07 January 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Our democracy is under severe attack.
But the truth is that the attack on our democracy goes far deeper than the violence of January 6, 2021.
Our democracy is under attack from Republicans in Congress and in state legislatures across the country who are doing everything in their power to suppress the vote and make it harder for people of color and young people to vote. These political cowards are also engaging in extreme gerrymandering and are drawing the lines of their districts so they pick their voters instead of voters picking their representatives. They are intent on establishing permanent majorities.
Our democracy is under attack when many Republicans, at all levels of government, promote the Big Lie that the presidential election was stolen and increasingly call into question the results of any election they lose.
Our democracy is under attack when election officials are being harassed and threatened and when efforts are being made to allow partisan legislatures to determine election winners and losers.
But let’s be clear. It is not just the subversion of democratic norms and voting rights that is undermining our democracy.
Our democracy is also under attack because all across this country people increasingly believe democracy itself, and our government, does not work for them.
For the vast majority of Americans there is a huge disconnect between the reality of their lives and what goes on in Washington, D.C. The people see the politicians talking, talking and talking, they watch the 30 second TV ads and they hear the promises that are made — but never kept. They remember what Lincoln said about "government of the people, by the people and for the people," and they know how far removed we are from that today.
They see the very rich become much richer while politicians and the corporate media ignore the collapse of the middle class and the painful realities facing working families — low wages, dead end jobs, debt, homelessness, lack of health care or educational opportunity, declining life expectancy, substance abuse, impoverished retirement.
Democrat or Republican. Who cares? Nothing changes or, if it does, it's usually for the worse.
Millions of Americans are unable to make it on starvation wages and many of them struggle to put food on the table, but Congress is unable to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.
Over 80 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, with millions going into bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills, but Congress is unable to do what every other major country does — guarantee health care as a human right.
One out of four Americans are unable to afford the prescription drugs they need but Congress is unable to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry which charges us, by far, the highest prices in the world.
Almost 43 million Americans are struggling with student debt but Congress, busy giving tax breaks to the rich and well-connected, is unable to forgive that burden which is crushing the dreams of so many.
In homes across this country seniors are being forced to live out their later years without teeth in their mouths or the ability to see or hear properly, but Congress is unable to expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision.
And, while climate change ravages our country and the world, Congress is unable to confront the fossil fuel industry, cut carbon emissions and leave future generations a planet that will be healthy and habitable.
So it is no great surprise that people look at the process that produces these outcomes and say, “Nope. Not for me. I don’t know what these guys are doing but it's not relevant to my life.”
So yes, Congress must hold responsible those who engaged in insurrection at the Capitol and make sure there is never again any doubt about the peaceful transition of power in this country.
Yes, Congress must take action immediately to end voter suppression and make it easier for people in every state in this country to participate in the political process.
But, if we are really going to save democracy and make it relevant to people's lives, Congress must boldly address the long-neglected crises facing the working people of this country. In other words, dare I say, Congress must represent the needs of ordinary Americans and not just wealthy campaign contributors.
The choice before us is whether we move into oligarchy, where our economic and political life is dominated by a handful of billionaires, or whether we create a vibrant democracy where the voices of the people are heard, and where their needs are addressed.
As we enter the new year I look forward to working with you to create a country in which our children and parents are not living in poverty, in which young people can afford to go to college and in which working families have the health care and prescription drugs they need. I will fight for policies which will save the planet for future generations. Will we succeed? I can’t guarantee you that.
But I can tell you there is no chance unless we are in this together.
Not me. Us.
So I am asking:
The struggle to create a nation and world of economic and social justice and environmental sanity is not an easy one. The struggle to try and create a more peaceful world will be extremely difficult. But this I know: despair is not an option if we care about our kids and grandchildren. Giving up is not an option if we want to prevent irreparable harm to our planet.
We must stand up and fight back. We must continue our commitment to a political revolution which engages millions of Americans from all walks of life in the struggle for real change.
This country belongs to all of us, not just the billionaire class. And that is what our work is about.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
The Supreme Court hears arguments Friday in two cases challenging the Biden administration's vaccine mandates. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
The cases are in a preliminary posture, but how the court rules will very likely signal how these issues are ultimately resolved.
On one side is the Biden administration, seeking to accelerate vaccinations with mandates for healthcare workers and mandate-or-test requirements for much of the private sector workforce, even as another surge in COVID-19 cases plays out across the country.
All of this will play out in front of a Supreme Court with all the justices vaccinated and boosted, sitting in a near empty chamber, with an audience limited to reporters, counsel and court staff, and in a building that is closed to the public to protect those who work there.
At the heart of Friday's argument are two new federal regulations issued to deal with the pandemic. One, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration applies to all companies that employ 100 or more workers. That's nearly two-thirds of the private sector workforce. It requires that all workers be vaccinated or tested weekly, and that the unvaccinated wear masks. The only exceptions are employees who work at home or outside. The rule is being challenged by a coalition of large and small business groups, 27 states, and individuals.
Among them is Brandon Trosclair, owner of 15 grocery stores in Louisiana.
"The problem here is the mandate itself," he said in a video prepared by the conservative Liberty Justice Center, which represents him. "It puts a wedge between me and my staff, having to make them decide whether or not they want to get vaccinated, or I can potentially have to terminate them. The other option is multiple testing," which costs money, in contrast to the vaccine, which is free.
The second regulation under scrutiny, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, mandates vaccinations for all employees at hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care providers that receive federal funds. The only exceptions are for medical or religious reasons.
Those challenging the CMS rule contend that millions of healthcare workers will leave their jobs, rather than comply with the mandate. But the Biden administration points to studies showing that less than 1% of healthcare workers have left their jobs as the result of vaccine mandates. For instance, when the Houston Methodist Hospital system imposed a vaccine mandate, only 153 workers out of more than 61,000 resigned rather than comply.
Of the two rules before the Supreme Court , the mandate for healthcare providers is generally considered easier to defend because the courts have long held that when the federal government funds a program—like Medicare or Medicaid—it has the authority to put conditions on how the money is used, to ensure that it is used wisely, efficiently, and that it is not being used to expose patients to greater risks.
"We're paying for people to get dialysis treatment, [and] we don't want the consequence of our funding their dialysis treatment to be they get COVID," says Case Western Reserve professor Jonathan Adler in summarizing the government's position.
The OSHA regulation is different from the CMS rule because it was enacted, not under Congress' spending power, but under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, a target of many current court conservatives. But the OSHA rule was enacted under a very broad statute which allows the agency to issue emergency rules when it deems them "necessary" to protect workers from a "grave danger." What's more, OSHA has previously applied its rule-making to diseases, including HIV and hepatitis, and required employers to pay for the hepatitis-B vaccine for at-risk workers. That said, it has never enacted a vaccine-or-test rule like this one.
Among the challengers are more than half the states, almost all Republican-dominated, including a dozen that have made vaccination mandates illegal. They argue that the law exceeds what Congress intended in enacting the OSHA statute, and they go further, contending that if Congress did intend to give such broad rulemaking power to the agency, it would be unconstitutional. They argue that because of "the vast economic and political significance" of this rule, congress, would have to expressly authorize a vaccine-or-test mandate.
The Biden administration counters that under the Occupational Safety and Health statute, it was obligated to act. After all COVID-19 has already killed more than 800,000 people in the United States and sickened 50 million more, many with lasting effects.
"I think this is a case that's a test of how truly radical or conservative this court is or is not," says Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus. "The question is whether the Supreme Court is going to try to totally upend the ability of our national government to safeguard the nation's health and safety amidst a global pandemic sweeping the country."
Professor Adler, however, thinks these cases that could be decided on narrow statutory grounds, based on what the statutes say and the agencies' justifications for their actions. But he adds, "If we hear a lot of questions about the scope of the government's constitutional power, that would suggest the justices view this case as a wedge into a broader questions about the federal administrative state."
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
