SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It gets tiresome to hear the one-sided media coverage of Hugo Chavez. Yes, he's authoritarian. He's also abrasive, arrogant, stubborn, and all too human. But he knows what happened to leaders in Iran and Guatemala and Chile and Haiti over the past half-century when they tried to defy the western world by nationalizing oil and other industries. He's influenced by the memory of the US-backed attempt to depose him in 2002. And he can see the effects of unregulated multinational companies in Nigeria, where in 2004 80% of the revenue from the oil industry went to only 1% of the population, and only 2% of Shell Oil's employees were from the local population.
Chavez has alienated the wealthy, the business establishment, thousands of upper-class student protestors, and, perhaps worst of all for him, the media. But the mainstream media rarely speaks for the poor majority. Chavez has instituted a literacy program, land-acquisition policies that benefit the poor, job training for unskilled workers, free health care, and manufacturing cooperatives which give the poor an active role in business development. He was democratically elected, and recent polls still place him about 20 percentage points ahead of his nearest challenger.
The Venezuelan leader's popularity is summarized by human rights activist Medea Benjamin:
"Walk through poor barrios in Venezuela and you'll hear the same stories over and over. The very poor can now go to a designated home in the neighborhood to pick up a hot meal every day. The elderly have monthly pensions that allow them to live with dignity. Young people can take advantage of greatly expanded free college programs. And with 13,000 Cuban doctors spread throughout the country and reaching over half the population, the poor now have their own family doctors on call 24-hours a day."
Opposition to Chavez comes from those with connections to the old political elite: the Venezuelan business community, the Chamber of Commerce (Fedecamaras), and the major union federation CTV, who used their control over the media to disparage Chavez for economic problems and communist ties. Many officials and journalists in the U.S. dismiss him as a troublesome dictator. An editor of the leading El Nacional newspaper said Chavez and his cabinet "just want to steal and get rich." Even some of the Venezuelan poor resent his attempts to spread his influence with anti-poverty programs outside the country.
Ironically, Chavez was criticized for two initiatives that most Americans would like to see implemented in the U.S. -- health care and increased oil company taxes. He is maligned for his friendship with Fidel Castro, even though some 10,000 Cuban doctors and health care workers came to Venezuela in return for oil. His industry reforms included a doubling of oil company taxes. He also opposes U.S. efforts to implement free trade agreements that would surrender the country's raw materials in return for expensive products from abroad. Perhaps most significantly, Chavez is feared because of his growing independence in a country whose vast oil reserves are coveted by the north.
One doesn't have to be a socialist to cheer for equal opportunity for hard-working citizens of any country. According to the U.S. Department of State, the income gap in Venezuela decreased between 2003 and 2005, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of income disparity from 0 (equal) to 1 (unequal)) dropping from .618 in 2003 to .514 in 2005. Chavez speaks, however noisily, for the poor. Most of the media speaks for the people with money.
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
It gets tiresome to hear the one-sided media coverage of Hugo Chavez. Yes, he's authoritarian. He's also abrasive, arrogant, stubborn, and all too human. But he knows what happened to leaders in Iran and Guatemala and Chile and Haiti over the past half-century when they tried to defy the western world by nationalizing oil and other industries. He's influenced by the memory of the US-backed attempt to depose him in 2002. And he can see the effects of unregulated multinational companies in Nigeria, where in 2004 80% of the revenue from the oil industry went to only 1% of the population, and only 2% of Shell Oil's employees were from the local population.
Chavez has alienated the wealthy, the business establishment, thousands of upper-class student protestors, and, perhaps worst of all for him, the media. But the mainstream media rarely speaks for the poor majority. Chavez has instituted a literacy program, land-acquisition policies that benefit the poor, job training for unskilled workers, free health care, and manufacturing cooperatives which give the poor an active role in business development. He was democratically elected, and recent polls still place him about 20 percentage points ahead of his nearest challenger.
The Venezuelan leader's popularity is summarized by human rights activist Medea Benjamin:
"Walk through poor barrios in Venezuela and you'll hear the same stories over and over. The very poor can now go to a designated home in the neighborhood to pick up a hot meal every day. The elderly have monthly pensions that allow them to live with dignity. Young people can take advantage of greatly expanded free college programs. And with 13,000 Cuban doctors spread throughout the country and reaching over half the population, the poor now have their own family doctors on call 24-hours a day."
Opposition to Chavez comes from those with connections to the old political elite: the Venezuelan business community, the Chamber of Commerce (Fedecamaras), and the major union federation CTV, who used their control over the media to disparage Chavez for economic problems and communist ties. Many officials and journalists in the U.S. dismiss him as a troublesome dictator. An editor of the leading El Nacional newspaper said Chavez and his cabinet "just want to steal and get rich." Even some of the Venezuelan poor resent his attempts to spread his influence with anti-poverty programs outside the country.
Ironically, Chavez was criticized for two initiatives that most Americans would like to see implemented in the U.S. -- health care and increased oil company taxes. He is maligned for his friendship with Fidel Castro, even though some 10,000 Cuban doctors and health care workers came to Venezuela in return for oil. His industry reforms included a doubling of oil company taxes. He also opposes U.S. efforts to implement free trade agreements that would surrender the country's raw materials in return for expensive products from abroad. Perhaps most significantly, Chavez is feared because of his growing independence in a country whose vast oil reserves are coveted by the north.
One doesn't have to be a socialist to cheer for equal opportunity for hard-working citizens of any country. According to the U.S. Department of State, the income gap in Venezuela decreased between 2003 and 2005, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of income disparity from 0 (equal) to 1 (unequal)) dropping from .618 in 2003 to .514 in 2005. Chavez speaks, however noisily, for the poor. Most of the media speaks for the people with money.
It gets tiresome to hear the one-sided media coverage of Hugo Chavez. Yes, he's authoritarian. He's also abrasive, arrogant, stubborn, and all too human. But he knows what happened to leaders in Iran and Guatemala and Chile and Haiti over the past half-century when they tried to defy the western world by nationalizing oil and other industries. He's influenced by the memory of the US-backed attempt to depose him in 2002. And he can see the effects of unregulated multinational companies in Nigeria, where in 2004 80% of the revenue from the oil industry went to only 1% of the population, and only 2% of Shell Oil's employees were from the local population.
Chavez has alienated the wealthy, the business establishment, thousands of upper-class student protestors, and, perhaps worst of all for him, the media. But the mainstream media rarely speaks for the poor majority. Chavez has instituted a literacy program, land-acquisition policies that benefit the poor, job training for unskilled workers, free health care, and manufacturing cooperatives which give the poor an active role in business development. He was democratically elected, and recent polls still place him about 20 percentage points ahead of his nearest challenger.
The Venezuelan leader's popularity is summarized by human rights activist Medea Benjamin:
"Walk through poor barrios in Venezuela and you'll hear the same stories over and over. The very poor can now go to a designated home in the neighborhood to pick up a hot meal every day. The elderly have monthly pensions that allow them to live with dignity. Young people can take advantage of greatly expanded free college programs. And with 13,000 Cuban doctors spread throughout the country and reaching over half the population, the poor now have their own family doctors on call 24-hours a day."
Opposition to Chavez comes from those with connections to the old political elite: the Venezuelan business community, the Chamber of Commerce (Fedecamaras), and the major union federation CTV, who used their control over the media to disparage Chavez for economic problems and communist ties. Many officials and journalists in the U.S. dismiss him as a troublesome dictator. An editor of the leading El Nacional newspaper said Chavez and his cabinet "just want to steal and get rich." Even some of the Venezuelan poor resent his attempts to spread his influence with anti-poverty programs outside the country.
Ironically, Chavez was criticized for two initiatives that most Americans would like to see implemented in the U.S. -- health care and increased oil company taxes. He is maligned for his friendship with Fidel Castro, even though some 10,000 Cuban doctors and health care workers came to Venezuela in return for oil. His industry reforms included a doubling of oil company taxes. He also opposes U.S. efforts to implement free trade agreements that would surrender the country's raw materials in return for expensive products from abroad. Perhaps most significantly, Chavez is feared because of his growing independence in a country whose vast oil reserves are coveted by the north.
One doesn't have to be a socialist to cheer for equal opportunity for hard-working citizens of any country. According to the U.S. Department of State, the income gap in Venezuela decreased between 2003 and 2005, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of income disparity from 0 (equal) to 1 (unequal)) dropping from .618 in 2003 to .514 in 2005. Chavez speaks, however noisily, for the poor. Most of the media speaks for the people with money.
"What we're focused on are those members who come from states with large Medicaid populations, and who should have the guts to stand up for their constituents," said the founder of Protect Our Care.
With President Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the GOP is examining numerous ways to offset the revenue loss that's expected from the proposed extension of the 2017 tax cuts—a decision that's expected to cost more than $4 trillion, with wealthy individuals and businesses benefiting the most.
But the advocacy group Protect Our Care, which was founded in 2017 as the first Trump administration faced intense backlash against its effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is now working to ensure that Medicaid cuts are left out of upcoming budget reconciliation talks—and that Republicans who support such cuts face consequences in upcoming elections.
The group on Tuesday launched a $10 million campaign titled "Hands Off Medicaid," with TV and digital ads running nationwide, particularly in states with high numbers of Medicaid enrollees and Republican lawmakers whom Protect Our Care believes could be pressured to defend the program.
"What we're focused on are those members who come from states with large Medicaid populations, and who should have the guts to stand up for their constituents," Leslie Dach, founder of Protect Our Care, told The Washington Post. "This is a campaign designed to stop these cuts from happening in reconciliation."
While the ads will be seen across the nation, reminding lawmakers that 79 million Americans are covered under the healthcare program for low-income people, children, and patients with disabilities, the Republicans who are being particularly targeted include Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Thom Tillis (N.C.), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Reps. Michael Lawler (N.Y.), Ryan Mackenzie (Pa.), and David Schweikert (Ariz.).
In addition to launching an ad blitz, Protect Our Care is organizing the writing of op-eds and letters to the editor placed by experts, healthcare professionals, and people who rely on Medicaid; grassroots lobbying and meetings with lawmakers; and in-person and virtual events in key states and districts.
While the group shares the stories of people covered by Medicaid, including more than 31 million children, Republicans have been perusing a "menu" of more than $5 trillion in potential spending cuts, including an estimated $2.3 trillion from the healthcare program.
Republicans are considering changes to the program's payment structure that would fund Medicaid based on state population; reintroducing work requirements, which Trump greenlit during his first term; and lowering the rate of federal payments for Medicaid beneficiaries who are covered under the ACA's expansion of the program.
On Monday night, hours after his inauguration, Trump rescinded an executive order signed by former President Joe Biden that made it harder to impose work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
The advocacy group Social Security Works pointed out ahead of Trump's inauguration that "every member of the U.S. House is on the ballot in two years."
"If they try to cut ONE PENNY from Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, we will make sure that they lose their jobs," said the group.
More than 300 organizations signed a letter earlier this month, as members of Congress were sworn in, warning them that cutting Medicaid "would betray your constituents of all political affiliations who are seeking more economic security, not less."
Dach noted on Tuesday that Republicans are eyeing cuts to social spending after an election in which the party "claimed to care about working people and the cost of living."
"Nothing could be more outrageous than ripping away healthcare from millions of seniors, children, moms, and workers to pay for another round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," said Dach. "The American people didn't vote in November to have their grandparents kicked out of nursing homes or healthcare ripped away from kids with disabilities or expectant moms in order to give [billionaire Trump backer] Elon Musk another tax cut."
"We know firsthand from the campaign to defeat [the] ACA repeal eight years ago, and every healthcare fight since, that healthcare is a top-of-mind issue for Americans—and they want lawmakers to do more to ensure affordable access to coverage, not less," Dach added. "Our 'Hands off Medicaid' campaign will make that abundantly clear and demand that Medicaid cuts are off the table—for good."
"There is no cease-fire for Palestinians," said Palestinian writer Yara Hawari.
Israeli security forces on Tuesday launched an attack on the West Bank city of Jenin, just a day after U.S. President Donald Trump rescinded Biden-era sanctions that were levied on extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank accused of carrying out violence against Palestinians.
Trump moved to overturn the sanctions even after Israeli settlers in the illegally occupied West Bank carried out attacks against Palestinians communities earlier this week. The events highlight the threat of future violence in the West Bank.
A resident of Jenin, Asaad Salim, told the outlet Middle East Eye that the Tuesday attack on Jenin began with Israeli special forces infiltrating a neighborhood in the east of the city. Salim reported Israeli warplanes firing on the city and the Jenin refugee camp and armed clashes took place between Palestinian resistance fighters and the Israeli army, per Middle East Eye.
"There are bodies in the streets, and many people are injured, but no one can reach them. Ambulances can't move due to the intense and sudden assault," Salim told the outlet.
At least eight Palestinians were killed and 35 people were injured, per Reuters, citing Palestinian health services.
"There is no cease-fire for Palestinians," wrote Palestinian writer Yara Hawari, reacting to an Al Jazeera news alert that Israeli forces had attacked the Jenin refugee camp. Her remarks were in reference to a cease-fire deal that went into effect on Sunday, halting hostilities in the war-torn Gaza strip.
The Israeli army and Shin Bet security service announced Tuesday's operation, calling it a counter-terrorism measure codenamed "Iron Wall," according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It will continue "as long as necessary," the outlet reported.
According to Reuters, Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that the operation was the beginning of a "strong and ongoing campaign" against militant groups "for the protection of settlements and settlers." Smotrich earlier had said he was pleased with Trump's decision to lift sanctions on settlers who are accused of violence against Palestinians, per Reuters.
At multiple points last year, Israel launched attacks on Jenin, and just last week Israeli airstrikes killed three people there, according to Palestinian officials. In December, forces with the Palestinian Authority—which administers parts of the West Bank—stormed the Jenin refugee camp and began a crackdown on armed groups in the camp, which has long been a site of armed struggle and resistance to Israel.
"Trump is again proving that he lied to the American people and doesn't care about lowering costs—only what's best for himself and his ultra-rich friends."
As part of a flurry of executive actions on the first day of his second White House term, President Donald Trump on Monday rescinded an order signed by his predecessor that aimed to develop programs to lower prescription drug prices in the United States—where residents pay far more for medications than people in peer countries.
News of Trump's rollback of Executive Order 14087—titled Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans—was buried amid dozens of other rescissions the president ordered shortly following his inauguration.
The decision to scrap Executive Order 14087 brings to a halt several pilot programs undertaken by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, including an experiment that involved offering generic medications for a $2 copay to Medicare Part D recipients.
"This act is a good indication of how Trump will approach lower drug prices," Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, wrote in response to Trump's rescission of President Joe Biden's executive order.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, added that "the big question, which Trump hasn't addressed yet, is what he’ll do with government negotiation of drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act."
Just days before Trump took office, the Biden administration announced a fresh slate of 15 medications set to be subject to direct price negotiations between the federal government and pharmaceutical companies, many of which have sued over the negotiation program—thus far unsuccessfully.
Reuters reported last week that the powerful pharmaceutical lobby has been pushing Trump's team to back changes to the Inflation Reduction Act that would weaken the price-negotiation provisions.
"Donald Trump is already following through on his dangerous plans to jack up the costs of drugs to appease his billionaire backers after the Biden-Haris administration took on Big Pharma and won," Alex Floyd, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. "Trump is again proving that he lied to the American people and doesn't care about lowering costs—only what's best for himself and his ultra-rich friends."
Responding more broadly to the president's day-one wave of unilateral actions—which included attacks on immigrants and the climate—Working Families Party national director Maurice Mitchell said Tuesday that "Trump's flood of executive orders is just a cheap spectacle meant to distract us while his administration moves to gut our healthcare and SNAP benefits."
"Immigrant families aren't the reason we can't afford eggs or prescription drugs; billionaire CEOs are," Mitchell added.