Friday, September 23, 2011

At Long Last: a Voice for Palestine

Published on Thursday, September 22, 2011 by CommonDreams.org


Mamilla cemetery, located just inside West Jerusalem, contains the remains of several prominent Islamic leaders, including those who fought alongside Saladin to retake Jerusalem from the Crusaders. It is visited also by the descendants of the less illustrious, like Mohammed al-Dejani, whose great-grandfather is buried there. The Israeli Supreme Court has, however, has approved the move to bulldoze it and construct a $250 million complex to be built upon those graves by the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. The gigantic complex designed by Frank Gehry is, according to the Rabbi Marvin Hier from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, to be built on derelict land. And what will it house? Well, obviously, the Museum of Tolerance.

It is an irony that exemplifies the conundrum that faces President Barack Obama this week. In the months after assuming office, in the speech in Cairo that we imagined signaled his position on Palestine, the President said, "America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own." On September 23, 2010 addressing the UN, the President called for the creation of a Palestinian State, an event he felt was possible in the course of a year. That year ends this Friday when Mahmoud Abbas takes his plea for statehood to the United Nations and Barack Obama goes to bat for America and for Israel, veto in hand. Perhaps the fault lies not in the faith that we placed in those two speeches but in the stone-faced response that the President-elect presented on the day before his inauguration when during the 'We Are One' celebration, Bono, that modern-day champion of desperate causes looked directly at Barack Obama and said these words: "(your election is) not just an American dream but also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream, an Israeli dream and also a Palestinian dream."

Why now? reasonable people ask. Barack Obama himself referred to President Abbas’ effort as a “short cut,” during his address to the UN Wednesday. Perhaps the American president has forgotten his history. The people of Palestine have undergone centuries of external pressure if not always occupation - from the Israelite, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Iraqi, Egyptian, Turkish and British forces - and when push came to shove, the Palestinian voice has been repeatedly silenced. Nobody asked them for their thoughts when Theodor Hertzl advocated for a Jewish State with his publication, The Jewish State, and nobody asked them for an opinion when the World Zionist Organization was set up in Switzerland in 1897 or the Jewish National Fund was set up in 1901 to help in the creation of Israel. They were absent from the room when the Sykes-Picot agreement was signed in 1916, dividing the Arab countries between toady's on-the-fence members of the Security Council, Britain and France. The Balfour Declaration was made without in-put from the Palestinians.

When Lord Peel released his report in 1937, the silenced Palestinians were expected to go along with his recommendation that 33% of the best land available should go toward the Jewish State and the rest for Palestinian Arabs and that the latter should also be "forcibly transferred" from what are euphemistically termed "the Jewish sections." In that same year when the Arab Higher Committee rejected these recommendation and called for an independent Palestine with protection for the rights of all, Britain dismantled the Committee and all Palestinian political organizations thereby silencing them altogether. In 1942, the Biltmore Conference for Zionist leaders convened in NY calling for making Palestine a Jewish Homeland and no, they did not invite the Palestinians to the discussion. Indeed, as far back as 1947, the UN only calls for 43% of their own land for Palestine and 56.5% of Palestine for a Jewish state.

Rhetorical Question: How many Americans would tolerate over a century of systematic occupation, suffer the silencing of their voices, ignore the dismantling of their political institutions and then take it lying down when a motley gang of third parties hand over the more desirable parts of their land to, say, the Burmese Buddhists? Today, the Palestinians do not occupy even a quarter of their own country.

Those who would like to discredit this latest Palestinian effort will bring up terrorism. In fact, by the time that the Palestinian political movement got under way in 1935, Haganah billed as a Jewish neighborhood watch but actually a group of militants who supported illegal immigration and the building of settlements in new areas, had already been operating for fourteen years! And Britain's White Paper on terrorism in 1946 made no mention of any Palestinian terrorist organizations yet names the two extremist Jewish organizations, Haganah and Irgun. In July 22, of 1946, it is Irgun that blew up the King David Hotel, killing 91 people including British, Palestinian and Jewish employees. How easy it has been to forget the origins of terrorism in that part of the world.

By 1948, America had joined forces with the Zionists, with Truman's pledge to Chaim Weizman to support the declaration of the Jewish State on May 15. By April the US had begun its unceasing and unconditional shipments of arms to Jewish organizations. By May there were almost 200,000 Palestinian refugees, the battles that will involve Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians and Egyptians commenced, and over the next several years we were treated to the Israeli massacres in Gaza, Qalqilya, Kafr Qaasim, Khan Yunis, As-Sammu', arson attacks on the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and the diversion of the Jordan river. In 1963 the PLO constitution was drafted at a summit of Arab states in Cairo, although it took another 11 years for the UN and the Arab League to recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the people of Palestine. In 1967 the work of the Zionists was done with the complete occupation of the rest of Palestine.

Whatever escalations have taken place on the part of the Palestinians must be seen against this historical background. It has been 36 years since the UN adopted General Assembly Resolution 3379 condemning Zionism as a form of racism. It has been 30 since UN Resolution 36/226 was passed declaring opposition to the Israeli policy of settlement in Palestine. It has been 18 years since three leaders, Presidents Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat began discussions that could have lead to the cessation of hostilities and a modicum of redress for the people of Palestine. It has been 16 years since President Rabin was assassinated by one of his own people. For the record, the PLO agreed to the conditions negotiated by President Clinton pending clarifications. With Sharon's visit to Al-Aqsa mosque and his election, that agreement was called off by both sides. It was Sharon, after all, who was responsible for the massacre of more than 800 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps outside Beirut in 1982. An act which prompted his resignation as minister of Defense after an Israeli commission held him responsible. And it was Sharon who re-ignited the flames of hatred in Israel during a fragile moment when the prospect for peace had come into an albeit distant view.

Israel has a right to exist. Not because there is agreement that the foundation of that nation was right, but because time moves forward, not backwards. Unless we are thinking about returning all the national treasures plundered by the British Commonwealth from all the countries it colonized, unless we are talking about taking the influence of France out of the continent of Africa, unless we are discussing the return to pride of place for the Native Americans in the United States, and reparations to the families of Africans brought to the United States as slaves, unless we are at the table to discuss all these and more.......we cannot talk about an absence of the nation of Israel. What has been done, has been done. The task at hand is figuring out how close we can come to rectifying the injustices that have been perpetrated against the people of Palestine. How compensate them for the loss of land, homes, livelihood and children? And how to accomplish all this while allowing Israelis the safe conduct of their own lives.

Contrary to popular belief here in America, "the world" made no agreements with the Arab nations. Astonishing as it might seem, a collection of short-sighted officials from the United States, Britain and France, do not constitute the world. This moment is about Palestine and Israel. There are no "rebels" here. There are people who have been crushed by superior force and who must now figure out how to live beside and despite that force. This moment is about the inalienable right of the people of Palestine to self-determination, to freedom, and the re-establishment of normalcy to the lives of their children, within the context of reconstructionand reconciliation with a powerful, powerfully supported and certainly well-armed neighbor. This moment is also about laying the groundwork for allaying the fears of Israelis.

37 years ago, another Palestinian leader stood before the United Nations and stated the circumstances under which Palestinians were living and asserted the rights of the people whom he represented. That man, Yasser Arafat,who went on to win the Nobel Prize for Peace along with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, is not recorded as having threatened anybody with cryptonite, cyanide capsules or suicide bombers. On Friday, another Palestinian leader,President Mahmoud Abbas will ask that, in the face of repeated failure to get any agreement from Israel for the basis of talks, and the failure of the Quartet to come up with a plan that is acceptable to all sides, the only non-violent move left to his people is to go the United Nations and ask that his country be recognized. 193 people who represent the world come to vote on a matter that has blighted history for more than a century. Barack Obama has the opportunity to be a one-term president who, nonetheless, gave his all for peace. Or, he can be a two-term president who pissed away his one chance at it for the sake of domestic policies that are inextricably bound to the foreign policy of an ally he has never controlled.

Yes, America has a seat on the Security Council and yes, the US Congress has threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and to any UN agency that treats Palestine as a state with voting privileges in that agency. It sounds frightening, but only when we fail to consider the numbers. Out of a world population of 6,830,586,985, the three permanent members of the Security Council who have either indicated that they would use their veto against Palestine (US) or have not yet declared what their vote will be at that level (France and the UK), represent 469,467,118 people. That leaves us with roughly 6,361,119,867 people represented by the member countries (including the Russian Federation and China), who, to a greater or lesser extent, support the recognition of Palestine. The numbers, then, are on the side of Palestine.

In 2009, a small island nation called Sri Lanka told the United States where it could put its money and its rhetoric, ended thirty years of war and now, in a state of peace, and with the aid of China, enjoys a thriving economy. Palestine, too, has friends in other places. It can and will do the same. It will achieve statehood and, in time, peace with Israel. And people around the world will no longer care who wins the American presidential elections.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

‘Guam must develop a self-sustaining economy’

THURSDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2011 00:32 BY GERALDINE CASTILLO | VARIETY NEWS STAFF

WITH the impending military buildup and the downturn in countries that have sustained Guam's economy, an economics expert

University of Guam Economics Professor Dr. Roseanne Jones was the guest speaker during the Association of Government Accountants Guam Chapter's monthly membership meeting at the Outrigger Guam Resort. Matt Weiss / Variety

points out this can be the chance for the island to develop its own self-sustaining economy.

University of Guam Economics Professor Dr. Roseanne Jones was the guest speaker during the Association of Government Accountants Guam Chapter's monthly membership meeting at the Outrigger Guam Resort, presenting her lecture on “Guam Economic Development: Trade and Demographic Indicators.”

Jones spoke about the physical manifestations of an improvement of trade and the importance of Guam, citing the developments being made at the A.B. Won Pat International Airport and the Port Authority of Guam.

“There's a new cement company that's coming to the Port area,” said Jones. “You can say, 'Well why is it that we get so excited about cement?' [But] these are the very key fundamental ingredients of economic development. The building going on, the capacity to build – that's what excites me ... regional trade.”

Jones also spoke about the downturn in Japan and the United States.

“Certainly [these are] difficult times for both of those nations, and it is a difficult time for Guam. It’s unprecedented that we have had both major nations that have been trading partners or countries that we've relied on for the two major sectors of our economy – tourism and federal investments in military – both not in the position to be spreading to the West like they used to,” Jones stated.

Opportunity

Despite that downturn, it presents an opportunity for Guam to look within itself to develop the economy instead of relying on the other countries to sustain us.

“For the first time, we may have this door opening where we can really begin to think about how we sustain ourselves,” said Jones.

“We've got the beginnings of domestic demand, we've got the beginnings of a solid infrastructure … but we have a momentum building and we have an opportunity to look to ourselves and say, 'Hey, what do we have and how can we make the most of what we have?’”

Jones pointed out the many things Guam already has in order to develop its self-sustaining economy, from the foundations of infrastructure and the growing educated population to the beginning of a hub of regional trade with island neighbors.

“We know that Japan and the United States will always be there,” said Jones. “But not with the same level and intensity that they once were.”

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

America's Costly War Machine

Published on Monday, September 19, 2011 by The Los Angeles Times

Fighting the war on terror compromises the economy now and threatens it in the future.

Ten years into the war on terror, the U.S. has largely succeeded in its attempts to destabilize Al Qaeda and eliminate its leaders. But the cost has been enormous, and our decisions about how to finance it have profoundly damaged the U.S. economy.Wounded soldiers attend the opening of the Center for the Intrepid in San Antonio, Texas on January 29, 2007. To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Ben Sklar / Getty Images)

Many of these costs were unnecessary. We chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan with a small, all-volunteer force, and we supplemented the military presence with a heavy reliance on civilian contractors. These decisions not only placed enormous strain on the troops but dramatically pushed up costs. Recent congressional investigations have shown that roughly 1 of every 4 dollars spent on wartime contracting was wasted or misspent.

To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon spending spree that accompanied it and a battery of new homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11.

How have we paid for this? Entirely through borrowing. Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001. And not only did we fail to pay as we went for the wars, theGeorge W. Bush administration also successfully pushed to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, which added further to the debt. This toxic combination of lower revenues and higher spending has brought the country to its current political stalemate.

There is only one other time in U.S. history that a war was financed entirely through borrowing, without raising taxes: when the Colonies borrowed from France during the Revolutionary War.

Even if we were to leave Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, our war debt would continue to rise for decades. Future bills will include such things as caring for military veterans, replacing military equipment, rebuilding the armed forces and paying interest on all the money we have borrowed. And these costs won't be insignificant.

History has shown that the cost of caring for military veterans peaks decades after a conflict. Already, half of the returning troops have been treated in Veterans Administration medical centers, and more than 600,000 have qualified to receive disability compensation. At this point, the bill for future medical and disability benefits is estimated at $600 billion to $900 billion, but the number will almost surely grow as hundreds of thousands of troops still deployed abroad return home.

And it isn't just in some theoretical future that the wars will affect the nation's economy: They already have. The conditions that precipitated the financial crisis in 2008 were shaped in part by the war on terror. The invasion of Iraq and the resulting instability in the Persian Gulf were among the factors that pushed oil prices up from about $30 a barrel in 2003 to historic highs five years later, peaking at $140 a barrel in current dollars in 2008. Higher oil prices threatened to depress U.S. economic activity, prompting the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and loosen regulations. These policies were major contributors to the housing bubble and the financial collapse that followed.

Now, the war's huge deficits are shaping the economic debate, and they could keep Congress from enacting another round of needed stimulus spending to help the country climb out of its economic malaise. Many of these war debts are likely to continue to compromise America's investments in its future for decades.

For years, the public failed to adequately question how it was possible that we could spend and borrow so freely, with so few consequences. But now the painful legacy of these decisions has become clear. Throughout the past decade, Congress routinely approved huge "emergency" appropriations to pay for the wars. This process preempted the usual scrutiny and debate that accompanies large spending bills. In part, this is because the U.S. lacks the basic accounting tools necessary for informed debate. Our future debts from the war are not listed anywhere in the federal government's budget. We don't even know for certain where the money has been spent. The Pentagon hasn't produced a clean financial audit in the 20 years since government auditing began, nor has it developed an accounting framework that would allow an assessment of the future costs of current decisions. This has almost certainly increased the overall cost of the war.

Our response to Sept. 11 has weakened both the current economy and our future economic prospects. And that legacy of economic weakness — combined with the erosion of the credibility of our military power and of our "soft power" — has undermined, rather than strengthened, our national security.

Nearly 10 years into the Afghanistan war, the violence in that country shows little sign of abating. August was the deadliest month of the war yet for U.S. troops, and there were also multiple attacks on Afghan security forces, government officials and civilians. The surge in violence comes as NATO is drawing down and handing over security control to national forces. But tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel are scheduled to remain in Afghanistan through the end of 2014.

The costs of fighting the war on terror have already been far higher than they needed to be. The U.S. should not take on even greater war debt without understanding the true costs of continuing down that path.

Monday, September 19, 2011

University of Guam Tuition Fee Increase Averted

TUESDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 00:47 BY THERESE HART | VARIETY NEWS STAFF

ANSWERING the pleas from University of Guam students who protested against a 5 percent tuition rate hike during a public hearing held at the Mangilao campus, lawmakers quickly passed emergency Bill 308 during the last day of session yesterday, waiving the requirement of a public hearing and appropriating $1.36 million from the Supplemental Appropriations Revenue Fund.

The bill’s sponsor, appropriations chairman Senator Ben Pangelinan, yesterday said the funds should avert a tuition fee increase. The Board of Regents will meet next Thursday, Sept. 29 to decide on the tuition increase proposal.

UOG officials said a tuition increase was necessary because although they requested $29 million for Fiscal Year 2012, Governor Eddie Baza Calvo only identified $26 million. UOG current funding level is $27 million. Some of the shortfall, said UOG officials, needed to be captured, hence the proposed 5 percent tuition increase. Calvo’s funding cut to the university would not have been able to operate at its current funding level next year. Although the $1.36 million would stave off a tuition increase, UOG would still need to cut $1.9 million and is working toward financial belt-tightening measures.

The bill also identifies $1.5 million to pay for tax year 2010 A-status returns. A-status returns are income tax returns certified by the Department of Revenue and Taxation as ready for payment.

The $2.8 million will come from anticipated additional Section 30 funds requested from Gov. Calvo for Fiscal Year 2012, which, Pangelinan said, his office discovered only after sending a Freedom Of Information Act request to the Bureau of Budget and Management Research. Pangelinan’s request was made Sept. 6. Director John Rios responded to the FOIA request on Sept. 16.

Pangelinan blasted Calvo, saying he was less than transparent when he submitted the budget bill which included $50 million in Section 30 funds to lawmakers, not disclosing to lawmakers the additional $3 million. These funds are part of the revenue stream and included in the General Fund.

The actual Section 30 advance request amount Calvo requested from the Department of Interior was $53 million, according to a Sept. 1 letter from Calvo to Assistant Secretary of the Interior Tony Babauta.

Public Law 30-219 mandates that no later than 15 days after the end of the third quarter of each fiscal year, the governor must provide the Speaker and the Office of Finance and Budget a report of all correspondence with the United States Treasury, Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs and other entities of the U.S. government related to prior and future fiscal year estimates and reconciliation of duties, fees, and taxes (referred to as Section 30 funds), remitted prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year.

During session, Pangelinan said in spite of the law, Governor Calvo continues to circumvent it by not submitting information to the Legislature.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Commission on Decolonization Meets this Week

By Nick Delgado from KUAM.com

Guam - It was established 15 years ago and for the first time in several years the Commission on Decolonization will be meeting. The 24th Guam Legislature created the Commission to examine the various political status options for Guam, which included status quo, statehood and commonwealth.

The meeting will be held at Adelup Friday, September 23 at 9 in the morning. Island leaders have long argued Guam must settle the question of its political status.

Serving US Poor a Cold Cup of Bitter Tea

"It seems the only federal monies the right wing in this country likes to see spent is for state-sponsored executions and subsidies for corporations and the wealthy."

You may have been as aghast as I was at some comments from right-wing tea party types in the audiences of the two recent Republican presidential debates. At one debate, audience members enthusiastically cheered the fact that Texas Governor and presidential hopeful Rick Perry, has executed 234 people during his tenure. Then, at a debate sponsored by Tea Party Express, some loudly cheered "yeah!" in response to a debate moderator's question about whether candidate Ron Paul would leave a young man without health care to die rather than to intervene with a federally sponsored health program. It seems the only federal monies the right wing in this country likes to see spent is for state-sponsored executions and subsidies for corporations and the wealthy.

Do you wonder if they actually know how desperate people are? Do the right wing, the extreme candidates, and the tea party policymakers who continue to advocate a dismantling of the social safety net in favor of tax breaks for oil companies and billionaires know the real state of economic distress in this country? Are they shielded from the reality of rising poverty in the United States by their own privilege, or are they rendered irrational and heartless by a distorted ideology that supports principles contrary to the fairness and equality to which our nation strives?

The Problem: Increasing Poverty and Inequality

The September 13 U.S. Census Bureau's release of 2010 data on poverty, income and health insurance, really oughta serve as a slap in the face with a cold wet tea bag. Revealing an alarming downward trend which mirrors the right's anti-people policy preferences, poverty in the United States is soaring and children are suffering the most. In the world's wealthiest nation, over a quarter of all of our children aged 0-5 years are poor and overall poverty continues to rise at an alarming rate. The poverty rate grew from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent in 2010, and the number of people in poverty grew by 2.6 million, up from 43.6 million to 46.2 million. The poverty rate is the highest since 1993, and the number of people in poverty is the greatest since records began 52 years ago.

Further, the percentage of children in poverty nationally increased from 20.7 percent in 2009 to 22 percent in 2010. The number of children in poverty rose by 950,000, from 15.5 million to 16.4 million. Children are four times more likely to be poor in the United States than our seniors. And the median income of their parents is down. Median household income in 2010 declined from 2009 by $1,154, or 2.3 percent. Those in poverty are getting poorer and the middle class is shrinking.

The conservative right tends to use our children as excuses for deficit hysteria and for dismantling Medicaid and Social Security. Yet the cold hard reality is that our children are in need of more food, more family income, and more shelter, and are getting instead only more poverty and hunger. Dismantling social safety net programs under the guise of helping our children through decreasing their future debt burden is a cynical argument at best.

In truth, it is only our social safety net programs that kept millions more American children and adults out of poverty. Government programs such as unemployment insurance, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit on household income played a critical role in keeping the poverty rate from rising even more dramatically. In 2010, 3.9 million Americans, including 1.7 million children, were lifted out of poverty because of food stamps, while 3.2 million Americans were kept out of poverty by unemployment insurance benefits. Social Security provided a safety net from poverty to 20.3 million of us. Medicaid, the HalfInTen campaign tells us, provided health care to 48.6 million seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income children and families who may otherwise have had none. And, were Earned Income Tax Credit counted in the official poverty measure, it would show that the credit helped lift 5.4 million people out of poverty.

One final counter to right-wing nonsense about government spending impoverishing our children and our middle class. Although those lacking health insurance increased from 49 million in 2009 to 50 million in 2010, and employment-based health coverage continued to decline, children were protected from this downward trend because Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) covered them. And, the Obama health care reform act, so much maligned by the right wing, enabled 18-24 year-olds to actually increase their health coverage by 2.0 percentage points.

The Solutions: Green Public Jobs, Unions and Bringing War Dollars Home

Until the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, have jobs to return to, the trend of increasing poverty, hardship and inequality can only continue. We need a comprehensive federal jobs package and we need it, as the President says, "right now." President Obama'sAmerican Jobs Act, is a good start. It recognizes that we need public money invested in jobs that will not only employ people, but that will fix our crumbling infrastructure. It recognizes the obscene gap between the super-rich and the rest of us. It recognizes the value in saving the jobs of our valued teachers and first responders. It recognizes that this must be paid for from those who have benefited the most and sacrificed the least in this recession: the super-wealthy and the big corporations.

In order to make significant progress filling the 14-million job hole that we need to fill, we must go farther. The U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus also have some plans that will do just that. Key pieces of these plans are: the revival of American manufacturing, creation of a national infrastructure bank, jobs for youth, green industry development, support for labor organizing and higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations.

Finally, if we were to bring home the billions of dollars now being spent in devastating and costly wars overseas, we could pay for the significant investments that must be made at home. These are investments that must be made if we maintain the hope of becoming a nation of shared prosperity in a world of shared prosperity. Note that in Afghanistan, we tax payers are paying $1 million per year per U.S. soldier. Consider that for that same money, we could bring that soldier home, employ her or him in a well-paying green job for $50,000 per year and similarly employ 19 more unemployed Americans.

In addition to this year's price tag of $122 billion for war in Afghanistan, we may forget that we are still paying almost $50 billion just this year for the continuing war in Iraq, with almost 50,000 troops still there. Think of how that money could better be spent on jobs and income security for us at home. The National Priorities Project offers analysis of what we could instead be paying for at home to help raise our economy out of economic hardship. They point out that 42 states and the District of Columbia are facing serious budget shortfalls for Fiscal Year 2012 and that this year’s spending alone on the Afghanistan war would more than pay to fill the gaps in these state budgets, keeping and created desperately needed jobs and public benefits.

Yes We Can

President Obama's 2008 campaign slogan, Yes We Can, ought to be revived. There is a way out of this misery. Many millions are suffering unduly as the tea party and its ilk offer us only in cold cups of bitter tea while serving up fountains of champagne to the super-rich, Wall Street and big corporations. Don't drink the tea, instead support the above ideas and get us working again and fight for our children to be well, healthy and able to participate in a thriving future.