06 26 2016
  12:13 pm  
     •     
read latest

breaking news

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • ST. LOUIS (AP) — A draft of the Democratic Party's policy positions reflects the influence of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign: endorsing steps to break up large Wall Street banks, advocating a $15 hourly wage, urging an end to the death penalty. Hillary Clinton's supporters turned back efforts by Sanders' allies to promote a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system and a carbon tax to address climate change, and freeze hydraulic fracking. While the platform does not bind the Democratic nominee to the stated positions, it serves as a guidepost for the party moving forward. Party officials approved the draft early Saturday. The Democratic National Convention's full Platform Committee will discuss the draft at a meeting next month in Orlando, Florida, with a vote at the convention in Philadelphia in late July. Sanders said Friday he would vote for Clinton, the presumptive nominee, in the fall election, but so far has stopped short of fully endorsing the former secretary of state or encouraging his millions of voters to back her candidacy. The Vermont senator has said he wants the platform to reflect his goals — and those representing him at a St. Louis hotel said they had made progress. "We lost some but we won some," said James Zogby, a Sanders supporter on the committee. "We got some great stuff in the platform that has never been in there before." Added Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders ally: "We've made some substantial moves forward." Deliberating late into Friday, the group considered language on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, an issue that has divided Democrats. The committee defeated an amendment led by Zogby that would have called for providing Palestinians with "an end to occupation and illegal settlements" and urged an international effort to rebuild Gaza. The draft reflects Clinton's views and advocates working toward a "two-state solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict" that guarantees Israel's security with recognized borders "and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity." In many cases, Clinton's side gave ground to Sanders. The document calls for the expansion of Social Security and says Americans should earn at least $15 an hour, referring to the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour as a "starvation wage," a term often used by Sanders. Sanders has pushed for a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Clinton has supported efforts to raise the minimum wage to that level but has said states and cities should raise the bar as high as possible. Sanders' allies wanted the draft to specify calls for a $15 per hour minimum wage indexed with inflation. Clinton's side struck down a direct link, noting the document elsewhere included a call to "raise and index the minimum wage." The committee also adopted language that said it supports ways to prevent banks from gambling with taxpayers' bank deposits, "including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall." Sanders wants to reinstate the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment banking activities. Clinton does not, but says her proposed financial changes would cast a wider net by regulating the banking system. Also in the draft is a call for the abolition of the death penalty. Clinton said during a debate this year that capital punishment should only be used in limited cases involving "heinous crimes." Sanders said the government should not use it. Sanders, a vociferous opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, was unable to get language into the document opposing the trade deal. As a result, the party avoided an awkward scenario that would have put the platform at odds with President Barack Obama. Clinton and Sanders have opposed the deal. Committee members backed a measure that said "there are a diversity of views in the party" on the pact and reaffirmed that Democrats contend any trade deal "must protect workers and the environment." In a setback for Sanders, the panel narrowly rejected amendments that would have imposed a tax on carbon and imposed a national freeze on fracking. The panel deliberated for about nine hours following several late nights and long hours of policy exchanges between the two campaigns and the Democratic National Committee. Sanders, in a statement, said he was "disappointed and dismayed" that the group voted down the measure opposing the TPP. But he was pleased with the proposals on Glass-Steagall and the death penalty — and vowed to fight on. "Our job is to pass the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party," he said.
    Read More
  • VIDEO: Watch Columbia Riverkeeper argue trains are unsafe    
    Read More
  • VIDEO: Vermont senator says he will vote for Clinton if she wins nomination                  
    Read More
  • Nearly half of advisory panel members have ties to drug companies      
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all

President Barack Obama stepped on a big limb when he threatened "limited action" against Syria because the country's leaders allegedly used chemical weapons against their own people.  There are international bans against the use of chemical weapons, with Syria one of few countries not supporting the ban.  Chemical weapons allegedly killed more than 1,400 Syrians, and the ongoing civil war may have killed as many as 100,000.


President Obama announced his willingness to act on Syria's domestic chemical intrusion before Labor Day, but he has backpedaled and asked for Congressional approval. What will he do if Congress says no?  Will he face the international community conceding that he has less power than he thought, or will he go ahead and take military action without congressional approval?



Reportedly, U.S. troops in the Middle East were ready to follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief before they got orders to slow down any action.  Perhaps President Obama is finally listening to the sentiment of the American people, who, according to several polls, do not support action against Syria.  Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and dozens of other members of Congress sent the president a letter urging debate on any military action against Syria.  Does the urgency of a strike against Syria recede over time?



Have we learned from the lessons of Iran, Afghanistan, and, yes, Vietnam?  In the last case, "simple" military action led us into a war that lasted for nearly a decade, and the loss of tens of thousands of lives.  The "end" of that war was hardly decisive, with a withdrawal that didn't so much save the day as salvage the our nation's bruised ego.  If allegations against Syria are true, they have clearly crossed a line.  Still, it is not clear that unilateral action from the United States is the solution.  While the United Nations is not always as effective as it might be, I'd prefer United Nations concurrence to United States go-it-along position in this matter.



From Iraq, we must remember that verification of the use of chemical weapons is key to any action.  I'll never forget Secretary of State Colin Powell holding up a small container and saying, "This could be anthrax."  Turns out, it wasn't.  Based on that vivid display, we stepped up our action against Iraq, and a decade later we are still there.  General Powell said that if we broke it, we have to fix it.  We've not fixed it – we are withdrawing, and billions of dollars and thousands of lives later, the situation is almost as murky as it was when we entered that country.



What will we do if Syria chooses to respond to our "limited" military action? Action and counteraction are the first steps to war.  We aren't ready for that.  We've got existing military commitments, and an already-challenged budget, something not often mentioned in the face of this impending crisis.  Military experts say Syrian action could cost about $100 million.  Depending on escalation, we could easily end up in billion-dollar territory.



Meanwhile Congress and the president are on a budget brink.  Government could actually shut down at the end of the fiscal year unless unlikely compromises are made. Will President Obama be forced to offer budget concessions in order to get Republican votes to support limited action against Syria?  If he does, what implications will that have on the domestic budget, especially in the face of budget austerity?  Will the money to cover a Syria strike come from the already-cut food stamps program, from sparsely funded education programs, from already-embattled health care?



Former President Bill Clinton reportedly supports military action against Syria, and regrets that the United States did not get involved in the massacre in Rwanda that claimed nearly 1 million lives.  With Rwanda, though, a bipartisan group of legislators pushed Clinton to take the case against Rwanda to the United Nations and he did not.  President Obama has not suggested United Nations cooperation but instead insisted that it is time to take action.



Where is the peace movement?  Are they shying away from their traditional anti-war stance because President Obama, not President Bush, is in the White House?  Once, you could count on groups like Code Pink to lift their voices against military action.  Now their silence speaks volumes.



There are alternatives to "limited military action" in Syria. Yet, those alternatives have yet to be explored.  We shouldn't involve ourselves in what might be a multi-billion dollar action just so President Obama can sell wolf tickets (or bragging rights) and count on Congress to cash them.



 



 



Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer.  She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.


Carpentry Professionals
Calendar

PHOTO GALLERY

Wake of Vanport Workshop

Hood to Coast 2016