The Fight for the 99 Percent

This week, I stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow Democrats in Congress, fighting to extend unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million Americans and to preserve a payroll tax cut for the American worker.
This fight is to ensure that the voice of the 99 percent -- the great majority of hard-working, honest Americans -- is heard in the halls of Congress over Republican proclamations that Medicare and Medicaid, social security, schools for our young, and every other indispensable social program must be gutted to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Republicans' refusal to act on anything other than tax cuts for the rich is an economic and moral failure of leadership -- it flies in the face of the fact that countless American families, a great cross-section of the 99 percent, are in utter crisis.
Last month, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the number of people living in poverty has reached an all-time high in the United States, despite our position as one of the wealthiest countries in the world. According to the report, "the number of people living in poverty in America rose by nearly 4 million to 43.6 million in 2009 -- the largest figure in the 51 years for which poverty estimates have been available."
Children are most directly affected by this crisis; an astounding one in five American kids live below the poverty line. Throughout the course of the 2009 downturn, the report explains, the number of children in the U.S. living in poverty rose by 1 million, increasing the children's percentage to an all-time high of 21.6 percent by year's end. The situation is even bleaker for black and Hispanic youth, whose poverty rates exceed the national average by 16.6 and 10.7 percentage points, respectively. We also know that poverty rates for certain Asian ethnicities are off the charts as well.
These numbers are heartbreaking; they demand fierce and urgent action.
As a member of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee and the U.S. House Budget Committee, as well as the Budget task force chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I authored the People's Budget in the 112th Congress. The People's Budget is a bold and innovative plan to eliminate our deficit and put American families back to work; the People's Budget saves Medicare and Medicaid, brings our troops home, ends our addiction to oil, transforms our nation's infrastructure, and guarantees that American industry is able to do what it does best -- dream big, innovate and win.
The 99 percent demand that Washington focus on the endemic problem of economic inequality in America. The People's Budget was ahead of the curve on these issues. The plan's unveiling was an urgent call to close the economic opportunity gap in America. The People's Budget -- first and foremost -- is a fair deal for working families. The plan forges a fair tax code, asking the wealthiest individuals, oil companies raking in record profits and Wall Street banks that gambled away our money to pay their fair share. The plan also thwarts skyrocketing health care costs and makes crucial investments in public education, transportation, infrastructure and R&D.
The plan's solutions to America's middle class crisis have been hailed by Jeffrey Sachs, widely considered to be the leading global economic advisor of his generation. Sachs wrote on the Huffington Post, "Their plan is humane, responsible, and most of all sensible, reflecting the true values of the American people and the real needs of the floundering economy."
Budgets speak to just more than analyses and data, they testify to our values as a nation. Where the Republican budget forsakes our solemn oath to protect seniors, the People's Budget guarantees their safety and security. Where the Republican budget forgets the steel in the spine of the American economy was laid by the middle class, the People's Budget guarantees full access to the American dream for all. Where the Republican budget explodes our national debt, the People's Budget creates a budget surplus.
With so many families in crisis this holiday season, I am particularly mindful of a quintessential American principle: I am my Brother's keeper. I am my Sister's keeper. When the programs that protect our nation's most vulnerable populations are the first to be brought to the chopping block by Republicans, we must consider whose brothers and sisters are really being kept.
This fundamental question drives my work in Congress this week and into the new year, when I will be sure to get to work on solutions to win the future for ourselves, our children and future generations to come.
That's what the 99 percent want. That's what the 99 percent deserve.

Shina's 99 percent?

It all began with a protest over illegal land sales and rigged elections. According to the investigative Chinese journal Caixin, the local government in Wukan village in southern Guangdong Province had earned over 700 million yuan (about $110 million) from selling collectively-owned farmland, but it disbursed only 550 yuan (roughly US$86) to each villager. Moreover, the highly unpopular village party secretary and director had rigged the local elections, managing to hold on to power for 40 years as a result.  The villagers had been unhappy about the situation for a number of years and have complained by petition since 2009. However, there was no resolution until they finally took to the streets in September.
The good news is that by late November after a few months of protest – some of it violent – the villagers succeeded in ousting the two village leaders. The Chinese media argued at the time that Guangdong, under Party Secretary Wang Yang (a candidate for the Standing Committee of the Politburo in the 2012-2013 leadership transition), was pursuing a new approach to social unrest, one that tried to “balance maintaining stability and basic rights while helping people to express their needs.”
The bad news is that the balance still isn’t quite right. In recent days, the Wukan villagers have seized control of the village, demonstrating against the alleged cover-up of police brutality that led to the death on December 11 of Xue Jinbo, a demonstration leader. The Chinese media have also gone dark. There’s no more talk about the new way of handling protests. On December 14, the acting mayor of Shanwei City Wu Zili said that in regards to organizations planning to “incite trouble,” the government is determined to crack down on the destruction of public property and the obstruction of official business. The local government is now trying to starve the villagers out by setting up five roadblocks with guards all around the village to prevent food and other resources from coming in and workers from leaving.
Eventually the siege will end – but the fundamental challenge to Beijing will not. Every year, despite the country’s impressive economic growth, the number of protests grows. By one estimate, Beijing now contends with 180,000 so-called “mass incidents.” The why of these protests is no mystery: the lack of the rule of law, transparency, and official accountability. These are the structural elements that define the country’s political system and allow corruption to flourish. In the Wukan case, the villagers are protesting corruption in both land sales and the electoral process. Whether the protests are over these issues or the environment or defective products, the root cause is the same.
Beijing’s take away from the Wukan protest probably won’t be much more than “It’s time to launch another [ineffective] anti-corruption campaign.” The real take away, however, is that it is time to listen to what Premier Wen Jiabao had to say a few months ago in Dalian: “We must govern the country by law… We need to uphold judicial justice…People’s democratic rights and interests prescribed in the Constitution must be protected. The most important ones are the right to vote and to stay informed about, participate in, and oversee government affairs.”
Put more bluntly, if the 5th generation of Party leaders doesn’t listen to Wen and seize the initiative on political reform, it’s looking more and more likely that the Chinese people will.
Elizabeth C. Economy is C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy and U.S.-China relations and author of the award-winning book, 'The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's Future.' She blogs at Asia Unbound, where this piece originally appeared.

It all began with a protest over illegal land sales and rigged elections. According to the investigative Chinese journal Caixin, the local government in Wukan village in southern Guangdong Province had earned over 700 million yuan (about $110 million) from selling collectively-owned farmland, but it disbursed only 550 yuan (roughly US$86) to each villager. Moreover, the highly unpopular village party secretary and director had rigged the local elections, managing to hold on to power for 40 years as a result. The villagers had been unhappy about the situation for a number of years and have complained by petition since 2009. However, there was no resolution until they finally took to the streets in September. The good news is that by late November after a few months of protest – some of it violent – the villagers succeeded in ousting the two village leaders. The Chinese media argued at the time that Guangdong, under Party Secretary Wang Yang (a candidate for the Standing Committee of the Politburo in the 2012-2013 leadership transition), was pursuing a new approach to social unrest, one that tried to “balance maintaining stability and basic rights while helping people to express their needs.” The bad news is that the balance still isn’t quite right. In recent days, the Wukan villagers have seized control of the village, demonstrating against the alleged cover-up of police brutality that led to the death on December 11 of Xue Jinbo, a demonstration leader. The Chinese media have also gone dark. There’s no more talk about the new way of handling protests. On December 14, the acting mayor of Shanwei City Wu Zili said that in regards to organizations planning to “incite trouble,” the government is determined to crack down on the destruction of public property and the obstruction of official business. The local government is now trying to starve the villagers out by setting up five roadblocks with guards all around the village to prevent food and other resources from coming in and workers from leaving. Eventually the siege will end – but the fundamental challenge to Beijing will not. Every year, despite the country’s impressive economic growth, the number of protests grows. By one estimate, Beijing now contends with 180,000 so-called “mass incidents.” The why of these protests is no mystery: the lack of the rule of law, transparency, and official accountability. These are the structural elements that define the country’s political system and allow corruption to flourish. In the Wukan case, the villagers are protesting corruption in both land sales and the electoral process. Whether the protests are over these issues or the environment or defective products, the root cause is the same. Beijing’s take away from the Wukan protest probably won’t be much more than “It’s time to launch another [ineffective] anti-corruption campaign.” The real take away, however, is that it is time to listen to what Premier Wen Jiabao had to say a few months ago in Dalian: “We must govern the country by law… We need to uphold judicial justice…People’s democratic rights and interests prescribed in the Constitution must be protected. The most important ones are the right to vote and to stay informed about, participate in, and oversee government affairs.” Put more bluntly, if the 5th generation of Party leaders doesn’t listen to Wen and seize the initiative on political reform, it’s looking more and more likely that the Chinese people will. Elizabeth C. Economy is C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy and U.S.-China relations and author of the award-winning book, 'The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's

It all began with a protest over illegal land sales and rigged elections. According to the investigative Chinese journal Caixin, the local government in Wukan village in southern Guangdong Province had earned over 700 million yuan (about $110 million) from selling collectively-owned farmland, but it disbursed only 550 yuan (roughly US$86) to each villager. Moreover, the highly unpopular village party secretary and director had rigged the local elections, managing to hold on to power for 40 years as a result.  The villagers had been unhappy about the situation for a number of years and have complained by petition since 2009. However, there was no resolution until they finally took to the streets in September.
The good news is that by late November after a few months of protest – some of it violent – the villagers succeeded in ousting the two village leaders. The Chinese media argued at the time that Guangdong, under Party Secretary Wang Yang (a candidate for the Standing Committee of the Politburo in the 2012-2013 leadership transition), was pursuing a new approach to social unrest, one that tried to “balance maintaining stability and basic rights while helping people to express their needs.”
The bad news is that the balance still isn’t quite right. In recent days, the Wukan villagers have seized control of the village, demonstrating against the alleged cover-up of police brutality that led to the death on December 11 of Xue Jinbo, a demonstration leader. The Chinese media have also gone dark. There’s no more talk about the new way of handling protests. On December 14, the acting mayor of Shanwei City Wu Zili said that in regards to organizations planning to “incite trouble,” the government is determined to crack down on the destruction of public property and the obstruction of official business. The local government is now trying to starve the villagers out by setting up five roadblocks with guards all around the village to prevent food and other resources from coming in and workers from leaving.
Eventually the siege will end – but the fundamental challenge to Beijing will not. Every year, despite the country’s impressive economic growth, the number of protests grows. By one estimate, Beijing now contends with 180,000 so-called “mass incidents.” The why of these protests is no mystery: the lack of the rule of law, transparency, and official accountability. These are the structural elements that define the country’s political system and allow corruption to flourish. In the Wukan case, the villagers are protesting corruption in both land sales and the electoral process. Whether the protests are over these issues or the environment or defective products, the root cause is the same.
Beijing’s take away from the Wukan protest probably won’t be much more than “It’s time to launch another [ineffective] anti-corruption campaign.” The real take away, however, is that it is time to listen to what Premier Wen Jiabao had to say a few months ago in Dalian: “We must govern the country by law… We need to uphold judicial justice…People’s democratic rights and interests prescribed in the Constitution must be protected. The most important ones are the right to vote and to stay informed about, participate in, and oversee government affairs.”
Put more bluntly, if the 5th generation of Party leaders doesn’t listen to Wen and seize the initiative on political reform, it’s looking more and more likely that the Chinese people will.
Elizabeth C. Economy is C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy and U.S.-China relations and author of the award-winning book, 'The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's Future.' She blogs at Asia Unbound, where this piece originally appeared.

What the 99% want: all power to the people’s assemblies!

In order to find out what the occupation movement is seeking we need to objectively pay attention to its background, its characteristics, its form of protest, its content, and finally the way it runs its occupied squares. This is a brief outline of the above, which comes to a logical conclusion as to what the 99% want.
Characteristics of the Occupy Movement
The very first characteristic of this movement is its negation. It says no to the capitalist system, as illustrated by its various slogans, such as “End Capitalism”, “Death to Capitalism”, “This society doesn’t work, let’s build a different society”, “Abolish capitalism”, “Another world is possible”, “A better world is possible”, and so on.
The Form and Content of the Movement
The second characteristic is the occupation form of protest. By mere occupation, the Occupy Movement made a political statement. The occupation has both a shape and an anti-establishment, anti-capitalism content to it. Once workers, for example, occupy the workplace, they claim power. Power is nothing but the ability to control. The workers claim power to control production. Occupy Wall Street was inspired by the occupation of Al-Tahrir (Liberation) Square in Cairo, by which people claimed the political power in Egypt. The occupation of Rothschild in Tel Aviv and the occupation of Puerta del Sol in Madrid were also inspired by the occupation of Liberation Square in Cairo.
Occupation is directly tied to freedom. It is tied to the restoration of power to the people, it is tied to direct control of society by the people. The Occupy Movement revealed its content via its occupational form; the abolishment of capitalist dictatorship and the installation of a free and equal society that is run by direct participation and decision-making by the people.
General Assembly vs Democracy
Anyone who walks by an Occupy community can participate in its decision-making body. The decision-making process of the general assembly (GA) might be slow and protracted, but we have to look at the bigger picture: the current GA decision-making body is simply the most free form of governance imaginable. The GA is a parallel, direct decision-making system, as opposed to the parliamentary democratic system, based as it is on the ballot box.
We need to remember that the occupiers are the people sitting in tents with absolute minimum resources. Everything is done on a volunteer basis. Even the way that the kitchen is organized is iconic to controlling the means of production. The decision-making process being utilized can be considered a snapshot of the world we want to create. The occupied territories are under constant pressure from the police, mayors, etc., but the occupiers are doing the very best they can to make their decision-making process as direct and participatory as possible.
Background to the Occupy Protests
The cause of current protests is the economic and capitalist crisis. In October 2008, the first $700bn bank bailout was passed by Congress while at that very moment there were 9.5 unemployed people in the US. The figures increased to $1.5 trillion for the bailout and 15 million unemployed by September 2009.
During this period, we had the workers of Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago occupying a plant in protest to layoffs (the first workers’ occupation in the US since the Great Depression); we had a riot igniting in Oakland as a result of the murder of Oscar Grant; we had food bank line-ups swelling up (there were 40 million on food stamps as of May 2010); we had Heather Newnam, 28, who committed suicide because she was faced with eviction.
In February of this year, we had the Wisconsin protests against the crackdown on labor bargaining rights. We have an estimated 50 million who have no medical insurance; we have the unbearable student loans which pose a barrier to continued education and an unbearable financial burden after finishing one’s degree. These are just a few examples of the kinds of events and situations that are indicative of the current state of affairs for the 99% .

1 percent have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles...

99 percent and new unbiased world

I’m one of 99 percent of people and I want a new world economic system that can assure my life.

We can’t vacate economic system use for the 1 percent who are consecrate everything: (our earth, our minds, our body, our social system, our air that we respire…) for their own self and nothing else.

In this blog I am going to write jest about this… it will be the first step of the long way to our new unbiased world.

Here we go.