Latest news with #GreenNewDeal
Arabian Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- Arabian Post
Another Indian Origin Left Democrat Saikat Chakrabarti Is Creating Waves In U.S.
By Nitya Chakraborty The Left wing section in the Democratic Party in the United States of America led by Senator Bernie Sanders is on upswing even though the party establishment seems clueless to deal effectively with the challenge thrown by the second term President Donald Trump to the very existence of its rival party. After the stunning victory of the 33 year old Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for the New York mayoral election in November this year, another Indian origin Democrat Saikat Chakrabarti is creating waves in the American politics by announcing his intention to stand against the former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the veteran of the Democratic Party establishment in the November 2026 midterm elections. This has created furore in both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party leadership as Saikat carries a background of a successful activist who has been playing an important role in transforming the Democratic Party since the 2016 presidential elections in which he was associated with Bernie Sanders's campaign .Sanders could not win the nomination butSaikat was noted for his expertise in leading the election campaign. Starting with Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential run, Saikat Chakrabarti has played an important role in the left-wing insurgency that has recently attempted to remake the Democratic Party. After working on Sanders's 2016 campaign, Saikat managed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) successful 2018 challenge against Joe Crowley. He went on to serve as her chief of staff, launching her Green New Deal proposal. Now Saikat is running for Congress himself, challenging former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, in California's 11th Congressional District. Saikat says that the Democrats' embarrassing loss to Trump last year inspired him to run. He hopes to build a national movement around an ambitious program called the 'Mission for America' that aims to transform the US economy through aggressive government planning and investment — a kind of spiritual successor to the Green New Deal. In a recent interview to the American left magazine Jacobin, Saikat said, back in the 1970s, America felt unstoppable. We had just put a man on the moon, built the interstate highway system, had decades of rising living standards and wages, and were including more and more people in society through the civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, and other movements. We were doing so much that we actually had immigration offices all over the world that were recruiting millions of people to come help build this country. That's how my parents got here. One of my dad's friends took him to one of these offices in Calcutta where a nice staffer pitched him on the American Dream and got him to apply for a visa right there on the spot. Elaborating on his immigrant background , Saikat says 'My parents came here with less than $20. They grew up poor in India, especially my father. After being displaced during Partition, his family of ten squatted in an abandoned house before 'upgrading' to a one-bedroom apartment. He often went days without food. But he was lucky to have a solid education because my grandfather was a teacher who ended up starting the local public school for all the neighbourhood kids. Saikat said ,In the United States, my dad was able to get a job within a week of arriving despite having no connections, and, on a single income, was able to afford a solid, middle-class life for me and my family. Growing up, I had everything I needed: a roof over my head, food on the table, and a great public school education in Fort Worth, Texas. He said 'My parents' story has always stuck with me precisely because of how common it actually was. Millions of immigrants who came here during that time had a similar story. So did hundreds of millions of Americans who, starting with the New Deal and all the way to the 1970s, accomplished one of the biggest leaps in incomes and living standards that humanity has ever seen. I've always been awed by that accomplishment, and the core driver of my politics and work over the last decade has been the belief that we can do it again. About his bringing up in USA, Saikat said 'I was pretty apolitical, though, growing up and through college. After college, I came out to San Francisco the first chance I got to work in tech because I naively believed tech would be a way to fix the biggest problems in the world. After working in tech for a few years though, I knew the answers didn't lie there. So I quit. It feels cheesy to say this today, but I actually made a list of the problems I wanted to help do something about. It said: inequality, poverty, and climate change. Then Bernie Sanders announced his run for president in 2016 talking about exactly those things, and he started filling stadiums with people excited for something new. So I joined!' Saikat got name as he was the prime mover of the Green New Deal was proposed by the leftwing congress members According to Saikat, the Green New Deal was our vision of what Democrats should stand for: a plan to invest in upgrading and developing our economy by tackling climate change, creating millions of high-wage jobs in the process. 'While Alexandra, Corbin, I, and others were working at Justice Democrats and then on AOC's race, Zack Exley was busy running New Consensus, the think tank he and I had started a few months after Justice Democrats. We had looked around for a think tank that was working on the details of how to radically reverse the decline of the working class while building a clean economy. We didn't find any (though many economists were talking about the need to do this), so we started one. The Green New Deal came out of the work Zack and others did at New Consensus.' Once AOC won, Saikat and his team had a three-pronged approach to launching the Green New Deal. He worked on the inside to build political support, while the Sunrise Movement, whose political team he had met through campaign work, worked on the outside to mount a pressure campaign on representatives and presidential candidates. At the same time, New Consensus worked to flesh out the ideas in the Green New Deal and socialize them with academics and journalists (which was a big reason people like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman came out in favour of it when it launched). Saikat said that experience made him realize how powerful it can be to have people on the inside working with a movement on the outside who are all aligned on a vision for the country. And he learned that it is easier than we think to get new ideas to go somewhere in DC, especially right now when people are hungry for some vision of a future. If we could do the Green New Deal with just one member of Congress, what could be possible with dozens or hundreds of Congress members acting with real purpose and urgency?, he said. Saikat left AOC's office at the end of 2019 after ruffling a few too many feathers in DC and moved back to San Francisco. Since then, he has been working on the Mission for America at New Consensus, which is a successor to the Green New Deal . Saikat said that his plan when he left Washington DC and moved back to San Francisco was to continue working at New Consensus and continue supporting political candidates who rejected the corporate status quo in favour of championing working-class people. I wasn't looking to be a congressional candidate myself. But this last election changed his mind. He thought the fact that Trump made more inroads into the traditional working-class, multiracial Democratic base than any GOP presidential candidate would be a wake-up call for Democrats — especially since they couldn't dismiss his victory as a fluke like they did the first time around. He thought Democrats might take the threat of Trump and the authoritarian right seriously, since they repeatedly told us during the election that a Trump win would slide the US into authoritarianism and fascism. But then he saw how Democratic leaders actually acted in the face of a Trump win and Trump's brazen attempts to consolidate power. He heard Nancy Pelosi interviewed after this election saying Democrats did nothing wrong and didn't need to change. According to this young Democrat, Democrats need a new economic vision, and they need new leadership. Here in San Francisco, even those who have supported Pelosi for decades and deeply respect her past work believe it's time for change. But because of the deeply hierarchical nature and deference to seniority in the Democratic Party, no one else is willing to risk their political career by running against her. 'So it was one of those, 'If not me, then who?' moments, and I felt a duty to run.' Saikat said 'I'm running because I want to help spark a national movement of candidates who are willing to fight for a new economy and society that will dramatically improve working people's lives. No single candidate can do this alone, and I am recruiting others around the country to join me — a handful for 2026 and a wave for 2028. That huge leap in incomes and living standards that started with the New Deal and went into the 1970s — we can do that again and do it while building a clean and fair economy. And if we don't — if we can't prove that democracy can deliver what people need — then people will vote for the authoritarian who promises to do it himself.'' More than 15 months are left for the midterm elections in America scheduled in November 2026. But already preparations and campaigns have started. Nancy Pelosi, now 85, has the longest term as a US congress member. She is known belonging to the centrist group of Democrats including Joe Biden and Barack Obama. The centrists are feeling uneasy, but openly they are not taking any position against Saikat Chakrabarti. Saikat has the advantage that he represents the aspirations of the white American youth also , apart from the dream of immigrant youth. He went to Harvard, did big jobs in IT sector, set up his own company and then joined politics to make a difference. The younger population in the West Coast are rallying around Saikat. His group of campaigners are marketing their New Deal for the youth. There is an air of optimism in San Francisco 's political environment. Many veteran Democrats want Pelosi to retire. Saikat is involved full time in propagating his Mission for America to the Democratic Party support base irrespective of the outcome of the midterm polls in November 2026. (IPA Service)
New York Post
20-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump defied the world with truth — and upended the status quo
In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down. There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo. The unthinkable has become the banal. Take illegal immigration — remember the 10,000 daily illegal entries under former President Joe Biden? Recall the only solution was supposedly 'comprehensive immigration reform' — a euphemism for mass amnesties. Now, there is no such thing as daily new illegal immigration. It simply disappeared with common-sense enforcement of existing immigration laws — and a new president. How about the 40,000- to 50,000-soldier shortfall in military recruitment? Remember all the causes the generals cited for their inability to enlist soldiers: generational gangs, obesity, drugs and stiff competition with private industry? And now? In just six months, recruitment targets are already met; the issue is mostly moot. Why? The new Pentagon flipped the old, canceling its racist DEI programs and assuring rural, middle-class Americans — especially white males — that they were not systemically racist after all. Instead, they were reinvited to enlist as the critical combat cohort who died at twice their demographic share in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about the 'end of the NATO crisis,' supposedly brought on by a bullying United States? Now the vast majority of NATO members have met their pledges to spend 2% of GDP on defense, which will soon increase to 5%. Iconic neutrals like Sweden and Finland have become frontline NATO nations, arming to the teeth. The smiling NATO secretary-general even called Donald Trump the 'daddy' of the alliance. What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly 50 years? Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates — Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis — were supposedly too dangerous to provoke. Now? Most of its expeditionary terrorists are neutered, and their leaders are in hiding or dead. Iran has no air force, no real navy, no air defenses and no active nuclear-weapons program. Its safety apparently depends only on the mood of the United States or Israel on any given day not to fly into its airspace and take out its missiles, nuclear sites, generals or theocrats at will. What happened to the supposedly inevitable recession, hyperinflation, stock-market collapse, unemployment spikes and global trade war that last spring economists assured us would hit by summer? Job growth is strong, and April's inflation rate is the lowest in four years. GDP is still steady. The stock market hit a record high. Trade partners are renegotiating their surpluses with the United States. It turns out that staying in the US consumer market is the top priority of our trading partners. It seems their preexisting and mostly undisclosed profits were large enough to afford reasonable symmetrical tariffs. For now, news of tax cuts, deregulation, 'drill baby, drill' energy policies displacing Green New Deal strangulation and $8 trillion to $10 trillion in potential foreign investment has encouraged — rather than deterred — business. Then there were our marquee elite universities, whose prestige, riches and powerful alumni made them answerable to no one. And now, after the executive and congressional crackdown on their decades of hubris? Supposedly brilliant university presidents have resigned in shame. The public has caught on to their grant surcharge gouging. Campuses have backed off their arrogant defiance of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings. They are panicked about the public exposure of their systemic antisemitism. They are scrambling to explain away their institutionalized ideological bias and their tawdry profit-making schemes and mass recruitment of wealthy foreign students from illiberal regimes. So, the mighty Ivy League powerhouses are now humbling themselves to cut a deal to save their financial hides and hopefully return to their proper mission of disinterested education. What happened to the trans juggernaut of sex as a social construct and its bookend gospel that biological men could dominate women's sports? People woke up. They were no longer afraid to state that sex is binary and biologically determined — and that biological men who dominate women's sports are bullies, not heroes. Where are the millionaire scamming architects of BLM now? Where is the 'DEI now, tomorrow, and forever' conventional wisdom? Where are Professor Ibram X. Kendi and his $30,000 Zoom lessons on how to fight racism by being racist? They have all been exposed as the race hustlers they always were. Their creed that it is OK for supposed victims to be racist victimizers themselves was exposed as an absurd con. So, what flipped everything? We were living in an 'emperor has no clothes' make-believe world for the last few years. The people knew establishment narratives were absurd, and our supposed experts were even more ridiculous. But few — until now — had the guts to scream 'the emperor is naked' to dispel the fantasies. When they finally did, reality returned. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Boston Globe
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Boston's schools don't have to be mediocre
After all, the mayor controls the schools, because she appoints all the School Committee members. The buck truly stops at City Hall. Yet, with a mayoral election heating up, the quality of education in Boston Public Schools is shaping up to be at best a secondary issue in the race. Advertisement That's despite the fact that the Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In a poll conducted last year, most So why isn't education at the top of the mayoral agenda? There are deeply rooted reasons why schools, despite being the biggest single operating department in the budget and the most important city service, tend to be oddly absent from mayoral races in Boston. Advertisement First, perhaps, is history: Until 1991, Boston had an elected School Committee so mayors could legitimately claim that the schools weren't under their purview. A few years later, former mayor Tom Menino made news when he That was more than 30 years ago, though, and neither Menino nor any of his successors have ever in fact been judged harshly for the schools. Then there's the demographic reality that the number of voters who have a direct connection to the district has decreased, because there are fewer students in schools than there were a generation ago. Boston's population is about 650,000 and there are about There's also sheer political calculation: It's not lost on anyone that when former city councilor John Connolly tried to run as an education candidate in 2013, he lost. 'There's a disturbing culture in Boston politics where politicians believe that you can't win on schools and it can only be a divisive issue,' Finally, as this editorial board put it in the Advertisement That, at least, is a problem voters can end: by getting into the habit of demanding more. We can't afford to be defeatist. Especially in a post-pandemic world, in which many white collar workers can live anywhere, Boston needs schools that are good enough to hold on to residents and produce students who can succeed at college or in careers — and not just those able to land a seat at an exam school. In public debates, the candidates should be pressed on how, or if, they would How would they bring the third of students who regularly miss school back into the classroom? What would they do to stop fistfights (and worse) in the schools? Would they ban cell phones during the whole school day and if so, how would they enforce bans? How would they turn the downsizing of the schools — an inevitability, considering long-term enrollment declines — into an opportunity to make the remaining schools better? When she first ran for mayor four years ago, Mayor Michelle Wu had a lot to say about school buildings — she promised a 'Green New Deal' for dilapidated school facilities — and relatively little about what happens inside them, reflecting the kind of play-it-safe mentality Connolly described. Advertisement Her record in office is more encouraging: Wu has started the painful, but overdue process of shrinking the physical size of the district. She hired an impressive superintendent, Mary Skipper. She But violence in the schools — and Her main opponent, Josh Kraft, has called for more Those ideas should get a full airing. So should Wu's record. But families should make sure to tell the candidates their ideas and their concerns, too, and their priorities. The part we all can play in making the schools better is to demand more — to insist that B or C isn't good enough, and that we won't accept buck-passing from mayors. Advertisement Four years ago, Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
The National
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
BBC bias may well be unspoken but it exists
The Prof's dogged determination yesterday showed what can happen when an easy listening Radio Scotland programme ambles into a serious subject with a formidable contributor ready to stand his ground. He was determined to point out that 'fringe' causes like independence and Gaza are now mostly majority causes, yet casually placed way below the 'mainstream' concerns of the great and good in broadcasting's pecking order. Richard spoke about the preponderance of business over trade union voices on the BBC, the insidious presence of right-wing Tufton Street think tank types on Question Time and Debate Night … and the unfair way his own interview was being conducted. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: I went on the BBC today. Here's why it got fiery For that he got it in the neck. And gave back as good as he got. Yesterday's Mornings phone-in was about bias, bad judgement at the BBC and a decline in trust amongst viewers and listeners. Savaging the sole pro-indy, left-wing voice substantiated the accusations rather well. To be fair, Richard was asked on. I was too but didn't pick up the message till halfway through the show. So, it's true the left/indy position was sought out and 'heard'. But that's not enough. It's one thing to have a sole voice representing the Yes 'minority' (which as Richard pointed out, is a polling majority these days), it's quite another to be interrupted throughout like an annoying, foot-stamping, attention-grabbing, irritating toddler. From her tone, I'm not sure presenter Connie McLaughlin knew Richard's background beyond him being a National columnist (though strangely the paper's name was omitted from his description). For the record, Professor Richard Murphy from Sheffield University co-founded the Tax Justice Network and directs Tax Research UK. He co-created the Green New Deal and the concept of country-by-country reporting, used in more than 90 countries to identify tax abuse by multinational corporations. Not a guy to be shut down. And anyway, from 25 years' experience of live broadcasting at the BBC and Channel 4, it's totally counter-productive to interrupt or shut down a speaker accusing you of bias. Flexing the extra muscle wielded by a broadcaster flips the audience instantly onto the interviewee's side. The transcript of the exchange has done the rounds but the nub of the exchange was this: Richard: Let's just be clear. I've heard a programme which is entirely about how good the BBC is from BBC editors and producers. That is bias. Connie: Have you not been speaking for the past eight minutes or so? Because I don't think then that's accurate. Richard: Yes, and every time I do, you interrupt me. Connie: Come on. Richard, that's not fair. Come on. Listen, I'm going to give you a minute and a half, but I have got to move on. That's part of my job, so you can continue on for a minute and a half. There you go. Richard: You aren't rationing others… Connie: You're eating into your minute and a half … Richard: The BBC is biased against the nationalist cause in Scotland. It is biased against the Palestinian cause and its right to have a state. It is biased in favour of Israel very clearly. It is biased with regard to its output in favour of the wealthy of this country. And that is the accusation that most people in this country have against the BBC, which is why they won't listen to it, because they do not get objective reporting. Wow. It was powerful listening because bias was being demonstrated not just discussed. And because another contributor, former BBC Scotland political correspondent Brian Taylor, was correctly asked to respond. He insisted he'd never been asked by the BBC to tailor a report to fit an agenda dictated by managers. He observed Unionists also complained of BBC bias and finished: 'The Beeb did not steer me for one scintilla of one second.' Actually, that was my experience too – it doesn't mean management bias didn't exist. IN my 25 years working for the BBC, I only experienced one active steer by London in 1997, after Scots had voted out every Tory MP, meaning Her Madge's Opposition at Westminster would have no representation in any Scottish election programmes if we played it by the usual book. READ MORE: Half of Aberdeen homes fall in value as 'oil capital' status diminishes No MPs should mean no microphone. But London insisted the Tory voice should be heard despite their election wipe-out and that they should be the second speaker in any political discussion. I decided I didn't get that memo but did let Tories speak, for the same limited time as every other minority party. No-one complained. But the bigger point is that no-one gets to broadcast for the BBC without internalising its collective outlook and corporate stance. Things that deviate too far from a comfortable, middle-of-the-road stance simply feel wrong. No-one has to say anything. Especially after the BBC's clash with Tony Blair during the Iraq War over the 'dodgy dossier', when popular director-general Greg Dyke was forced to walk the plank. After that Auntie shrank from any confrontation with government and the higher echelons of the BBC and the Tory Party became interchangeable. The corporation's timorousness and insistence on the most wooden version of 'balance' were palpable to all staff. Take the indyref. I got a call from a producer in 2014 explaining that BBC Scotland couldn't cover the phenomenal increase in Yes activity unless there was some grassroots No activity they could film as well. Did I know of any? Control by unspoken diktat is how all corporate culture works everywhere. Nothing needs to be said. But back to the programme. Clearly, producers imagined much of their discussion would centre on the Beeb's decision to sack MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace for alleged sexual harassment and John Torode for an alleged racist remark, and to allow a 13-year-old Palestinian lad to accurately describe the living hell of Gaza, where his dad has worked for Gaza's Hamas-run government. A BBC review into the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone concluded there was nothing 'in the narrator's scripted contribution to the programme that breached the BBC's standards' or evidence his 'father or family influenced the content of the programme'. Abdullah's parentage was a relatively small problem which could easily have been signposted, letting viewers decide on his story for themselves. READ MORE: Former top judge says court would 'likely' rule Israel is committing genocide in Gaza But oh no. The BBC removed the documentary from iPlayer. As ex-BBC journalist Karishma Patel asked: 'If the BBC is serious about signposting the relevant connections of every contributor, why not tell us when an interviewee has served in the Israeli military? Why not highlight the ICC arrest warrant out for Benjamin Netanyahu whenever he's mentioned?' Indeed. And while we're at it, what was the problem with Gaza: Doctors Under Attack – another excellent, disturbing, passionate documentary dropped by the BBC in case it did 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality – even though subsequently broadcast by Channel 4 without any formal complaints. Roger Bolton – former Radio 4 presenter told MacLaughlin that the biggest danger to the BBC is its 'on the one hand, on the other' style of reporting. 'When facts dictate the truth of one side,' he said, 'the Beeb should take a stand.' Correct. But he went on to praise the BBC as great value, 'costing less than a cappuccino a week'. Whit? This very comparison presumes a middle-class audience – when in fact, women account for three-quarters of criminal convictions for watching TV without a licence. Why? According to a BBC-commissioned report it's because women are more likely to head single-parent households; more likely to be in when an inspector visits and more likely to be living in poverty or low-paid work and struggling with bills. £174.50 is a lot for many people yet non-payment is treated as a criminal offence, unlike any other unpaid household bill. This is Auntie's biggest problem. It is so very special. A bit like M&S food. It does not just produce programmes. It produces BBC programmes. Unashamedly targeting middle to upper-class consumers may work for a private company. But not for a public service broadcaster. Some views, voices and causes are quite plainly the wrong leaves on the line for BBC Scotland. What's needed is a heartfelt apology to Richard Murphy. No-one's holding their breath.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rounds, GOP holdout, says he'll back Trump's funding cuts package
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he'll support a package of more than $9 billion in cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting after making a deal with the Trump administration. Rounds said Tuesday that he worked with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on a deal that would redirect some funding approved under the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. 'We have an agreement with OMB to resource the funds from other already allocated funding through what had been [former President] Biden's Green New Deal program, and we'll take that money and we'll reallocate it back into the tribes to take care of these radio stations that have been granted this money for the next two years,' Rounds told reporters Tuesday. Rounds had previously held off from backing the package, citing concerns about how tribal stations would fare under President Trump's proposed public media cuts. The shift comes as top Senate Republicans are ramping up work to lock down support for Trump's package to claw back previously congressionally approved funds. Republicans can afford to lose three votes in the Senate. The bill, which passed the House last month, calls for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Congress has until July 18 to pass the legislation under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House last month that allows the Senate to approve the funding cuts with a simple majority vote, bypassing expected Democratic opposition. While the CPB provides some funding to NPR and PBS, which have come under heavy GOP scrutiny as the party has leveled allegations of bias against the media organizations, Republicans in both chambers have raised concerns the cuts could have a disproportionate effect on rural and tribal stations. Asked Tuesday whether a parallel deal for nontribal broadcasters was also in the works, Rounds said he is 'not aware of any of those.' 'The ones that I was concerned with were specifically these tribal grants. I think there were 14 total,' Rounds said. 'Some of them might be 50 percent funded under this program,' Rounds said. 'Some of them are 80-85 percent funded.' 'They wouldn't have survived without this, but they provide emergency services information for some of the most rural parts of our country and some of the poorest counties in the United States.' Pressed on the legality of the move, Rounds argued the move to transfer the funds would be legal, 'according to OMB.''OMB has assured us that they believe that they do have the authority to make that transfer, and that the Department of the Interior has agreed to take the transfer and to place it directly in — through the Department of the Interior to these tribes,' he said.'But we know it's less than $10 million total, so it's not a huge sum of money compared to the rest of the rescissions package. But for me, it was very important.'The Trump administration has already faced a series of legal challenges over efforts to withhold congressionally approved funds. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
