1026 Dump Trump; for Sanders in 2020

Dump Trump; for Sanders in 2020

Newsletter published on June 8, 2019

(1) Dump Trump; for Sanders in 2020
(2) Sanders NYT: Helping Americans Make Ends Meet
(3) WSWS Trots oppose Sanders on Open Borders, China Trade
(4) LEFTVOICE Trots against Sanders 2020
(5) Sanders's Protectionism; opposed NAFTA & China Trade deal
(6) Sanders does not support Open Borders; too many poor people would
flood in
(7) LEFTVOICE Trots: Bernie Sanders Versus Open Borders
(8) Sanders voted for Border Fencing in Texas despite Progressive Opposition
(9) Denmark's new Socialist Government rejects Open Borders
(10) Denmark Left-Populist Social Democrats' hardline stance on immigration
(11) AOC sends email asking $ to defend Omar, Tlaib & herself from AIPAC
primary challenge
(12) Ocasio-Cortez: AIPAC ‘Coming After’ Freshman Dems, Compares Israel
Supporters to Iraq War Supporters
(13) Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is AIPAC Too Powerful?
(14) AIPAC got Cynthia McKinney out of Congress; she says USA a Zionist
occupied government
(15) AOC, advocate for a $15 minimum wage, returned to work as a
bartender for one day
(16) Michael Hudson backs Sanders on Banks, against Paul Krugman (2016)

(1) Dump Trump; for Sanders in 2020
by Peter Myers, June 9, 2019

I have switched my support from Trump to Sanders & AOC.

Even though they're on the other side of the Culture War from me.

Basically, I support their economic policies, i.e. Public Banks, cutting
military expenditure by 50%, a $15 minimum wage, and a massive
infrastructure program.

Not only that, they won't be making war on  Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria
& North Korea.

I'm not sure if the Green New Deal would work without nuclear power. I
think not; we've got used to using so much energy.

Trump has proved himself an Israel-Firster; he's in the pocket of
Sheldon Adelson.

The US establishment oppose Sanders as much as they oppose Trump. The
Economist magazine has run many articles against him.

Sanders is more likely to Drain the Swamp, than Trump.

You might wonder why I support Sanders, when I oppose Labor & the Greens
in Australia.

The ALP is a Globalist party. It supports Free trade; whereas Sanders
voted against NAFTA & opposed TPP.

He does NOT support open-border immigration either; he said that mass
immigration (in particular via the southern border) will make Americans
poorer.

Sanders is a person of principle; he can't be bought. He's not swayed by
polls or by media campaigns.

I admire AOC for saying that funding of political campaigns by big
Business (& by implication other lobbies) is 'Corruption'.

The Jewish Lobby is out to get her. AOC sent out an email warning that
AIPAC is going to run candidate against herself and Reps Omar and Tlaib
in the Democratic Primary.

Bill Shorten, who lead the ALP to election defeat last month, marches in
the Gay Mardi Gras every year. Whilst Sanders is tolerant of gays, I
don't think he's a 'Gender' fanatic.

The ALP policy document for the 2019 federal election was the National
Platform 2018:
https://www.alp.org.au/media/1539/2018_alp_national_platform_constitution.pdf

In this 310-page document,

The word 'Gender' occurs 148 times; LGBTIQ, 38 times; LGBTI, 7 times;
Intersex, 55 times; Transgender, 35 times; Gender Diverse, 4 times;
Inclusive, 42 times; hate, 2 times; Racist, 2 times; Racism, 7 times;
Intolerance, 1 time

They were going to force religious schools to employ Gay teachers. And
they supported the sacking of Israel Folau for articulating his
Christian principles.

I don't think Sanders is in-your-face like that. He's not only immune to
campaigns by wall St, Big Pharma, & the Jewish Lobby, but the Trots too
- they will find that they can't manipulate him.

The Minimum Wage in Australia is A$18.93 per hour. Adjusted for exchange
rates, it's below US$15. But once the Fed cuts rates a few times, in
keeping with Australia and Europe, the US$ will fall and $15 approximate
the Minimum Wage in Australia.

However, in fruit-packing sheds in my area (a major fruit & vegetable
growing area), workers were paid about $25/hour, five years ago. It
would be more now.

Sanders calls himself "Democratic Socialist". So do the Trots, i.e.
ultra-left Communists, Antifa-supporters. But this terminology muddies
the waters.

Sanders' model for Socialism is the North European (Nordic) model, of
Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. He's not going to turn the USA into
the USSA.

Hardline Trots are waking up to that fact - that they won't be able to
control him - and coming out against him.

But Sanders does reject English-style Capitalism as pioneered by
Thatcher, Reagan and the Mont Pelerin Society. Prior to Thatcher,
Britain was a socialist economy - meaning Market Socialism, i.e. Mixed
Economy, not Communist. Australia was too; and it was a much fairer
country then. France is still largely Socialist - eg the railways are
publicly-owned. Their high-speed trains are far ahead of anything in the
English-speaking countries.

If the Democratic National Committee cheats Sanders of the nomination
again, he should run as an Independent.

Of course, they would make him sign a committment not to do so; but the
DNC itself broke the rules of fairness last time. That is what prompted
certain Democratic Party insiders to release Hillary's emails - which
was later blamed on Russia.

(2) Sanders NYT: Helping Americans Make Ends Meet

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/opinion/bernie-sanders-trump.html

Bernie Sanders: I Know Where I Came From. Does President Trump?

My political agenda has been shaped by my family’s experiences of
struggling to make ends meet.

By Bernie Sanders

Mr. Sanders is a senator from Vermont and a Democratic candidate for
president.

June 2, 2019

My father came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 with barely
a nickel in his pocket. I spent my first 18 years, before I left home
for college, in a three-and-a-half-room, rent-controlled apartment in
Brooklyn. My mother’s dream was to own her own home, but we never came
close. My father’s salary as a paint salesman paid for basic
necessities, but never much more.

As a young man I learned the impact that lack of money had on family
life. Every major household purchase was accompanied by arguments
between my parents.

I remember being yelled at for going to the wrong store for groceries
and paying more than I should have. I’ve never forgotten the incredible
stress of not having much money, a reality that millions of American
families experience today.

We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world and, according
to President Trump, the economy is "booming." Yet most Americans have
little or no savings and live paycheck to paycheck.

Today our rate of childhood poverty is among the highest of any
developed country in the world, millions of workers are forced to work
two or three jobs just to survive, hundreds of thousands of bright young
people cannot afford to go to college, millions more owe outrageous
levels of student debt, and half a million people are homeless on any
given night. Over 80 million Americans have inadequate health insurance
or spent part or all of last year without any insurance, and one out of
five cannot afford the prescription drugs they need.

While wages in the United States have been stagnant for over 40 years,
we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time since the 1920s.

Today, the wealthiest three families in the country own more wealth than
the bottom half of the American people and the top 1 percent owns more
wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Millions of workers earn starvation
wages even as nearly half of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.

Gentrification is ravaging working-class neighborhoods, forcing many
struggling Americans to spend half or more of their incomes to put a
roof over their heads. The rent-controlled apartment I grew up in was
small, but at least we could afford it.

I am running for president because we must defeat Donald Trump, the most
dangerous president in the modern history of our country. But, if we are
to defeat Mr. Trump, we must do more than focus on his personality and
reactionary policies.

We must understand that unfettered capitalism and the greed of corporate
America are destroying the moral and economic fabric of this country,
deepening the very anxieties that Mr. Trump appealed to in 2016. The
simple truth is that big money interests are out of control, and we need
a president who will stand up to them.

Wall Street, after driving the United States into the worst economic
downturn since the 1930s, now makes tens of billions in profits while
forcing working-class Americans to pay usurious interest rates on their
credit card debt. The top 10 American drug companies, repeatedly
investigated for price fixing and other potentially illegal actions,
made nearly $70 billion in profits last year, even as Americans paid the
most per capita among developed nations for their prescription medicine.

Top executives in the fossil fuel industry spend hundreds of millions on
campaign contributions to elect candidates who represent the rich and
the powerful, while denying the reality of climate change.

Major corporations like Amazon, Netflix, General Motors and dozens of
others make huge profits, but don’t pay federal income taxes because of
a rigged tax system they lobbied to create.

Back in 1944, in his State of the Union speech, President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt reminded the nation that economic security is a human
right, and that people cannot be truly free if they have to struggle
every day for their basic needs. I agree.

We must change the current culture of unfettered capitalism in which
billionaires have control over our economic and political life. We need
to revitalize American democracy and create a government and economy
that works for all.

Yes, the government should guarantee a decent paying job for all
Americans and universal health care through a single-payer system. Yes,
we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour, make
it easier for workers to join unions, provide free tuition to public
colleges and substantially lower student debt. Yes, we should wean
ourselves off of fossil fuels, reform a racist criminal justice system
and enact comprehensive immigration reform with a path toward citizenship.

As the working-class son of an immigrant, I know where I came from. My
values as a candidate were shaped by the experiences of my youth — and
by the realization that many Americans face the same struggles today.

Conservatives dishonestly try to link the policies I favor with those of
authoritarian regimes. But I am calling for a true democracy, one that
abides by the principle of one person, one vote, and that doesn’t allow
billionaires to buy elections.

F.D.R. did it. We can do it again.

Bernie Sanders is a senator from Vermont and a Democratic candidate for
president.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the
editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our
articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter
(@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

A version of this article appears in print on June 3, 2019, on Page A21
of the New York edition with the headline: Helping Americans Make Ends Meet.

(3) WSWS Trots oppose Sanders on Open Borders, China Trade

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/04/sand-m04.html

Bernie Sanders attacks Biden from the right on China trade

By Ben McGrath

4 May 2019

Vermont Senator and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders has attacked former Vice President Joe Biden for remarks on
China and trade. In language that would not be out of place coming from
President Donald Trump, Sanders accused Biden of downplaying the
economic threat represented by China and criticized him for supporting
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the normalization of
trade relations with Beijing.

Biden, considered the early frontrunner for the Democratic Party
presidential nomination, said at a campaign event Wednesday in Iowa,
"China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man." He added, "They’re not
bad folks. But guess what, they’re not competition for us."

Biden spokesman Andrew Bates later stated that Biden had meant "it’s
never a good bet to bet against America and the fundamental strength,
resilience, and ingenuity of its people."

In a response the same day, Sanders criticized Biden from the right,
saying in a tweet, "Since the China trade deal (in 2000) I voted
against, America has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs. It’s wrong
to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic competitors. When
we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing our
trade policies."

Sanders’ crude economic nationalism is not new. He has long linked his
populist rhetoric to policies of trade war and anti-immigrant
chauvinism. He fully supports the efforts of the trade union bureaucracy
to pit US workers against their class brothers and sisters around the
world and infect American workers with nationalism—the better to
subordinate them to "their" corporate exploiters within the US.

Just two weeks ago, Sanders denounced "open borders" at a campaign event
in Iowa, warning that decriminalizing undocumented immigrants would lead
to "impoverished people" around the world flooding into the US.

Trump also criticized Biden for his comments on China. In an interview
with Fox News on Thursday, he hailed the tariffs that his administration
has imposed on Chinese goods, while saying of Biden, "But for somebody
to be so naïve and say China is not a problem, if Biden actually said
that, that’s a very dumb statement."

Like Trump, Sanders has hailed his anti-free trade record. This week he
boasted of his votes against NAFTA and normalization of trade with
China. On Monday, he released his trade platform, calling for
renegotiation of all US trade agreements and demanding that China be
labeled a currency manipulator, something Trump has threatened but
pulled back from carrying out up to now. Officially naming a country a
currency manipulator is tantamount to full-scale trade war. Such a
declaration triggers a whole series of punitive trade measures against
the targeted country.

Sanders, who calls himself a "democratic socialist," has sought to
outflank Trump from the right on trade issues. At an April 13 rally, he
denounced Trump for being insufficiently aggressive in his trade war
drive against China and other countries. "For once in your life," he
said, "keep your campaign promises…go back to the drawing board."

On Monday, after releasing his trade plan, he said: "We need a president
who will actually fight for American workers, keep their promises, and
stand up to the giant corporations who close down plants to send jobs
overseas."

By equating the defense of American jobs with economic attacks on
countries such as China and blaming plant closures, layoffs and
wage-cutting on trade policies rather than capitalism, Sanders aids the
effort of the ruling class to create a war fever and prepare the way for
military conflict with nuclear-armed powers such as China.

While he has tried to tap into anti-war sentiment by saying, "I voted
against the war in Iraq. [Biden] voted for it," Sanders has no qualms
about using the military in pursuit of US imperialism’s interests.
During the 2016 campaign, he stated that he would use "drones, all that
and more."

Notwithstanding his rhetorical criticisms of big business, Sanders’ goal
is to prevent the independent movement of the working class by diverting
its struggles behind the Democratic Party. In this, he is aided by
pseudo-left organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America
(DSA).

The DSA functions as a faction of the Democratic Party, attempting to
provide a phony left veneer to this party of Wall Street and the CIA.
That is why it is dedicating its efforts to promoting the campaign of
Sanders in the 2020 elections.

(4) LEFTVOICE Trots against Sanders 2020

When Trots talk about achieving Socialism, they mean Communism. But the
Nordic model is Market Socialism, a mixed economy. Do not confuse the two.

https://www.leftvoice.org/A-Socialist-Case-Against-Bernie-2020

A Socialist Case Against Bernie 2020

Post on: January 25, 2019  Juan Cruz Ferre

A left-populist campaign inside the Democratic Party will not get us
closer to socialism.

Jacobin magazine and members of the Democratic Socialists of America
(DSA) grouped around The Call are advocating an early endorsement of
Bernie Sanders for president in the 2020 elections. They also want the
DSA to prioritize this electoral campaign over all other activities.

In the past few months, Jacobin has ramped up its efforts to uplift and
promote the senator from Vermont in his eventual run for the Oval
Office. "Listen to your heart. … Bernie Sanders should run for
President," reads an article titled "Run, Bernie, Run," published on
December 12 in the center-left publication.

The bulk of Sanders’ supporters are Democratic voters of a liberal
persuasion who do not see the need to end capitalism, but who recognize
the gaping inequalities and other consequences of neoliberalism as an
urgent problem. For this group of people—who may fully agree with
Sanders’ social democratic platform—putting Bernie in the White House
might be their only goal. This article focuses on debating the
socialists who, acknowledging the serious shortcomings of Sanders’
progressive platform, argue for endorsing him as a Democratic contender
for president.

In the socialist milieu, the proponents of building a campaign for
"Bernie 2020" put forward two main arguments: first, that Sanders’
campaign is the "best available means to raise workers’ class
consciousness," and second, that there is a battle inside the Democratic
Party between a progressive and a corporate wing, and that we socialists
need to take part in that fight. [...]

The biggest problem with Bernie 2020 is that he will run for the
Democratic Party. (If anyone still believes that Sanders is an
independent, his statement on the reforms the Democratic Party needs
shows that he’s standing squarely inside of it.) So, what kind of
workers’ consciousness will such a campaign raise? Instead of
encouraging workers to build and trust their own power, if socialist
organizations such as the DSA endorse Sanders’ Democratic bid, it will
send the message that the vehicle for achieving our goals is, indeed,
the Democratic Party. Sanders himself puts it very clearly. In his
interview with Daniel Denvir for the Jacobin podcast, he stressed,
"There may be some exceptions to the rule in this or that community
around the country, but the action has got to be within the Democratic
Party."

It is now a common understanding among the left that the Democratic
Party has historically been a political cartel involved in undermining
socialist projects and dismantling social movements, securing the
profits of the capitalist class and upholding imperialist foreign
policies. It has successfully co-opted disruptive social forces, from
the civil rights’ in the 1960s to the immigrant rights movement in the
early 2000s. Conversely, it was at a moment of deep crisis and
disillusion in the Democratic Party—when it proved incapable of
preventing Donald Trump’s rise to power—that the DSA and other left
organizations grew most dramatically.

The crisis in the Democratic Party is the inevitable consequence of a
long process. Riding the bandwagon of neoliberalism, Democrats have
moved to the right in the past three decades. Although President Carter
initiated the right-wing turn, it was President Clinton who embraced
neoliberalism wholeheartedly in the 1990s. The extremely undemocratic
character of the U.S. electoral system allowed both parties of capital
to alternate in power uncontested. Democrats and Republicans, relying on
ever-lower voter turnout and the safety of first-past-the-pole elections
, kept shifting right. But the ground below their feet became thinner
and thinner. Come 2016, the Democratic Party had lost connection with a
large portion of its traditional base—which is generally more urban and
working-class than that of the Republicans.

The Democratic Party is still in deep trouble, but it is making concrete
steps toward rebranding itself. The new generation of "insurgent
Democrats," led by progressive groups such as Indivisible, Justice
Democrats and Brand New Congress are a central piece in this effort. The
new figureheads are breathing new life into the party, just as Sanders
did in 2016 and will eventually do in 2019-2020, while entrenched
leaders like Sen. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer hold the reins of
the party, trim the radical edges of policies on immigration or health
care and keep steering politics straight along the center of the
political spectrum.

So when I hear that campaigning for a progressive Democrat is the best
means of advancing working-class politics, I can’t help but think that
the imagination of American socialists is severely limited. Aren’t there
a host of prominently working-class issues that socialists can take up
as their main struggle in the coming two years? Even in the realm of
electoral politics, aren’t there a decent number of socialists who could
run credible races for positions in local legislatures, or even for
Congress, even if a victory is less likely? [...]

The truth is that DSA members grouped around The Call agree with Sanders
that the main fight for socialists today takes place inside the
Democratic Party. I believe it is no business of socialists to intervene
in a bourgeois party’s internal power struggles. If anything, we should
help its demise altogether. At a minimum, the DSA, with its more than
50,000 members, could have a better orientation for the coming two years
than rallying behind an electoral project inside the Democratic Party.

In 2018 a wave of teachers’ strikes shook the country and ignited hopes
in an uptick of class struggle. There are other compelling signs that we
are in the midst of a new wave of labor unrest: The victory of hotel
workers in Chicago and Boston, the UTLA teachers’ strike and a host of
smaller struggles and victories point to a revitalization of the labor
movement. The role of socialists in these struggles is paramount.

The Yellow Vest movement in France shows that the response to decades of
neoliberalism, austerity and rollbacks on welfare need not be
conservative nationalism. Despite its limitations as a heterogeneous,
multiclass response, the mass mobilizations dealt a blow to French
President Emmanuel Macron’s administration, forcing a complete
withdrawal of the gas tax increase, and they highlighted the potential
of direct action on a mass scale. Although France has a stronger
tradition of social uprisings, U.S. history is rife with explosions of
rage and mass movements. There is no reason why we shouldn’t expect and
prepare to intervene in similar conjunctures in the United States.

Bernie Sanders and the Class Line

In a piece published in Jacobin, Ben Becket argues that "no other
candidate has either the desire or the ability to polarize the country
along class lines." It is true that Sanders’ platform congeals many
deeply felt working-class demands. For example, the push for universal
health care is a working-class issue that puts capitalists and workers
in squarely opposite camps. Passing a Medicare for All bill will not,
however, decommodify health care, as many have argued—you would still
need to get rid of private hospitals, Big Pharma, the medical tech
industry, etc.—but it would put workers in a much better position to
fight for their demands.

Put simply, having access to health care independent of employment
status will allow workers to organize at their workplaces and confront
their bosses through collective action without the fear of losing health
coverage for them and their families. But we need to be clear: Given the
enormous economic interests at stake, universal health care will be
achieved only through mass mobilization and the threat of disruption.
This means that the struggle for Medicare for All will be waged more
outside Congress than inside it. The DSA has the opportunity and the
capacity to mobilize its thousands of members to organize in their
unions, schools and workplaces and to become the main driving force of a
national campaign for universal health care. Prioritizing Sanders’
electoral campaign for the next year or two will eventually run against
such orientation.

Other items in Sanders’ platform are, similarly, favorable for
working-class people, such as the increase in the federal minimum wage
and the proposal for tuition-free college. Yet these demands are not
proposed by Sanders in a way that "polarizes the country along class
lines." [...]

Sanders’ politics have often been described as "populist left," and with
good reason. His social-democratic policies are blended with nationalist
rhetoric about "American values" and "keeping good jobs." Peter Frase,
writing for In These Times, makes the point that rallying behind
Sanders’ popularity can "obscure the need to ground our struggles in
mass organizing" and lead us to wed ourselves to his "New Deal
liberalism" rather than debating what "socialism" really means.
Furthermore, the fact that he is running on a Democratic Party ballot
cannot be divorced from the political content of his campaign: It is a
statement that provides stability and continuity to the political
establishment.

It would certainly be different if Sanders ran on an independent ballot
line, which he surely has the resources to do. This would be an
important step in building an independent political alternative to the
two main parties of capital. But there are two reasons why I would still
not support his bid: First, his record on foreign policy shows not even
a shadow of the anti-imperialist politics we need for a U.S. socialist
movement. Second, a third party alone is not what we need. [...]

Some of us are convinced that a revolutionary strategy is the only one
with the potential of achieving socialism. In other words, capitalism
can be overthrown only through the direct involvement of the masses in
public affairs, a concerted effort of millions toward breaking the
institutional underpinnings of capital and defeating the repressive
forces of the capitalist state. The tendency to see elections as the
primary battlefield, or the main tool to educate socialists who are just
awakening to political experience, follows a logic of continuity—not
rupture—with the institutions of capitalism. It is based on the illusion
of progressive growth and a smooth transition to socialism through the
vote. It is a myth, like believing that going regularly to the casino
will eventually enable us to beat the house in the long run. A party of
combat, one that prepares from now to the critical moment of faceoff
with the forces of capital, would put its energy and resources into
honing its members, engaging in class struggle, enhancing the
contradictions of a system that works for only a few and using elections
to spread anticapitalist ideas with no sugarcoating. Since the unions
are the first line of combat against capital, building revolutionary
fractions in the unions is paramount for any socialist strategy.

The Left Front in Argentina has successfully run openly anticapitalist
campaigns since its formation in 2013. Apart from having three members
in National Congress, it holds seats in local councils and province
legislatures, it organizes thousands of militants in class struggle, in
their unions and in the students’ movement, and provides a platform in
parliament for the fights that it leads outside of it.

The DSA could run its own candidates or form a coalition with other
organizations of the socialist left, like Socialist Alternative, the ISO
and a variety of local socialist groups. This would be a small but
important step toward building a left that could eventually represent a
threat to capitalism. [...]

In the long run, we need a revolutionary socialist organization that
prepares its members and supporters for the decisive battle: the
overthrow of capitalism through mass action, general strikes and an
inevitable confrontation with the forces of the state. The path to
victory has no shortcuts: It involves patient organizing, political
education, engaging in legal and illegal tactics, building power in the
unions and, most importantly, forming a network of revolutionary cadre
who serve as the living muscle cells moving the gigantic body of the
working class, in a coordinated and harmonious way. Once the working
class stands up and shakes its chains, the sky will be the limit.

(5) Sanders's Protectionism; opposed NAFTA & China Trade deal

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/32206-sanders-criticizes-biden-for-downplaying-china-as-an-economic-threat-to-u-s

Monday, 06 May 2019

Sanders Criticizes Biden for Downplaying China as an Economic Threat to U.S.

Written by  Warren Mass

Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), writing in a
tweet on May 1, criticized a statement made by his strongest competitor
in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Vice
President Joe Biden.

Earlier in the day, during a campaign stop in Iowa, Biden pooh-poohed
the notion that China was a serious threat to U.S. economic interests,
saying: "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man."

Sanders’ response was:

Since the China trade deal I voted against, America has lost over 3
million manufacturing jobs.

It’s wrong to pretend that China isn’t one of our major economic
competitors.

When we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing
our trade policies.

On September 19, 2000, the Senate voted 83-15 to extend permanent normal
trade relations to China. Thirty-seven Democrats, including Biden, voted
yes. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

The New American summarized the China trade legislation in the "Freedom
Index":

China PNTR. This bill, H.R. 4444, would grant Communist China Permanent
Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), and thereby abolish the annual review
process of Chinese NTR. It would also pave the way for Chinese entry
into the World Trade Organization. The bill would all but guarantee that
the tyrannical Chinese government will continue to receive billions of
dollars in U.S. taxpayer-subsidized trade annually through export
subsidy programs such as the Export-Import Bank and multilateral organs
such as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank.

Just days before the vote, on September 12, 2000, the Senate rejected
the Helms Amendment to China Trade introduced by Senator Jesse Helms
(R-N.C.). The Helms Amendment would have prohibited the granting of
"free trade" privileges to China under Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) until China abolished the Laogai prison-labor system and released
all religious prisoners and labor leaders. The Senate rejected the Helms
Amendment, with Biden voting against it.

A May 3 article in the Los Angeles Times noted that in a campaign video
and an interview on CNN last week, Sanders spoke of the wide contrast
between him and Biden on trade policy:

"Sanders was against and Biden was for the North American Free Trade
Agreement [NAFTA], expanded trade relations with China and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] — a 12-nation trade deal negotiated by
Obama," reported the Times.

Politico reported on May 2 that only hours after Biden delivered his
first official campaign speech, Sanders went on CNN and contrasted their
positions on trade.

"When people take a look at my record versus Vice President Biden's
record, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA; he voted for NAFTA. I
helped lead the fight against [permanent normal trade relations] with
China; he voted for it. I strongly opposed the Trans-Pacific
Partnership; he supported it."

(6) Sanders does not support Open Borders; too many poor people would
flood in

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bernie-sanders-says-he-does-not-support-open-borders-2019-4

'There's a lot of poverty in the world': Bernie Sanders says he does not
support open borders

JOHN HALTIWANGER

APR 9, 2019, 8:11 AM

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said he’s not for "open borders" but
"comprehensive immigration reform."

"If you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this
world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world. And I
don’t think that’s something that we can do at this point," Sanders said
at a town hall in Iowa.

President Donald Trump has frequently, and incorrectly, said that
Democrats want "open borders."

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday rejected the notion he supports "open
borders" when questioned about his stance on immigration at a town hall
in Oskaloosa, Iowa.

When an attendee suggested Sanders supports open borders, or a policy of
free-flowing migration, the senator sought to correct the record.

The man referred to Sanders as "an advocate for open borders."

Sanders replied, "I’m afraid you may be getting your information wrong.
That’s not my view."

"What we need is comprehensive immigration reform," Sanders added. "If
you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this world,
and you’re going to have people from all over the world. And I don’t
think that’s something that we can do at this point. Can’t do it. So
that is not my position."

@thehill  Sen. Bernie Sanders campaigns in Oskaloosa, IA: "If you open
the borders, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to
have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something
that we can do at this point. Can't do it."

One of the senator’s top 2020 staffers is an undocumented immigrant
living in the US under protections via the Obama-era Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), and his campaign has slammed those
who’ve criticised this choice.

Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, in late March tweeted, "Unlike
the Trump administration, ?@BernieSanders? will not only act to protect
DACA recipients and their community, he will ensure this campaign seeks
out their voices and treats them with respect."

The Vermont senator has referred to Trump’s immigration policies as
"heartless," saying, "We must not be about tearing small children away
from their families."

Trump is reshuffling his administration over disagreements linked to
immigration and his desire for a more hardline stance on the border.
Kirstjen Nielsen, the president’s head of the Department of Homeland
Security, resigned on Sunday.

(7) LEFTVOICE Trots: Bernie Sanders Versus Open Borders

https://www.leftvoice.org/bernie-sanders-versus-open-borders

Bernie Sanders Versus Open Borders

Post on: April 9, 2019  Tatiana Cozzarelli

Sanders is against open borders. What does this mean for socialists?

At yet another packed rally on Sunday in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Bernie Sanders
took a firm and unequivocal position on the question of open borders. He
said,  "If you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in
this world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world. And
I don’t think that’s something that we can do at this point. Can’t do
it. So that is not my position."

This position by Sanders should come as no surprise. After all, he
dragged his feet on calling to abolish ICE, instead calling to
restructure it. He voted to fund the border wall, as well as to provide
funding for ICE.

(8) Sanders voted for Border Fencing in Texas despite Progressive Opposition

https://www.leftvoice.org/sanders-votes-for-increased-border-security-despite-progressive-opposition

Sanders Votes for Increased Border Security Despite Progressive Opposition

Post on: February 20, 2019  Madeleine Freeman

Bernie Sanders was notably one of the only progressives in Congress to
vote in favor of the recent spending bill to keep the government open.
In doing so, he failed to fight in the interest of both immigrant and
federal workers.

Last Thursday, February 14, Democrats and Republicans in Congress agreed
on a bill for government funding which includes $1.375 billion for
border fencing in Texas and additional funding for new border patrol
agents and border security technology. The bill passed the Senate 83-16
and the House 300-128, with widespread support from Democrats and
Republicans alike.

Of the 128 votes against the bill, only 16 came from Democrats, among
them newcomers Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
Nearly all of the Democratic hopefuls for the 2020 election—some of whom
have, until recently, voted conservatively when it comes to immigration,
like Kirsten Gillibrand—voted against the bill as well, presumably to
distance themselves from the xenophobic policies of Donald Trump as each
prepares to make a bid for the White House in the next election.

This resistance to the funding bill makes it all the more remarkable
that Bernie Sanders, considered by many to be a stalwart of the
anti-establishment left in Congress and a candidate for the presidency
himself, voted in favor of the spending agreement—a bill which
legitimizes Trump’s racist fear-mongering about the "crisis" at the
border. While numerous politicians considerably to the right of Sanders
voted against the bill, such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, Sanders
sided with the vast majority of establishment Democrats in the Senate
who chose to pass the bill.

Sanders explained his decision on the night of the vote, tweeting :
"While I have concerns about this bill, I supported it because I can’t
turn my back on the 2 million federal employees and private contractors
who would be forced again to work without pay. I am also concerned about
the millions who would be denied access to government services." In
other words, for Sanders, voting for the bill was the best way to avoid
another shutdown, the consequences of which outweigh those of an
expansion of the resources of the United States’ immigration system. ...

(9) Denmark's new Socialist Government rejects Open Borders

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/06/denmarks-real-labour-party-wins-election/

Denmark’s real labour party wins election

By Houses and Holes

10:15 am on June 7, 2019

Via The Guardian:

Voters appear to have returned the third left-leaning government in a
year to the Nordic region as Denmark’s Social Democrats claimed victory
in parliamentary elections with 25.9% of the vote.

The centre-left party finished clear of the centre-right Liberals of
outgoing prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who improved on their 2015
score to reach 23.4%, and the populist, far-right Danish People’s party
(DPP), which plunged to 8.7% – less than half its tally in the last
election.

Although the Social Democrat-led "red bloc" of leftist parties won 91
seats in the 179-seat Folketing, against 75 for Rasmussen’s rival "blue
bloc", Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democrat leader, has said she
intends to form a minority government with ad hoc support from parties
across the spectrum.

Forming a coalition could prove difficult as other parties on the left
mostly do not back the Social Democrats’ controversial immigration
policies. Frederiksen has also rejected a proposal from Rasmussen to
enter a "grand coalition" with his Liberals, although the two biggest
parties have a majority between them.

Rasmussen conceded defeat on Wednesday night, saying he would hand his
government’s resignation to Queen Margrethe on Thursday. "As things
stand, Mette Frederiksen has a chance to form a government," he said. "I
don’t think it will be easy for her." He said he would be "standing by
the phone" for eventual coalition talks.

Frederiksen told a victory party that Denmark had "chosen a new
majority, and a new direction … After tonight, we will put welfare first
in Denmark again. Welfare, climate, education, children, future. Think
of what we can do together. We now have the hope to change Denmark."

The centre-left party focused its campaign on climate issues and the
defence of Denmark’s prized welfare state, promising to reverse years of
spending cuts to education and healthcare, and maintain its tough
approach on immigration.

Long a benchmark for welfare, the Nordic social model has come under
increasing pressure in recent years due to ageing populations. In
Denmark, reforms have led to economic growth above the EU average, but
successive budget cuts have left more people paying for services that
used to be free.

And there you have it. The missing link in contemporary politics: a
nationalist left government that addresses class via border protection
and addresses global issues simultaneously.

How hilarious that Australian Labor and the allegedly leftist Greens are
so far to the right of Denmark’s Social Democrats. Our fake lefties
share an open borders dogma that marries with global capital to crush
worker living standards and the environment.

Is it any wonder that they lost.

(10) Denmark Left-Populist Social Democrats' hardline stance on immigration

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/05/centre-left-social-democrats-set-to-win-in-denmark-elections

Centre-left Social Democrats victorious in Denmark elections

Danes follow Nordic trend away from populism but leader Mette
Frederiksen could struggle to form coalition

Jon Henley Europe correspondent @jonhenley

Thu 6 Jun 2019 04.56 AEST Last modified on Fri 7 Jun 2019 04.18 AEST

Voters appear to have returned the third left-leaning government in a
year to the Nordic region as Denmark’s Social Democrats claimed victory
in parliamentary elections with 25.9% of the vote. ...

Although the Social Democrat-led "red bloc" of leftist parties won 91
seats in the 179-seat Folketing, against 75 for Rasmussen’s rival "blue
bloc", Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democrat leader, has said she
intends to form a minority government with ad hoc support from parties
across the spectrum.

Forming a coalition could prove difficult as other parties on the left
mostly do not back the Social Democrats’ controversial immigration
policies. ...

The centre-left party focused its campaign on climate issues and the
defence of Denmark’s prized welfare state, promising to reverse years of
spending cuts to education and healthcare, and maintain its tough
approach on immigration.

Long a benchmark for welfare, the Nordic social model has come under
increasing pressure in recent years due to ageing populations. In
Denmark, reforms have led to economic growth above the EU average, but
successive budget cuts have left more people paying for services that
used to be free.

Finland’s Social Democrats narrowly won elections in April on a promise
to raise taxes to increase social spending levels, while Sweden’s
centre-left party held on to power last year by pledging welfare
reforms. ...

Frederiksen has refused to accept criticism of her stance on
immigration. The Social Democrats have backed many of the restrictive
immigration measures passed by the outgoing government, most of them at
the instigation – and with the parliamentary support – of the far-right DPP.

These have included a ban on wearing the Islamic burqa and niqab in
public, as well as a widely-criticised – if largely symbolic –
"jewellery bill" that in principle allows police to seize refugees’
valuables to help pay the cost of their treatment by the state.

The nationalist, anti-immigration DPP, which has heavily influenced
Denmark’s politics over the past two decades by supporting successive
centre-right governments in exchange for tighter immigration policies,
has lost support as the mainstream parties have increasingly adopted its
discourse.

But the far-right party has also come under pressure from two new
extreme-right parties, one of which, Stram Kurs (Hard Line), has called
for Islam to be banned and hundreds of thousands of Muslims to be
deported. It failed to reach the 2% threshold for a seat in parliament.

(11) AOC sends email asking $ to defend Omar, Tlaib & herself from AIPAC
primary challenge
https://nypost.com/2019/03/07/aoc-sends-fundraising-email-asking-for-money-to-defend-omar-tlaib/

AOC sends fundraising email asking for money to defend Omar, Tlaib

By Nikki Schwab March 7, 2019 | 7:39pm

WASHINGTON – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign arm sent out a
fundraising plea minutes before Thursday’s House vote on an anti-hatred
resolution, asking for dollars to defend her and liberal allies Ilhan
Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

"It’s official – AIPAC is coming after Alexandria, Ilhan and Rashida,"
the email began, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"Rashida, Ilhan and Alexandria have at times dared to question our
foreign policy, and the influence of money in our political system. And
now, lobbying groups across the board are working to punish them for it."

The House passed a resolution Thursday afternoon condemning all forms of
hatred after Omar made statements widely condemned as anti-Semitic.

The email quotes an "AIPAC activist" – Stephen Fiske – who had told the
New York Times that the trio "will not be around in [Congress in ]
several years."

The note went on to point out that "some members of Congress have even
gone so far as to claim that ‘questioning support for the U.S.-Israel
relationship is unacceptable.’"

In the fundraising plea, "Team AOC" argued that "just a decade ago it
was ‘unquestionable’ to not support the war in Iraq." "And we all saw
what resulted from that lack of discussion and negotiation," the email read.

"Help us build a progressive movement that fights for the honest
conversation, inclusiveness and our universal fight with hate with a $27
contribution," it continued.

(12) Ocasio-Cortez: AIPAC ‘Coming After’ Freshman Dems, Compares Israel
Supporters to Iraq War Supporters

https://freebeacon.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-AIPAC-coming-after-freshman-dems-compares-israel-supporters-to-iraq-war-supporters/

BY: David Rutz

March 8, 2019 10:06 am

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) sent a fundraising email
Thursday claiming the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC is "coming after"
her and some of her progressive colleagues, comparing the consensus
around the U.S.-Israel relationship to that around the Iraq War a decade
ago.

Quoting a New York Times article where AIPAC activist predicted
Ocasio-Cortez and fellow freshman anti-Israel Reps. Ilhan Omar (D.,
Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) "will not be around in several
years," the email said, "it's official—AIPAC is coming after Alexandria,
Ilhan, and Rashida.

"Rashida, Ilhan, and Alexandria have at times dared to question our
foreign policy, and the influence of money in our political system. And
now, lobbying groups across the board are working to punish them for
it," the email said.

"Some members of Congress have even gone so far as to claim that
‘questioning support for the US-Israel relationship is unacceptable.’
But that’s not how our legislative process is supposed to work," the
email went on. "Just a decade ago, it was ‘unquestionable’ to not
support the war in Iraq. And we all saw what resulted from that lack of
discussion and negotiation."

Ocasio-Cortez's memory may be fuzzy with that timeline. A decade ago,
President Barack Obama and Democratic majorities had just been swept
into office after campaigning in fierce opposition to the Iraq War and
the George W. Bush administration's conducting of it.

It added condemnations of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry and
said there "should be no special relationship or status."

Ben Jacobs @Bencjacobs And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now raising money
by saying AIPAC is coming for her and comparing the bipartisan consensus
on the US-Israel relationship to the Iraq War

Ocasio-Cortez has backed Omar over her latest anti-Semitic controversy.
She claims Omar changed the conversation around the U.S.-Israel
relationship after she questioned the political influence pushing
"allegiance to a foreign country."

The left flank of the party represented by Omar and Ocasio-Cortez
increasingly sympathizes with anti-Israel positions, exposing a divide
this week as Democratic leaders struggled to control their caucus's
response to Omar. Democrats ultimately put forward a resolution
condemning bigotry of various forms that omitted mention of Omar.

Omar was forced to apologize last month by Democratic leadership for
saying AIPAC paid off pro-Israel politicians, at one point saying, "It's
all about the Benjamins, baby." She claimed she would learn from using
the anti-Semitic trope, but less than a month later, she made her remark
conflating support for Israel to allegiance for the Jewish state.

Ocasio-Cortez, shortly after her upset primary win last year, drew
criticism after accusing Israelis of perpetrating a "massacre" of
Palestinians and muddling facts about the so-called "occupation." She
admitted she was "not the expert on geopolitics on this issue" and
endorsed a two-state solution.

A few days later, she backed off that support when asked about the
two-state solution, saying she was "engaging with activists right now."

(13) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says AIPAC is coming after her. It’s not.
https://www.jta.org/2019/03/08/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-AIPAC-is-coming-after-her-its-not

BY RON KAMPEAS  MARCH 8, 2019 3:11 PM

WASHINGTON (JTA) — "It’s official," says the fundraising appeal from
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the freshman lawmaker who has
become the flagbearer for the Democratic Party’s restive progressive
wing. "AIPAC is coming after Alexandria, Ilhan, and Rashida."

Not only is it not official, it’s not true.

The release starts by quoting an "AIPAC activist" threatening the
political careers of Ocasio-Cortez and her first-year Democratic
colleagues, Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

The quote, saying they are "three people who, in my opinion, will not be
around in several years," was taken from a recent New York Times article
exploring the political clout of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee.

Except the "AIPAC activist" quoted, Stephen Fiske of Florida, confirmed
to me that he has not been associated with the pro-Israel lobbying group
for several years. The hardball he counsels in dealing with those who
depart from centrist pro-Israel orthodoxies is not the style of the
lobby, which discourages alienating safe incumbents. [...]

(13) Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is AIPAC Too Powerful?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/AIPAC-congress-democrats.html

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

March 4, 2019

WASHINGTON — When Representative Ilhan Omar landed a coveted seat on the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, Stephen Fiske began working the phones
to Capitol Hill.

Alarmed by messaging that he saw as anti-Semitic and by Ms. Omar’s
support for the boycott-Israel movement, Mr. Fiske, who was a longtime
activist with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, began
texting and calling his friends in Congress to complain. He is hoping
AIPAC activists will punish Ms. Omar, a freshman Democrat from
Minnesota, with a primary challenge in 2020.

On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders will mete out one form of
punishment: Spurred by outrage over Ms. Omar’s latest comments
suggesting that pro-Israel activists "push for allegiance to a foreign
country," they will put a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on the
House floor.

"Many other people involved in the pro-Israel community, a lot of
AIPAC-affiliated members, there’s a lot of concern; there’s a clarion
call for activism," said Mr. Fiske, who is the chairman of a political
action committee that backs pro-Israel candidates. "It really hit a
nerve, and the grass-roots Jewish community in South Florida is not one
to treat it as an ostrich, putting their heads in the sand."

Ms. Omar’s insinuation that money fuels American support for Israel —
"It’s all about the Benjamins, baby," she wrote on Twitter, specifically
citing AIPAC — revived a fraught debate in Washington over whether the
pro-Israel lobbying behemoth has too much sway over American policy in
the Middle East. The backlash to Ms. Omar’s tweet was fierce, with even
Democratic leaders accusing her of trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes.
The congresswoman apologized.

But the swirling debate not only around Ms. Omar but also around broader
currents buffeting the Middle East has forced an uncomfortable
re-examination of the questions that she has raised: Has AIPAC — founded
more than 50 years ago to "strengthen, protect and promote the
U.S.-Israel relationship" — become too powerful? And with that power,
has AIPAC warped the policy debate over Israel so drastically that
dissenting voices are not even allowed to be heard? [...]

Correction: March 13, 2019

An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to Israel’s
activities on the West Bank and a letter from Representative Jan
Schakowsky. Israel had proposed demolishing Palestinian homes, not
entire communities and had not conducted the demolition. Ms. Schakowsky
was objecting to the demolition proposal.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A19 of the New
York edition with the headline: Concerns Raised Over Power Wielded by a
Pro-Israel Lobbying Giant.

(14) AIPAC got Cynthia McKinney out of Congress; she says USA a Zionist
occupied government

https://americanfreepress.net/former-georgia-rep-says-d-c-occupied-by-zionists/

Former Georgia Rep. Says D.C. ‘Occupied by Zionists’

August 18, 2018

Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) talked with AFP’s Dave Gahary about
Israel’s influence on Washington, D.C. and the pledge AIPAC expects
legislators to take—something she knows all about from her 12 years in
office.

By Dave Gahary

(15) AOC, advocate for a $15 minimum wage, returned to work as a
bartender for one day

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/1/18648422/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-bartending-15-minimum-wage

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez returns to bartending in support of a $15
minimum wage

The Congress member served up food and drinks to advocate for raising
the minimum wage from $2.13 an hour.

By Gabriela Resto-Montero  Jun 1, 2019, 10:25am EDT

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continued her advocacy for an increase to
the federal minimum wage Friday night by tending bar and serving pizzas
at a New York City restaurant.

The Congress member did so in partnership with One Fair Wage, an
organization that works to increase the federal minimum wage for tipped
workers. The federal minimum wage for tipped workers — like bartenders —
is $2.13 an hour.

"Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job, it’s indentured
servitude," Ocasio-Cortez said. "All labor has dignity. And the way that
we give labor dignity is by paying people the respect and the value that
they are worth at minimum. We have to make one fair wage and we have to
raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour, nothing less."

@rocunited @AOC: "Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job. It's
indentured servitude."

In New York City, where Ocasio-Cortez worked as a bartender prior to
becoming a member of Congress, tipped workers must be paid a minimum of
$10 an hour by their employer, with a guarantee that through tips they
will receive at least $15 an hour. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo raised the
tipped and general minimum wage as part of the 2016-’17 budget.

Ocasio-Cortez argued a federal tipped minimum wage needs to become law
in order to protect workers both from increasing costs of living and
workplace harassment.

"When our rents are running away, when our food costs are running away,
in dense cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, we need to make
sure that people are paid enough to live, period," the lawmaker said.

She argued that the need to cover high costs of living puts tipped
workers in vulnerable positions not faced by workers that take home set
salaries.

(16) Michael Hudson backs Sanders on Banks, against Paul Krugman (2016)

http://michael-hudson.com/2016/04/establishment-protection-of-big-banks/

Establishment Protection of Big Banks

By Michael Hudson

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 Interviews wall st

Permalink

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Jaisal Noor in
Baltimore.

It’s been a tough week for Senator Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail,
despite his big win in Wisconsin on Tuesday, because it’s been marked by
fierce attacks on his economic plans. On Friday, New York Times’ Paul
Krugman pinned a scathing critique of Sanders for his slogans of
breaking up the banks because he says that won’t protect us from a
future crisis and for Sanders failing to provide details about how he
would go about this, when asked by the New York Daily News. Sanders met
with the Daily News on April 1st for an in depth interview for a range
of his policy positions. That interview’s been widely panned by the
corporate media which is especially significant ahead of the April 19th
New York primary.

Well now joining us to talk about this is Michael Hudson and Bill Black.
Michael Hudson is a distinguished Research Professor of Economics in
University of Missouri, Kansas City. His latest book is Killing the
Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global
Economy. And joining us from Kansas City, Missouri is Bill Black. Bill
is an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of
Missouri, Kansas City. He’s a white collar criminologist, financial
regulator, and author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, as
well as a regular contributor to the Real News.

So I want to thank you both for joining us and let’s start with you
Michael. So the New York Daily News is not a small paper. It has the
highest circulation out of any local daily in the country and there’s
been all this fallout from their interview, including most recently Paul
Krugman, who really went after Sanders for his policy positions on
breaking up the big banks as well as other things as well. We want to
get your response.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well it’s obvious that supporters of Hillary are now
getting very worried. Sanders was sandbagged at the Daily News. One of
the reporters for the Daily News is also the co-host of Democracy Now.

NOOR: Juan Gonzales.

HUDSON: He said that the editorial page editor was giving him rapid fire
questions, wanted short answers, and then when Sanders gave the short
answer, the newspaper later made up a whole attack that was unjustified,
saying he didn’t give long answers – when he wasn’t given a chance to.
So it was really left to Paul Krugman to attack Sanders’ policy on the bank.

Now Krugman has always been a defender of the bank and always in denial
that banks can be crooked. A few years ago in Iceland, Iceland had a
problem. The banks were very crooked, they controlled the government
that was about to give enormous amounts of money to the banks. I had
gone over and met with the Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers and
convinced them not to pay Britain and the sort of crooked depositors.
They hired Krugman at a very high fee and gave him the handouts and he
said ‘no, the Icelandic banks are not crooked’. Iceland should really
bankrupt itself and pay for the Icesave and the British bank affiliates
that went under even though these were not bank branches but bank
affiliates.

The Icelanders were very disappointed because they thought that Krugman
really was a liberal. But he’s not a liberal when it comes to banking.
He’s very right-wing, and the very day after Sanders gave the Daily News
interview, the Wall Street Journal had a much better report explaining
just what Sanders’ position was with the banks. He said he wanted to
give the issue of closing the too big to fail banks to the Treasury, not
to the Fed.

When Krugman came out and said what Sanders is saying is inconceivable,
it’s just really wrong and a personal attack. The fact is that FDIC head
Sheila Bair had come out and in her memoirs that she wrote when she
left, she said how she tried to close down Citibank because this was the
crux of the junk mortgage boom. She wanted to close it down and she was
opposed by the Obama Administration.

Krugman said that the frauds were not in the banks. They were in the
non-bank things. And yet the fact is that if the frauds weren’t in the
bank then why did the Federal Reserve have to give 4.3 trillion dollars
of quantitative easing and what Randy Wray has calculated as 17 trillion
dollars’ worth of taking bad bank assets on. Everybody knew that the
banks were crooked because they called these loans "liars’ loans." The
liars were the banks, not the mortgagees. And they talked about NINJAS,
No Income No Job and no Assets. So the fact is, everybody knew about who
was sponsoring these mortgages except Krugman.

Krugman has had a problem with Sanders advisers all the way back. He’s
written that it’s impossible for banks to create credit. That they can
only act like savings banks and recycle money. He’s always accused
Modern Monetary Theorists, who are part of the UMKC, of being cranks.
And yet he’s never mentioned them in print. He thought he had a chance a
few years ago to defend his right-wing views by having a debate with an
Australian economist, Steve Keen, and your viewers can Google
Krugman-Keen and see the result of it. But Krugman just showed that he
really didn’t know what he was talking about when it comes to bank
credit and to monetary theory.

And that’s exactly why he’s been trotted forth as an opponent of Sanders
in here. Because he has credibility, but he doesn’t have any credibility
in bank theory or finance.

It’s very much like when Sanders has accused Wall Street and other
wealthy people of mind-control of the political process. The same thing
has happened in academia. They’ve bought control or they’ve subsidized
economists who really give the Wall Street line. And Krugman right down
the line supports the banks, supports Wall Street. He’s to the right of
Sheila Bair and other progressive Republicans who did try to stop what
was happening. We’re advocating exactly what Bernie Sanders is
advocating today; to break up the big banks and to treat them as what
they are, engaging in massive fraud. [...]

BLACK: Well Krugman is now basically serving as surrogate on this issue
for Hillary Clinton. I’ve just written an article which I explain his
over the top attack on Senator Sanders for how dare he complain about
the Clinton campaign taking massive funds from Wall Street. And in
particular the systemically dangerous banks that when, not if, the next
one fails will cause a global systemic crisis. You’ve just heard Krugman
doesn’t want anything done to these institutions. He wants them to be
allowed to operate with massive federal subsidies.

But I point out in this column by quoting Krugman extensively from past
pieces in which he says campaign contributions are the key corrupting
influence and that we have to deal with it. Well that’s what he used to
believe until he was supporting Hillary Clinton. Then apparently all of
that stuff became inoperative. So fundamentally, notice that Hillary
Clinton in the debates always answers, if the banks pose a system risk
then ‘I’ll deal with them’. [...]