Indiginous Seeds--The Semillas Project

Response to ASUC Presidential Veto of Senate Bill 118A

Response to ASUC Presidential Veto of Senate Bill 118A
UC Berkeley Divestment Task Force
UCB Students for Justice in Palestine

Introduction
The following document is a response to ASUC President Will Smelko’s veto1 of Senate Bill 118A, “A Bill in Support of ASUC Divestment from War Crimes.” SB 118A called on the UC Berkeley student government (the ASUC) and the University of California (UC) Regents to divest funds from companies enabling war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, among other places where war crimes take place. It was passed by the student senate in a 16 to 4 vote. President Smelko justified his veto with a number of misleading or mistaken claims. We discuss and rebut them in detail below, but generally speaking President Smelko’s justifications either: (a) mischaracterize the content of SB 118A or (b) unfairly hold the bill to a higher standard than any other senate bill.

We rebut the following claims by President Smelko:
1. SB 118A singles out Israel.
2. SB 118A is perceived as “a symbolic attack on a specific community of our fellow students.”
3. SB 118A may be used as a tool to delegitimize the state of Israel.
4. There was not sufficient or adequate discussion and/or deliberation on the bill.
5. The bill does not examine “the likely or probable impact of mandatory divestment” on existing or future UC
and ASUC funds.
6. It does not consider “the likely or probable effect on the safety or security of human beings in Palestine and
Israel.”
7. A divestment bill must address the “effectiveness of a blanket divestment policy in achieving the aims of peace
and security.”
8. The debate around SB 118A compares Israel to South Africa, but this analogy is “contested” and South African divestment strategies “were not introduced and agreed upon after mere hours of discussion, but involved lengthy and serious deliberation and analysis.”
9. For SB 118A to pass it must provide “adequate” or “important historical context and understanding.”
10. SB 118A calls for “immediate divestment from specific countries or regions.”
11. The veto is justified by the moral obligation “to promote peace, harmony, honesty, and academic freedom,” and the duty to insure that ASUC decisions “are fair to people concerned and to all sides of an issue.”
...
Read more here...

Executive PayWatch 2010

When you hear Republicans whining about their "hard earned" income being taxed, do you ever wonder how much the very rich are really suffering?  The AFL-CIO has created Executive PayWatch to document some of the most obscene cases of corporate executive compensation, offering details on how the compensation was given (salary, bonus, stock awards, etc...) as well as how their compensation compares with that of the average US worker.  At the top is Aubrey K. McClendon, who made $100,069,048 in 2008, including a $77 million bonus and $20 million in stock awards.

Even more hideous, case studies of finance executives show how these billionaires take taxpayer bailout money and personally lobby against financial regulation and how their companies lobby against reforms like allowing judges to modify mortgages and taxing securities.  It would seem that Wells Fargo, for example, has tens of millions of dollars to give to its executives in bonuses, but can't afford to modify a mortgage in a working class neighborhood.

One aspect of executive pay is how ridiculous the taxation system in the USA is, where all people making more than $373,651 are taxed at a maximum of 35%.  And this is just the federal income tax.  Many states have taxation systems that are even more backward and regressive.  Washington State has no income tax and relies on sales taxes and other fees, while in California the "2/3rds rule" for new taxes in the legislature has been shown to cause the poor to be taxed at a higher rate than the rich.  If someone making $100 million were taxed at 99% of her income, she would still make a million dollars that year!

Please visit this website and tell your friends about it, and tell the banks "I am not you ATM!"

Health care reform: they're all wrong

Two trends have emerged since the passage of the health care reform.

One denigrates the reform, calling it "worse than nothing" and bleakly prognosticating that the "fake" reform has blocked any chance for "real" reform in the next decade. Examples of this view can be found in The Socialist Worker, CounterPunch, MRZine, and other left venues.

The other trend is to play up the bill. It is "historic," "a big f___ deal," "a major people's victory," and so on. This view is mostly advanced by Democrats and their puppet pundits, but can also be seen on the left.

Both of the takes on health care are wrong.

As for the first, it can only be said that it thinks too highly of bourgeois democracy in the world's leading imperialist power. Bourgeois democracy in the world's leading imperialist power is never going to make the "real" reform they want.

The idea that the victory of "fake" reform has blocked the chance of "real" reform going forward is also dubious. The last time major health care reform was tried, in Clinton's first term, it failed, and no further battle was fought until the present. Win or fail, health care reform is not going to be dealt with again by bourgeois democracy for a decade or more.

Calling the reform "worse than nothing" because it entrenches the insurance industry is another blunder. The insurance industry will not be dismantled by the bourgeois democracy of the world's leading imperialist power. It will take a socialist revolution.

They dismiss the bill because it does not do enough, but that is like telling a starving man to refuse a crust of bread, because it alone will not end his hunger. The error is obvious, and can only remain hidden to those whose bellies have always been full and don't know what real hunger feels like.

The second view, that the legislation is a big people's victory, is about as wrong as the first. Usually the people don't offer specifics of why this is so, when they do they're often not right.

"No more pre-existing conditions," they say, when in reality there will be such things for four more years until the changes kick in, and even then the insurers will, though not be able to deny coverage, be able to manipulate premiums to make customers with health problems pay much more.

"Subsidies so insurance can be had by all," but even within the official predictions, 23 million will remain uninsured.

"Keep health care affordable," but again under the plan's predictions, premiums will continue to rise. Families will feel increasing pressure, and if they do fail to pay, they will be fined.

The Medicare drain, the numerous loopholes, the restrictive abortion provisions, etc. can also be mentioned. To call this a "people's victory" and a "historic achievement" is to mock people's victories and historic achievements.

Both views are wrong. The underlying problem is that both views caricature bourgeois democracy. Because bourgeois democracy cannot deliver a strong people-first program, the "worse than nothing crowd" take the view that it cannot ever deliver anything at all. Because they see some value in the health care reform, the "historic triumph" people decide that bourgeois democracy can and has delivered a strong people-first program. Both are wrong!

The health care reform is capital-compromised, but it is a gain. It is an ideological gain and a material gain. It is not a large gain, but it is about the largest the bourgeois democracy of the world's leading imperialist power can produce. It should be so viewed.

To say either that it is "worse than nothing" or that is is a "monumental achievement" is to mislead and misrepresent. Basing a political program on these kinds of distortions can only lead to failure.