News Releases

Economist: With Sanders, Income and Jobs Would Soar

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 9.43.58 AMCNN reports in “Under Sanders, Income and Jobs Would Soar, Economist Says” that: “Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8 percent.

“Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders’ spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.”

GERALD FRIEDMAN, (413) 218-2701,
Professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Friedman’s work was the basis for attacks on Sanders in the Wall Street Journal, which the Clinton campaign seems to have be drawn from and which Friedman has previously debunked.

In the Feb. 4 Democratic debate with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton cited a study by Kenneth Thorpe at Emory University to attack Sanders’ health insurance reform proposal — Medicare-for-All. In “Friedman Responds to Thorpe on Single-Payer,” written for Dollars & Sense magazine, Friedman writes: “Unfortunately, Kenneth Thorpe does not provide enough documentation to make an explicit comparison between his estimates and those provided in detail by the Sanders campaign. He lists his projected Federal spending per year, he fails to explain how he calculated these numbers. While this failure makes it impossible to consider his claims on a point by point basis, it is possible to extract enough from his statement to conclude that his analysis is so deeply flawed that it implies some clearly unrealistic assumptions.”

Friedman also recently wrote the piece “What Would Sanders Do?” for Dollars & Sense: “Taxes on the wealthy would pay for widely shared benefits. See Figure 3. Sanders would finance expanded infrastructure, universal free pre-K education, free public higher education, universal health insurance, and other programs with progressive taxation and through the elimination of tax deductions for rich individuals and large corporations. While the benefits of the increased spending would be widely shared, increases in income taxes and other targeted tax changes would be borne mostly by the richest Americans; almost half of the tax changes would be paid by the richest 5 percent and nearly 30 percent by the richest 1 percent. In addition, measures like a financial transactions tax and elimination of favored tax treatment for fossil fuels would promote greater economic efficiency by discouraging economically and environmentally harmful activities.”

TPP, Pharma Bro

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 9.29.11 AMThe Trans-Pacific Partnership was signed last week but has yet to be ratified. See in The Hill: “Trump: I ‘very much agree’ with Sanders on trade.” See Politifact: “Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

ZAHARA HECKSCHER, BookZahara at, @ZaharaHeckscher
is a breast cancer patient, writer and educator who lives in Washington, D.C. She released the following statement upon release from jail following arrest at a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) protest on World Cancer Day.

“I am a mom with advanced breast cancer. I lost my mother to breast cancer when I was 11. That’s why I was arrested at a protest on World Cancer Day at the headquarters of PhRMA, which has been lobbying to increase monopolies for medicines in the TPP, or Trans-Pacific Partnership. …

“If ratified, the TPP would lock in monopolies for certain new medicines, biological medicines that help people like me stay alive. Monopolies allow drug companies to increase prices dramatically, and high prices decrease access. This means that some people with cancer will die because they can’t get the medicine they need. …

“The day of our protest, World Cancer Day, coincided with the testimony in Congress by ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli. He is called ‘the most hated man in America’ because he raised the price of a medicine for toxoplasmosis from under $20 to $750 per tablet.

“Congress rightly took Shkreli to task for his unconscionable actions. But if Congress votes for the TPP, they will be locking in policies, most likely for decades to come, that create incentives for pharmaceutical companies to act like Shkreli did. For cancer patients, that would be truly unconscionable.”

See from Public Citizen, which includes video of Heckscher’s arrest: “On World Cancer Day, Cancer Patients Arrested at PhRMA Headquarters to Warn of ‘Death Sentence’ Imposed by Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion of Medicine Monopolies.”

Clinton, “Endless War” Candidate

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 8.57.48 AMMARJORIE COHN, marjorielegal at, @marjoriecohn
Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and editor most recently of the book Drones and Targeted Killing. She just wrote the piece: “Want Endless War? Love the U.S. Empire? Well, Hillary Clinton’s Your Choice,” which states: “Hillary Clinton likes to extol her foreign policy credentials, particularly her experience as secretary of state. She attaches herself to Barack Obama’s coattails, pledging to continue his policies. But she is even more hawkish than the president. …

“Obama, who continues to prosecute the war in Afghanistan 15 years after it began, is poised to send ground troops back to Iraq and begin bombing Libya. … The president has bombed some seven countries with drones. …

“Although Clinton supports the [Iran] nuclear deal, she talks tough about Iran. In September 2015, she provocatively declared, ‘I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement. Iran is the subject of the agreement,’ and added, ‘I will confront them across the board.’ … In an August 2014 Atlantic interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton maintained, ‘There is no such thing as a right to enrich.’ Apparently, she has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. …

“One country that does possess nuclear weapons is Israel — which refuses to ratify the NPT. Clinton has consistently and uncritically supported the policies of the Israeli government. …

“Clinton’s vote in favor of President George W. Bush’s illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq cost her the 2008 election. It also cost more than 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives.

“Yet Clinton cynically told corporate executives at a 2011 State Department roundtable on investment opportunities in Iraq, ‘It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity.’

“The same year, Clinton led the campaign for forcible regime change in Libya, despite opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Responding to the gruesome sodomizing of President Moammar Gadhafi with a bayonet, Clinton laughed and said, ‘We came, we saw, he died.’

“Both the Iraq War and regime change in Libya paved the way for the rise of Islamic State and dangerous conflict in the Middle East. …”

Clinton: A “Progressive” Who Gets What Done?

progressiveJEFF COHEN, jcohen at, @Roots_Action
Cohen is director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, founder of media watch group FAIR and co-founder of the online activism organization, which just released the statement “Thousands Ask Clinton to ‘Stop Lying’ About Iraq Vote.”

At last night’s debate in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton again described herself as a “progressive who gets things done.” Cohen just wrote the piece “Hillary Clinton Turns Stand-Up Comic: ‘I’m a Progressive Who Gets Things Done.'”

Cohen writes: “A quick review of Hillary Clinton’s record shows that much of what she gets done is anti-progressive (not unlike President Clinton in the 1990s). For example:

Promoting Fracking Worldwide is Not Progressive: On behalf of Chevron and other US oil companies, Secretary Clinton and the State Department pushed fracking globally, as Mother Jones has documented: “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World.”

Boosting Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals is Not Progressive: Secretary Clinton repeatedly praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – as it was being negotiated by the U.S. Trade Representative and her State Department – and she recruited countries into the deal. In October, with Bernie Sanders climbing in the polls, Clinton said she no longer supported the pact, and prevaricated about her earlier boosterism.

Enabling Military Coups is Not Progressive: When she headed the State Department, it enabled a military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, a progressive. Clinton was briefed on the dishonesty that allowed aid to illegally reach the coup government.

Pocketing Millions from Corporate Lectures Fees is Not Progressive: When Wall Street, Big Pharma and other corporate interests paid a soon-to-be presidential candidate an average of $230,000 for a speech, did Hillary Clinton think it was for her brilliant stand-up comedy? Or was it more akin to political bribery? Clinton now says these firms just wanted to hear the views of a former Secretary of State on our ‘complicated world’ — or about the Bin Laden raid. But Politico reported in 2013 soon after one of her three speeches to Goldman Sachs: ‘Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.’ (Releasing the speech transcripts would help settle the matter.)

Escalating the Afghan War is Not Progressive: As insider books on the Obama administration have revealed, Secretary Clinton was among the most hawkish of Obama’s advisors in country after country – for example, vociferously urging the failed and pointless 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan.

Chaotic Military Intervention in the Middle East and Libya is Not Progressive: If not for Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote in support of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Obama would not have defeated her in 2008. As if having learned nothing from the post-invasion chaos in Iraq, Secretary Clinton was one of the strongest voices in 2011 urging Obama to militarily depose Qaddafi in Libya, a country now in total, deadly chaos.”

UN Panel: Assange Detention Should End

160205033303-julian-assange-ruling-elbagir-lok-00014718-large-169The Guardian reports today: “UN panel calls on UK and Sweden to end Julian Assange’s ‘deprivation of liberty.'” The UN’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention states that “the detention” of the WikiLeaks founder “should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation.” Here is the legal opinion. See video of news conference.

CAREY SHENKMAN, careyshenkman at, @CareyShenkman
Shenkman is an attorney for Julian Assange in the U.S. and works for Michael Ratner, president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Shenkman said today: “Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador due to a risk of persecution and inhumane treatment in the United States for publishing activities. Free speech organizations worldwide have condemned the U.S. attempts to prosecute Julian Assange; this includes a statement just yesterday by the ACLU’s executive director Anthony Romero calling a U.S. case against Mr. Assange ‘unprecedented and unconstitutional.’ Nevertheless that U.S. case was confirmed in December 2015. The asylum has nothing to do with Sweden. The UN’s highest authority on detention has now held that both states have failed to provide adequate consideration for the risks faced by Mr. Assange.”

Will Clinton Cut Social Security?

51atcu4gcsL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_NANCY ALTMAN via Lacy Crawford Jr. lcrawford at, Linda Benesch, lbenesch at
Altman is the president of Social Security Works and is the co-author of Social Security Works! Why Social Security Isn’t Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All.

She said today that the Iowa caucus results provided “a clear rejection of Wall Street ideas, including cutting Social Security. Regardless of who they were supporting, 84 percent of Iowa Democrats said that they want to support someone who will never cut even a single penny of Social Security benefits. Given the nation’s looming retirement income crisis and growing income and wealth inequality, that is the right policy. 

“This situation presents Hillary Clinton with an excellent opportunity to showcase her independence from Wall Street, and build momentum going into New Hampshire. Senator Sanders has already pledged that he will never cut Social Security’s earned benefits under any circumstances. If Secretary Clinton does the same, it will demonstrate to Democratic voters that she stands with them against all attacks on Social Security. We call on her to meet this challenge.

“Some politicians who want to cut Social Security but do not want to lose the support of current seniors propose cuts in the future — pledging, for example, not to cut the benefits of anyone currently aged 55 or older — but these will cut the benefits of those who will need them most, when the retirement income crisis is in full swing. Others, who want to dismantle Social Security by converting it from insurance into welfare, propose to improve benefits for the most vulnerable, but cut them for those they call ‘higher income’ but are decidedly middle class. Various so-called centrist groups, like Third Way, which is primarily funded by Wall Street, have proposed these kinds of plans.

“Secretary Clinton has not been clear about where she stands. She has talked about expanding benefits for those who are most vulnerable, but has been silent about whether she would support cuts. She has actually hinted in some statements that she might be open to them.

“Now, as the campaigns head into New Hampshire, is the time for her to stand clearly and strongly with Main Street, not Wall Street, and pledge no cuts for today’s beneficiaries and no cuts for those who follow.”

Party Bosses Rigging Debate Process


The next Democratic Party debate is Thursday night. The next Republican Party debate is Saturday night. See for upcoming events.

Farah is executive director of Open Debates and author of the book No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.

He said today: “During this election, the Republican and Democratic parties have asserted unprecedented control over the primary debates, and the results have been disastrous. Historically, the major parties exercised limited influence over primary debates. Dozens of media entities and civic groups organically emerged every four years to host primary debates featuring a range of innovative formats. In 2008, for example, there were 25 Democratic primary debates and 21 Republican primary debates. …

“Yet, rather than celebrate the profusion of primary debates, the major parties have denounced them. In February 2015, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican Party, said, ‘I don’t think having our candidates running around in a traveling circus and doing 23 debates, slicing and dicing each other is in the best interests of our party.’

“Indeed, the major parties are uninterested in maximizing voter education. Instead, they want to crown a ‘viable’ nominee as swiftly as possible and shield that candidate from bruising attacks by intra-party rivals. …

“To accomplish their goals, the major parties took exceptional steps to assert control over the primary debates for the 2016 election. Both parties adopted the same radical, anti-democratic policy: if a candidate participates in a debate that is not sanctioned by the party, that candidate will be summarily excluded from the debates approved by the party. This was the first time in the history of televised presidential debates that a major party has threatened to punish a candidate for participating in a debate. …

“The Republican Party only scheduled a paltry twelve primary debates for a record-breaking 17 candidates. The party could not simultaneously include all 17 candidates in a debate. The party should have rotated them through an initial round of debates. This would have provided each candidate with an opportunity to introduce themselves to voters, before polls were used to winnow the field in later debates. Instead, beginning with the very first debate, the party established a two-tiered debating system, whereby front-runners were featured in primetime debates and those polling at the bottom were prematurely relegated to undercard debates.  As result, several candidates were permanently consigned to undercard debates, which effectively extinguished their candidacies before they started …

“The Democratic Party has behaved even worse. Initially, the party only authorized six primary debates for the 2016 election and scheduled three of those debates on weekends, when viewership declines. The head of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, previously served as co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008. This election cycle, she has sought to coronate Clinton with minimal opposition to her candidacy by limiting debate viewership. …

“Now that Clinton is unexpectedly facing a vibrant challenge from Bernie Sanders, she needs more primary debates to make her case to voters. On cue, the Democratic Party — which so strenuously rejected pleas for more debates from Sanders and Martin O’Malley last year — has scheduled four more debates.

“Such blatant favoritism is shameful. …

“It is particularly important that primary debates are abundant and inclusive considering that the major parties have rendered the general election debates so limiting and exclusionary.  General election debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation that was jointly created by the Republican and Democratic parties in 1987. Every four years, the Commission excludes third-party and independent candidates and allows the major party nominees to excessively shape the debate formats.”

The group RootsAction has set up a petition: “Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair“: “Wasserman Schultz has tried in other ways to minimize competition for her candidate, Hillary Clinton. She has done this by scheduling very few primary debates, and scheduling them at times of low TV viewing. In Congress, she has served as a pro-militarist and corporatist tool of the high bidders.”

Clinton: Still Falsifying on Iraq War Vote

Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 8.01.09 AMSTEPHEN ZUNES, zunes at, @SZunes
Zunes is a professor of politics & coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He recently wrote the piece “The Five Lamest Excuses for Hillary Clinton’s Vote to Invade Iraq.” Zunes is currently in Philadelphia and will be in New York City on Friday.

Zunes said today: “Hillary Clinton did not vote to authorize the Iraq war in order to bring UN inspectors back in, as she claimed in last night’s [CNN] “Town Hall” meeting. She voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have authorized the use of force if Iraq refused to fully cooperate with UN inspectors. Instead, she voted for the Republican-sponsored resolution which gave President Bush the authority to invade and occupy Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Hans Blix did not support the latter resolution, as she also claimed. Nor did Sen. Clinton object when Bush launched the invasion anyway five months later despite Iraq having been fully cooperating with the returning inspectors during that period.”

Clinton stated in her address on her Iraq war authorization vote on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members. … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security.” See video.

Just last week, Hans Blix had an interview with Al Jazeera’s “UpFront” program in which he talked about the U.S. invasion altering the security landscape of the Mideast, see: “The former UN weapons inspector says ‘it is doubtful’ ISIL would exist if it were not for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.”

TPP Deal Signing Today

photoThe Hill reports: “Trade ministers from the 12 nations will sign the TPP on Wednesday evening — 5:30 p.m. EST — in Auckland, New Zealand.” Local media report an expected 10,000 people will be protesting.

See from Politifact: “Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

MARGARET FLOWERS, M.D., mdpnhp at, @MFlowers8
KEVIN ZEESE, kbzeese at, @kbzeese
Zeese and Flowers are with Popular Resistance, which is part of the Stop Fast Track coalition. See the group’s piece: “10 Shocking Realities of the TPP; Join the Revolt.”

The group notes: “As the U.S. trade representative goes to New Zealand to sign the TPP on February 4th (which is the 3rd in the U.S.) protests will be held across the country and around the world. See map of protests

“Several hours before the signing TPP opponents in Washington D.C. will hold a protest at the White House ‘TPP is Betrayal’ that visually highlights the negative impact of the TPP on the U.S. economy, environment and workers, among other issues.”

Today, they said: “Now that the TPP has been made public we can see that it is even worse than we had seen in the leaks made public while it was negotiated. The agreement has no enforceable environmental or labor protections. It will threaten jobs by both outsourcing to countries with dramatically lower wages as well as insourcing when foreign corporations bring their business to the United States along with their employees — even if an American can do the job.

“The TPP threatens the future of Internet freedom and privacy, food safety by giving corporations the power to stop inspections if they take too long, and healthcare by pushing toward privatization and giving pharmaceutical corporations greater power in negotiating privacy as well as long patents blocking generic drugs.

“The TPP also threatens U.S. sovereignty and democracy by adding 9,000 corporations who can sue the United States if laws are passed in the public interest that undermine their profits. We recently saw the denial of permits for the KXL pipeline resulting in a $15 billion lawsuit under NAFTA. We also recently saw that U.S. laws had to be changed because of corporate lawsuits against them. This included the Country of Origination Labeling Act (COOL) which required labeling of where meats sold in the U.S. came from; and dolphin-safe tuna labeling which let consumers know that tuna they were purchasing had not harmed dolphins. We will see more of these lawsuits which are heard before trade tribunals, usually three corporate lawyers serving as temporary judges on leave from their corporate job, where corporations can seek damages including their expected loss of profits. U.S. courts cannot review the decisions of these corporate tribunals. In addition, a host of laws will have to be changed to be consistent with the TPP, for example, laws that allow for buying American-made projects will no longer be allowed. Our courts, legislatures and executive branch are all made weaker by the TPP.”

Obama in a Mosque After 7 Years in Office

9781781685587_Muslims_Are_Coming_NIP-max_221-0d7c65bcca3a726c6f0e6f6d719fa2faAP reports: “President Barack Obama will make his first visit to a U.S. mosque on Wednesday, and it comes at a time when Muslim-Americans say they’re confronting unprecedented levels of bias. Obama will travel to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, which houses a mosque and school that runs from kindergarten through 12th grade.”

AlterNet just launched their “Grayzone Project” to confront bigotry against Muslims — see one of the first pieces by Deepa Kumar: “It’s Not Just Hate Crimes: Islamophobia Is the Outgrowth of a Deeply Racist System.”

LAILA EL-HADDAD, [in Baltimore] laila.elhaddad at, @gazamom
Muslim American and resident of Baltimore, El-Haddad is author of the book Gaza Mom. She also co-wrote Gaza Kitchen and has been profiled on Anthony Bourdain’s “Parts Unknown” program. Her children attended the school and mosque Obama is visiting.

ARUN KUNDNANI, arun at, @ArunKundnani
Kundnani is the author of The Muslims are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror and a lecturer at New York University. He was featured on the news release “Trump’s Islamophobia is Tip of Iceberg.” His articles include “The belief system of the Islamophobes.”

Beyond statements from the right, Kundnani also notes that Obama has spent years distancing himself from Muslims and Kundnani criticizes a brand of Islamophobia when political figures — like Obama and Hillary Clinton — call for Muslims to accept their special responsibility to denounce terrorism. He also points to many specific actions regarding foreign policy such as drone strikes, support for Israel’s military occupation and Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. See his appearance on CNN.

Next Page »