Mediaboss Marketing

Jamaica and the United States share a deep democratic tradition. I have been fortunate to serve during an election here in Jamaica and to have seen that democratic tradition in action.

After a hard-fought campaign, there was a gracious and peaceful transfer of power, Jamaica's sixth since Independence. Our common democratic heritage has helped to bind our two countries and solidify our partnership since Jamaica's Independence in 1962.

It is our collective responsibility as democratic nations to defend human rights and democracy in Venezuela. In 2001, we adopted the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which affirmed the right of every citizen across the hemisphere to democracy and obligated our governments to defend that right.

Unfortunately, in Venezuela today, the Maduro government has relentlessly and intentionally undermined other constitutional branches of government from the inside. Since opposition parties won a majority of seats in 2015, Venezuela's National Assembly has been systematically stifled by the Maduro government. The Maduro regime's increasing inability to govern the country has led to tremendous human suffering in Venezuela, caused by shortages of food, medicine, and an abysmal economy.

When a government does not respect democratic principles, we are called to join in solidarity with its people. Not through intervention or interference, but with proactive, engaged diplomacy and mediation among all parties to help find a peaceful, democratic, and comprehensive solution.

The upcoming General Assembly of the Organization of American States will provide us a forum to discuss the situation in Venezuela. Historically, the OAS has responded effectively to military coups that have usurped democratically elected governments. Today, we are witness to a crisis of democracy and human suffering in Caracas.

Citing vague, unproven claims of electoral fraud, allegedly committed by three legislators, the government has denied the legislative branch the right to pass laws and the pro-Maduro judiciary has declared Venezuela's Congress "in contempt", stripping it of all legislative authority.

Imagine if a prime minister of Jamaica declared that he or she held sole lawmaking and executive authority? I fully expect that the Jamaican people, across party lines, would join in full-throated protest and use all constitutional means to restore democratic norms, just as the Venezuelan people are now doing.

Today in Venezuela, President Maduro is squelching an attempt to put his leadership to a vote through a recall referendum. In contrast, the late President Chavez vigorously defended Venezuelan people's right to referenda, in order to hold to governments accountable for their actions.

Both Jamaica and the United States have a long and honoured tradition of an apolitical military. Indeed, the Jamaica Defence Force and the US armed forces are among the most respected and trusted institutions in our respective countries. Yet Maduro is attacking the principle of an apolitical military. He relies increasingly on the Venezuelan military to control the economy, intimidate opponents, and suppress popular discontent.

Distressingly, more than 331 Venezuelan civilians are being held and prosecuted by military courts in secret trials. Venezuela's own attorney general, appointed by Chavez in 2007, has condemned the trials and the military has refused her access to the prisoners.

Faced with a crumbling economy and massive popular dissatisfaction, the Maduro administration has called for the abandonment of the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution. If his attempt succeeds, it would eliminate the current popularly elected National Assembly, the attorney general, and other existing institutions.

I call on the citizens of Jamaica to ask yourselves: If this were happening here, what would you want your democratic friends and neighbours to do? I know from my two and a half years of listening to Jamaica's vigorous democratic debates on radio and reading them spill across the pages of The Gleaner that you would expect, even demand, that our American family of nations speak out, and reach out, to help restore fundamental democratic freedoms.

We are grateful for Jamaica's help in the Organization of American States in supporting the return to democratic norms in Caracas. Jamaica, as a long-time friend of Venezuela and the Venezuelan people, plays a unique role in this process by fostering constructive dialogue in Caracas and across the region. We look forward to working with Jamaica in supporting a return to democratic norms in Caracas as we stand by the Venezuelan people's effort to reclaim their democracy.

- Luis Moreno is US ambassador to Jamaica. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

Link:
Luis Moreno | Defending democracy with diplomacy in Venezuela - Jamaica Gleaner

The real answer to the democracy-killing 'administrative state' New York Post From different directions, conservatives have begun to aim their guns at our administrative state. Most of the rules we live by aren't laws passed by Congress or court decisions. Instead, they're to be found in the thousands of pages in the Code of ...

Go here to see the original:
The real answer to the democracy-killing 'administrative state' - New York Post

An openly gay California man identified as Jeff LeTourneau co-chair of the Orange County Democratic Party was caught on camera lambasting fellow gay men in a political rant because they were Republican.

While petitioning to remove Sen. Josh Newman (D-CA) over a proposed gas tax bill, Carl DeMaio and his husband, Johnathan Hale, were accosted by LeTourneau outside of a local Wal-Mart and eviscerated for their disloyalty to the LGBTQ community as they dared to identify as Republican.

You belong to a f***ing party that writes our destruction into its platform! LeTourneau blasted DeMaio and Hale. Get your s**t and get out of here!

Of the couple, LeTourneau said, You are a f**king disgrace to any gay person I know, you piece of s**t.

DeMaio a conservative talk radio host, as well as a former Republican San Diego city councilman and Hale San Diego Gay and Lesbian News publisher stood their ground and refused to back down, despite LeTourneaus increasingly unhinged behavior.

You can intimidate all you want, sir, they said repeatedly. This is the democratic process.

LeTourneau became increasingly agitated as he turned on Hale who was filming as well as those signing the petition, and even on a Wal-Mart manager who came outside to diffuse the situation.

Im here as an openly gay person on Pride weekend seeing these two people disgracing my community and letting them know I dont care about them. Theyre liars! Theyre liars! LeTourneau cried. You do not belong to our community. You also do not belong to the LGBTQ community either.

In a statement to Fox News, DeMaio said:

LeTourneau clearly thinks that if you are gay, you can only be a Democrat which is both arrogant and highly offensive. The idea that Californians are sick of paying higher taxes cuts across party lines and sexual orientation.

Throughout the altercation, Republicans DeMaio and Hale remained calm and asked LeTourneau repeatedly to stay calm and to back away.

See the exchange in the video below.

The rest is here:
Gay conservative destroys gay liberal over democracy while being ... - TheBlaze.com

Secretary of state for work and pensions Iain Duncan Smith delivers his speech at the Conservative Party annual conference 2015. Isabel Infantes/EMPICS Entertainment/PA Images. All rights reserved.Labours shock success in the snap general election left poll takers more than slightly embarrassed (except YouGov and Survation), and political commentators scrambling to cover their backsides. In their struggle to adjust to a resurgent Labour Party led by the unelectable Jeremy Corbyn the nominal progressives among the pundits provided a textbook guide to the difference between centrist neoliberalism and social democracy.

The Conservative manifesto included, among its political disasters, the proposal that care for the elderly should be funded by drawing on their assets with an exemption at 100,000.The proposal was quickly dropped due to opposition among Conservative MPs and in effect called for wealth-tested funding of residential care (nursing homes).

While ridiculing the Prime Minister for her U-turn, at least two opinion writers in The Guardian endorsed the proposal as necessary and fair. The proposal was necessary because of our ageing population and a life expectancy considerably greater than retirement age. It qualified as fair because it exempted the poor who rarely hold any assets.

For the reactionaries the division is between the undeserving poor and the deserving non-poor (who do the right thing), shirkers and strivers.

This proposal, and its appeal to centrists across parties, shows the difference between neoliberals and social democrats. Neoliberals themselves divide into reactionaries (e.g. Cameron) and progressives (e.g. Blair). For both tendencies the population falls into two categories, poor and non-poor. For the reactionaries the division is between the undeserving poor and the deserving non-poor (who do the right thing), shirkers and strivers. In this framework the reactionary neoliberals assign government the task of serving the strivers and providing minimalist support to the shirkers in a manner designed to coerce them out of their feckless sloth.

For the progressive neoliberals populations are also divided into the poor and non-poor, but they alter the categories to the deserving poor and the undeserving middle class. The latter have incomes that allow them to take care of themselves without government handouts. The function of government is to provide a decent safety net and support those who cannot take care of themselves, the deserving poor. This approach to social policy is epitomized in an 11 May comment by Polly Toynbee on the Labour manifesto:

"...[G]ifting large sums to students from wealthy families, free school meals to those who can well afford them, or triple-locking pensions to the rich retired may add to a sense of [Labours] extravagance."

Pure neoliberalism underlies this statement the role of social policy is to protect the poor and the market mechanism will take care of the rest of us. Public provision including a decent pension consists of gifts made to curry electoral favour.

In a letter to The Guardian a Liverpool Labour counsellor provided a clear and concise rejection, Polly and [Theresa] May are wrong to make funding social care a personal not a shared responsibility.

That sentence captures the social democratic philosophy which I would elaborate as equal universal provision, funded by progressive taxation. Social provision rather than commercialization through markets is the underlying political economy of social democracy. Social democrats restrict markets; neoliberals enhance them.

The social democratic commitment to universal provision directly contradicts the neoliberal vision of a market dominated economy.

The social democratic commitment to universal provision directly contradicts the neoliberal vision of a market dominated economy. Over the last decade neoliberals have responded to the social democratic principle of universal provision by labelling it populism of the left. Again Toynbee provides an excellent example while applauding the Labour Partys gains in the general election, she attributes it in part to bribery, Labour and especially Corbyn appealing to crass material interests,

"How do you catch the attention of the young, get them out of bed and into the polling booth for the first time? Yes, with a better vision, but also with a colossal eye-catching bribe of free tuition fees for all, however wealthy, never mind the sums."

Centrist neoliberals in Britain accept the principle of general provision for health. Few if any would make the above statement with health care substituted for tuition fees. The same is the case were the replacement words primary and secondary schooling. These are accepted as justified cases of universal provision by the overwhelming majority of neoliberals, but anything more is bribery or giveaways.

Yet the arguments for and against are the same. If those that can afford it should pay university fees and we means test for grants and loans, why not the same for primary and secondary schooling? If free university fees represent a subsidy to the middle class and wealthy then so do free primary and secondary education.

The fallacy in the centrist neoliberal argument should jump off the page the NHS and primary and public education are not free. Our government funds them through taxation. US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote, Taxes are what we pay for civilized society and as a general rule the more developed countries levy more taxes.

From Margaret Thatcher through John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown (albeit briefly), the calamitous coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats, David Cameron and now Theresa May, the neoliberal vision prevailed market forces would serve the interests of the many and a safety net would protect the few. The differences between the Conservative and Labour governments consist largely of how meagre or generous the safety net should be.

But market forces have not served the many. On the contrary, they have rewarded very few. The implementation of the neoliberal vision resulted in growing poverty, stagnant or falling wages and systemic economic instability.

Jeremy Corbyn and the resurgent Labour Party offer a fundamentally different vision, one that Clement Atlee and his colleagues would quickly recognize were they with us social services delivered on the basis of universal provision funded by progressive taxation on incomes and wealth.

Universal provision unites society rather than dividing it.

That vision in its 21st century form provided the basis for a dramatic leap in the general election by the Labour Party, and should in the not distant future gift the keys of 10 Downing Street to Jeremy Corbyn.

Universal provision is far more than a vote-grabber, it is the only viable and sustainable way to organize a just society, because of its three great advantages.

First, universal provision is non-discriminatory, non-bureaucratic and lacks the arbitrary rigidity of means testing. All forms of means testing either suffer from the borderline problem or prove extremely bureaucratic in application. A strict income or wealth qualification cannot avoid excluding some needy households while including others less needy.

The alternative to all-or-nothing means testing is a sliding scale. For example, for households in the bottom 10% of the income distribution there would be no payment for university fees, the 10% above would pay a quarter of the fees, etc. Implementing such a system requires considerable bureaucracy and intrusive monitoring of household income and wealth. Universal provision of university education funded by progressive taxation would involve less bureaucracy than now exists.

Second, means testing by definition divides households into the haves and the have-nots; indeed, it reinforces and institutionalizes that division. This division fosters the shirker/striver and undeserving/deserving ideology of neoliberalism.

Universal provision unites society rather than dividing it.

Third and related to the second, universal provision increases the beneficiaries of social services, thus creating broad electoral support. The NHS enjoys overwhelming popularity precisely because it benefits everyone. A YouGov poll earlier this year found that the vast majority favoured the public health system and 53% of respondents endorsed a higher employee contribution to fund it.

The NHS provides the vindication of universal coverage, the efficient and effective means of provision and the basis for its own political sustainability. Thus we have the golden rule of social democracy. Broaden the beneficiary pool, eliminate poverty and reduce inequality while gaining electoral support. That is the strategy of the 99%.

Read more from the original source:
The rise of neoliberal contempt for democracy - Open Democracy

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to members of the media after the weekly Senate Republican Policy Luncheon at the Capitol May 9.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

While much of Washington fixates on Donald Trump and his scandals, a small band of Senate Republicans is workingin secreton a bill that would slash health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and jeopardize access for millions more. And theyre doing this on a so-called fast track meant to preclude debate. The reason for this rushed process? To obscure the obvious: that at heart, the American Health Care Act is little more than a massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

Jamelle Bouie isSlates chief political correspondent.

Once the working group emerges from its cloister, the bill will be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and thenin a sharp break with procedurebypass the committee process and go straight to the floor without a public hearing. There are even suggestions that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will use legislative gamesmanship to avoid debate entirely, so Republicans can pass the bill without any discussion of its contents and provisions. As Paul Ryan did in the House of Representatives, McConnell intends to restructure one-sixth of the American economy with as little input as possible, freezing out experts, industry representatives, and Democratic lawmakers. This, despite overwhelming opposition from the public; in one recent poll, just 23 percent of respondents said they approved of the Republican health care bill.

And what will the public get if and when the final version of the bill is passed into law? Millions of Americans will either lose their health insurance, see massive new costs, or face added obstacles, from lifetime caps on care to limits based on pre-existing conditions.

Theres no indication Republicans are thinking deeply about free market reforms to the American health care system. But lets just say they are. Perhaps a drastically less-regulated insurance market is worth the cost to ordinary individuals and families. If thats the case, then Republicans owe the country both honesty and transparency. It will get neither. Instead, every indication is that the GOP will push through with a process that holds deliberation in contempt. Thats not to say Republicans arent responding to someonethere are groups, like the Republican base, that want this billbut the broad public opposes the effort.

As it stands, theres a chance the Senate health care bill could pass before the July 4 holiday. Compare this to the process behind the Affordable Care Act. It took most of 2009 for Democrats to produce a bill: months of negotiationincluding a summer of talks between Democratic and Republican senatorsthat involved debate and input, as lawmakers produced drafts, defended proposals, and sold their plan to the public. Congress saw testimony from patients and other ordinary people, and citizens were able to lobby lawmakers with their input.

It was as open a process as possible, and while Democrats werent immune to misleading rhetoric (if you like your plan, you can keep it), the final law wasnt a surprise. It did what Democrats and the president said it would. And the party was proud of their work. This is a big fucking deal, Vice President Joe Biden famously whispered.

None of this is true of Republicans and the AHCA. Theirs is a closed, secretive process. There are no drafts, no inkling of the plan. No speeches defending its major planks or hearings where lawmakers and experts hash out concerns. When pressed with questions, Republicans from the Senate working group refuse to answer. Indeed, asked if it was important to bring a bill to the public, Republicans say, in effect, no. Well, I think were not worried so much about that as we are getting it together so we can get a majority to vote for it, said Sen. Orrin Hatch.

This might be tolerable if Republicans were open about the effects of their plan. But they arent. Theyre lying. Tom Price, secretary of health and human services, insists that the bill preserves Medicaid, telling CNN, We believe the Medicaid population will be cared for in a better way under our program because it will be more responsive to them. In reality, the bill phases out the Medicaid expansion and makes additional cuts, slashing 14 million people from the program. President Trump has made assurances that the bill guarantees coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, which just isnt true. Vice President Mike Pence promises a dynamic national health insurance marketplace that lowers costs, increases quality and gives more choices to working families. Given the massive coverage losses projected under the GOPs health care plan, theres no evidence that anything approaching that promise is on the horizon.

Republicans are pushing forward on an unpopular bill that, by every independent account, will harm millions of Americans. To justify this sprint, the White House is actively sabotaging insurance markets while telling the public that the Affordable Care Act is failing. And in taking this course, theyve shown a breathtaking contempt for democracy, insulating themselves from any political pressure, lying about the policies in question, and hiding this bankrupt process from the country.

This cowardly and factional governingmeant to satisfy a small minority of Republican Party backers, not the public at largewill likely backfire. Given Democratic anger, the presidents unpopularity, and broad discontent with the bill in question, there are decent odds this story ends with a Democratic victory in the 2018 elections and a chance to repair the damage. But between now and then, real people will suffer. Real people will have to decide if they can afford continued treatment. Real people will die. And as far as anyone can tell, the point of all of thisthe secrecy and dishonesty and likely painis tax cuts. Thats it.

Read more:
The Senate's Health Care Secrecy Is a Breathtaking Contempt for Democracy - Slate Magazine