Egemonia

di Giorgio Lunghini

Che i salari siano bassi è stato reso evidente dalla ripresa dell'inflazione annunciata ieri dall'Istat. Ma è un fatto da tutti risaputo, in primo luogo dai diretti interessati, i lavoratori. È importante che lo abbia detto anche il governatore di Bankitalia, con certificazione del suo servizio studi, e che lo abbiano ammesso alcuni imprenditori con le loro «mance contrattuali». I salari sono però soltanto una parte del reddito nazionale. Le altre due parti sono le rendite e i profitti. Se la quota dei salari è piccola, grandi sono le quote dei profitti e delle rendite. Ciò capisce anche un bambino, e ciò insegna la buona teoria economica. La questione salariale è dunque un problema di dimensioni del reddito da distribuire e di distribuzione di questo reddito tra rendite, profitti e salari. Ed è il vero problema «politico» del paese.
Una volta che i percettori di rendite le hanno incassate, il salario (che è una variabile dipendente) dipenderà da quanto è rimasto del reddito nazionale e da quanto prende la forma di profitti. Tra rendite, profitti e salari ci sono molti intrecci, che statistici e sociologi hanno studiato; tuttavia è meglio non lasciarsi distrarre dalla sostanza della questione, economica e perciò politica.
La questione salariale può essere medicata in tre modi. Uno, oggi difficile da praticare, è che i lavoratori salariati conquistino una maggiore forza contrattuale nella distribuzione del reddito nazionale. Il secondo è che il reddito nazionale cresca tanto da consentire un aumento di tutte e tre le quote, senza inasprire il conflitto sociale: una prospettiva oggi improbabile. Il terzo modo è l'unico del quale disporrebbe un governo che prenda sul serio la questione: una redistribuzione del reddito, per via fiscale, dai percettori di redditi elevati ai percettori di redditi bassi - senza tagli della spesa pubblica.
Ci sono due ragioni che consigliano questa strada. La prima è ovvia: l'attuale diseguaglianza nella distribuzione del reddito e della ricchezza è arbitraria e iniqua. La seconda è un po' più complicata ma non meno importante. La spesa in consumi dei più ricchi, in percentuale del loro reddito, è minore di quella dei più poveri. Dunque uno spostamento di potere d'acquisto dai più ricchi ai più poveri farebbe aumentare la domanda per consumi e per questa via lo stesso reddito nazionale. Così come dovrebbero sapere quanti invece amano separare la funzione e il costo dei cittadini in quanto lavoratori, dalla loro funzione e dal loro potere d'acquisto in quanto consumatori.
La clausola «senza tagli della spesa pubblica» è cruciale. I servizi pubblici sono una parte importante del reddito reale dei cittadini più poveri. Se il loro maggior reddito monetario venisse finanziato mediante una minore spesa pubblica, anziché mediante una redistribuzione del reddito nazionale, la manovra sarebbe pura propaganda elettorale. Un concetto da ricordare mentre parte la corsa verso le urne.

(tratto da il manifesto del 6 febbraio 2008)

John Edwards left the Democratic presidential race on a more substantial note than some of his opponents ever hit during the course of the long contest that always benefited from the presence of the populist former senator from North Carolina.

There is no question that Edwards has earned a prime-time place on the schedule of the Democratic National Convention, mostly because of what he says but also because of how he says it.

Here is the text of what he said this afternoon in New Orleans, the city where he began his run for the presidency a year ago and where it ended with all the grace that it was waged:

We're very proud to be back here.

During the spring of 2006, I had the extraordinary experience of bringing 700 college kids here to New Orleans to work. These are kids who gave up their spring break to come to New Orleans to work, to rehabilitate houses, because of their commitment as Americans, because they believed in what was possible, and because they cared about their country.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

This journey of ours began right here in New Orleans. It was a December morning in the Lower Ninth Ward when people went to work, not just me, but lots of others went to work with shovels and hammers to help restore a house that had been destroyed by the storm.

We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us. We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.

We came here to the Lower Ninth Ward to rebuild. And we're going to rebuild today and work today, and we will continue to come back. We will never forget the heartache and we'll always be here to bring them hope, so that someday, one day, the trumpets will sound in Musicians' Village, where we are today, play loud across Lake Ponchartrain, so that working people can come marching in and those steps once again can lead to a family living out the dream in America.

We sat with poultry workers in Mississippi, janitors in Florida, nurses in California.

We listened as child after child told us about their worry about whether we would preserve the planet.

We listened to worker after worker say "the economy is tearing my family apart."

We walked the streets of Cleveland, where house after house was in foreclosure.

And we said, "We're better than this. And economic justice in America is our cause."

And we spent a day, a summer day, in Wise, Virginia, with a man named James Lowe, who told us the story of having been born with a cleft palate. He had no health care coverage. His family couldn't afford to fix it. And finally some good Samaritan came along and paid for his cleft palate to be fixed, which allowed him to speak for the first time. But they did it when he was 50 years old. His amazing story, though, gave this campaign voice: universal health care for every man, woman and child in America. That is our cause.

And we do this -- we do this for each other in America. We don't turn away from a neighbor in their time of need. Because every one of us knows that what -- but for the grace of God, there goes us. The American people have never stopped doing this, even when their government walked away, and walked away it has from hardworking people, and, yes, from the poor, those who live in poverty in this country.

For decades, we stopped focusing on those struggles. They didn't register in political polls, they didn't get us votes and so we stopped talking about it. I don't know how it started. I don't know when our party began to turn away from the cause of working people, from the fathers who were working three jobs literally just to pay the rent, mothers sending their kids to bed wrapped up in their clothes and in coats because they couldn't afford to pay for heat.

We know that our brothers and sisters have been bullied into believing that they can't organize and can't put a union in the workplace. Well, in this campaign, we didn't turn our heads. We looked them square in the eye and we said, "We see you, we hear you, and we are with you. And we will never forget you." And I have a feeling that if the leaders of our great Democratic Party continue to hear the voices of working people, a proud progressive will occupy the White House.

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

And I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.

There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account, she struggles to be able to do it, but she knows it's the moral, just and right thing to do. And I spoke to some of the people who were there and as I was leaving, one woman said to me, "You won't forget us, will you? Promise me you won't forget us." Well, I say to her and I say to all of those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.

But I want to say this -- I want to say this because it's important. With all of the injustice that we've seen, I can say this, America's hour of transformation is upon us. It may be hard to believe when we have bullets flying in Baghdad and it may be hard to believe when it costs $58 to fill your car up with gas. It may be hard to believe when your school doesn't have the right books for your kids. It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard.

But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you, once again. And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible.

One America, one America that works for everybody.

One America where struggling towns and factories come back to life because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil.

One America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college. They will be honored for that work.

One America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.

One America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care.

One America with one public school system that works for all of our children.

One America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end. And brings our service members home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.

And I want to thank everyone who has worked so hard – all those who have volunteered, my dedicated campaign staff who have worked absolutely tirelessly in this campaign.

And I want to say a personal word to those I've seen literally in the last few days – those I saw in Oklahoma yesterday, in Missouri, last night in Minnesota – who came to me and said don't forget us. Speak for us. We need your voice. I want you to know that you almost changed my mind, because I hear your voice, I feel you, and your cause it our cause. Your country needs you – every single one of you.

All of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause, we need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you. Don't turn away, because we have not just a city of New Orleans to rebuild. We have an American house to rebuild.

This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians' Village. There are homes to build here, and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf. The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead. It goes on for day care workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country. And the work goes on for two hundred thousand men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans, who go to sleep every night under bridges, or in shelters, or on grates, just as the people we saw on the way here today. Their cause is our cause.

Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.

Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible, because it's time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one.

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted January 25, 2008.

Opposing the death penalty used to distinguish Democrats from Republicans. Now, across party lines, death is just another day at the office.


When Clinton, Obama and Edwards took the stage before a mostly African-American crowd in Myrtle Beach, S.C., on Monday night, they came brimming with concern for the plight of black America. From the disproportionate effects of the subprime loan crisis to the racially drawn pitfalls of U.S. healthcare, the black community, said Edwards, "is hurt worse by poverty than any community in America. And it's our responsibility, not just for the African-American community, but for America, as a nation, to take on this moral challenge."

Politicians like to see moral challenges when it's convenient. The candidates have labeled the war in Iraq, global warming and the economy "moral challenges" before various audiences in the past few months. But there's one topic the leading Dems systematically exclude from their morality crusade, one that begged to be addressed before an African-American audience in a Southern state: the death penalty.

It's not news that African-Americans are disproportionately represented on death row. While 12 percent of the country is African-American, more than 40 percent of the country's death row population is black -- and although blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers, 80 percent of the prisoners executed since the death penalty was reinstated were convicted for murders in which the victim was white. Study upon study in states across the country have discovered racial bias at every stage of the death penalty process, including one that found that the more "stereotypically black" a defendant is perceived to be, the more likely that person is to be sentenced to death. Add to that the fact that over 20 percent of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries, and the racial reality of the death penalty becomes impossible to ignore.

Sure, all three candidates have given nod to our racist criminal justice system from time to time. At the South Carolina debate, Barack Obama acknowledged it as "something that we have to talk about," specifically, the fact that "African-Americans and whites ... are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates [and] receive very different sentences." Edwards, speaking out on the case of the Jena 6, last fall, said, "As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel a special responsibility to speak out on racial intolerance." Even Hillary has labeled the incarceration boom that followed passage of her husband's crime bill -- for which she lobbied hard -- "unacceptable." When it comes to criminal justice, she said in Iowa, "I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties."

Still, not one leading Democrat is about to make criminal justice reform -- let alone the death penalty -- central to his or her platform.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards all support capital punishment. It's a position you'd be hard pressed to find on their websites, and they might not be bragging about it the way they might have in, say, 2000. Or 1996. Or 1992, the year their party's pro-death penalty stance was codified in its official party platform and then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton made a campaign trail detour to Arkansas, where he presided over the execution of mentally damaged prisoner Ricky Ray Rector. Nevertheless, all three hold on to their pro-death penalty stance, as have virtually all leading Democrats running for office in the past 20 years.

Why so much longstanding support for capital punishment? It is the easiest way to combat the quadrennial charge that Democrats are "soft on crime."

Opposing the death penalty used to be one way for Democrats to distinguish themselves from their rivals on the campaign trail -- at least before Michael Dukakis was lampooned after a 1988 debate in which he failed to wax bloodthirsty when asked if he'd want to execute a theoretical rapist/murderer if the victim was his wife, Kitty. The years that followed saw the Democrats cozy up to capital punishment: The Clinton era brought a sweeping expansion of the federal death penalty, thanks to the Crime Bill, and a sharp cut in death row appeals, thanks to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. State executions spiked in the late '90s, more than doubling between 1996 and 1999.

But times have changed. Since 2000, executions have been in steady decline, and not because of the Democratic Party establishment. The Supreme Court has outlawed the execution of mentally retarded persons and prisoners convicted as juveniles; a revolution in DNA testing has put wrongful convictions on the front pages of newspapers nationwide; and in December, New Jersey became the first state in the country to pass legislation abolishing the death penalty in 40 years. Currently, executions are stalled altogether, as states await a ruling in the landmark Supreme Court case Baze v. Rees, which examines lethal injection as it is carried out in 36 states.

Given the climate, you would think the time is ripe for the Dems to reconsider the death penalty -- perhaps even dust it off as a way to differentiate themselves from the Republicans this November.

You would be wrong.

Obama, Edwards and Clinton have remained practically mute about the death penalty in the past few months, reiterating their support only when asked -- and giving heavily qualified answers. Take Obama, for starters. In a 2004 debate against Alan Keyes, his opponent in the race for U.S. Senate, Obama declared that "there are extraordinarily heinous crimes -- terrorism, the harm of children -- in which [the death penalty] may be appropriate." "We have to have this ultimate sanction in certain circumstances," he said. "I think it's important that we preserve that." Obama repeated his stance in his 2006 memoir, The Audacity of Hope, where he invoked crimes "so heinous ... that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

On the campaign trail, Obama has continued to characterize the death penalty as a necessary evil, while also boasting about his role in trying to perfect it. "I am somebody who led on reforming a death penalty system that was broken in Illinois -- that nobody thought was good politics, but was the right thing to do," he said on the night of the South Carolina debate.

In fact, it was good politics. Obama's primary role in his much-touted death penalty reform was a successful push to videotape police interrogations in a state where violently coerced confessions had sent at least 13 men to death row. Republican Gov. George Ryan -- who actually co-chaired execution kingpin George W. Bush's first election campaign -- had had a moratorium in place since January 2000. By the time Obama's legislation passed, four innocent men had already been pardoned -- and Ryan had emptied Illinois' death row. In fact, before the scandal of Illinois' death penalty system broke -- a scandal born in police interrogation rooms on Chicago's South Side, where Obama had been a community organizer -- Obama seemed happy to bolster capital punishment in his state. As a freshly elected state senator in 1997, he voted to expand the death penalty to include the murderers of senior citizens or the disabled. If the Democrats were truly outraged at the injustice of the American justice system, Obama would face serious questions about his support of state-sanctioned murder and not about what went up his nose decades ago.

Today, the Obama camp likes to paint its man as anti-death penalty with a few exceptions. "Obama opposes the death penalty except for terrorists, serial killers and child-murderers," two reporters wrote in the Hill last spring, "but his campaign added that he does not support the death penalty as it is currently administered in this country."

Or, as one blogger wrote last year, "In a nutshell: He's pro-death penalty, but he is also pro-let's not execute the wrong guy."

Who isn't "pro-let's not execute the wrong guy"?

If Obama's Chicago years dampened his support for the death penalty, one would think Edwards' Senate tenure and time in the courtroom would have turned him off to the death penalty altogether. His years in office saw the exonerations of three death row prisoners from North Carolina's death row, a 2001 study finding deep racial bias in the state's death penalty system, and a historic vote in 2003 that would make the state senate the first legislative body in the South to pass moratorium legislation. Yet he held on to his support for the death penalty.

When Edwards was asked at the Yearly Kos convention last summer to reconcile his "two Americas" rhetoric with support of a punishment that disproportionately condemns poor people of color to die (full disclosure: I was the questioner), Edwards gave a lengthy answer that, boiled down, called for death to killers of children. More recently, on NPR's Talk of the Nation, responding to a caller concerned about his support for capital punishment, Edwards acknowledged the racial bias, the problem of wrongful convictions, unequal legal representation -- he even talked about the trouble with "death qualified juries." Nevertheless, he defended his pro-death penalty stance.

And then there's Hillary. Perhaps even more than Obama or Edwards, Hillary has avoided discussing capital punishment on the campaign trail. As a senator representing a state that got rid of the death penalty during her tenure, at the same time that the Ashcroft and Gonzales-led Department of Justice sought to prosecute more federal capital cases in New York, Hillary has had precious little to say about the death penalty in the past few years. She supports it, of course -- has for years -- and she, like her opponents, also supports "reforms." In 2003, she co-sponsored the Innocence Protection Act, to make DNA testing available for individuals sentenced to death under federal law. Penance, perhaps, for having helped to curtail death row appeals in the '90s.

Regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination, the death penalty is certain to be off the table in the general election, where tough talk on terrorism will trump domestic criminal justice policy discussions. "I doubt that candidates from either side will raise the death penalty issue, though it might come up as a question," says Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "Because this issue has become so multisided, each position on the death penalty has drawbacks. If you support it, you have to admit its flaws. If you oppose it, you may not raise it for fear of being out of the mainstream."

As opposition to state-sanctioned killing becomes more and more mainstream, however, the Democrats should be able to muster the courage to come out against it too. But there's no sign that that is a "moral challenge" they are ready to take on. Rather, the pro-death penalty, pro-"reform" stance occupied by Obama, Edwards and Clinton is little more than a gift to capital punishment supporters who claim the machinery of death just needs some fine-tuning.



Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of the Rights & Liberties section.