Public Funds for the Public Good • Establish Publicly Owned Banks Chartered For The Public Good
• What the Debates Try to Hide • Iraq Veterans Arrested While Attempting to Present Questions to Obama and McCain • Anti-War Activists from Pakistani Community Demand Obama End War at Home and Abroad
• Text of Letter Delivered to Senator Obama from Pakistani Community Members
and Other Anti-War Activists • Vermont Candidate Pledges to Prosecute Bush
Establish Publicly Owned Banks
Chartered For The Public Good
As the global economic crisis continues to deepen, the U.S. government is now talking about using parts of the $700 billion bail out to give cash to the big banks. The government says it may also secure an “ownership stake” in the banks. It is reported that such a move “would directly address the worries that banks have about lending to one another and to other customers,” (New York Times).
There is indeed a problem at present with the giant financial monopolies pursuing their own private interests and refusing to lend money. However, the government plan does nothing to change this, but rather continues to hand over public funds to the rich. Its “ownership stake” means guaranteeing the needs of the private banks, not the public.
The monopolies are acting against the public good and must be restricted, not facilitated. Now is an important opportunity to establish publicly owned banks, chartered for the public good.
The government could use the public funds it is now giving to the private banking interests as a start-up fund. It could issue charters for state and regional public and cooperative banks. Americans could be encouraged to move their savings to accounts in these public banks, which would be fully guaranteed by the government. Such public banks would provide interest-free lending and other services charging only for administration. Such lending would include interest free mortgages and student loans, and refinancing of existing mortgages at no interest. This would immediately put significant income into the hands of the people — far more than any of the so-called “stimulus” plans of the government.
The Federal Reserve, which is currently privately owned, could also be chartered as a public facility for the public good. The public and cooperative banks in the initial stages, before building up their own reserves through accounts, could receive an allotment of funds from the Federal Reserve. Importantly, all the banks would be joined together in a nationwide public system making the whole stronger than any single bank could ever be.
The private banks are all hoarding cash and there is nothing that the government can do about it under the present arrangements. This is a contradiction that the government is obligated to resolve. The planned "ownership stakes" will only intensify the contradiction. The monopoly control of the private banks must be broken by new banking arrangements where the government can run the banking and credit system directly without interference from private chartered banks. This requires that public and cooperative banks be chartered throughout the country with a mandate to serve the socialized economy and public good and to submit to the collective will of the people in their regions and their desire for sustainable economic development.
The time has come to bring the banking system into harmony with the socialized economy and into the modern reality where Americans depend on a banking system that serves the public good rather than the private narrow interests of competing banks. These private banks are motivated as first principle to put their narrow private interests above the common well being of all Americans and their socialized economy. Upon establishing a public banking and credit system, the government could wind up the private banks in an orderly fashion transferring all remaining accounts to the new public banks along with any remaining assets and outstanding credit.
It is time for a positive change toward a public banking system that serves the people and the development of the socialized economy. It is time for a government that takes up such a task, a government of the workers themselves. Let us together work to advance the work for empowerment.
[TOP]
What the Debates Try to Hide
During the two debates between presidential candidates Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, both candidates attempted to present themselves as agents of change and candidates that will “fix Washington,” and “fix the economy.” Each claimed they could better manage the economy, while claiming the other would cause more problems. Overall the debates were a pathetic display of one-upmanship, finger pointing and spurious claims about what is effective. They provided no solutions and instead were an effort to hide the need for conscious participation by working people in setting a new direction for the economy so that it is geared to providing for the well-being of the people.
McCain conceded that Americans are angry about the economic crisis then said, “I have a plan to fix this problem.” Obama said, “You need someone in Washington working for you.” Each claims that their proposals will “get the economy going again.” Yet everyone just experienced that these candidates of the two business parties had exactly the same “fix” of bailing out Wall Street with $700 billion in public funds. And neither senator is opposing the massive war funding bill of $612 billion for the Pentagon, passed by the House with a vote of 392-39. Just these two actions alone mean the government is robbing the public treasury of more than $1.3 trillion to pay the rich. Despite broad opposition in every state across the country against the war and bail out, both candidates refuse to take the stand required for the well-being of the people: Stop Paying the Rich!
Obama and McCain instead joined the effort to promote the concept that the people are to sacrifice everything “to do what’s right for the country.” This means the rich are paid more and more to send the country further down the road of fascism and war. Both candidates joined in the fear-mongering, Obama saying action must be taken immediately “to prevent a crisis from turning into a catastrophe.” McCain said, “If we fail to act, the gears of our economy will grind to a halt.” The gears of the economy are being blocked by the private ownership of the rich, in a system where fiancial and productive means are merged. It is being blocked by the massive elimination of manufacturing and the layoffs that come with it, by the usury of the financiers that is imposed with impunity.
The socialized economy is a highly productive one. What is needed is to change its direction, from one that is geared to the narrow interests of the private monopolies to one that is geared to guaranteeing the rights of the people. This discussion is what the candidates and monopoly media directly block.
Obama acknowledged the concerns among Americans, then tried to convince them to join hands with Wall Street saying, “We will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together. What this crisis has taught us is that at the end of the day, there is no real separation between Main Street and Wall Street. There is only the road we’re traveling on as Americans — and we will rise or fall on that journey as one nation; as one people.” (Remarks in La Crosse, Wisconsin, October 1). He, like McCain pressured representatives in the House to pass the bill. He again emphasized it is necessary to “step up to the plate and do what’s right for the country.”
McCain, for his part said, “There are always those who think first of their own interests, who calculate their own advantage instead of rushing to the aid of their country. But in the case of this bill, I am confident that there are enough people of good will in both parties to help see America through this crisis.” (Remarks in Independence, Missouri, October 1).
The reality since has shown that the bail out did not contribute to solving the economic crisis and very likely made it worse, by removing another $700 billion from the economy rather than putting it into the economy — such as in the form of wage increases and investments in social programs. And while Wall Street is guaranteed its $700 billion, even Obama had to admit that the public can only “hopefully” get its funds back. Nothing in the bill requires it. Nothing ends the parasitic nature of Wall Street, nothing punishes those who continue to make off with billions. Indeed, they are now going to get yet more as “managers” of the bail out. Again, the step needed to assist the economy is to Stop Paying the Rich.
The debates and the candidates’ campaigns attempt to hide the basic issue of who the economy needs to serve — is it to be a people-centered economy or a capital-centered one that continues to serve the monopolies? The interests of Wall Street and of Main Street are directly opposed to each other. Instead of addressing this problem and how to solve it in the interests of the people, both candidates attempt to hide this reality. More, they assist the fascist direction of the country with the fascist concept that the entire economy and all the wealth produced by the workers should serve the war drive of the imperialists.
The world economic crisis is indeed a serious one and requires serious politicians discussing solutions that serve the interests of the people. Clearly, these politicians must emerge from the workers themselves, who are daily fighting to defend rights, as can be seen in the stand against raids and deportation, against factory closings and against aggressive war. The business parties of the rich have no solutions. It is up to the people themselves to build up their own collective forces to win empowerment. An important step in this direction is to refuse to vote for the war parties of the rich and refuse to support all those who voted for the bail out. Vote independent and third party candidates!
[TOP]
Iraq Veterans Arrested While Attempting to Present Questions to Obama and McCain
One hour before the final presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, fourteen members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) marched in formation to the debate site at Hofstra University, Long Island, New York. They planned to present questions to the candidates concerning the occupation of Iraq and the treatment of returning veterans. IVAW had requested permission from debate moderator Bob Schieffer to ask their questions during the debate but got no response.
The contingent of veterans in dress uniforms and combat uniforms attempted to enter the building where the debate was to be held in order to ask their questions but were turned back by police. The ten IVAW members at the front of the formation were immediately arrested, and others were pushed back into the crowd by police on horseback. Several members were injured, including former Army Sergeant Nick Morgan who suffered a broken cheekbone when he was trampled by police horses before being arrested.
“Neither of the candidates has shown real support for service members and veterans. We came here to try and have serious questions answered, questions that we as veterans of the Iraq war have a right to ask, but instead we were arrested. We will continue to ask these questions no matter who is elected. We believe that the time has come to end this war and bring our troops home,” said Jason Lemieux, a former Sergeant in the US Marine Corps who served three tours in Iraq, and member of IVAW.
The questions to the candidates that are important to Iraq Veterans Against the War are:
1) The invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal, based on criteria in our own Constitution, as well as international law and the Geneva Conventions. Senator Barack Obama, is it not the right of service members to refuse deployment and participation in the occupation of Iraq? As president, will you support the rights of service men and women who refuse participation in this criminal war?
2) Senator John McCain, we currently have thousands of veterans returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them with severe injuries. The rate of suicide attempts among veterans is at the shocking rate of up to 1,000 per month. Senator McCain, you have consistently voted against an increase in Veteran’s Administration (VA) funding and other legislation that would take care of veterans. As president, will you be prepared to fully fund and staff the VA system and how will you address your poor voting record on veteran’s issues?
[TOP]
Anti-War Activists from Pakistani Community Demand Obama End War at Home and Abroad
Peace activists from Chicago’s Pakistani American community and anti-war groups from the metro Chicago area convened an emergency press conference to urge an end to U.S. military policy abroad — including U.S. attacks inside Pakistan’s border, and U.S. military aggression throughout the region. The action took place on Thursday, October 9, at 11am in front of the Kluczynski Federal Building, where presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has his office.
The immigrant group representatives also raised alarms about ongoing attacks on the civil liberties and human rights of immigrants at home, whose children are often welcomed as military enlistees while their relatives are criminalized as undocumented or insufficiently “American.”
At the conclusion of the press conference, activists delivered a letter expressing these sentiments to U.S. Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is a particular focus of their concern, given his standing as the potential next President of the United States, and his avowed support for U.S. military incursions into Pakistan — a stand he reiterated in his most recent debate with John McCain, to the dismay of Pakistani Americans and peace activists across the country.
“We know that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster, for both the Iraqi people and the American people, whatever the spinmasters may say” said Ifti Nasim, a respected poet who is an activist in both the Pakistani and LGBT communities. “It was deeply disturbing on Tuesday to see both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama essentially embrace exactly the same policy that the Bush administration has advanced in the last eight years, to the great pain and suffering of literally millions of people. This policy approach must be challenged.”
Members of Chicago’s Pakistani American community elaborated on how U.S. military bombings in Pakistan have killed hundreds of civilians, exacerbated the larger conflict in the region, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Pakistani civilians within their own country, creating huge human suffering among the population.
“Recent U.S. military attacks inside the Pakistani border have been devastating for the civilian population,” said community representative Raja Yaqub. “This policy is creating hundreds of thousands of internal refugees, turning people against the United States, and just as winter begins, creating a humanitarian crisis that could take thousands of lives.”
On Saturday, Chicago’s Pakistani community will host peace groups from across the metropolitan area at a rally and march as part of a nationwide day of action for peace that marks the sixth anniversary of Congress’s “blank check” authorization for war on Iraq. That action is being organized by a broad coalition of local peace groups around two central demands: Bring the Troops Home Now and End Attacks and Mass Deportations!
“As immigrants in America, we have been the target of much misunderstanding and mistreatment in the last eight years,” said Pakistani-American community representative Said Umar Khan of the Pakistani Federation of America. “Just as attacks on immigrants in this country are based on grievous — and dangerously misguided — misunderstanding about the people and politics of South Asia and throughout the globe, the U.S. military policy to bomb targets within Pakistan is based on the same type of distorted perceptions and indifference to the human suffering these policies cause.”
Activists emphasize that both U.S. policy toward immigrants at home and U.S. military policy abroad create tremendous human suffering, do nothing to undercut the root causes of conflict in the region, and will only create greater hardship for the people of Pakistan and the larger region. They argue that it is time U.S. policy was conducted with wisdom and compassion instead of brute force and narrow self-interest.
The letter activists delivered to Mr. Obama urged him to reconsider his position, arguing that people in Pakistan and throughout the region are hungry for progressive change — and that his current position represents instead more of the same military approach also embraced by George Bush and John McCain.
Many of the groups organizing for this Saturday’s protest have mobilized in the past to oppose the war, including the mass protest when the war began on March 20, 2003. Organizers have vowed to target leaders of both major national political parties, in the wake of John McCain’s staunch support for expanded U.S. military aggression in the region and Illinois favorite son Barack Obama’s embrace of pre-emptive U.S. attacks against Pakistan.
[TOP]
Text of Letter Delivered to Senator Obama from Pakistani Community Members
and Other Anti-War Activists
The Honorable Barack Obama
U.S. Senator, the State of Illinois
John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn St., Suite 3900, 39th floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Senator Obama:
We write as peace activists, including many of us who hail from Chicago’s dynamic Pakistani American community. We write with a simple and urgent message: to call upon you to end U.S. war at home and abroad.
We are particularly concerned with your public pronouncements earlier this week in support of violating the borders of our ally, the country of Pakistan, by bombing targets within this nation. Just as immigrants within this nation have been the victims of a pernicious war at home that has targeted immigrants for abuse and worse because of their ethnicity or race, now civilians within Pakistan are feeling the direct consequences of U.S. war abroad — through a growing pattern of military attacks that has devastating consequences for civilians throughout the region.
We feel compelled to raise alarms about ongoing attacks on the civil liberties and human rights of immigrants at home. Ironically, at the same time that our children are often welcomed as enlistees to the U.S. military machine, their relatives are often criminalized as “illegal” or insufficiently “American.”
You stand on the cusp of a truly historic election, one in which a person of color may finally assume the highest office of this land. As the potential next President of the United States, you must understand the sweeping dismay that your avowed support for U.S. military incursions into Pakistan — a stand you reiterated in your Tuesday debate with your opponent John McCain — has elicited among untold numbers of Pakistani-Americans and peace activists across the country.
We know that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster, for both the Iraqi people and the American people. It was deeply disturbing on Tuesday to see both you and your opponent essentially embrace exactly the same policy that the Bush administration has advanced in the last eight years, to the great pain and suffering of literally millions of people. This policy approach must be challenged.
The reality is that U.S. military bombings in Pakistan have killed hundreds of civilians, exacerbated the larger conflict in the region, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Pakistani civilians within their own country, creating huge human suffering among the population of one of the United States’ most loyal allies. People on the ground in Pakistan — our beloved families and friends — are stunned, horrified, and truly appalled at this turn in U.S. policy on the people of a nation that has long been a friend to the United States and to the American people.
The devastation caused by recent U.S. military attacks inside the Pakistani border is creating hundreds of thousands of internal refugees, turning people against the United States, and just as winter begins, creating a humanitarian crisis that could take thousands of lives.
Just as attacks on immigrants in this country are based on grievous — and dangerously misguided — misunderstandings about the people and politics of South Asia and throughout the globe, the U.S. military policy to bomb targets within Pakistan is based on the same type of distorted perceptions and indifference to the human suffering that these policies cause. It is a policy that is rooted in folly and indifference to human suffering. It is a policy that must be reversed.
U.S. policy toward immigrants at home and U.S. military policy abroad create tremendous human suffering, does nothing to undercut the root causes of conflict in the region, and will only create greater hardship for the people of Pakistan and the larger region. It is time U.S. policy was conducted with wisdom and compassion instead of brute force and narrow self-interest. We urge you to reconsider your position, remembering that people in Pakistan and throughout the region are hungry for progressive change — and that your current position represents instead more of the same military approach also embraced by George Bush and John McCain.
We look forward to meeting with you to discuss this matter further, and enclose our contact information with this letter.
[TOP]
Vermont Candidate Pledges to Prosecute Bush
Charlotte Dennett, who entered the race for Vermont Attorney General in September, readily admits that it will be an uphill battle. But the Vermont Progressive Party’s candidate does have one thing going for her — an issue with the potential to mobilize voters upset about the Iraq War. At her first press conference, sitting next to renowned prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi, she pledged to prosecute George W. Bush for murder if elected and appoint Bugliosi as a special prosecutor to take on the job.
Bugliosi had come to Vermont specifically to back Dennett’s bid against incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, who has held the job since 1997. “There is no better state to bring this forward,” Dennett said, pointing to the fact that Vermont has lost more soldiers per capita than any other state during the war and that voters at 36 Town Meetings have called for Bush’s impeachment.
“No man is above the law,” Bugliosi argued, explaining that a state Attorney General can prosecute Bush for conspiracy to commit murder after he leaves office. The key is to establish “overt acts” that prove there was a conspiracy to mislead the country into war, he said. Bugliosi pointed specifically to Bush’s frequent public statements, which were broadcast nationally, and the recruitment of Vermonters to fight in Iraq. “Any Attorney General can do this,” he said.
Dennett, who has been practicing law since 1997, is also an investigative journalist. “When I read Mr. Bugliosi’s meticulously-argued case,” she has explained, “it struck a chord with me as a Vermonter and an American citizen.”
Bugliosi has won 105 out of 106 felony jury trials and is best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. Yet his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, has proven highly controversial. Mainstream media outlets have declined to review it or interview him, Bugliosi noted. Asked what explains the reaction, he speculated that the right wing in the U.S. has frightened many people into silence. Thus, “the establishment has decided Bush should not be held accountable,” he said.
In recent days, there have been renewed calls to go after the president. For example, Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott has announced that he wants to see Bush impeached, whether or not he is still in office. He has joined a call from Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to launch impeachment proceedings, and has cited Bugliosi’s book as part of the reason for his decision.
Although pleased that McDermott is calling for impeachment, Bugliosi thinks congressional action does not go far enough. “Impeachment alone would be a joke for anyone interested in justice,” he says. His recommendation is that a state official — Dennett, for example, if she is elected — should prosecute Bush for murder in the deaths of American soldiers fighting in Iraq. […]
Although Vermont Progressives have elected representatives to the state legislature, no candidate has yet won a statewide race. Anthony Pollina, the Progressive standard bearer who ran for governor in 2000 and in 2002 received 24.8 percent of the vote in the race for Lt. Governor, decided this summer to run for governor as an Independent in hopes of broadening his base.
Sorrell, a Democrat, has enjoyed bi-partisan support, and received enough write-in votes in Vermont’s recent primary to appear on the November ballot as both the Democratic and Republican candidate. Nevertheless, a strong turnout for Dennett would send the message that the idea of prosecuting Bush is something to seriously consider.
The question raised by Dennett’s promise to pursue prosecution of Bush is whether anger about the war — and how the public and Congress were misled — are enough to create a competitive race against an incumbent. Vermonters do not register by party, and identification as Democrats and Republicans is weaker than in most states. But it remains to be seen if the race can become an unofficial referendum. In essence, a strong turnout for Dennett would mean that Vermont voters want to take the lead in turning a former president into a criminal defendant. If nothing else, the campaign could produce a great bumper sticker: Prosecute Bush. Elect Dennett.
[TOP]