Australian budget set to heighten social and political antagonisms

James Cogan

The Liberal-National Coalition government has tabled its first budget since scraping back into office, less than a year ago, with a one-seat majority in the lower house and no control in the Senate. Taken together, the budget measures will intensify the class antagonisms wracking the country.

The government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison has crafted measures that amount to a desperate attempt to reassure myriad ruling class interests that it has taken into account their concerns, while trying to delay the eruption of social discontent. It will fail to do either.

While scarcely mentioned in the establishment media, the budget is, first and foremost, marked by the government’s ever-increasing allocation of resources to the military and police-intelligence apparatus.

The budget commits to boosting expenditure, in order to develop the war preparations of the Australian military and the Pentagon, by 6.1 percent over the next year, and to continue to make such increases until 2020–2021. In an unprecedented expansion, initiated by the former Labor government, some $150.6 billion will be spent on the military over the next four years. This includes the purchase of F-35 jet fighters and new warships, the first stage of construction of 10 new submarines, and the financing of the ongoing Australian involvement in military operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Over the next decade, around $494 billion will be spent on the armed forces.

Some $320 million will be added, over the next four years, to the budget of the Australian Federal Police and the country’s intelligence agencies, boosting annual “public order” spending to $3.9 billion.

As far as the credit agencies and sections of big business are concerned, the 2017–2018 budget is the tenth in a row that, while registering a large deficit of $29.4 billion, pledges to achieve a surplus within the four-year timeframe of budget estimates. With public debt rapidly blowing out, the credit agencies are threatening to downgrade Australia’s current AAA rating, which allows it to borrow at low interest rates.

Like previous budgets, the “return to surplus” is based on fanciful projections of global economic growth, and, therefore, growth in Australia. The budget predicts that the economies of the US, Japan and China will expand in coming years, holding up the prices of Australian exports, of government, corporate and income tax revenues, and the inflow of foreign investment. Australian growth is predicted to increase from barely 1.75 percent this year to 3 percent by 2019–2020.

Even as job- and wage-cutting accelerate across the country, and consumer spending figures, released yesterday, show that Australia’s retail sector is sliding into recession, the budget projects that wages’ growth will rise from two percent to three percent over the next four years. The budget forecasts exclude the possibility of a devastating crash in the country’s vastly overheated housing market, and the ensuing destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs, or the impact of the final closure of car manufacturing at the end of 2017. Instead, it predicts unemployment will fall from 5.9 percent to less than 5 percent by 2020–2021.

The projected return to surplus relies upon a 0.06 percent levy on the liabilities of Australia’s five largest banks, which will raise about $1.5 billion per year. The banks are expected to pass this impost on their collective $30 billion annual profit by increasing interest rates or charges. Crackdowns on corporate tax avoidance are projected to raise $1.6 billion over four years. Again, companies will pass on such costs, further dampening consumer spending.

A small 2 percent increase in tax on the incomes of the wealthy, introduced in 2014–2015, has been abolished. And small business operators can claim, for another year, tax deductions for purchases of up to $20,000.

The budget ostensibly commits to providing billions of dollars in funding to various road, rail and energy infrastructure projects around the country, as well as more than $5 billion to construct the long-delayed second international airport in Sydney, the country’s largest city. Major corporations have been demanding some of these projects for decades. Others appear intended to win back support for the Coalition in economically hard-hit states such as Western Australia and Queensland. An economic slump, however, will see such commitments tossed aside.

On every front, the budget seeks to deepen the decades-long assault on the living standards and social rights of the working class, inflicted by successive Labor and Coalition governments—but without imposing outright cuts to key areas of public spending.

In 2014, Labor, along with the Greens, blocked in the Senate savage spending cuts contained in the first Coalition budget brought down by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his treasurer Joe Hockey. Their motivation was not to defend the interests of the working class, but to retain whatever was left of their credibility in the face of enormous popular opposition.

Despite failing to pass the Senate, the announcement of these cuts saw a precipitous drop in support for the Coalition. In the 2017–18 budget, Turnbull and Morrison have consciously pitched for Labor’s support to push their policies through the Senate.

As well as its blanket commitments to the US-Australia military alliance, the Coalition is making an overt appeal to Labor via its health care and school education measures. Morrison announced in his budget speech versions of policies that Labor had introduced while in office from 2007 to 2013. These had as their aim the long-term transfer of essential public services to private profit interests.

The budget commits to financing the national roll-out of Labor’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The stated objective of the NDIS is to establish a “competitive market” for the provision of services to hundreds of thousands of disabled people, while pushing as many as possible back into the workforce and therefore off the welfare-funded Disability Support Pension (DSP).

To pay for the NDIS, the Coalition expects to raise over $4 billion a year from 2019, by increasing the Medicare “levy”—a tax on the majority of income earners, to finance the ostensibly “free” public health system—from 2 percent to 2.5 percent. At the same time, it will be calculating on savings from the reduction in outlays on the DSP.

In education, the Coalition has committed to the so-called Gonski, “needs-based” federal funding to schools, introduced by Labor. Media reports have touted the funding as an “increase” of $18.6 billion over 10 years and $1.8 billion over the next four. In fact, federal increases will be just $106 million in 2017–2018, $295 million the following year, and, purportedly, $840 million in 2020–2021. But the decade-long funding exists only on paper.

While barely any additional resources will flow to address “student need,” federal funding for schools, as Labor intended, is explicitly tied to rankings of student performance, such as the now notorious NAPLAN standardised tests. In the US and Britain, performance-ranking systems have been used to justify the transformation of public schools into for-profit charter schools or “academies.” The Australian state governments, which finance the public education system, are being pressured into pursuing a similar agenda.

In populist pitches to “Australia First” and anti-foreign worker campaigns, which are being pushed by the Labor Party, the trade unions, and right-wing nationalist formations, the Turnbull government is introducing an annual “levy,” ranging from $1,800 to $5,000, on employers who bring overseas workers into the country. Visa application costs will also increase. Foreign investors in housing will face higher taxes and a $5,000 fine if they fail to rent out or live in their property for at least six months of the year.

The unemployed, welfare recipients, and working-class and overseas students—who are viewed as politically irrelevant by the powers-that-be—will face yet more savage attacks.

For the unemployed, there will be even harsher eligibility tests, including, for the first time, random drug testing.

For local students, university fees are being increased and the income threshold at which the fees must be repaid, once they enter the workforce, has been dramatically cut. In a particularly vicious policy, most permanent residents and New Zealand citizens will now be charged “international” fees for tertiary education, rather than the same rates charged to Australian citizens.

For international students, the outrageous fees they are already being forced to pay will only increase, as universities face a 2.5 percent “efficiency dividend” or annual cut, that will accompany their government grants. Already universities and colleges around the country treat these students as a veritable cash-cow, gouging over $20 billion from them annually to study in Australia.

The Coalition government appears to have calculated that populist measures, aimed against the big banks, foreign workers and welfare recipients, could win backing for the budget from right-wing parties in the Senate, such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, the Nick Xenophon Party and the newly formed Conservative Party headed by renegade Liberal, Senator Cory Bernardi. Turnbull and Morrison clearly hope, however, that the bulk of the budget will pass with Labor’s support.

The corporate media is already signaling its displeasure with this possibility. The Australian Financial Review editorial today denounced the “Labor-lite budget,” declaring it was based on “a mixture of hopeful assumption and tax whacks on easy targets like unpopular banks and foreign workers.” Rupert Murdoch’s Australian, in a similar vein, attacked the budget’s overtures to Labor, via the NDIS and the school funding model, while “ducking the hard decisions” of imposing genuine austerity.

With such recriminations in corporate circles, the budget may well become mired, yet again, in the bitter in-fighting between—and within—the discredited establishment parties, which has characterised the parliamentary setup for the past decade.

Living standards plunge in UK

Alice Summers 

Recent analysis of the British economy shows that living standards are declining in the wake of last June’s Brexit referendum. The latest figures show that economic growth has declined more than expected, inflation is rising, and real wages are falling.

According to the Office for National Statistics, UK gross domestic product (GDP) growth fell by more than anticipated to just 0.3 percent in the first quarter of 2017, down from 0.7 percent the previous quarter. The economic slowdown is expected to continue as higher inflation dampens consumer spending, upon which the UK economy relies.

The drastic fall in the pound since the Brexit referendum, combined with higher global oil prices, has lifted the inflation rate to 2.3 percent, above the Bank of England’s target of 2 percent. But while inflation is expected to continue climbing to an estimated 3 percent in the coming months, wage growth is set to fall.

The most recent figures show that workers are already worse off—real wages are declining, as the 2.3 percent inflation rate is outpacing wages growth, now running at just 1.9 percent compared to February of last year. Regular pay growth has not been weaker than the inflation rate since August 2014, when wages were growing by 1.2 percent while inflation stood at 1.5 percent.

Brexit has exacerbated a trend of weak or non-existent pay growth that started well before last year’s referendum. Even after adjusting for inflation, employees’ average earnings are still substantially below their levels before the 2008 financial crisis, according to a new report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

Jonathan Cribb, a senior IFS research economist, commented, “A period of this length over which earnings have fallen is unprecedented in modern times. They had started to recover a little between 2014 and 2016, but rising inflation linked to the fall in the value of the pound since the EU referendum has put a stop to that modest recovery”.

According to current forecasts, earnings are unlikely to recover before the end of the next parliament in 2022. The Resolution Foundation think tank noted that 40 percent of the British workforce have been affected by falling wages so far. Commenting on this drastic deterioration in wages, Stephen Clarke, an economist at the Foundation said, “Britain’s brief pay recovery has come to an end; 40 percent of the workforce are experiencing shrinking pay packets, according to the latest figures, in sectors ranging from accommodation to finance and the public sector. Many more will join them in the coming months as inflation continues to rise”.

This decline is under conditions in which workers have already suffered the worst fall in wages in Europe—down by 11 percent since 2007—outside of Greece.

Nearly a decade of pay stagnation and freezes, the prevalence of zero-hour contracts—amid a mushrooming of the lowly paid and highly exploitative “gig economy”—means one third of the population are now officially below the poverty line, while more than half of all households depend upon state benefits.

Millions more only manage to stay afloat by relying on savings, credit cards and loans. Credit card borrowing is on the rise. At the end of 2016, the amount of savings held by British households hit a record low. Workers have increasingly been forced to dip into their savings to maintain spending at a time when wages are stagnating and prices are rising. According to former Bank of England policymaker David Blanchflower, while consumer spending is currently being buoyed by increased borrowing and use of savings, this cannot last.

The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, chaired by the Bank’s governor, Mark Carney, stated that household indebtedness was “high by historical standards” and is rising relative to incomes. In fact, the average household now owes around £13,000, excluding mortgages, and total unsecured debt is at an all-time high of £349 billion.

Figures from the end of March revealed that real household disposable income, after adjusting for inflation, shrank by 0.4 percent as compared to the previous quarter, the steepest drop in nearly three years.

As a mark of the collapse in the purchasing power of British workers, retail sales suffered their largest fall in seven years over the first few months of 2017. This was due to the sharp fall in the value of the pound since the European Union (EU) referendum, pushing up shop prices and forcing large sections of the population to cut back on purchases.

Compared to the day of the referendum, June 23, 2016, the pound is still down by about 14 percent against the US dollar, and around 10 percent against the euro. This slide in sterling is making itself felt in the real economy by pushing up the price of imported goods. Workers are now paying higher prices for a range of goods and services, from fuel to food—including staples such as butter and tea—putting households under increasing financial pressure.

Although the fall in the pound has boosted the UK manufacturing sector to a three-year high—with domestic orders and exports both on the up—manufacturing accounts for only around 10 percent of UK economic output. This modest increase is doing little to balance out the overall decline of the UK economy.

While the living standards of large sections of the working class are deteriorating post-Brexit, stock markets continue to show near record highs. This has fuelled a feeding frenzy by the super-rich, who have boosted their wealth enormously in the last year. The latest Sunday Times Rich List reveals that the top 1,000 super-rich in Britain have increased their wealth by a massive 14 percent, to a record £658 billion collectively, almost enough to fund the entire UK government budget.

The fall in living standards and the UK’s economic decline belie the claims of pro-Brexit sections of the ruling class that leaving the EU would usher in a new era of prosperity for all.

While supposedly “taking back control” of the UK economy from the EU, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May has tied its fate to striking favourable trade deals with countries such as the United States.

US President Donald Trump, however, has made it clear that a trade deal with the EU is far more likely than one with Britain. This followed German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly convincing Trump in March that a trade deal with the EU would be far more advantageous for the US than one with a post-Brexit UK.

At the same time, Merkel has led the EU’s remaining 27 states in insisting that no concessions would be made in negotiations with the UK over the terms of its exit. Attacking the British government’s Brexit aspirations of negotiating a better position for the UK than it currently enjoyed within the EU, she disparaged this as “illusions” that were “a waste of time.”

Podemos no-confidence vote in Rajoy aimed at preserving bourgeois rule in Spain

Alejandro López & Paul Mitchell 

Just four months after coming to power as a minority government with the help of the Socialist Party (PSOE) and the Citizens party, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s Popular Party (PP) administration is beset by yet another corruption scandal.

According to the latest survey, 45 percent of voters say corruption is one of the three main problems facing Spain, an increase of almost 10 points since January.

The revelations in the “Caso Lezo” (Lezo Case) show once again the outright criminality that lay at the heart of the country’s now-shipwrecked real estate-based economic boom. It is the latest in a long list of corruption scandals affecting one major Spanish institution after another.

Interlocking criminal networks of politicians, public prosecutors, judges, journalists, royalty and corporate executives have expanded their wealth since the 2007 economic crash, whilst brutal austerity has been meted out to the mass of the Spanish population under the mantra of “we all have to sacrifice something”. Rajoy himself has been called to testify in the “Gürtel Case”, which involves widespread bribery of PP officials in exchange for government contracts.

The central figure in the Lezo Case is Ignacio González, who was president of the Madrid regional government from 2012 to 2015, and is now in prison awaiting trial. González is accused of using his control of Madrid’s water system and largest public enterprise, Canal Isabel II, to funnel kickbacks on contracts in Spain and abroad into his Swiss bank account. He is also accused of embezzling one million euros from the Madrid regional government’s coffers to finance the PP.

Justice Minister Rafael Catalá and Spain’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor, Manuel Moix, have also been accused of attempting to protect González from investigation.

The fallout from the Lezo Case has led to the resignation of former Madrid regional president Esperanza Aguirre from leadership of the PP group in the city’s parliament. Although she has not been personally linked to the scandal, Aguirre said she had failed to properly supervise González, her protégé and successor, as regional president.

The pseudo-left party Podemos is exploiting the scandal to divert anger amongst workers and youth at yet another corruption case into an appeal to the capitalist state to clean up its own activities and bolster illusions in the PSOE.

Soon after the Leso Case broke, Podemos announced its intention to call a no-confidence vote in Rajoy, arguing, in the words of its leader Pablo Iglesias, “the corruption of the PP is a virus which affects all the institutions of our homeland [patria]”. Iglesias announced the party would present an “independent” candidate, that is, one not associated with Podemos, although no one has yet been named.

Iglesias announced ten measures that Podemos will present along with the no confidence vote directed at “regeneration and the fight against corruption”, in order to “clean up” Spain.

Five of the measures relate to corruption—the repeal of the “Berlusconi law”, which limits investigation of corruption cases, a pledge to “untie the hands of the regulators” and stop the “revolving doors” between the state and big business, an “end to bank secrecy”, “control of the financing of political parties” and an increase in penalties for corruption and economic crimes.

Iglesias made a direct appeal to sections of the state apparatus, declaring, “it is a democratic problem that there are police, civil guards, prosecutors and judges who are afraid of the government because it puts pressure on them.”

The illusion that capitalism can be purged of its corruption was exposed a century ago by the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, who described the imperialist epoch as a stage in which finance capital dominates society, headed by a “new financial aristocracy” characterized by “corruption, bribery on a huge scale and all kinds of fraud.”

Since then, these processes have vastly expanded to the point, as the 2008 global crash proved, whereby a criminal financial elite bestrides the world economy, pocketing unimaginable sums by means of speculation and parasitism and operating outside of any legal restraint.

Podemos included other measures to demonstrate its fiscal responsibility to the ruling elite: they would “bring more money in to spend better”, and “rationalize the path of reducing the public deficit”.

To cover up for this pro-capitalist appeal, a handful of unspecified social measures, including “better quality employment”, “guaranteed minimum income” and a new pensions reform were thrown in.

Iglesias stated that he would present the no confidence vote even if it does not obtain enough parliamentary support, “because it’s an ethical imperative”. To succeed in the Spanish parliamentary system, a motion of no confidence in the head of government must secure a majority in favour —176 out of the 350 deputies.

Since the PP has only 137 deputies, a vote of no confidence by the opposition parties could easily bring it down. However, both the PSOE with 85 seats and the Citizens Party with 32 seats—which have acted as the main props of the PP minority in parliament—have so far closed ranks with Rajoy.

The PSOE has dismissed the Podemos move as irresponsible political “fireworks”, and the Citizens Party called it a “circus stunt”.

By tabling a no confidence vote, Podemos is stoking illusions in the PSOE, around which it has built its hopes of coming to power though a so-called “Government of Change”, particularly involving the faction around Pedro Sánchez. To that end, Podemos is postponing a decision on when to hold the no confidence vote until after the May 21 primary election for a new PSOE leader.

Sánchez—ousted as general secretary last October for refusing to abstain in the congressional vote to allow Rajoy to form a new government—is standing in the election. With little backing from the party hierarchy and media, he received 57,000 nominations, compared with the 63,000 for Andalusian leader Susana Díaz, who was a key figure in the coup against him.

During his campaign, Sánchez, who has no programmatic differences with Díaz, promoted himself as a born-again party dissident who should have done more to reach an agreement with Podemos last year. When the nominations were announced, Sánchez said he was “overwhelmed” by the support he had received, declaring, “I believe we are standing on the threshold of a new party that is going to leave behind the days when things were decided by a handful of people, and become a party where everyone gets to decide.”

However, Sánchez has dismissed Iglesias’ initiative, declaring, “I do not discard anything at the moment, but the most important thing right now is to demand Rajoy’s resignation”—in other words, saving the PP government by sacrificing Rajoy.

Podemos is virtually indistinguishable from the PSOE in terms of its pro-capitalist programme and its imperialist foreign policy. For the past three years, it has invested huge amounts of energy in promoting itself as a party capable of serving the bourgeoisie. It cheered Syriza’s austerity measures in Greece, making clear its readiness to facilitate the imposition of similar attacks in Spain. In the local administrations controlled or backed by Podemos, the party has assiduously implemented austerity, broken strikes and supported police measures against migrants. Its main critique of the PP is encapsulated in Iglesias’ words: “The PP is not only corrupt, but is also inefficient in its economic policy.”

Podemos aims at better serving the interests of the ruling class, without the discredited corrupt baggage of the PP. Iglesias has now junked his previous criticisms of the “caste” in favour of an alliance with “patriotic businessmen” against an alleged plot between big business and politicians.

In the words of Podemos leader Juan Carlos Monedero, “Against these pirates, we have to support ‘patriotic’ business, those people who create 80 percent of employment in Spain […] who pay taxes here and have a country project, something that both the PSOE and the PP have lost sight of while they sell away Spain cheaply.”

Puerto Rico to shut down 179 public schools

Rafael Azul 

It has not taken long for the formal declaration of bankruptcy by Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Roselló to be followed by a savage attack on social and pension rights.

On Friday, May 5, the Roselló administration followed up its May 3 request for bankruptcy protection for the US Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with plans to shut down 179 schools across the US territory. The closures will force at least 27,000 students to seek alternative schools, in many cases far away from their homes.

This will have a devastating effect on families too poor to afford transportation, and students in special education programs, which are provided to 30 percent of all students. In addition, 2,000 teachers will be fired as a result of the school closings.

The school closures represent more than 14 percent of Puerto Rico’s 13,000 schools. This is on top of the 150 schools closed between 2010 and 2015. The government plans to transform the empty buildings into homeless and animal shelters, or both.

Rosselló made the announcement in an executive order creating a committee that will oversee the transfer of school buildings to municipalities and NGOs. The governor also raised the possibility of other uses for the school sites, such as centers for drug treatment, business startups, or tutoring. There is no word on how any of this will be financed, considering the island’s financial implosion. Most of the schools shut down between 2010 and 2015 remain empty.

With regard to the school closures it has been alleged that, as a consequence of three decades of population exodus, school enrollment has declined by 42 percent. Thousands of teachers, with sought-after bilingual skills have also migrated to the United States, together with medical doctors and highly skilled workers.

In March, the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority, established in June 2016 under the US Congress’ PROMESA Act to manage the Puerto Rican budget in the interest of Wall Street banks and hedge funds, demanded that Roselló impose a much harsher wave of budget and job cuts than had been originally agreed upon.

The latest financial board plan outlined in March includes yearly budget cuts of $7 billion (10 percent), slashing working hours and pensions, forcing unpaid furloughs, and a $450 million budget cut for the University of Puerto Rico, which is now asking for financial contributions from the public. This was coupled with a yearly debt service of $3.5 billion.

Such a strategy is bound to provoke explosive struggles among teachers and public employees. On Monday, parents, students and their supporters marched in San Juan and other communities, rejecting the closures. In some schools, protesting parents kept their students from attending

In contrast, the reaction of National Union of Puerto Rican Educators and Education Workers (UNETE PR), has signaled that it fully accepts the government’s school-closing plan. It also signaled its willingness to negotiate, saving this or that school at the expense of another, on the grounds that some the targeted communities have not been properly consulted.

UNETE, the Puerto Rican Teachers Federation, and other education unions, part of the Broad Front in Defense of Public Education (FADEP), as well as the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) all share the same outlook, to contain community and working-class opposition to the school closures and austerity policies at the level of protest appeals to the corporate-controlled parties.

Except for the school closures, the government has yet to announce a budget that reflects the demands of the financial control board, as part of the restructuring of Puerto Rican finances and taxes.

With each new downward adjustment in government spending, the prospect of economic recovery for Puerto Rico becomes more distant. Confirming widespread expectations that the new austerity measures will be unbearable, Brad Setser, an economist with the Council of Foreign Relations, predicted a further decline of 15 percent in the Puerto Rico’s income, equivalent to the entire decline in output since 2016; creating conditions of economic depression like the Greek economy.

Setser estimates that the Fiscal Agency’s demand that Puerto Rico cut its state budget by $7 billion a year (a 10 percent budget cut), combined with an increase in US interest rates by the Federal Reserve Board, would further exacerbate the economic implosion.

Officially Puerto Rico owes some $72 billion to various vulture funds and another $50 billion for so-called unfunded pension liabilities to public employees. In 2015 then Puerto Rican Governor Alejandro García Padilla hired former bankruptcy judge Stephen Rhodes who oversaw the slashing of city worker pensions and the fire sale of public assets during the 2013–2014 bankruptcy of Detroit.

The big Wall Street hedge funds that control municipal bond debt see Puerto Rico as new precedent for a further wave of bankruptcies and the looting of pensions and public resources.

Life expectancy study shows 20-year gap between richest and poorest US counties

Naomi Spencer

The growth of social inequality is manifested in every facet of American life, including the health and lifespans of individuals. Inequality in life expectancy has grown substantially since 1980, a new study published May 8 in the American Medical Association’s JAMA: Internal Medicine confirms. The study documents “large—and increasing—geographic disparities among counties in life expectancy over the past 35 years.”

Researchers from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and Erasmus University in the Netherlands analyzed death records and population counts from all US counties.

Their study, “Inequalities in Life Expectancy Among US Counties, 1980 to 2014: Temporal Trends and Key Drivers,” drew data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), along with population counts from the US Census Bureau, NCHS, and the Human Mortality Database. This data set allows for a fuller picture of the scale of inequality in life expectancy that other recent research has shown. (The IHME maintains an interactive county-level map)

The study found that in 2014 life expectancy at birth for both sexes at the national level was 79.1 years (76.7 years for men and 81.5 years for women). The combined average amounts to a 5.3-year growth in life expectancy over the 1980 average of 73.8 years.

Life expectancy at birth

Behind this overall growth in lifespan, however, the study found a staggering 20.1-year gap between the lowest and highest life expectancy among all US counties.

Three wealthy counties in central Colorado—Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin—recorded the longest life expectancies in the country, at 86 years on average. At the other end of the spectrum, several counties in South and North Dakota had the lowest life expectancy, along with “counties along the lower half of the Mississippi [the Delta region] and in eastern Kentucky and southwestern West Virginia,” the study found. These areas “saw little, if any, improvement” since 1980. Thirteen counties registered a decline in life expectancy.

In the Dakotas, several of the shortest-lived counties encompass Native American reservations. Oglala Lakota County in South Dakota, home to the Pine Ridge Native American reservation, had the lowest life expectancy in the country in 2014, at just 66.8 years. In a press release, the IHME researchers noted that this was lower than the life expectancies of Sudan and Iraq—countries that have been torn apart by brutal wars over the course of decades.

“Looking at life expectancy on a national level masks the massive differences that exist at the local level, especially in a country as diverse as the United States,” lead author Laura Dwyer-Lindgren of IHME explained. “Risk factors like obesity, lack of exercise, high blood pressure, and smoking explain a large portion of the variation in lifespans, but so do socioeconomic factors like race, education, and income.”

The study found that all counties saw a decline in the risk of dying before age 5 since 1980, attributable to improvements in health programs for infants and children. At the same time, the data showed an increased risk of death for adults aged 25-45 in 11.5 percent of counties, a phenomenon partially explained by the rise in suicides and drug addiction.

Although the research points to “a combination of socioeconomic and race/ethnicity factors, behavioral and metabolic risk factors, and health care factors” to account for the disparities in life expectancy, all of the factors intersect with poverty. It is not a coincidence that the poorest areas recorded the shortest life expectancies and the wealthiest areas recorded the longest lifespans.

Risk factors like obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity are highly correlated to poverty, unemployment and lack of education. In areas where the population lacks access to preventive care or they cannot afford basic health care, chronic conditions become debilitating. Cancers go undetected, mental illness is undiagnosed, pregnancies are carried without adequate prenatal care, heart disease is untreated, and work-related injuries are managed with highly addictive pain medications instead of physical therapy and rest.

Of the 10 counties where lifespans fell the most since 1980, eight are in the coalfields region of eastern Kentucky: Owsley (-3 percent); Lee (-2 percent); Leslie (-1.9 percent); Breathitt (-1.4 percent); Clay (-1.3 percent); Powell (-1.1 percent); Estill (-1 percent); Perry County, Kentucky (-0.8 percent). Kiowa County, Oklahoma, (-0.7 percent), and Perry County, Alabama, (-0.6 percent) round out the list of counties where life expectancy declined the most.

Change in life expectancy at birth

Residents of Owsley County, Kentucky saw a decline in life expectancy from 72.4 in 1980 to 70.2 in 2014—comparable to the life expectancy in Kyrgyzstan or North Korea.

Owsley County was found by a 2016 Al Jazeera analysis to be the poorest white-majority county in the US. Some 45 percent of the county’s 4,500 residents, and 56.3 percent of children, live below the poverty threshold. Official unemployment stands at 10 percent, but with only 35 percent of the working age population included in the labor force, real unemployment is approaching 75 percent. Per capita income as of 2015 stands at $15,158, according to federal Census Bureau data.

As with the rest of the Appalachian coalfields region, the counties where life expectancy has dropped have seen every metric of economic and social well-being decline over the past several decades. Coal mining employment in eastern Kentucky has fallen to levels not seen in a century. With hundreds of mines shuttered, counties have lost so-called coal-severance tax revenue paid by companies per ton of coal extracted. Thousands of families have left in search of work, triggering a further collapse in the tax base for local governments, school districts, and social programs. The elimination of thousands of coal mining jobs has left mostly low-wage occupations for residents.

Lee County, second to Owsley in terms of the decline in life expectancy, is home to “America’s poorest white town”—Beattyville, Kentucky, the county seat. Beattyville has seen an explosion of opioid addiction since the closure of its few coalmines and decline of the oil and timber industries. The median household income in the town stands at $14,871, less than a third of the national median. Like its measure of life expectancy, Lee County’s household income is lower today than it was in 1980.

Kentucky and neighboring West Virginia have among the highest opioid overdose rates in the country, with the coalfields counties especially hard-hit. In 2013, drug overdoses accounted for 56 percent of all accidental deaths in Kentucky; the state’s death rate for overdoses is 29.9 per 100,000. In the eastern counties, emergency services are less able to reach and save overdose victims and health providers have struggled to afford lifesaving anti-opioid treatments like Narcan.

Democrat Moon Jae-in wins South Korean presidential election

Ben McGrath

Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) won yesterday’s presidential election in South Korea, securing 40.3 percent of the total vote in what amounted to a landslide in a crowded field. Moon will be sworn into office today as the first Democrat since Noh Moo-hyun held power from 2003-2008.

While formal results have not been announced, Moon’s closest competitors, Hong Jun-pyo of the right-wing Liberty Korea Party (LKP) and Ahn Cheol-soo of the People’s Party, have both conceded after securing 25 and 21.5 percent of votes respectively. Yu Seung-min of the right-wing Bareun party and Sim Sang-jeong of the pseudo-left Justice Party are projected to have gained about 7 and 6 percent respectively. The turnout was a record 77.2 percent of voting population or 42.5 million voters.

Moon won the election by appealing to fears of a US-led war with North Korea, making promises to resolve the country’s worsening social and economic crisis, and capitalising on the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye on corruption charges. He delivered his victory speech in Gwanghwamun, Seoul, the site of mass protests against Park who was removed from office on March 10, triggering yesterday’s poll.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer congratulated Moon, saying that the Trump administration looked forward to working together to strengthen the US-South Korean military alliance. However, while Moon has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to the alliance, he has called for a return to the so-called Sunshine Policy to improve relations between the two Koreas and defuse the current tense standoff between the US and North Korea.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Moon suggested that he would adopt a carrot and stick approach, saying: “If, in addition to stronger sanctions and pressure, we comprehensively push for active engagement, including dialogue, with the North, it might be possible for the regime to change its path.” He has promised to reopen the Kaesong Industrial Complex—a joint cheap labour zone inside North Korea set up under the Sunshine Policy—closed by Park Geun-hye in February 2016.

Moon’s approach might coincide with Trump’s apparent tactic at present—giving China a short window of opportunity to bully North Korea into abandoning its nuclear and missile programs. However, Trump officials have repeatedly declared that all options, including the use of military force, are on the table. In that event, Moon could quickly find himself at variance with Washington and subject to enormous pressure.

Former South Korean vice-foreign minister Kim Sung-han told the Financial Times that frictions between Seoul and Washington could emerge. “There is inevitably going to be some noise,” he said. Moon is likely to put more emphasis on dialogue, while Washington is more likely to take a hardline policy. This may prompt a conflict of opinions.”

Moon is already confronting a conundrum over the US installation of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile battery in South Korea, which became operational on May 1. Moon postured as an opponent of the deeply-unpopular THAAD system, criticized its accelerated deployment, promised to review the installation, but did not pledge to remove it from South Korea.

Moon is hoping to improve relations with China, which has demanded the removal of the THAAD battery amid concerns that its radar system can monitor Chinese missiles. Beijing has also retaliated economically against South Korean corporations. However, any attempt by Moon to dismantle the THAAD battery could cause a major rift with Washington.

Significantly, CIA director Mike Pompeo made an unannounced visit to Seoul just over a week prior to the election, undoubtedly to discuss not only North Korea, but a likely Moon win.

In the final weeks of his campaign, Moon stressed his agreement with the Trump administration and his support for the US alliance. He has called for a more prominent role for South Korea in North East Asia affairs and suggested that Washington should follow Seoul’s lead over North Korea. However, like previous Democrat presidents, Kim Dae Jung and Noh Moon-hyun, Moon will bend over backwards to avoid any rift with the US.

Moon worked as a lawyer before serving as an important campaigner for Noh Moon-hyun in 2002 and served as senior secretary to Noh from 2005-2006 and as chief of staff from 2007–2008. Despite tensions between then-President Bush and Noh, the latter dispatched South Korean troops to take part in the illegal US-led occupation of Iraq. When challenged over his defense policies, Moon points to his record as a conscript into the country’s special forces who are trained for sabotage behind the North Korean lines.

Domestically, the Noh administration continued the privatization of state-owned companies begun under Kim Dae-jung and oversaw the rapid increase of “irregular workers,” who have no job protection and earn significantly less than others doing the same work. Moon has made a number of pro-business pledges, including forming a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” committee to provide government support for technology companies and to turn South Korea into a nation of startups.

A day before the election, Moon visited Gangnam, Seoul, the capital’s wealthiest district, to address the business concerns over some of his campaign promises to secure working class votes. “We will show Moon’s determination to be backed evenly across the country,” one of his campaigners, Jeon Byeong-heon, declared.

In other words, despite pledges to enforce a maximum 52-hour work week and eliminate discrimination against irregular workers, Moon is more than willing to make concessions to big business. His other pledges include the creation of 810,000 jobs, mostly in the public sector as well as opening up new positions through job sharing—a policy that former right-wing president Lee Myung-bak used to cut workers’ salaries in return for hiring additional employees. All candidates routinely make such pledges only to cast them aside after being elected.

Backed by the significant sections of the ruling class, the Democrat presidents Kim Dae-jung and Noh Moo-hyun came to power in the midst of the economic and political turmoil triggered by the 1997–98 Asian financial crisis. They enforced the demands of International Monetary Fund and investors for far-reaching pro-market restructuring, leading to widespread sackings, the undermining of wages and conditions and deepening social inequality. The resulting widespread alienation among working people was a major factor in enabling the return of the right wing—Lee Myung-bak in 2008 and Park Geun-hye in 2013.

Moon’s election is likewise aimed at defusing widespread hostility towards the political establishment over declining living standards, anti-democratic measures and the growing threat of war and preventing the development of a political movement of the working class against the profit system itself.

More than half of young people in Europe would join a “large-scale uprising”

Andre Damon

It is not every day that young people are asked  by a major international agency whether they want to participate in a “large-scale uprising.” But this is exactly what the Union of European Broadcasters, the world’s largest alliance of public TV stations, did in a survey of nearly one million people between the ages of 18 and 35.

Asked, “Would you actively participate in a large scale uprising against the generation in power if it happened in the next days or months?”, more than half, 53 percent, said yes. In Greece and France, the figure was over 60 percent.

More than half of young people would join a mass "uprising"

The phrasing of the question seemed calculated to take the edge off the result, intentionally muddying the issue with the hint of an inter-generational conflict. But the responses to the other questions make clear the feelings that animated young people in saying they would join an “uprising.” The survey found that young people are overwhelmingly concerned about social inequality, oppose war and sympathize with refugees.

Asked whether “Banks and money rule the world,” nearly 9 out of 10 young people said they agreed, out of more than 500,000 people who answered the question.

Along the same lines, when respondents were asked whether the “gap between the rich and the poor” is widening, 89 percent agreed.

Asked whether “politicians are corrupt,” respondents were even more categorical, with only 8 percent replying “No, very few of them are.” The overwhelming majority responded with some form of “yes,” answering either “some are” or “virtually all of them are.”

Thomas Grond, Head of Young Audiences at the Union of European Broadcasters, told the WSWS that the figures showed a “catastrophic” collapse in trust in social institutions. “Trust in the media, in politicians, in religious institutions, these have all failed.

“A big part of the young population is not feeling that politics are taking them into consideration,” Grond said. “It’s about preserving the system, and there isn’t a lot of change. And where there is change, it’s backwards.”

Asked if he was surprised by the fact that so many young people said they would be willing to participate in a “large-scale uprising,” Grond answered bluntly: “Not really.” He said the poll showed that, despite their skeptical attitude toward social institutions, young people are broadly optimistic about the future, and “willing to participate” in political life. “Society is simply not giving them a chance to show what they are capable of,” he said.

Grond said he was surprised by the broadly felt opposition to nationalism pervasive among survey participants. “78 percent of young people in Germany said that nationalism is growing and that this is a bad thing,” Grond noted. This compared to just 11 percent who said the growth of nationalism was a positive development.

Significantly, in Germany, where the ruling class is engaged in a campaign to rehabilitate nationalism and militarism—including by academics like Jörg Baberowski, who has said that “Hitler was not cruel” and was “no psychopath”—more than two thirds of young people said they would not be willing to fight in a war.

Throughout Europe, despite the relentless promotion of militarism and pro-war sentiments by the media, more than half of young people said they would refuse to “fight for [their] country.”

Beginning with Britain's June 23, 2016 referendum to leave the European Union, followed by the election of the fascistic billionaire Donald Trump as US president in November, the international media has been full of claims that the populations of the world’s advanced countries are engulfed in an upsurge of nationalism, militarism and right-wing sentiment.

The survey shows something quite different. Asked whether they believe “immigration makes for richer countries,” nearly three quarters said they agree.

These figures beg the obvious question: Given a nearly total discrediting of official politics, a general recognition that banks “rule the world,” widespread antiwar sentiment, and broad opposition to nationalism and xenophobia, why are right-wing, pro-austerity politicians advancing all over the world?

The answer is to be found in the record of what passes for “left” politics. Here are just a few examples:

• In the 2016 US presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders won 13.3 million votes by declaring himself to be a “democratic socialist” opposed to the “billionaire class.” The purpose of his campaign, however, was to maintain the political authority of the Democratic Party. Sanders endorsed Clinton, the candidate of Wall Street, after he was defeated in the primaries, ensuring that rhetorical opposition to the status quo would be monopolized by Trump. He has since campaigned throughout the country calling on young people and workers to back the Democratic Party.

• After Syriza (the “Coalition of the Radical Left”) was elected in Greece in January 2015 on a wave of anti-austerity sentiment, the government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras dutifully imposed the austerity demands of the European Union. Syriza and its international co-thinkers do not represent the interests of workers and working-class youth, but privileged sections of the upper middle class.

• In the most recent elections in France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Unsubmissive France) received 7 million votes on the basis of his rhetorical opposition to inequality and war. However, he worked to channel this sentiment behind the political establishment. He refused to call for a boycott in the second round of the election between Marine Le Pen of the fascistic National Front and the ex-banker Emmanuel Macron, implicitly backing Macron, who supports the expansion of war and a massive intensification of the assault on the working class.

Trump firing of FBI director touches off political storm

 Patrick Martin 

The surprise firing of FBI Director James Comey, announced late Tuesday afternoon, is a sign of a deep and intensifying crisis of the Trump administration. Trump’s firing of Comey smacks of desperation on the part of a White House under siege.

The firing sparked widespread condemnation by Democrats and some Republicans, along with demands for the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent commission to investigate charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election campaign.

Powerful sections of the US ruling elite are moving against the Trump White House, which is so steeped in corruption that any one of a series of scandals, not just the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, could leave it politically crippled.

There were numerous media comparisons to the “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Watergate scandal of 1973–74, when the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than carry out orders from President Richard Nixon to dismiss special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. That effort to torpedo an investigation failed: ten months later, Nixon was forced to resign as president.

Unlike Watergate, however, there is no democratic principle being asserted, even in a limited fashion, by the Democratic Party opponents of the Trump administration. This is a conflict within the US ruling elite and its military-intelligence apparatus, driven largely by differences over foreign policy.

No significant evidence has been produced in support of the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. The real purpose of the campaign of Russia-baiting is to push the Trump administration into a more confrontational foreign policy in Syria, Central Asia, North Africa and Eastern Europe, where US imperialism regards Moscow as its principal obstacle.

Trump has attempted to satisfy these concerns with last month’s missile strikes against Syria and a harsher rhetorical line towards Iran and Russia, but the divisions persist, as shown in the hearing Monday before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The circumstances surrounding Trump’s decision to fire Comey remained murky Tuesday night, with the White House withholding further comment following the announcement of Comey’s firing at 5:41 p.m. Press reports suggest that the decision had been in preparation for at least a week, and that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who took office on April 26, had been commissioned to provide a rationale.

The New York Times reported on its website, “Senior White House and Justice Department officials had been working on building a case against Mr. Comey since at least last week, according to administration officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had been charged with coming up with reasons to fire him, the officials said.”

The argument for the firing elaborated in a three-page memorandum prepared by Rosenstein has no credibility. The memo focuses on Comey’s decisions about the investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, condemning him not for the substance of the decision that there was no crime to prosecute, but for holding a press conference to announce that decision and proceeding to attack Clinton’s conduct as “extremely careless.” The memo also criticizes Comey for the October 28 letter in which he informed Congress that the FBI was reopening the Clinton investigation, only 11 days before Election Day.

Trump’s expressed opinions are the direct opposite of the Rosenstein memorandum. Last July, he denounced Comey’s decision not to prosecute Clinton, while “lock her up” became a standard chant at Trump rallies and at the Republican National Convention. Later, Trump hailed the October 28 letter as an action in which Comey “showed guts.”

Earlier this week, Trump tweeted that Comey had been “the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton,” and that his decision on the email server prosecution was “a free pass for many bad deeds.”

There are further contradictions. Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared during his confirmation hearing that he would recuse himself from any actions relating to the case against Clinton, because of his own role in the Trump election campaign. Yet he has now countersigned the decision to fire Comey, supposedly because of the FBI director’s actions in the Clinton investigation.

Sessions also said that he would recuse himself from decisions related to the ongoing investigation into possible collaboration between the Trump campaign and alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The firing of Comey removes the head of the agency conducting that investigation.

It is absurd to suggest that Trump fired Comey for his transgressions against Hillary Clinton, particularly when he has attacked the FBI director for going easy on her. Moreover, all the events cited in the Rosenstein memo took place before the 2016 election, while Trump reiterated his support for Comey continuing in office—he was serving a fixed ten-year term until 2023—as recently as February.

What has changed in the interim? On March 20, at a nationally televised House Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey confirmed for the first time that the FBI has opened an investigation into possible connections between the Trump campaign and alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Since then, a series of former campaign advisers and aides has been interrogated by the FBI, each undoubtedly pressured to save their own skins at the expense of those higher up, in a chain leading inexorably to Trump himself.

Most serious appears to be the attention given to Trump’s former national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has been publicly accused of failing to report significant income from individuals and businesses linked to Russia, and who was so close to Trump that he was actively considered as a possible running mate.

The extreme sensitivity in the White House to Comey’s role in the Russia investigation was indicated in the second paragraph of the official letter from Trump to Comey informing him of his dismissal. “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” Trump wrote.

The White House apparently informed only a handful of congressional leaders ahead of the firing, including Senators Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee that oversees the FBI. Graham publicly endorsed the firing, while Feinstein did not oppose it.

Among other Democratic senators and congressmen, however, there was near-unanimous opposition.

Senate Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, speaking on the Senate floor, condemned the firing. “Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues,” he said. “We await clarification by the White House as soon as possible as to whether this investigation will continue and whether it will have a credible lead so that we know that it’ll have a just outcome.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer noted Trump’s firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates, US Attorney Preet Bharara and now Comey, saying on Twitter, “If we don’t get a special prosecutor, every American will rightfully suspect that the decision to fire Comey was part of a cover-up.”

Even more significant were the statements from two leading Republican senators. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which is conducting an investigation into the Russian hacking allegations, declared, “I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Jim Comey’s termination. I have found Director Comey to be a public servant of the highest order.”

Senator John McCain, former presidential candidate and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, reiterated his support for a special investigating committee. “I have long called for a special congressional committee to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election,” he said in a statement. “The president’s decision to remove the FBI director only confirms the need and the urgency of such a committee.”

United Nations University – WIDER PhD Internships for International Students 2017 – Finland

Application Deadline: 30th September 2017 23:59 EEST

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Finland

About the Award: PhD interns typically spend 3 consecutive months at UNU-WIDER and are expected to return to their home institution afterwards. During their time in Helsinki, PhD interns prepare one or more research papers and present a seminar on their research findings. PhD interns may also have the opportunity to publish their research in the WIDER Working Paper Series.

Type: Internships

Selection Criteria: Applicants must be enrolled in a PhD programme and have shown ability to conduct research on developing economies. Candidates working in other social sciences may apply but should keep in mind that UNU-WIDER is an economics-focused institute. Candidates should be fluent in oral and written English and possess good quantitative and/or qualitative analytical skills. Preference is given to applicants who are living or working in developing countries and who are at later stages of the PhD.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Internship: UNU-WIDER provides a travel grant to cover the costs of travel to and from the location of your PhD granting institution, medical insurance (for medical and hospital services resulting from sickness and accident during your stay at UNU-WIDER), and a monthly stipend of EUR 1,600 to cover living expenses in Helsinki during the period of their internship. The programme does not cover expenses related to dependents.

Duration of Internship: PhD interns typically spend 3 consecutive months at UNU-WIDER and are expected to return to their home institution afterwards

How to Apply: If you are interested in participating in this programme you should complete and submit the application form.

As part of your application, you will be asked to upload your curriculum vitae. Your PhD supervisor will need to provide UNU-WIDER with a letter of reference, which should be emailed (by your supervisor) to the following address: phdreference(at)wider.unu.edu. The reference letter will also be used to certify that you are enrolled in a PhD programme at your university.

Please note we do not receive applications by email or post.

Visit Internship Webpage for details

Award Provider: UNU-WIDER