Tag Archives: schultz

Bernie Sanders Delegates Threaten Convention Chaos

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“We got her. We got her.”

It’s near midnight. Democratic Party delegates are milling about the lobby bar of the Marriott in downtown Philadelphia. And on the big overhead screen, there’s a CNN report on the news of the day: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, had given up the post after leaked emails showed that some DNC officials had discussed how to thwart Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

Sanders delegates are cheering wildly. The head of the party apparatus many of them despise is out. It’s a victory for the Sanders revolution. Off to the side, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton looks on sadly. “I suppose she had to go,” he says. He then sums up the relationship between Sanders delegates and Clinton delegates with one word: “acidic.”

As thousands of delegates to the Democratic convention hit the City of Brotherly Love (and Sisterly Affection), it was clear that the Clinton campaign’s talk of unity, in the wake of announcing Tim Kaine as Clinton’s running mate, was more hope than reality. Sanders delegates throughout the city were grousing about a series of perceived slights and wrongs: the selection of Kaine, with his centrist reputation; the leaked emails, which showed that, yes, the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders, but didn’t contain evidence of much underhanded activity; and Clinton’s inadequate (in their view) outreach to the Sanders crowd. At a pro-Sanders rally on Sunday afternoon, attendees chanted, “Lock her up,” echoing the mantra of Donald Trump’s convention last week. At a Monday morning gathering of the California Democratic delegation, Sanders delegates booed mentions of Clinton. And Florida Sanders delegates jeered Wasserman Schultz at their breakfast meeting.

Many Sanders folks are still grieving and not accepting Clinton’s triumph. Though Sanders nudged Clinton to the left during the campaign, demonstrated the vitality of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, helped craft the party’s most progressive platform in decades, and won a small concession regarding the future of superdelegates within the party, many of his delegates were openly and vigorously expressing disappointment and voicing their dissatisfaction with Clinton.

Lisa Flyte, a Sanders representative on the convention credentials committee, griped that the Clinton campaign “is still taking jabs at us.” Though she noted she believed that a Trump victory would likely be bad news for low- and middle-income Americans, she said Clinton has “supported policies that hurt middle-income people here and abroad.” She blasted Clinton for supporting “oligarchs overseas and big energy companies.” She was ticked off that the Clinton campaign “is saying we’re unified without real accommodations.” She added, “We’re not ready to move on.”

Jason Brown, the vice chair of the Iowa delegation and a Sanders supporter, was peeved that the Clinton campaign has “not yet reached out to us.” He noted that Clinton’s message was not inspiring Iowans who had volunteered and voted for Sanders. “These people are looking for more from her,” he said. Brown is committed to supporting Clinton, but he remarked, “I’m not sure I can convince the Sanders volunteers with a she’s-not-Trump message. They need more.”

At the start of the convention, Sanders delegates were left to their own devices. The Sanders campaign had created a whip system to provide guidance to its delegates. But as of Monday morning, no instructions were disseminating. “That’s been frustrating,” one Sanders delegate from Florida says. “We don’t know what they want us to be saying or doing. We’re in limbo.” (Sanders was scheduled to address his delegates at a Monday afternoon meeting.) A California Clinton delegate pointed out that within her state delegation, there had been little conversation between Clinton delegates and Sanders delegates. “It’s still very raw,” she said. “They’re processing a death in the family.”

At a press conference on Monday morning, the Bernie Delegates Network, an outfit independent of the Sanders campaign that claims to represent two-thirds of the Sanders delegates, presented Sanders delegates outraged at the DNC and Clinton campaign. They were mad that Clinton has named Wasserman Schultz an honorary chairwoman of her campaign. There was talk of launching protests—”an expression of disapproval”—during Clinton and Kaine’s speeches. This could include delegates booing or walking out.

Norman Solomon, a Sanders delegate, asserted, “There is serious interest and exploration…in a formal challenge” to Kaine. Who might that be? Solomon replied that Sanders delegates have approached several politicians, but that “those who want to eat lunch at the White House, they run the other way.” So any names? “We’re working on it.” (Solomon said he has had “zero connection with the Bernie campaign.”)

At this event, Manuel Zapata, a California Sanders delegate, shared his bitter disappointment. “Since the moment we got here, people have looked down on us as we walked past people with our Bernie swag on—as if he’s not still a candidate, as if it’s wrong for us to support our candidate,” he said. He added, “It is disrespectful that a madman like Donald Trump is reaching out for the progressive vote more than Hillary Clinton is.”

Karen Bernal, a leader of the California Sanders delegation, said there would be nothing wrong with Sanders people jeering Clinton when she comes to the podium. She did note that the Sanders campaign was “pressing us not to be involved in protests and not to be so overt in our expressions…My job is to make sure that the wishes of my delegates are heard, that their opinions are heard…They have never been a group to take marching orders.”

Bernal believes Sanders’ endorsement of Clinton was a mistake. She said, “We can still be mad at Hillary Clinton and still say it’s essential to defeat Trump.” But asked if protests by Sanders delegate would help the effort to defeat Trump, Beral noted, “It absolutely helps,” because it will signal to progressives that there is a place for them within the Democratic Party. She didn’t explain precisely how deriding Clinton and her veep pick would bolster the effort to elect Clinton.

It’s uncertain what sway Sanders will have over the Sanders delegates looking to make noise at this convention. The delegates at this press conference repeatedly noted that the movement transcends the candidate and that the activists within it will determine the strategy this week. If they are asked by Sanders not to do something, Solomon said, “we’ll take that under advisement.” He added that Sanders “is not running the show…The activists at this convention will make the social change.”

Update 1:35 p.m.: Sanders addressed his delegates on Monday afternoon and highlighted the successes he achieved in his campaign, boasting of “the most progressive platform ever written in the history of the Democratic Party” and a “major victory” in reforming superdelegates. But when he told the crowd, “We have got to elect Hillary Clinton,” he was met with boos.

More:

Bernie Sanders Delegates Threaten Convention Chaos

Posted in FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Delegates Threaten Convention Chaos

Now Clinton and Sanders Are Fighting Over the Democratic Platform

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared on Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Democratic Party’s platform drafting committee has written a stronger climate change section than the platform had in 2012, but it also rejected a series of more ambitious climate and energy amendments on Friday. That’s raised the ire of Bernie Sanders and his appointees to the drafting committee, like climate activist and author Bill McKibben.

The first draft of the platform, voted on by the 15-member drafting committee, is now complete, though it hasn’t been made publicly available. On July 8 and 9, in Orlando, the full 187-member platform committee will meet and debate further changes before approving and sending its draft on to the party convention, to be held in Philadelphia the last week of July.

Sanders slammed Hillary Clinton’s committee appointees for blocking progressive provisions and pledged to continue fighting for changes to the document. “Despite the growing crisis of climate change, Clinton’s delegates voted against a tax on carbon, against a ban on fracking,” said Sanders in a statement on Sunday. “We intend to do everything we can to rally support for our amendments in Orlando and if we fail there to take the fight to the floor of the convention in Philadelphia.”

How did the platform become a big deal this time?

Drama over the party platform is atypical. Usually the document is just a quietly produced, platitudinous summation of the presidential nominee’s policy vision. But if Sanders gets some of the changes he’s still pushing for, this year’s platform could look very different from the last one, adopted four years ago under a moderate incumbent president with a mixed record on environmental issues.

Sanders’ campaign is dedicated to pushing American politics leftward, so he and his team have been focused on influencing the platform. After making a stronger-than-expected primary showing, Sanders asked for seven appointments to the 15-person drafting committee. The party gave him five, Clinton got six, and the remaining four were appointed by party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Now that Sanders has lost the fight for the nomination, he and his supporters see the platform as their chief vehicle for having a lasting impact on the party’s direction.

Sanders and Clinton each appointed a climate expert to the drafting committee. Sanders chose McKibben, cofounder of climate action group 350.org (and a member of Grist’s board of directors). Clinton picked Carol Browner, who served as President Obama’s climate czar from 2009 to 2011.

Sanders’ other appointees were all progressives, of course. Clinton and Wasserman Schultz also chose fairly left-leaning slates. In analyzing the appointees, The Nation‘s John Nichols concluded that “the drafting committee has a progressive majority.” That led climate hawks to hope that some of the more aggressive proposals from the Sanders’ camp might pass. But that’s not how things have played out so far.

What they agreed on

The drafting committee members did come together on some critical climate-related decisions. The biggest and most important shift from the 2012 platform was dropping the call for “all-of-the-above” energy development, which reflected the priorities of Obama’s first term. The members also unanimously agreed to call for fully switching to clean energy by 2050.

The draft platform echoes the Paris Agreement in aiming to keep global warming below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) over pre-industrial levels, with the hope of staying below 1.5 C (2.7 F) if possible. It calls for a Department of Justice investigation into fossil fuel companies (read: ExxonMobil) accused of misleading the public about climate science. It backs elimination of fossil fuel subsidies in the tax code and extension of support for renewable energy development, such as the wind production tax credit.

Browner told Grist that the language supporting renewables was written in from the beginning and never even required an amendment. “There was a lot of stuff where there was common ground that was embedded in the conversation,” she said.

And some amendments proposed by McKibben on Friday were passed unanimously, such as a noncontroversial call for more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and a statement of opposition to electric utilities’ efforts to quash solar energy. As Browner put it, “The draft has everybody’s fingerprints.”

What they fought over—or, what the Sanders team lost

But while Sanders and progressive climate activists see the current draft platform as a modest step in the right direction, they are far from satisfied. The platform document sets strong big-picture goals for curbing climate change and boosting clean energy, but doesn’t include specific policies that would actually help meet those goals.

“In the draft, everyone agreed that there should be 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but every measure I put forward to actually get us there went down by the same 7-6 vote, with all the Clinton people voting in a bloc against,” said McKibben. Only one non-Sanders appointee, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who was chosen by Wasserman Schultz, crossed over to vote with the Sanders bloc on the controversial climate change amendments. One committee member was absent, and the chair did not vote.

The half-dozen McKibben amendments that went down to defeat included calls for:

a carbon tax,
a fracking ban,
a ban on fossil fuel extraction on public lands,
elimination of support through international lending institutions for fossil fuel projects abroad,
a declaration that eminent domain should not be used to take private land for fossil fuel infrastructure projects, and
a “climate test” for future domestic energy projects, which would reject ones that contribute to climate change—like the test Obama ultimately used to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

Only one of those was replaced with compromise language: The Clinton side offered and passed an amendment endorsing a gradual phaseout of fossil fuel extraction on public lands.

Climate Hawks Vote, a political action committee that endorsed Sanders, issued a statement praising the Exxon investigation amendment but also warning, “We’re fighting not just the Republicans, but also the incrementalists within the Democratic Party.”

The Clinton campaign says its reluctance to accept some of McKibben’s amendments reflects legitimate concerns about the policy implications, not mere political calculation. Not all experts agree that a carbon tax is the most effective way to reduce emissions, for example. Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board had pointed out in her testimony to the committee a week earlier that a carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions, while direct regulation, such as Obama’s Clean Power Plan, does. Clinton supporters rejected a blanket prohibition on lending for foreign fossil fuel development projects on the grounds that the US relationship with any given developing country may have competing priorities, and they opposed the climate test for energy projects because they worried it could prevent necessary projects like transmission lines for electricity that may be partly generated from dirty sources.

There are also obvious political concerns about some of these proposals. A carbon tax, for example, would have no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, but a call for such a tax would hand Donald Trump a potentially effective new weapon, letting him claim that Democrats want to raise energy prices.

It’s unlikely that Sanders’ supporters will be able to change many platform planks in Orlando or Philly. Essentially, they are calling for Sanders’ platform to become the party’s platform. But Sanders lost the primary race, and it stands to reason that the party platform would reflect the views of the candidate who won.

And that candidate has to consider not just the best climate policies in the abstract, but the ones that will help her win in November. “We’re going be facing a group of climate science deniers in Congress,” says Browner. “So what some of us are looking at is, How do we get a president elected and use the tools of government to continue to make real advances?”

View article:

Now Clinton and Sanders Are Fighting Over the Democratic Platform

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now Clinton and Sanders Are Fighting Over the Democratic Platform

How Taxpayers Subsidize the Multi-Million Dollar Salaries of Restaurant CEOs

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As the fight to raise the minimum wage has gained momentum, the restaurant industry has emerged as the biggest opponent. This is no surprise, since the industry claims the highest percentage of low-wage workers—60 percent—of any other business sector. Front-line fast-food workers earn so little money that about half of them rely on some form of public assistance, to the tune of about $7 billion a year. That hidden subsidy has helped boost restaurant industry profits to record highs. In 2013, the industry reaped $660 billion in profits, and it in turn channeled millions into backing efforts to block local governments from raising pay for low-wage workers and to keep the minimum wage for tipped workers at $2.13 an hour (exactly where it’s been for the past 22 years). But public assistance programs aren’t the only way taxpayers subsidize the restaurant industry.

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies finds that the public has been contributing to excessive CEO compensation as well, helping to widen the gap between the lowest-paid workers and their bosses. Thanks to a loophole in the tax code, corporations are allowed to deduct unlimited amounts of money from their tax bills for executive compensation, so long as it comes in the form of stock options or “performance pay.” The loophole was the inadvertent result of an attempt by Congress to rein in CEO compensation by limiting the tax deduction for executive pay to $1 million a year. That law exempted pay that came in the form of stock options or performance pay. This loophole has proven lucrative for CEOs of all stripes, but it is particularly egregious in an industry that pays its workers so little that it is already heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

According to IPS, the CEOs of the 20 largest companies that belong to the National Restaurant Association personally reaped more than $660 million over the past two years in performance pay—compensation that collectively ended up cutting their companies’ tax bills by more than $230 million. That hefty subsidy is enough to cover the average cost of food stamps for 145,000 families for a year, according to IPS.

Topping the list of executives raking in big bucks with help from the taxpayers is the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, who was paid $236 million in performance pay and other deductible compensation over the past two years, an outlay that saved the company $82 million in taxes. That $82 million tax subsidy could easily translate into a living wage pay raise for more than 30,000 baristas, who now make on average $8.79 an hour.

There’s also Yum! brands CEO David Novak, who over the past 14 years has been the beneficiary of a special tax-deferred retirement plan not available to ordinary workers. His subsidized retirement assets now top more than $232 million. Meanwhile, his employees at Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC earn so little money that they’re estimated to rely on $650 million in public assistance every year. IPS figures that Novak’s retirement benefits alone could save taxpayers $61 million in public assistance costs annually if they were instead used to raise the pay of 16,000 of Yum!’s low-wage workers to $15 an hour, a move that would take about 9 percent of the company’s employees off the public dole. Instead, though, Yum! officials have been working behind the scenes to fend off legislation that might give their workers a paid sick day now and then. No wonder fast-food workers are going on strike.

Link to original:  

How Taxpayers Subsidize the Multi-Million Dollar Salaries of Restaurant CEOs

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Taxpayers Subsidize the Multi-Million Dollar Salaries of Restaurant CEOs