  defined benefit and defined contribution.

Up until 1984, most private sector worker who had retirement plans had defined benefit plans.  As with Social Security, they and their employers paid contributions into a collective fund out of which their guaranteed retirement incomes were paid.  Starting in 1981, however, employers began to increasing replace the traditional pension plans with defined contribution individual savings and investment accounts, which produce much less retirement income.

In 1981, 61.4 percent of private sector workers who had employer-sponsored retirement plans had traditional pension defined benefit ones.  Today, only 16.1 percent still have those types of plans.

The most widely known of those plans, which has become a metaphor for the approach, is the 401(k), named after a provision of the Internal Revenue Service code.

Individual savings occupy a very distant third place, except for the rich, as a source of retirement income.

Essentially what has occurred since 1981 with the retirement system of the United States is that Social Security has remained steady while employer-sponsored plans have increasingly shifted from being the form of guaranteed traditional pensions where employers bore the risks of investing to individual savings and investment schemes in which employees now bear the risks.  And these individual accounts, while very profitable for the financial services industry, produce much less retirement income than the pension plans they replaced.  Therein lies the major cause of the growing retirement crisis in the United States.

From a hemispheric perspective, U.S. workers have suffered the same transformations of their former collective and solidarity-based traditional pension plans to individual investing accounts that render much less income as have about half of Latin American workers, including those in Chile and Mexico, but in a different way.  While their national retirement system has yet to be privatized, their employer-sponsored plans have been transformed into the same types of systems as the privatized national systems of Latin America.








Are Congressional Districts Too Large?

June 4, 2017

Huffington Post
June 3, 2017

With elections coming up to the U.K. House of Commons and the French National Assembly, Americans might be excused for assuming that they are like our House of Representatives elections. Both are, it is true, lower houses in bicameral systems, and both, unlike in other parts of Europe, are winner-take-all district elections with no provisions for proportional representation.

But the House of Commons has 650 members and the National Assembly 577 members compared to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, which covers a much greater population size. That works out to one representative for approximately every 100,000 U.K. and French citizens compared to one per 700,000 in the U.S.—a representation gap that is over seven times as large. Put differently, UK and French citizens potentially have seven times as much national legislative representation as do U.S. citizens.

Continue reading “Are Congressional Districts Too Large?”

Trump and Le Pen, Take 2

May 6, 2017

Huffington Post
May 6, 2017

Sunday’s runoff election in France will pit centrist Emmanuel Macron against the National Front’s Marine Le Pen for the presidency. On both sides of the Atlantic, people are holding their breaths. Will the French succumb to the same forces that produced Brexit and Trump?

But is Le Pen a French version of Trump?  Or is Trump a clumsy version of Le Pen, as I put it in a Huffington Post article during the primaries? At that time, when everyone was trying to figure out what Trump represented, I advanced the interpretation that he had stumbled into the politics of the National Front and that these were at odds with traditional Republicanism.

Click here to continue reading “Trump and Le Pen, Take 2.”


How We Got Out of a 401(k) and into a Real Pension

April 14, 2017

Labor Notes
February 21, 2017

After being trapped in an inferior 401(k)-style retirement plan, is it possible for a union to reverse the trend and switch back to a traditional defined-benefit pension?

Connecticut state employees did just that in 2012. Our little-known story, combined with similar victories in Massachusetts and West Virginia, shows it can be done. There’s a small but growing movement to follow suit in other states.

Those of us stuck in Connecticut’s 401(k)-like plan had been contributing more than twice as much as our co-workers who had pensions—yet it was estimated we’d receive less than half the retirement income. Without adequate information, we had chosen this plan when we were hired, thinking it was better than the pension.

Continue reading “How We Got Out of a 401(k) and into a Real Pension.”

The Future of Social Security and Medicare in the Age of Trump (Audio Recording)

April 14, 2017

Lecture given by James W. Russell as part of Provost’s Lecture Series, Portland State University
April 6, 2017

Click here to listen.