Dec. 5, 2017

The American Plutocracy Gets Its Immoral Tax Bill
By Jesse Jackson

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson said that about slavery, but he might well have been talking about what is now happening in Donald Trump’s Washington. Republicans are putting the finishing touches on a tax bill that takes from the poor to give to the rich. Then they plan to turn to savaging federal programs for the poor to make up for the deficits they’ve created.

Millions of vulnerable Americans will suffer for their greed and their folly. The tax bill — cobbled together in secret meetings without a public hearing, passed with handwritten amendments in the columns, legislators forced to vote without reading it — is simply a disgrace.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, lower-income people will end paying $5.3 billion more in taxes, while those earning $1 million or more will pay $5.8 billion less. The Tax Policy Center reports that nearly the top 1 percent will pocket two-thirds of its tax breaks. Ten years from now, when all the measures kick in, those earning $75,000 or less per year will end up paying on average more in taxes.

This is a brazen expression of money power, as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch put it, an example of American plutocracy — a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. The vulnerable will suffer the costs. An estimated 13 million will lose health insurance. Those workers who get their insurance in the state exchanges will be hit with 10 percent increases in rates or more. Graduate students will be faced with massive tax hits, as the bill taxes tuition that universities waive (money that the students have never seen). Ten million low-income parents will be stripped of the child tax credit.

This while the top one-tenth of 1 percent, who make over $4.5 million a year, pocket an average tax cut of $127,000. The plunder has become immoral. Now, the Republican Congress will turn to savaging programs for the poor to help pay for the tax cuts. Next “we’re going to go into welfare reform,” Donald Trump threatened at a rally last week. Sen. Marco Rubio reassured business leaders not to worry about deficits; the next step will be “reducing spending.

That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future.” The House Republican Budget Resolution makes their priorities clear. It projects 40 percent cuts in programs for low- and moderate-income Americans by 2026. This includes cuts in Medicare, which will be turned into a voucher, losing value over time; more than $1 trillion in cuts from traditional Medicaid; and 30 percent cuts in food stamps, leaving millions without food assistance.

Hit hard will be Pell Grants that help low-income students pay for college, child nutrition assistance for the very vulnerable and SSI benefits for the disabled and impoverished elderly. Domestic services — everything from education to transportation — will be cut. Spending on low-income programs is already as low as a percentage of the economy as it was in 1970. Trump, of course, pledged that he would not cut Social Security and Medicare during the campaign.

That pledge seems no longer operative. He promised a health care plan for “everyone.” Not true. He said the rich would not benefit from the tax cuts. Not true. He said that he would not benefit. A lie. Republicans claim the tax cuts will produce growth and jobs. They claim the spending cuts will reduce deficits and help sustain growth. These are but excuses for the immoral. The moral calculus is clear. We will be judged, the Bible says, by how we treat “the least of these.”

In Isaiah 10:1-3, it is written: “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?” But politicians respond not to what is moral but to what is popular. What will be the reckoning at the polls? Will Americans fall for the smoke and distractions? Or will they vote in large numbers against those who impose this folly? Only a political reckoning will curb the damage that is being done to this country.

Dec. 3, 2017

It's About the Power
By Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Let’s begin with the truth—something rare in Washington, DC. While Sexual Harassment/Assault may result in physical injury, it is almost certainly, damaging to the psyche of the victim.  Most victims say that being the victim of Sexual Harassment is a life-altering experience.

Although some will debate this point, it’s been determined that Sexual Harassment is not about sex.  It’s an exercise of power!  In truth, I must say that perpetrators of Sexual Harassment can be either male or female, heterosexual or homosexual and that anyone can fall victim.  As it happens, men are most frequently identified as perpetrators and women as victims.  The most common element is a disparity in power - real or perceived.  Often it’s about physical power, but it can also be about the power to deny a benefit.

If not before, by now, we all have an elementary understanding of Sexual Harassment, but how far must we look back to find a cause or reason for acts of Sexual Harassment?  Going back, can we stop at the Women's Lib Movement?  Or, can we begin our examination with the Suffragettes?  Is it more correct for us to reach back to the Founding Fathers and inquire as to why women were not referenced in the Constitution and why the rights and privileges of citizenship were not conferred therein?  Even white women had to fight for the right to vote, and the men preventing them from voting were their fathers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, husbands, etc!  Still many of these are men who are opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment for women!

While it’s common to see the TV Talking Heads expressing shock and dismay related to the increasing reports of Sexual Harassment, I haven’t heard one give, what I believe to be, an honest determination of cause.  Most will agree that the acts signal a use of power, but I’ve heard none use the word CHATTEL.

Throughout the history of western civilization, women have held a subordinate social position to men.  Until the 1940's, married women in America were assigned to work in the home.  Although there was work for single women, they were encouraged to marry and take their place in the home.  Accordingly, men assumed responsibility for household and family decisions, and for initiating sex.  It was considered permissible, even required, for men to beat their wives "to show their love."  Give me a break!  This gender dominance carried over to the workplace and Sexual Harassment was the ultimate result.

Thus far, only very few have learned anything new with this reading.  More than a historical perspective, we badly need a remedy.  I’ll offer my thoughts.

WE NEED CLARITY: In the heated environment of recent disclosures, it’s been easy to assign the same degree of egregiousness to all acts of Sexual Harassment.  I believe that each violation must be evaluated independently.  Although examined in the light of Sexual Harassment, Roy Moore's violation of juvenile females was more criminal in nature than others that have been reported. Verbally suggestive language can be Sexual Harassment, but injurious physical contact elevates the violation to another level.

WE NEED STANDARDS: As with the existing uniform structure between them, Federal, state and local governments should establish simplified uniform policies regarding the adjudication of complaints of Sexual Harassment.  Private sector protections should be established under the EEOC or state provisions. When people know better, they’re charged with doing better.

I have numerous nieces, sisters and female friends.  I want them to have equal opportunity to work in any area they choose and feel that they can do so without fear of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual discrimination. No one who prevents them from doing so should get a pass—not even #45.

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is National President of the National Congress of Black Women, Inc. www.nationalcongressbw.org.  202/678-6788)

Dec. 3, 2017

New Zimbabwe President Pays Tribute to Ousted Leader

E. D. Mnangagwe

(TriceEdneyWire.com/GIN) –Unlike the violent upsets in Gambia, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso, the military-led “soft coup” that heralded the exit of President Robert Mugabe was remarkably quiet, dignified and respectful.

“He is actually looking forward to his new life — farming and staying at the rural home. He has taken it well,” the son of Mugabe’s late sister, Sabina, said.

The positive momentum was seen and felt at a packed National Sports Stadium on Nov. 24, where thousands of jubilant Zimbabweans came to hear newly-elected President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwe deliver his acceptance speech. Draped in the national coat of arms, he began with high praise for the leader he had just replaced.

“Let me pay special tribute to the only surviving father of our Nation, Comrade Robert Gabriel Mugabe,” he said. “He led us in our struggle for National Independence and assumed responsibilities of leadership at the formative and very challenging time in the birth of our Nation.

“To me personally, he remains a father, mentor, comrade-in-arms and my leader. We thus say thank you to him and trust that our history will grant him his proper place and accord him his deserved stature as one of the founders and leaders of our nation.”

The honors continued on Monday with the announcement that Feb. 21 would become Robert Gabriel Mugabe National Youth Day, a public holiday. Also, Mugabe will receive a $10 million lump sum payment, full immunity, and his current $100,000 a year salary for life. Grace Mugabe will receive half that amount, also for life.

The first couple will be able to remain in their sprawling mansion known as the Blue Roof, in Harare. The state will pay for their medical care, domestic staff, security and foreign travel.

Mr. Mnangagwe’s close ties to the long-enduring ZANU-PF party, however, have raised doubts that he will carry out his promise to hold elections in one year. Mnangagwa has already spurned calls for a coalition government with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change.

“It is time to open a new page,” insisted trade union secretary-general Japhet Moyo, and condemned what he fears will be the retention of “career ministers” by Mnangagwa, some of whom he labeled “thieves and thugs”.

Lawyer Alex T. Magaisa added: “While Zimbabweans understandably embraced military intervention because it led to the ouster of Mugabe and prevented his wife Grace from succeeding him, they must also embrace the fact that it comes with further, less palatable consequences. The episode demonstrates once again that the military has become the kingmaker in Zimbabwean politics."

Dec. 3, 2017

The Trump Trick Bag - Stacking the Courts
By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Two people reported to work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on November 27, both expecting to lead the bureau.  Leandra English, who had been chief of staff to former Director Richard Cordray (he resigned before Thanksgiving to return to Ohio to run for governor), was appointed to the director position by her old boss.  Simultaneously, 45 appointed Mick Mulvaney, head of the Office of Management and Budget, to hold the job.  Reportedly, Mulvaney arrived at the office bright and early Monday morning, carrying a bag of donuts.  Both Mulvaney and English sent memos to the entire staff asserting their leadership.  Mulvaney rolled his sleeves up and got to work at an agency he had previously ridiculed.  English headed to court to assert the right to her job.

Now, here comes the trick bag.  Leandra English found herself in Judge Timothy Kelly’s courtroom.  The judge, in the US District Court, was appointed by 45.  Is there any coincidence that English did not prevail in her suit?  Mulvaney is right when he says that anyone who expected the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to operate the same way under 45 as it did under President Obama.  “Elections have consequence,” he crowed.  With that smug bragging, he illustrates why other relatively (I use the word advisedly) principled Republicans put up with 45 and his antics.  While too many of us are focused on 45’s foolish antics, flippant verbal attacks, and downright dangerous international behavior, the “Buffoon-in-Chief” and the Senate are quietly packing the courts.  45 is moving faster than President Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush have, with as many as 200 positions already filled.  Further, 45 is appointing younger and more conservative jurists than ever before.  Kelley, for example, is in his late 40s.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established by the Dodd Frank legislation of 2010, the Congressional reaction to the horrible abuses that banks engaged in to cause the Great Recession.  It regulates the rules relating to mortgages, credit cards, insurance, and other financial instruments.  It is the only agency that stands in the gap for consumers, the only one that has the ability to stand up to banks and force them to be responsible.  In its short existence, tens of millions of dollars have been returned to consumers, and thousands of bad actors have been outed on the CFPB web page.

The election of 45 put this agency’s integrity in jeopardy because his election was the triumph of predatory capitalism.  While 45 swore he was for the working class, which was campaign mumbo-jumbo.  Instead, he always planned to gut the agency that was unpopular with Congressional Republicans, and the preponderance of bankers in his cabinet certainly guarantees the agency’s destruction.  But the court’s swift finding against Leandra English reminds us that we can expect to find the tenets of predatory capitalism and consumer exploitation to be upheld by these newly packed courts.

Court appointments have generated little attention.  On at least one occasion, the American Bar Association has described a nominee as “unqualified”, something that they rarely do.  On another occasion a man who has a law degree but who has never tried a case was nominated as a judge.  Really?  Less than political patronage, 45 is systematically presiding over a massive ideological shift in our nation.  It’s a trick bag, one that many did not anticipate.

Julianne Malveaux is an author and economist. Her latest book “Are We Better Off? Race, Obama and Public Policy” is available via www.amazon.com for booking, wholesale inquiries or for more info visitwww.juliannemalveaux.com