10 Reasons to be Hopeful about 2009, and 3 Reasons to be Terrified

We’re entering a new year at a time unlike any other in recent memory. Here are 10 reasons I’m filled with hope as I look ahead at 2009 -- and three reasons I’m terrified.

1. Young people are stepping up. They know that they formed the backbone of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and that their work infused the country with the “Yes, we can” spirit. Now that these young people know what success feels like, many will be in it for the long haul.
2. Election protection is working. Grassroots vigilance, successful lawsuits, and media exposure are making voter suppression efforts less successful. More remains to be done, but the trends are in the right direction. (One terrifying note, though, is the death in a December 19 plane crash of GOP IT expert Michael Connell, who many believe was poised to reveal secrets related to vote stealing.)
3. There is now overwhelming support for universal health care. This grassroots commitment coupled with Obama’s leadership could make this the year when we finally overcome the roadblocks big insurance and drug corporations have placed in the way of progress. A majority of Americans favor a tax-supported single-payer system like Canada’s. The Obama plan, while it’s not single-payer, is nonetheless a good plan—as long as it retains the option for all Americans to join a public health insurance plan.
4. Corporate power is on the wane. Barack Obama ran for office without relying on corporate donations in a campaign that saw candidates competing to establish their tough-on-corporate-power bonafides. Even before the Wall Street meltdown, a majority of Americans thought corporations had too much power. The economic collapse is further eroding goodwill towards corporations and big finance, showing instead how both were instrumental in concentrating wealth, creating unsustainable bubbles, and putting our way of life at risk. After the trillions of taxpayer money paid out in corporate bailouts, the American people are looking for more fair and sustainable alternatives.
5. The failing economy is giving us lots of reasons to be terrified (see below) but also reasons to be hopeful. That rip-roaring economy we’re all supposed to be trying to bring back was tearing through the world’s rainforests, mountaintops, aquifers, fisheries, soils, and other resources, driving thousands of species toward extinction, changing the climate, and leaving billions behind in the rush for “economic growth.” So, painful as it might be, this downturn represents a chance to build a different sort of economy – one that offers dignity, livelihoods, and a future for our children.
6. We’re finally getting real about the urgency and scope of the climate challenge. The incoming Obama administration takes science seriously, which means taking climate change seriously, too. The nay-sayers have quit denying the existence of global warming, and have resorted to random delay tactics. Many now see the conversion to a climate-friendly economy as a major opportunity, with new jobs and investment needed to weatherize buildings, re-tool factories, develop renewal sources of energy, and rebuild transportation infrastructure (see below for the terrifying flip side).
7. Social movements are building people power. Nonviolent civil disobedience is back. Climate organizers conduct “die-ins” and climate camps to shut down coal plants. Workers at Republic Windows & Doors occupied their factory when they were abruptly dismissed without severance and vacation pay. President-Elect Obama backed the Republic workers, implicitly inviting others to stand up for their rights. He also continues to organize people at the grassroots – right now through health care discussion groups. Thousands of these meetings being held across the country could build a health care reform movement with enough clout to overcome entrenched interests and move forward. (We may wind up calling Obama, Organizer-in-Chief.)
8. DIY (do it yourself) communities are piloting the shift to a people-centered society. These folks understand that real security during tough times is found in the “social capital” of community. At the same time, they are creating experiments in green and just ways of life. They aren’t waiting for policy changes or bailouts, instead, they are helping each other now and getting on with the most extraordinary project of our time: building a better world.
9. International cooperation is now possible, and it’s none too soon. The day of the lone wolf is over. Likewise, the day of the sole superpower that could bend the rest of the world to its will. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, failed states, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the collapse of ocean fisheries, outbreaks of genocide, environmental and human rights refugee crises, HIV/AIDS and other pandemics—all require international cooperation. That means everyone has a seat at the table, no one gets bullied, and the solutions have to be real ones.
10. Obama! It’s true, he hasn’t lived up to all our hopes with his cabinet picks. On the left-right scale, he’s been pretty centrist, and especially his choices for foreign policy and agriculture posts suggest he may repeat the mistakes of the Clinton and Bush appointees he is surrounding himself with. But on the people-versus-big-money scale, he leans towards people and the common good, as the examples above illustrate. And he has elevated the national dialogue, setting a new standard for intelligent, inclusive, nuanced leadership.

Not bad to be coming into the new year with 10 reasons to be hopeful. That's as good as it's been for awhile. But there are also some good reasons to be terrified:

1. Runaway climate change. The biggest question of the 21st century may be whether policies can catch up to the dangerous realities of a rapidly changing climate in time to avoid disaster. Will we come together to stabilize the climate? Or are we be the last generation to live on a planet that can support complex civilization?
2. Loose nukes. We are all in danger from loose nukes, the spread of nuclear materials around the world, and nuclear warfare between India and Pakistan or other nuclear-armed adversaries. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons may be the only way of avoiding a nuclear catastrophe; figures across the political spectrum support such proposals, including former Secretary of State George Shultz. Will we have the political will to rid ourselves of this danger?
3. Mad Max world. Disruption of life-as-usual could come from economic collapse, runaway climate change, war, peak oil, pandemics, or some unforeseen combination of these and other factors. What makes these prospects especially terrifying are potential human responses to them. We could see either societal breakdown -- in which each person turns on others in a battle for dominance or survival -- or fascism, in which people allow all-powerful leaders to run things out of fear of chaos.

So which will it be? Are you hopeful or terrified by the coming year and by what we face in the coming decades?

What I keep coming back to is this: we humans have the free will to make choices that assure our collective survival, or to do otherwise. We do have the creativity, compassion, and intelligence to build on the best possibilities while averting the worst.

This historic moment will test everything we have built and everything our ancestors have passed down to us. The answers are readily available, embedded in all the world’s spiritual traditions, in all the mothers and fathers who have sacrificed to make a good life for their children, and in all the peacemakers who have worked to build a better world for everyone.

Will we make the choices for a just and sustainable world? We know, as Obama says, that, indeed, Yes! we can. But will we?

Health Care by and for the people

The Obama transition team is asking you to help create a new health care policy. Really. Host a meeting, invite friends and associates, look at the Obama team's proposal, and let the transition team know what you decide. If you are among a lucky few, Senator Tom Daschle, Secretary-designate for Health and Human Services, may show up at your meeting.

This may be more important than it sounds. The key dividing lines over how to fix our country's broken health care system are becoming clear. It may take the same sort of grassroots involvement that got Obama elected president to keep the private insurance industry from hijacking the process as they have during previous reform efforts.

Here's one of the key decision points. The Obama plan calls for giving everyone the option of signing up for a public or private insurance plan. But according to The New York Times, the private insurance industry is lining up against that option. It's no small matter. According to a report released Wednesday by health policy analyst Jacob Hacker, having a public option could make the difference between a system that covers everyone and controls costs, and one that will continue to leave millions out while costs soar.

As Americans are painfully aware, our health care system is broken. 45 million Americans or more are without health care coverage. Half of all bankruptcies are caused, at least in part, by unaffordable health care bills. We're spending more -- 16 percent of U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) to cover 85 percent of our population, while Canada and France each spend less than 10 percent of GDP to cover everyone.

The harm to our economy of our backward health care system is especially evident today, as all three U.S. auto makers suffer from the competitive disadvantage of covering health care costs that their overseas competitors can leave to more effective government-run insurance programs.

Americans voted for change this November. But what system makes sense?

According to the research we did at YES! for our special coverage of health care reform, government involvement is critical. A majority of Americans agree -- two out of three believe the government should provide national health care coverage, even if it would mean higher taxes. Other wealthy countries have adopted various methods , but a system like Canada's is one of the most efficient at providing good coverage for everyone while keeping a lid on costs. Under this system, the government is the insurer, but patients choose their doctors from private, public, or non-profit health care providers.

Having a public system is the way to cut bureaucracy and cost. But government involvement is where things get controversial. The private insurance industry opposes such a move. And some say that the switch to national insurance is too big a leap for Americans. People will be afraid to give up the coverage they know for an unknown system.

So the Hacker proposal, which was adopted in part by Barack Obama, may be the perfect compromise. Keep your private insurance if you want. But if you aren't covered, or if your premiums are too high, or your deductions and exclusions are too onerous, you can opt for the public insurance system. You would still choose your doctor. Subsidies would insure the plan is affordable to all. At the lowest income levels, it would be free.

Including a public system in our range of options is what it will take to control costs, and thus make sure everyone is included, according to Hacker. The private insurance industry has made a lot of money by excluding things that are expensive, shifting costs on to individuals and families by, for example, excluding pre-existing conditions, and working to write coverage only for those who are less likely to need health care. They have a big incentive to figure out how to exclude a treatment or test and little incentive to invest in our long-term health, since people tend to shift insurance companies over time. Their business, after all, is not keeping us healthy. It’s generating profits for shareholders.

Medicare has kept costs under control more effectively than either private insurance companies, or pools of private insurers, like those who contract with the federal government to provide health insurance to federal employees. According to Hacker's report, Medicare spending per enrollee increased only 4.6 percent per year from 1997 to 2006, while the cost of private insurance increased 7.3 percent each year during the same time period.

Innovations in the public sector have helped contain costs, and there are substantial additional savings to be had from better use of information technology, care coordination strategies, and databases of practices and outcomes, according to Hacker. And public health insurance agencies are in a better position to negotiate for reasonable prices from private health care providers.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimates that Hacker's plan would save the U.S. economy $1 trillion over 10 years, while covering 99.6 percent of Americans.

The Massachusetts system, enacted in 2006, is a stark example of what happens when there is no public option. Everyone in the state is supposed to be covered, but their choices are limited to private plans. Premiums have been rising 8 to 12 percent per year, which means the system will soon be out of reach of individual families, employers, and the state government.

A public option assures that there is a benchmark against which private companies must compete. Without such a benchmark, private companies have no incentive to contain costs or improve services.

It's hard to argue with giving people a choice.

But the health care industry is arguing. The New York Times says medical associations are encouraging their members to attend the health care discussion groups being organized by the Obama transition team around the U.S. Past efforts to reform the health care system stalled in the face of powerful health industry lobbyists with huge campaign war chests. Will the industry be as adept at dominating the health care policy discussion when it's happening in living rooms and coffee shops around the country?

Here's how President-elect Obama put it at his December 11 press conference:

Year after year, our leaders offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise only to see them fail, derailed by Washington politics and influence peddling.

If Obama is able to bring together ordinary Americans, who so clearly are desperate for change, and if they get as engaged in health care reform as they were in the bottom-up presidential campaign, perhaps this time we'll get the change we need. Maybe people power will overcome corporate power, and we'll finally be able to join the rest of the developed world who enjoy health care security.

So far, more than 4,000 meetings are scheduled around the U.S. Here's where you can sign up to lead a session. All the information you need is online, including the moderator's guide and instructions for reporting the results back to the transition team.

Note: If you are part of such a discussion, please let YES! know. We'd love to read your report and post a selection. Send us an email at editors [at] yesmagazine.org. Put the phrase "health care discussion" in the subject line.

Republic Workers and the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It's the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and a handful of factory workers in Chicago may be giving the declaration new meaning.

The workers at the Republic Window and Door company began occupying their factory on Friday when Republic abruptly shut down the small factory, and declined to pay workers vacation and severance pay due them. The shutdown came about not because there was no business -- there are orders waiting to be filled. The shutdown came after Bank of America refused to extend credit to the company. Bank of America has received billions of bailout dollars designed to get the bank to make loans -- loans that could help the real economy of Main Street.

This story has gotten a lot of play in the media, and the workers have received support from President-elect Barack Obama, the state of Illinois, and various elected officials although the company has fewer than 300 workers. Their act of resistance resonates deeply with people fed up by a mismanaged economy and a mismanaged bailout -- fed up that protecting Wall Street speculators has come ahead of protecting the ordinary men and women who make things we actually need and are struggling to support their families.

During the economic collapse in Argentina, as factories shut down, the workers took matters one step further. They occupied factories abandoned by financially strapped owners -- and then they began operating the factories themselves. They discovered that they didn't need a lot of highly compensated executives to manage things. And when they didn't need to pay inflated executive salaries and keep a raft of speculators satisfied with ever-growing profits, they could pour their earnings back into the plant and into employee salaries and benefits. When police tried to evict them, the neighbors and other workers joined forces to protect them -- and sometimes elected officials backed them up.

Many people are pinning their hopes for a just and sustainable economic recovery on the coming Obama administration, and President-elect Obama's expression of support for the workers is encouraging. But the changes he promises and we so desperately need will come about only if grassroots movements press for real economic change.

The Republic factory sit-in could launch an economic human rights movement that takes off where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. left off when he was assassinated supporting striking Memphis sanitation workers. It could build on Article 23 of the UDHR, which says that all people have the right to work and to form and join labor unions, and Article 25, which says all of us have a right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.

This new movement -- especially if it joins forces with the likes of the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign -- could become a powerful force for reorienting our society toward serving, sustainably, the needs of ordinary people.

The banks don't trust each other, so why should we?

"Banks no longer trust each other because of bad debts."

So say BBC financial experts. Which raises the obvious question. They don't trust each other, and in spite of the $150 billion-plus of U.S. taxpayers money, they are still not lending money to one another and credit markets are still stalled. Maybe they understand better than anyone just how untrustworthy they are.

So why would we want to pour yet more hundreds of billions of dollars into their coffers? Just last week the Government Accountability Office reported:

"Treasury has yet to address a number of critical issues, including determining how it will ensure that CPP [the Capital Purchase Program] is achieving its intended goals and monitoring compliance with limitations on executive compensation and dividend payments."

So, for all we know, we taxpayers may be taking thousands of dollars out of our wallets (and our kids' and grandkids' wallets) to pay for gold-plated executive bonuses and big shareholder pay-offs.

There are likely more credit crises coming down the pike, and we'll probably see a steady stream of credit card companies, car loan executives, and others coming to Congress for bailouts.

And wait, we still need some money to pay for Obama's promising economic recovery program, which has the big advantage of funding needed infrastructure and school repair, and energy efficiency upgrades, instead of the global casino economy. That's all good, but if the Obama administration follows usual practice, the U.S. government will borrow money from those self-same banks we are bailing out, plus a bunch of foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds. Is it just me, or does this not make sense?

It turns out there is another option. The U.S. government does not need to borrow money from private banks -- it can own the banks and thus create the money itself. Or it can just print the money. The right to issue money is in the Constitution, and no, it doesn't have to be inflationary. Attorney and author Ellen Brown explains how it can be done in a remarkable article featured on the YES! magazine website. And before you dismiss it as too good to be true, imagine what it would mean to our taxes and the debt of future generations if we could stop borrowing money, at interest, from the banks, and instead issue money ourselves. Check it out.

The Obama Economic Stimulus -- Will it Take Us Where We Need to Go?

Dear President-elect Obama,
The economic stimulus package you laid out today in your weekly radio and internet address is a great starting point -- very much needed as the downward spiral of the economy takes away the breath of even the most level-headed observer.

Your plan to save or create 2.5 million jobs by investing in energy efficiency, infrastructure, and schools are all things we called for in the agenda we laid out in the Fall issue of YES!, and are all favored by a large majority of Americans.

Let's look a bit more closely at your specific plans:

"First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work."

This is an excellent place to start. Increasing the efficiency of buildings reduces greenhouse gas pollution, and cuts dependence on both imported energy. It sets a higher standard for building owners to emulate, and jump starts what could be one of the best new sources of stable, family-wage employment -- refurbishing the built environment for energy efficiency. And it is an investment that will quickly begin saving us tax dollars. 

"Second, we will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money."

Investment in national infrastructure is desperately needed after years of neglect by leaders hostile to government projects. But we are entering a new era, when everything we build must be assessed for its climate impacts. The potential catastrophe of run-away climate meltdown could make the economic melt down look minor by comparison. Infrastructure investments must be used to build to climate friendly projects -- bridges that accommodate mass transit, bike lanes, and pedestrians, for example. And roads that encourage compact communities rather than expensive and wasteful sprawl.

"Third, my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools."

Great plan. Our kids should not be going to run-down schools that kill the spirit and signal to them that we don't care. Instead, schools should be filled with beauty and light -- qualities that can improve learning and cut energy costs. More than any other group, our young people have a stake in a sustainable future, and we can rebuild schools that give them hope. While we're at it, we can address another of your top priorities, health, by connecting the schools with local farmers, so kids get healthy, fresh, local meals.

"As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m President – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world."

Agreed. Kids must have access to the extraordinary range of information available on the internet and to the tools needed to create their own on-line spaces, where they can express their own ideas and talents, not just be passive consumers of information and entertainment. We need to find the right balance, though, between kids spending time in the electronic world of the internet, and interacting with real people, real spaces, and real plants, animals, soil, water, and sunshine. In other words, the virtual world is no substitute for the real world.

"... the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year."

Fine, but let's not get distracted from the real crisis: access to health care.

Will you, as promised, create an affordable system of health insurance that will cover everyone? The analysis we did for the YES! issue, Health Care for All, shows that keeping the private insurance industry as the dominant player in the system, makes universal coverage difficult, if not impossible. Canada and every other wealthy country deliver health care security to everyone by eliminating the expense, bureaucracy, and dominant role of the profit motive from the health care payment system. Medical services are still provided by a combination of private, public, and non-profit medical facilities.

These systems work -- few Canadians or Europeans would trade their system for the expense, ineffectiveness, and insecurity of the U.S. system. And little wonder; they live longer and healthier lives than Americans, and can take access to medical care for granted. In spite of the absence of these proposals from most public debate, Canadian-style, single-payer health care is favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans, who now live in fear of losing health coverage due to a job loss or some other change in circumstances.

One other element of the economic plan that Americans favor -- please, Mister President-Elect, extend unemployment benefits for those losing their jobs and unable to find a new one in a downsizing economy. Doing so will immediately put money into the pocket of hard-pressed Americans, who will immediately spend it on providing necessities for their families -- a great investment in our children and our future, and an immediate stimulus to the real economy of Main Street. (If you have any doubt about the pain ordinary Americans are feeling, check out these stories on the Huffington Post.)

In summary, your plan is a great starting point. But the economic collapse (and pending environmental collapse) shows the need for much deeper restructuring. Some ideas about what that might mean are here.

A Five-Point Foreign Policy Agenda

President-elect Barack Obama was elected to bring change. As he announced his foreign policy team, though, I wondered if this insider group can bring any new ideas to the table. Will they be open to fresh thinking or are they too closely tied to the militaristic Bush administration and the pro-corporate Democratic Party leadership?

At a time of historic global challenges, Americans badly want solutions that reflect our new realities and fit with our values as a peace-loving, democratic people.

The Military Budget: Our over-reliance on military weaponry and projected force has contributed to the draining of our national treasury. We spend nearly half of all money spent on the military worldwide, more than China, Russia, Britian, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arbia, and South Korea combined. We should begin by cutting the vast amount of unnecessary, wasteful, and corrupt military spending. Here are some places to start.

We need to bring home the vast majority of troops stationed overseas, close most of the 700-plus military bases we operate around the world, and transition veterans and civilian employees of war contractors to the desperately needed green-collar workforce.

More broadly, though, we need to ask what our military is for in an age where the threats are very different than they have been in the past.

Terrorism: The threat of terrorism has driven much of U.S. foreign policy since 9/11. There will probably always be terrorism in the world, just as there will always be other types of crime. But terrorists don't function well when their targets are well respected and when the population of would-be terrorists have good alternatives to blowing themselves up. A sensible anti-terrorism policy couples intelligence and smart law enforcement aimed at violent fundamentalists with policies that enable ordinary people to meet their needs and build a stake in a sustainable future.

Nuclear proliferation: The 2008 National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2050, predicts that terrorism is likely to become less important over the coming years, especially if the economy in the Middle East improves. Nuclear proliferation, on the other hand, will be a growing danger. Former Secretary of State George Shultz is among those leading a non-partisan effort to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, while we still have the chance. The Obama administration could make history by beginning the painstaking diplomatic work necessary to erase this threat from our midst, beginning by reducing the largest stockpiles in the world here in the U.S.

Sustainability: The physical capacity of the Earth to sustain human life is under assault. There is no security without the natural resources on which our lives depend, from farmland to forests, from water to our fragile climate. Already, there are millions of environmental refugees worldwide, and many of the brutal wars raging around the world center on conflicts over resources.

A new foreign policy must give first priority to using these resources to provide sustainable livelihoods that meet human needs and sustain, or restore, ecosystems. We can no longer afford the exploit-and-abandon pattern of global corporations.

The Global Financial Casino: The collapse of global financial markets is the most recent sign that the unregulated, free-wheeling global casino form of capitalism is bankrupt. Future global economic policy must aim to rebuild the real economy of goods and services, and the means for people to secure a dignified quality of life within the ecological constraints of the planet. We must abandon the discredited policies that asked the vast majority of the world's people, including most Americans, to wait for the gambling chits of the global casino to "trickle down" on them. There's much more on this question here and there will be more in coming issues of YES! Magazine.

Policies to support peace in Israel and Palestine, support Africa's efforts towards self-reliance, re-build relationships with Iran, and get out of Iraq can be found here.

Our time as sole superpower is ending -- even the National Security Council's Global Trends 2050 report says so. But this could be a good thing. Americans do not want their country acting as a global policeman or, worse, a global jailer and torturer. We no longer can afford to be the world's biggest military spender, and although the world looks to us for leadership, it has rejected domination.

Instead, our foreign policy should center on working as part of a community of nations to build a just and sustainable future for all people. It's amazing how many of our most urgent foreign policy issues can be addressed by doing so.

Note: many of these ideas are drawn from the summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine on a just foreign policy.