Dispatches

TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE HAS TURNED INTO ESPIONAGE CASE. Prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith who have been questioning witnesses about Trump’s revelation of classified US nuclear submarine secrets to Australian multibillionaire Anthony Pratt may now have significant evidence that Trump offered the disclosure as part of a larger pattern of favor-trading between the two men. And that may turn what began as an investigation into retention of classified documents to a full-blown espionage case, the New York Times reported (10/22).

The original reports of Trump quasi-confidentially telling Pratt during a casual conversation at Mar-a-Lago of two highly classified US national security secrets—the number of nuclear weapons US submarines normally carry and how close those submarines can get to Russian subs without detection—were baffling, “Hunter” noted at Daily Kos (10/23). Pratt, for his part, allegedly went on to relay the information to “at least 45” other people, including “six journalists, 11 of his company’s employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers.”

Pratt’s industries center around packaging materials. Not only was he an unlikely confidant when discussing top US defense secrets, but the reasons Pratt would then widely share the secrets with so many others are even less explicable. The newest Times piece, however, clarifies the Pratt-Trump relationship as a transactional one.

Pratt joined Mar-a-Lago only after Trump won the presidency, and he was soon plying Trump with millions of dollars in order to maintain and boost his access to the president. Pratt’s wife donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration; Pratt at one point took out a full page Wall Street Journal ad praising Trump; and a witness told prosecutors Pratt allegedly paid $1 million for a tickets to a Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve gala—an amount vastly in excess to the normal actual ticket prices, which were “$50,000 or less.”

That $1 million was not a Trump campaign donation or similar electoral favor. It allegedly went to Trump’s business and Trump’s business alone. The Times also reports that Pratt boasted of paying indicted Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani roughly $1 million to attend his birthday party. “Rudy is someone that I hope will be useful one day,” Pratt is recorded as saying.

For these and other donations to Trump’s businesses and allies, Pratt received a seat in a presidential motorcade, appearances alongside Trump, influence with Trump Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, and favorable tax policies that enormously boosted Pratt’s own wealth.

In a context in which Pratt was regularly shoveling money into Mar-a-Lago and was receiving special treatment from Trump in exchange, Trump’s revelation of nuclear submarine capabilities just three months after losing the presidency now looks different. It may have been a transaction itself, part of Trump’s efforts to prove to Pratt that he still could offer Pratt things of value.

Smith’s prosecutors are known to have taken an interest in Trump’s conversation with Pratt and in Pratt’s own dissemination of the secrets, and it’s now clear why. Was Trump offering classified military information in exchange for something?

There’s now already a pretty good case to be made that the relationship was a transactional one—so says Pratt himself in conversations and documents—and that Trump did indeed offer the secrets up for his own monetary gain.

And that exchange fits squarely into the Espionage Act.

UAW EXPANDS STRIKE AGAINST STELLANTIS, AS TALKS LAG. The United Auto Workers union launched a surprise expansion of its strike against Stellantis (10/23), calling on nearly 7,000 employees at the company’s largest plant to walk off the job in response to the carmaker’s inadequate contract offers, Jake Johnson noted at CommonDreams (10/23).

“Despite having the highest revenue, the highest profits (North American and global), the highest profit margins, and the most cash in reserve, Stellantis lags behind both Ford and General Motors in addressing the demands of their UAW workforce,” the union said in a statement. “Currently, Stellantis has the worst proposal on the table regarding wage progression, temporary worker pay and conversion to full-time, cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), and more.”

The walkout at Stellantis’ Sterling Heights Assembly Plant (SHAP) in Michigan—the company’s largest facility and the site where the popular Ram 1500 pickup truck is built—brings the total number of UAW members on strike against the Big Three US automakers to more than 40,000.

The UAW called SHAP Stellantis’ “biggest moneymaker.” The company reported $18 billion in profits last year—up 26% compared to 2021—and its chief executive took home nearly $25 million, 365 times more than Stellantis’ average employee.

“We want our fair share,” UAW president Shawn Fain told striking workers outside of the Sterling Heights facility. “So, let’s get to it. Let’s stand up and let’s win this thing.”

The union’s latest strike expansion came days after Fain outlined the three major automakers’ contract proposals so far, more than a month into the UAW’s historic walkouts.

Fain said Friday that Stellantis, Ford, and General Motors have each offered pay increases of 23%, up from their original offers of 9%. The UAW has demanded a 36% wage increase over the course of a four-year contract, as well as significant benefit improvements and union protections for electric vehicle battery plant workers.

Stellantis has thus far “rejected all increases to retiree pay” and refused to meet the union’s demands on temporary worker pay and wage progressions, Fain said during last week’s bargaining update.

“If we stand together, if we have faith, we will win. Not just a good contract. Not just a record contract. But a contract that turns the tide,” said Fain. “Don’t let them divide us. Don’t let them scare us. Don’t let them confuse us. Our cause is just, the money is there, and our strategy is working. Time is on our side. The American public is on our side. The facts are on our side.”

AMID HOUSE SPEAKER CHAOS, GOP CONFESSES ATTACK ON SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE STILL TOP PRIORITY. In the midst of the second vote on US Rep. Jim Jordan’s nomination to be the next House Speaker (10/18), one right-wing lawmaker cut through the Republican infighting to remind his fellow Republicans of the common goal they share: cutting programs that millions of Americans rely on to obtain healthcare and afford their day-to-day expenses, Julia Conley noted at CommonDreams (10/18).

Speaking in favor of Jordan, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) called on his colleagues to recognize the Ohio Republican’s so-called “courage” in fighting “to get at the real drivers of debt, and we all know what they are. We all know it’s Social Security, we all know it’s Medicare, we all know it’s Medicaid.”

Cole recalled how he and former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) offered a proposal to make changes to Social Security akin to those made in 1983, when benefits for retirees were effectively cut by 13%.

“We never could get any help,” Cole lamented. “[Jordan] is the guy that wants to create a debt commission, a bipartisan debt commission and get at the roots of our spending problem. That takes courage.”

Progressives have long warned that as soon as Republicans win the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, they will not hesitate to slash Social Security and Medicare spending, and the party itself regularly claims the two programs are bankrupting the federal government—all while voting in favor of hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending.

Since Social Security is funded almost entirely through contributions of workers and employers, explains the advocacy group Social Security Works, the program does not contribute to the national deficit and “can never go bankrupt ... Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 12 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that.”

Jordan supports plans to cut benefits by raising the retirement age to 70, Social Security Works said on social media.

An Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found in April that 79% of Americans oppose reducing Social Security benefits and 67% oppose raising monthly premiums for Medicare, which Republicans have also proposed.

TURNCOAT DEM GAVE N.C. GOP LEGISLATIVE SUPERMAJORITY IN APRIL. SHE JUST GOT HER REWARD. North Carolina Republicans just unveiled new gerrymanders that would not only entrench the party in power, but would also reward a turncoat Democrat whose inexplicable party switch handed the GOP a veto-proof supermajority in April and ushered in a new era of ultraconservative governance, Stephen Wolf noted at Daily Kos (10/20).

As a result of that switch by state Rep. Tricia Cotham, Republicans were able to quickly pass a host of far-right priorities over vetoes by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. Those bills, among other things, severely restricted abortion access, curtailed voting rights, and gave the GOP greater control over both state courts and North Carolina’s elections.

Cotham’s decision to change parties came as a shock because she had campaigned as a mainstream, pro-abortion rights Democrat and won a safely blue district in the Charlotte area just last year. Local Democrats had no reason to expect anything else: Cotham had previously served as a reliable member of the state House caucus for several years until leaving for an unsuccessful bid for Congress in 2016.

But just three months into her new term, Cotham claimed she was leaving the Democratic Party because of a progressive backlash when she missed a key vote that enabled Republicans to loosen gun safety regulations. She also said that Democratic lawmakers had repeatedly disrespected her, something Democrats have steadfastly disputed.

However, subsequent reporting cast significant doubt on Cotham’s justifications for her change. Republicans had encouraged her to run in the first place, according to the New York Times, and GOP-aligned interest groups supported her with substantial donations ahead of last year’s primary. The Assembly also reported that Cotham had a history of petty personal grievances with Democratic lawmakers rather than any sort of deep ideological differences.

Cotham’s move was still bewildering, though, because her current district supported Joe Biden by a 61-38 margin—inhospitable turf for any Republican, let alone a former Democrat who had enraged her onetime supporters. (Last year, Cotham herself easily defeated her GOP opponent 59-41 in the 112th District.)

Now, however, Cotham’s district would be radically reshaped (and renumbered as the 105th), so much so that it would instead have voted for Donald Trump 50-48—a 25-point shift in partisanship from its present incarnation. But should Cotham decide that this boon is an insufficient reward for enabling the GOP’s agenda (even her revamped district would remain competitive and, like so much suburban turf, it’s trending toward Democrats), she also has the option of once again running for Congress.

In addition to their new legislative maps, Republicans also released a pair of proposals that would gerrymander North Carolina’s congressional districts in extreme ways, so much so that this perennial swing state would likely wind up with a US House delegation made up of 11 Republicans and just three Democrats.

Notably, though, both of those plans would also place Cotham’s base of suburban Mecklenburg County in a safely red open seat (numbered the 8th on one map and the 9th on the other). While Cotham fell far short in her previous US House bid, finishing a distant third in the Democratic primary, with just 21% of the vote, her new allies might very well smooth her path to the GOP nomination.

Cotham has not yet indicated what she plans to do next year. However, her overnight transformation into a MAGA Republican has earned her a warm reception from GOP leadership and right-wing media for betraying her former party and the voters who elected her. Given the GOP’s warm embrace of opportunists—including Trump himself—Cotham may find herself richly rewarded indeed.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE DESTROYING PARTY BRAND AND OBLITERATING 2024 ELECTION CHANCES. New polling from the progressive consortium Navigator Research finds nearly seven in 10 Americans now disapprove of the way congressional Republicans are handling their jobs amid their protracted battle to elect a House speaker. And for the first time in Navigator’s polling, congressional Republicans are underwater with Republican voters at 45% approve-49% disapprove, Kerry Eleveld noted at Daily Kos (10/19).

The 4-point net negative among Republican voters also represents a 23-point net negative shift since just September, when Republican voters approved of the job congressional Republicans were doing by 19 points, 56%-37%. Wow, what a difference one month bolstered by a solid week of Rep. Jim Jordan treachery makes.

Additionally, nearly three in four Americans (72%) report having heard something negative about Republicans in Congress in the past few days, a 20-point spike from 52% in August. Apparently the sight of the House floor devolving into intraparty fisticuffs isn’t going over so well.

That stunningly negative report card from voters is also showing up in Civiqs tracking of the Republican Party brand. Voters currently hold a 39-point net negative view of the party at 25% favorable-64% unfavorable—the GOP’s lowest ratings since early February 2021, when they hit the exact same favorable numbers weeks after Joe Biden took office following the MAGA-driven Jan. 6 insurrection.

Normally, the Democratic Party’s favorables at 17 points underwater wouldn’t be anything to crow about, but comparatively speaking, Democrats come out smelling like roses at just 38% favorable-55% unfavorable. Credit Republicans for setting a gobsmackingly low bar.

Okay, so let’s pretend for one second that Republicans manage to pull out of this self-inflicted death spiral and elect a speaker in the next week or so. One of the biggest tests they will face is getting the government funded by the mid-November deadline.

Americans are already dreading a potential shutdown—and a plurality knows who to blame. By a 58-point margin, Navigator found a significant share of Americans think a government shutdown would negatively impact their lives, at 5% positive impact vs. 63% negative impact.

In the event of a shutdown, 36% say Republicans would be to blame, 31% say Democrats, and 27% would blame both parties equally. To Democrats, that may not sound great, but it’s 7-point shift toward blaming Republicans since late September, when a 36% plurality said Democrats would be to blame.

FCC TAKES ‘GREAT STEP’ TOWARD RESTORING NET NEUTRALITY RULES. Open internet advocates applauded as Democrats on the Federal Communication Commission voted (10/19) to begin reestablishing FCC oversight of broadband and reviving net neutrality rules rolled back under former President Donald Trump, Jessica Corbett noted at CommonDreams (10/19).

“Today’s vote is an important start to restoring internet freedom and openness,” said Public Knowledge president and CEO Chris Lewis. “Over the next few months, the FCC and the public at large will have an opportunity to look carefully at the benefits of having broadband included in the communications networks that fall under FCC authority.”

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel announced her plan to ensure broadband is treated as a public utility in September. Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks joined her in voting for the notice of proposed rulemaking, which was opposed by Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington.

“The notice of proposed rulemaking adopted today seeks comment on classifying fixed and mobile broadband internet service as an essential ‘telecommunications’ service under Title II of the Communications Act,” the FCC explained. “The proposal also seeks to restore clear, nationwide open internet rules that would prevent internet service providers [ISPs] from blocking legal content, throttling speeds, and creating fast lanes that favor those who can pay for access.”

Lewis asserted that “this commonsense classification is a no-brainer to the millions of Americans who want the FCC to work to ensure that all of us are connected to quality, affordable, open, and secure broadband networks.”

The FCC previously voted in favor of net neutrality rules in 2015, under former President Barack Obama. Those regulations were rolled back in 2017, when the FCC was led by Ajit Pai—a former telecom industry lawyer and a Trump appointee. Democrats finally regained an FCC majority in September when the Senate confirmed Gomez’s appointment.

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order encouraging the FCC to restore net neutrality rules. However, such efforts were stalled by a divided commission—until the US Senate finally confirmed Gomez to a long-vacant seat in early September.

PFIZER TO CHARGE $1,390 for LIFESAVING COVID DRUG THAT COSTS JUST $13 TO MAKE. US consumer watchdog Public Citizen excoriated Pfizer after the pharmaceutical giant announced it would more than double the price of a lifesaving COVID-19 treatment, which will soon sell for an estimated 100 times the cost of production, Brett Wilkins noted at CommonDreams (10/19).

Pfizer said (10/18) that it will price its patented COVID treatment nirmatrelvir-ritonavir—sold under the brand name Paxlovid—at $1,390 for a five-day course. Researchers Melissa J. Barber and Dzintars Gotham recently estimated it costs Pfizer $13 to produce five days’ worth of the drug, which is taken in three-pill doses.

“Pfizer’s new price is an estimated 100 times the cost of production,” Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program, said in a statement.

It’s also more than 2.5 times the federal government’s purchase price for Paxlovid. The government has bought and distributed the antiviral drug to the public free of charge since December 2021, when the US Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment. Starting next year, Pfizer will sell Paxlovid directly to health insurance companies.

“Pfizer has made tens of billions in Paxlovid sales, largely through major government purchases,” Maybarduk noted. “Pfizer could choose now to support the fight against COVID and ease treatment access by lowering its already inflated prices.”

“Instead, Pfizer chose to double its US price just as pandemic funding falters and the precarious winter viral season begins,” he continued. “This will strain health budgets and contribute to further treatment rationing.”

$10 TRILLION ADDED TO US DEBT BY BUSH AND TRUMP TAX CUTS. The US Treasury Department (11/20) released new figures on the 2023 budget that showed a troubling drop in the nation’s tax revenue compared to GDP—a measure which fell to 16.5% despite a growing economy—and an annual deficit increase that essentially doubled from the previous year, Jon Queally noted at CommonDreams (10/23).

“After record US government spending in 2020 and 2021” due to programs related to the economic fallout from the Covid-19 crisis, the Washington Post reported, “the deficit dropped from close to $3 trillion to close to $1 trillion in 2022. But rather than continue to fall to its pre-pandemic levels, the deficit unexpectedly jumped this year to roughly $2 trillion.”

While much of the reporting on the Treasury figures painted a picture of various and overlapping dynamics to explain the surge in the deficit—including higher payments on debt due to interest rates, tax filing waivers related to extreme weather events, the impact of a student loan forgiveness program that was later rescinded, or a dip in capital gains receipts—progressive tax experts say none of those complexities should act to shield what’s at the heart of a budget that brings in less than it spends: tax giveaways to the rich.

Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, has argued repeatedly that growing deficits in recent years have a clear and singular chief cause: Republican tax cuts that benefit mostly the wealthy and profitable corporations.

In response to the Treasury figures, Kogan said that “roughly 75%” of the surge in the deficit and the debt ratio, the amount of federal debt relative to the overall size of the economy, was due to revenue decreases resulting from GOP-approved tax cuts over recent decades. “Of the remaining 25%,” he said, “more than half” was higher interest payments on the debt related to Federal Reserve policy.

“We have a revenue problem, due to tax cuts,” said Kogan, pointing to the major tax laws enacted under the administrations of George W. Bush and Donald Trump. “The Bush and Trump tax cuts broke our modern tax structure. Revenue is significantly lower and no longer grows much with the economy.”

The office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) cited those same numbers in a press release responding to the Treasury’s new report.

“Tax giveaways for the wealthy are continuing to starve the federal government of needed revenue: those passed by former Presidents Trump and Bush have added $10 trillion to the debt and account for 57 percent of the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio since 2001,” read the statement. “If not for those tax cuts, US debt would be declining as a share of the economy.”

Whitehouse, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, said the dip in federal revenue and growth in the overall deficit both have the same primary cause: GOP fealty to the wealthy individuals and powerful corporations that bankroll their campaigns.

“In their blind loyalty to their mega-donors, Republicans’ fixation on giant tax cuts for billionaires has created a revenue problem that is driving up our national debt,” Whitehouse said Friday night. “Even as federal spending fell over the last year relative to the size of the economy, the deficit increased because Republicans have rigged the tax code so that big corporations and the wealthy can avoid paying their fair share.”

Offering a solution, Whitehouse said, “Fixing our corrupted tax code and cracking down on wealthy tax cheats would help bring down the deficit. It would also ensure teachers and firefighters don’t pay higher tax rates than billionaires, level the playing field for small businesses, and promote a stronger economy for all.”

CORNEL WEST DEFENDS TAKING CAMPAIGN CASH FROM RIGHT-WING BILLIONAIRE HARLAN CROW. Independent US presidential candidate Cornel West responded to criticism he is facing for taking money from billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, known for lavishing right-wing US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with gifts, Jessica Corbett noted at CommonDreams (10/19).

After reviewing Federal Election Commission filings, NBC News reported on Crow’s August donation of $3,300 to West, the maximum that an individual can directly give to a campaign.

“As an Independent candidate and a free Black man, I accept donations within the limits of no PACs or corporate interest groups that have strings attached,” West wrote (10/19) on X, formerly Twitter. “I am unbought and unbossed. Despite my deep political differences with brother Harlan Crow (who is an anti-Trump Republican), I’ve known him in a nonpolitical setting for some years and I pray for his precious family.”

Former President Donald Trump is the Republican front-runner, based on polling, despite his multiple criminal indictments and arguments he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again.

“I find it hypocritical for those who highlight his $3,300 donation to my campaign but can’t say a mumbling word about the PAC-driven billion dollars to support the genocidal attack in Gaza sponsored by their candidate!” West added, pointing to Israel’s ongoing assault of the Gaza Strip. “I’m fighting for truth, justice, and love! Onward!”

West, a longtime professor and activist who has never held political office, launched his 2024 campaign as a People’s Party candidate in June. Later that month, West revealed he would instead seek the Green Party nomination. He announced the Independent run in early October. His campaign platform centers justice on issues, from education and the environment to health, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, race, voting, and work.

“People are hungry for change,” West said on X (10/5). “They want good policies over partisan politics. We need to break the grip of the duopoly and give power to the people. I’m running as an Independent candidate for president of the United States to end the iron grip of the ruling class and ensure true democracy!”

From The Progressive Populist, November 15, 2023

Populist.com