30 May 2018

Naming of technocratic government plunges Italy into crisis of class rule

Alex Lantier

A mounting financial and political crisis is spreading across Europe after Italian President Sergio Mattarella named a technocratic government on Monday, effectively nullifying the March 2018 elections. Financial markets are panicking and protests are being called, as bitter divisions inside the Italian bourgeoisie, particularly over the euro currency, erupt to the surface.
Initially, financial markets sent Italian interest rates lower on Monday, marking their approval of Mattarella’s decision not to allow the right-wing populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the far-right Lega party to form a government. Yesterday, however, financial markets continued to push interest rates on Italian debt higher, to 1.937 percent for the first time since 2013, and sent the euro falling to below $1.16. It is ever clearer that deep conflicts in the Italian and the whole European ruling class that underlay the euro crisis following the 2008 Wall Street crash have not been resolved.
The market turmoil spread to the United States, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 391 points, or 1.58 percent.
On Monday night, designated Prime Minister Carlo Cottarelli indicated that he would oversee a brief technocratic government pledged to austerity and the euro. He said, “My government will be neutral, will ensure prudent management of the state budget and will treat as essential Italy’s participation in the euro.” He also indicated that he would nominate non-partisan state officials as ministers and ask them to sign a pledge not to seek election in the next parliamentary elections.
On Tuesday, however, markets and European bank stocks fell, as it became clearer that Italy is set for a protracted period of government instability and political crisis. The Cottarelli government faces opposition from the M5S and Lega, who hold a majority of seats in parliament, so it is unclear whether it can survive a confidence vote or pass a budget. There are widespread expectations that Mattarella will call new elections in early 2019 or even as soon as early September.
In the meantime, bitter political conflicts are erupting inside the ruling class between supporters of the EU and the euro and their far-right critics inside Italy and across Europe. However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers.
Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister.
Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.”
Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.”
Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.”
Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.”
The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government.
More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.”
Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.”
While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. They have pledged deep cuts to public spending and mass raids and expulsions of immigrants, provoking mass protests in defense of immigrant rights across Italy in the lead-up to the March 2018 elections.
The only way forward for workers and youth in Italy is the development of a socialist and internationalist movement in opposition to both the PD and other supporters of the EU, and the far-right forces grouped around the M5S-Lega alliance. Mattarella’s anti-democratic intervention into the Italian elections notwithstanding, these far-right forces will prove just as hostile to the working class as the EU and the banks.
Far-right politicians across Europe are now making statements in support of M5S and its alliance with Lega. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s neo-fascist National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a “coup d’état” by the EU.
Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: “In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.”
There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega, which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support. On a hidden camera, former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote.

29 May 2018

DFID/Wellcome Trust Epidemic Preparedness Grants for Researchers in Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 11th June 2018, 17:00 BST

To Be Taken At (Country): UK, Republic of Ireland,low or middle income countries, Rest of the world

Type: Grants

Eligibility: You can apply to this call if you’re a social scientist employed at a higher education organisation or not-for-profit research institution.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Up to £2 million is available to fund several awards.

Duration of Funding: Up to 2 years

How to Apply: Visit Link below

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: The scheme is a joint initiative between the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Wellcome.

Qingdao Government Scholarship for New International Students (Bachelors, Masters & Doctoral) 2018/2019 – China

Application Deadline: 1st July 2018

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): China

About the Award: The China University of Petroleum is a university system in China. It consists of two universities: China University of Petroleum, located in Qingdao and Dongying, and China University of Petroleum, located in Beijing.

Type: Undergraduate, Masters, Doctoral

Eligibility:
  • Applicants must be non-Chinese citizens and in good health.
  • Applicants do not have any Chinese government scholarship.
  • Long-term non-degree studies should be two academic semesters at least.
  • The candidate should have a very good command of English language. Therefore, the application should be written in English.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  1. Long-term Non-degree Students: A partial tuition waiver: RMB 10000 in total.
  2. Bachelor’s Degree Students: A partial tuition waiver: RMB 20000 in total, first-year partial tuition waiver: RMB 10000, when passing the annual review, students will have a second-year partial tuition waiver: RMB 10000 and students can apply for current student scholarships.
  3. Master’s Degree Students & Doctoral Degree Students: Living allowance: RMB 30000 in total, three-year living allowance: RMB 10000 per year (RMB 1000/month for 10 months every year) and students can apply university scholarships in the meantime.
How to Apply: 
  1. Submit your online application: Register at our International Student Online Application System (https://upc.17gz.org/member/login.do), fill in online application information, upload application documents and submit it.
  2. Announce admission results: Admissions Office will announce the admission and scholarship results within 2 weeks after receiving online applications.
  3. Deliver admission documents: Admissions Office will deliver the admission documents within 2 weeks after the admission and scholarship result announcement. Please provide a post address and contact information to the Admissions Office in prior.
  4. Make a room reservation and deposit payment: Admissions Office will inform scholarship winners of the room reservation and its deposit payment of RMB1000.00. The winners must pay their room deposits to the accommodation reception in due time in order to finalize their admission and scholarship. The accommodation reception will refund the room deposit on checkout. The room deposit will not be refunded if the winners do not register for enrollment and scholarship for any reasons.
  5. Registration in due time: Scholarship winners should register at our university in due time. Otherwise, the winners will be considered giving up the admission and scholarship.
Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Qingdao Government Scholarship

Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowships for Researchers in Low and Middle Income Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 24th July 2018

Eligible Countries: Low- and middle-income countries. See list below

To be taken at (country): United Kingdom

Eligible Field of Study: Public health

About the Award: This scheme enables researchers from low- and middle-income countries to establish themselves as leading investigators in their scientific field. The scheme aims to support research that will improve public health and tropical medicine at a local, national and global level.

Type: Fellowship, Research

Eligibility: You can apply for the Senior Research Fellowships in Public Health and Tropical Medicine if you’re an established researcher leading your own independent research programme. The programme of work you propose must be innovative and ambitious.
  • You must be a national of a low- or middle-income country.
  • You should have a PhD or a degree in medicine and be qualified to enter higher specialist clinical training. You must also have significant postdoctoral research experience.
  • If you don’t have a PhD or a degree in medicine, we may still consider you if you have a first or a Master’s degree and can show substantial research experience.
You should be able to show:
  • your work is important, original and has impact
  • you have made important contributions to your area of research, eg publications, patents, software development or an impact on health policy or practice
  • you have an international reputation as a research leader in your field
  • you’re committed to developing and mentoring less experienced researchers.
Also
  • You must have an eligible sponsoring organisation in a low- or middle-income country that will administer the fellowship for the full duration of the award.
  • If you’ve been away from research (eg for a career break, maternity leave, or long-term sick leave), we’ll allow for this when we consider your application.
  • This scheme may be of particular interest if you’re an intermediate career fellow (such as an Intermediate Fellow in Public Health and Tropical Medicine) and this fellowship is the next step in your career as a research scientist.
  • We particularly encourage applications from researchers from low- and middle-income countries who want to return to their home countries.
Selection Criteria: Candidate’s application must show:
  • good track record
  • the quality and importance of the research question(s)
  • good approach to solving these questions
  • the suitability of candidate’s research environment.
Number of Awardees: Not stated

Value of Scholarship: Salary and research expenses covered

Duration of Scholarship: 5 years (candidate can apply for renewal after this time)

Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Angola,  Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. , Congo, Rep., Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Federation Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey , Uganda, Ukraine,  Rep. Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Other Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, American Samoa, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,  Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Fiji, The Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Islamic Rep. Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Dem Rep., Kosovo, Kyrgyz, Republic Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mayotte, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea,  Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Serbia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. ,Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Syrian, Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, RB Vietnam,  West Bank and Gaza Yemen,

How to Apply: Candidates for the Senior Research Fellowships must submit their application through the Wellcome Trust Grant Tracker

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Wellcome Trust, UK

Important Notes: Candidates for the Senior Research Fellowships who don’t have PhD or a degree in medicine may still be considered you if they have a first or a Master’s degree and can show substantial research experience. The scheme mmay be very important if candidate is an intermediate career fellow.

Australian government reports whitewash responsibility for toxic foam crisis

Patrick Davies

A federal government expert health panel report earlier this month dismissed the need for compensation for those exposed to toxic foam and other poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The findings make clear that the Liberal-National government’s aim, in calling the review, was to scuttle calls for property buybacks and financial assistance for residents in high-exposure zones, where property values have plummeted and a health crisis has emerged.
Up to 18 airports and defence bases across the country were investigated after soil and waterway tests near the Williamtown air force base, just north of Newcastle, New South Wales (NSW) in 2012. The chemicals are found in fire-fighting foam, which seeped into drains and waterways.
For decades the Defence Department knew the material was potentially harmful to human health and the environment. As was revealed last year, it ignored warnings as early as 1987 that the foam should be treated as “toxic waste.”
The PFAS crisis has potentially exposed the federal government to hundreds of millions of dollars of liability.
After the contamination was discovered in Williamtown, a management area known as the “red zone” was established. A number of other contaminated sites were identified nationally, including at Oakey in Queensland and Darwin and Katherine in the Northern Territory.
The Expert Health Panel report acknowledged many of the PFAS health risks. It noted that international studies showed “fairly consistent reports” that PFAS exposure could be linked to problems such as higher cholesterol, increased uric acid, reduced kidney function, altered markers of immunological response, impacted thyroid and sex hormone levels, later menarche and earlier menopause, and lower birth weight.
The panel also stated that because of the “weak and inconsistent” evidence, some important health effects could not be ruled out.
A number of international organisations, including the US Environmental Protection Authority and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, have warned of possible links between PFAS chemicals and dozens of diseases and cancers.
The panel nevertheless advised the government not to carry out “disease screening” or “health interventions” for “highly exposed groups (except for research purposes).” It recommended research on the potential ties to rare types of cancer.
The report suggested ways for the government to save money on this research. “The best value for money” would be “adding PFAS exposure analysis to existing large cohort studies.”
This set the tone for the report. At every turn, it sought to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge, effectively elevating the government’s budget considerations above the health and safety of those living in highly-exposed areas.
The report has been met with outrage in the affected communities. Oakey resident Mark Hogg told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: “It’s just another whitewash, a minimalisation of PFAS contamination.”
Many residents have asked why the government’s health department has told them to continue to limit their exposure if the chemicals pose little threat.
In the same week that the panel delivered its report, the NSW state Valuer General told residents living in the Williamtown “red zone” their property prices had dropped by an estimated 15 percent. This includes 183 properties that were added to the red zone last November.
Some residents believe the falls in value may be more severe. Many continue to live in the area because they cannot afford to sell.
Last year, a Newcastle Herald investigation discovered 50 cases of cancer on the sparsely-populated Cabbage Tree Road near the Williamtown air force base.
The cluster area has several drains that carry water runoff from the base. The investigation tallied cancers of residents and former residents over decades, including the rare cancers that have been linked with the chemicals.
Forced to act on the findings, the NSW Health Department carried out its own investigation into the cluster. In February, it released a report claiming there was no evidence of a cluster.
The department came to its conclusion by sampling people who lived up to 20 kilometres away from the management area, and only included cancer incidences between 2005 and 2014. This excluded at least 18 of the 50 cases uncovered by the Herald .
The federal government has tacked an insulting $17.9 million onto its original $55 million funding package for PFAS. The package does not include financial assistance for residents. It has been used to cover bare minimum initiatives, such as providing drinking water and free blood tests. These programs have been poorly managed and delayed.
The health panel report was released the day before the federal government handed down its May budget, promising tax cuts worth billions of dollars to the banks, big business and high-income individuals over the next decade. It also brought forward $500 million of military expenditure, taking the total for 2017-18 to $36.4 billion. Yet, there is no money for the toxic foam victims.
The federal and NSW reports underscore the determination of government authorities to wash their hands of a deepening health emergency, caused by a decades-long cover-up of the risks posed by the foam contamination.
Residents seeking justice confront a political struggle against the entire official political set-up, including the Labor Party opposition, which allowed the contamination to continue while it was in office.

Documents reveal the vast influence of Koch brothers in US universities and public schools

Harvey Simpkins 

Last month, the George Mason University protest group “UnKoch My Campus” released documents to the public through a Freedom of Information Act request detailing how the Charles Koch Foundation and the Federalist Society, groups dedicated to the promotion of ultra-conservative “free market” public policy and ideas, maintain control over the appointment of law school and economics professors at the college, a public university in northern Virginia, as part of a nationwide campaign to promote ultra-right politics.
The ideological activities of Charles and David Koch, with a combined net worth of $96.6 billion, extend to universities, colleges and even high schools. Taking advantage of the deficits caused by the decades-long bipartisan assault on public funding for both K-12 and university education, groups like the Koch brothers, the Walton Family Foundation and the Gates Foundation use their grotesque wealth, squeezed from the working class, in an attempt to inculcate young people with libertarian and other right-wing, pro-capitalist ideologies.
In 2016, George Mason University (GMU) received the largest donation in its history, a $30 million gift to its law school. $10 million came from the Koch Foundation and $20 million from the BH Fund, whose president is Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society. The BH Fund’s secretary and treasurer is Jonathan Bunch, vice president and director of external relations at the Federalist Society, a right-wing organization that lobbies for the appointment of ultra-right judges.
Leo played an instrumental role in getting Federalist Society member and far-right Justice Neil Gorsuch a seat on the US Supreme Court in early 2017, suggesting nominees to the Trump administration and meeting personally with the president. Top donors to the society include Koch Industries, David Koch, and the Charles Koch Foundation. Through the BH Fund, the Federalist Society is intimately involved in faculty hiring, gaining admittance for prospective right-wing law students, and suggesting law graduates to clerk for right-wing judges.
Numerous emails between the Federalist Society’s Leo and GMU law school dean Henry Butler show that the society played a role in hiring new professors. In October 2015, for example, Leo emailed Butler about a potential adjunct professor. A few minutes later, Butler replied, “We’re on it.” Other hiring suggestions from Leo came in May 2016 and November 2016.
The released documents also reveal that GMU officials, including University President Ángel Cabrera, law school dean Butler, and University Provost S. David Wu misled faculty about the nature of the Koch brothers/Federalist Society gift. Shortly after the law school donation was made, Butler circulated a memo to law school faculty claiming that “there are no conditions tied to this gift other than creating scholarship programs.” On April 6, 2016, at a faculty senate meeting, Wu similarly stated that the donation came with “no strings attached, and the scholarship decisions are made by GMU. The entire $30M is for scholarships for students and nothing else.”
On April 27, just days before the release of the documents by “UnKoch My Campus,” Cabrera claimed, absurdly: “[s]ince I arrived at Mason in 2012, I have made it a priority to have all gift agreements clearly uphold our commitment to academic independence. As I have stated before, gifts may be earmarked for programs, scholarships or faculty support, but donors may not determine what is taught, what student is funded, or what professor is hired. If these terms are not acceptable to donors, the gifts are kindly declined.”
The direct influence on hiring of professors by right-wing forces is even more explicit on GMU’s undergraduate campus. From 2003 to 2011, a number of agreements for hiring professors were entered into with the university that allow donors to determine who is selected for the jobs. In a 2007 agreement, for example, the Koch Foundation, along with another donor, each provided $1.25 million to fund a professorship in the economics department. The agreement provided for a five-member selection committee which would determine, by majority vote, who to hire. Two of the five members of the committee were determined by the donors.
Additionally, donors for the professorships also potentially had a direct role in determining whether professors hired through these agreements could keep their jobs, pending a specially-appointed advisory board’s “determination (based on the individual’s performance or otherwise) that the professor filling the Professorship is no longer qualified” to remain at the university.
Cabrera acknowledged that the “gift agreements … raise questions concerning donor influence in academic matters … [T]hese agreements fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet.” He also conceded that the agreements granted “donors some participation in faculty selection and evaluation.”
In the wake of the revelations, the GMU faculty senate passed a motion calling for the release of donor agreements for public review within 30 days of formal enactment. Bethany Letiecq, a faculty senator, told reporters “We want all gift agreements to be made public so we can discern the full extent of the academic violations that have been occurring here … It’s now abundantly clear that the administration of Mason, in partnership with the Mercatus Center and private donors, violated principles of academic freedom, academic control and ceded faculty governance to private donors.”
Letiecq was also justifiably bothered by the potential power exerted by donors over hiring and firing of professors, stating, “These are all gross violations of academic freedom. Faculty hiring and faculty retention are not the business of donors, in any way, shape or form.”
Koch brothers influence at George Mason extends far beyond the financial backing, hiring and firing of professors. According to the Fairfax County Times, the Koch Foundation has donated over $95 million to the University since 2005. The Kochs provided millions of dollars to GMU in the mid-1980s to set up what is now known as the Mercatus Center (Mercatus means market in Latin), which plays a large role in setting Congressional legislative policy. Over the years, at least $30 million of the Kochs’ donations have gone directly to this Center. Charles Koch and several Koch Industries associates sit on the Center’s Board of Directors.
The Koch brothers influence does not stop at George Mason. Over the past few decades, the Charles Koch Foundation has given over $200 million to hundreds of US colleges and universities, usually targeted at economics departments. In 2012, the Kochs spread more than $12.7 million among 163 colleges and universities. A year later, their foundations spent another $19.3 million, spread across 210 college campuses in 46 states and the District of Columbia. In 2014, the Koch Foundation donated $25 million to the United Negro College Fund.
In addition to GMU, the Koch brothers exert substantial control over the economics department at Florida State University (FSU), giving millions to the department since at least 2007.
In a November 2007 memorandum, revealed through a prior FOIA request, Bruce Benson, then-FSU’s economics department chairman, explained to fellow economics department faculty that the Koch brothers would not just “give us money to hire anyone we want and fund any graduate student that we choose. There are constraints.” He added, “Koch cannot tell a university who to hire, but they are going to try to make sure, through contractual terms and monitoring, that people hired are [to] be consistent with ‘donor Intent.’…We cannot expect them to be willing to give us free rein to hire anyone we might want…If we are not willing to hire [libertarian economics] faculty, they are not willing to fund us ” (emphasis added).
In Arizona, twenty percent of new funding for universities will go to two Koch-backed “economic freedom” schools (at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona). While providing millions to fund Koch brothers’ initiatives, the state government has slashed K-12 school funding by more than $1 billion since 2008, with the state currently ranking 48th in per-pupil spending. In April, educators went on strike throughout Arizona to oppose such conditions.
The Koch brothers’ influence also extends to the high school level. Charles Koch funded EDvantage, an online curriculum for high school teachers that criticizes government spending and promotes so-called free market economic principles. EDvantage provides economic “lessons,” including explaining why the Environmental Protection Agency is bad for the environment; why sweatshops are good for third-world workers; and how the minimum wage leads to unemployment.
Another Koch brothers’ venture into the mis-education of youth is the “Youth Entrepreneurs” (YE) program. As with EDvantage, YE’s curriculum promotes libertarian notions, such as the conception that the minimum wage hurts workers and slows economic growth; that public assistance harms the poor; while fostering such ruling class ideas as low corporate taxes and little government regulation.
The goal of the YE program, according to publicly available emails from a Google group set up by high school students who were part of a 2009 pilot program, is to turn young people into “liberty-advancing agents” while inoculating students against left-wing ideas by assigning them to read passages from free-market economists like Friedrich Hayek. “We hope to develop students’ appreciation of liberty by improving free-market education,” the Koch associates wrote during the program’s initial planning stages. “Ultimately, we hope this will change the behavior of students who will apply these principles later on in life.”
The YE program is now in schools in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, California, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina. The program will begin in Montana next school year.
The Koch brothers’ growing influence over education is a byproduct of the deliberate and conscious defunding of public education by the Democratic and Republican parties over the last few decades. With growing inequality comes the increasing dominance of the wealthy over all aspects of social life, including the funding of education. As the example of the Koch brothers shows, the ruling class is using its ill-gotten wealth to promote in high school and university students the bankrupt ideas that have led to the unending crises of the capitalist system.

Italy: IMF economist to form technocratic government

Peter Schwarz

The attempt to form a government in Italy of the Five Star (M5S) protest movement and the far-right Lega has failed, for the present. Giuseppe Conte, who was commissioned by President Sergio Mattarella to form the government after being proposed by the two parties, returned his mandate on Sunday evening after just four days.
The reason for Conte’s withdrawal is Mattarella’s refusal to appoint the 81-year-old Paolo Savona as minister of finance and economic affairs. The president had accepted all of the other ministerial proposals, but he rejected Savona on the grounds he planned the exit of Italy from the euro currency.
Mattarella said he was committed to protecting savers in Italy, pointing to the heightened risk premium on Italian government securities and the losses on the stock exchanges with which the financial markets had responded to the prospect of a eurosceptic government. After Conte’s withdrawal, volatility on the financial markets receded.
Savona is a figure of the Italian establishment. The retired economics professor sat on the board of various banks and companies, was the director-general of the employers’ association and industry minister under Carlo Azeglio Ciampi. But he now considers Italian accession to the European Union (EU) a “historical mistake” and the euro a “German cage” in which the Italian economy is trapped.
On Monday, Mattarella commissioned a man to form the government who stands for the exact opposite. Carlo Cottarelli is a fervent supporter of the euro and European austerity. After his appointment, the 64-year-old promised that a government formed by him would pursue a pro-European course. Italy’s participation in the euro zone was of “fundamental importance,” he said. “A government under my leadership would guarantee a prudent approach to the budget,” he added.
Cottarelli worked for the Italian National Bank in the 1980s and then spent over 25 years at sernior posts with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In 2013, he was “savings commissioner” in the Democratic Party (PD) government of Enrico Letta and drew up a drastic austerity plan for the state apparatus.
Now Cottarelli is to form a so-called technocratic government of non-party experts, which will adopt a budget and prepare for elections in spring of 2019. However, he needs a parliamentary majority for this, which he is unlikely to receive. So far, only the ruling PD has agreed to support a transitional government under Cottarelli’s leadership. It is therefore likely that new elections will take place in early autumn of this year.
Both the Lega and Five Star had refused to propose an alternative to Savona, as is customary in Italy, where the president has veto power over every minister. Instead, they are exploiting Mattarella’s intervention in behalf of the financial markets, which was welcomed in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, to make a right-wing populist and nationalist appeal.
Five Star boss Luigi Di Maio spoke of a problem for democracy and threatened Mattarella with impeachment.
Matteo Salvini, leader of the Lega, called the former IMF official Cottarelli “a representative of those powers...to whose dictates Italy should bow.” The Lega would not let itself be blackmailed, he declared, adding that in Italy, the Italians decided, not the Germans.
Salvini said it was now necessary to “go to Rome,” an allusion to the 1922 march on Rome by the fascist forces of Benito Mussolini.
For Salvini’s Lega, new elections in the immediate future could be opportune. It did surprisingly well in the parliamentary elections in March, winning 17 percent of the vote, and became the third strongest party behind M5S (33 percent) and the social democratic PD (19 percent). Since then, it has overtaken the PD in the polls and stands at 24 percent, while the Five Star Movement is stagnating and the PD continues to lose support.
The international financial press assumes that the Lega and Five Star will emerge stronger as a result of the current crisis. For example, the Financial Times wrote: “The big danger for Mattarella is that the Five Star and the Lega could emerge even stronger from a new election, as they would probably strongly insist in the election campaign that they were denied the right to rule.”
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung commented, “Now the populists bitterly accuse the president of undermining democracy and freedom in Italy and conjure up a ‘conflict between the people and the palazzo.’ Their followers are already posting poisonous messages against Mattarella on the Internet. He is even threatened with impeachment. The election campaign has begun, and it is likely to be much more aggressive than the last one.”
The Belgian newspaper De Tijd stated, “There is a danger that the principled attitude of President Sergio Mattarella has not prevented the disaster, but only made it bigger. Those who thought the euro crisis had been overcome may have to do their homework again. The hot summer in the south of Europe has begun.”
The Lega and M5S are exploiting popular outrage over the EU’s austerity policy, which has led, since the 2008 financial crisis, to mass poverty and youth unemployment of more than 30 percent in Italy. But, as the World Socialist Web Site wrote on May 23, “in the conflict between the working class and capital, the Lega and M5S stand firmly on the side of the latter.” They are merely pursuing a more aggressive nationalist course than previous Italian governments, which were always loyal to the EU.
The joint government programme of the M5S and the Lega provided for massive tax cuts for the rich and the elimination of tens of thousands of civil service jobs, while the social reforms announced, which met with outrage in European capitals, turned out to be a scam.
The two parties signaled to the banks that they accepted their terms. They had already dropped the demand for a euro exit before Mattarella charged them with forming a government. And Prime Minister-designate Conte met with central bank chief Ignazio Visco to reassure him of his loyalty before submitting his ministerial list to Mattarella.


What distinguishes the Lega, and to a lesser extent M5S, is their unbridled agitation against refugees. Their government programme provided for the internment and deportation of hundreds of thousands of refugees. This witchhunting serves to arouse chauvinist hysteria, strengthen fascist forces, increase the powers of the state apparatus and attack the democratic and social rights of the entire working class. There was no criticism of this in European capitals or media because this policy has become the consensus policy of the European bourgeoisie.

28 May 2018

Government of Japan Internship Program for Developing Countries (Fully-funded + 4,000 yen per day) 2018

Application Deadline: 30th June 2018


Eligible Countries: Developing countries (OECD/DAC-listed countries)

To be taken at (country): Japan. Private-sector companies, industry associations, and non-profit corporations in Japan. Host companies are determined after matching by the Program Office and subsequent approval by the Screening Committee.

About the Award: The Internship involves:
  • Formulating an internship plan (roles/goals, etc. of an intern) in consultation with the Internship manager
  • □Participating in group training, follow-up training, and wrap up presentation
  • □Undertaking the internship full-time during the internship period(international students living in Japan must ensure this is balanced with academic work)
  • □Undertaking management of their own safety and health as thoroughly as possible, including gathering emergency information for Japan, as well as communication, reporting, and consultation with the Program Office and the host company
  • □Submitting a variety of documents, notifications, reports, evaluation reports, etc. before coming to Japan, as well as during and after the internship period
  • □Appropriate Behavior demonstrating awareness as a beneficiary of public funds received from the Japanese government
Type: Internship

Eligibility: Young foreign nationals of developing countries (2016 participants in this Program are not eligible to participate)
Applicants satisfying all the following requirements are eligible.
  • Agreeing with the spirit of this program, and through the internship promoting internationalization of Japanese companies, developing the overseas business of Japanese companies, and working together to construct networks with overseas universities etc.
  • Holding citizenship of an eligible country or region.
  • Proficiency in Japanese language (JLPT level N3 or higher) or proficiency in English.
  • As a rule, applicants should be at least 20 years of age and no older than 40 as at June 30, 2017.
  • Applicants must able to submit a school or university enrolment or graduation certificate as well as a letter of recommendation from an affiliated university or institution etc.
  • Able to undertake both the internship and Pre-Training full-time at the host company. (International students must also able to balance these against their studies)
  • Other requirements meeting any individual conditions stipulated by the host company.
  • Applicant must not have participated in this Program in 2016.
Number of Awards: 120 interns (around 40 will be international students in Japan)

Value of Program: 
  • Allowance: 4,000 yen per day for living expenses. This amount is payable per day for the entire duration of the internship (except for international students living in Japan, who will be paid for active days only)
  • Round-trip economy class air ticket, travel insurance (international students in Japan not eligible)
  • Internship insurance
  • Transportation and accommodation expenses including training program fee when participating in training
Duration of Program: 
International students in Japan:
  • A・B: Around 3 months from August to Tuesday, December 4
Overseas foreign nationals:
  • C: Entering Japan on Sunday, September 2 & departing Tuesday, November 20
  • D: Entering Japan on Monday, September 10 & departing Thursday November 29
  • E: Entering Japan on Tuesday, September 18 & departing Friday, December 7
  • F: Entering Japan on Tuesday, September 25 & departing Thursday, December 13
  • G: Entering Japan on Monday, October 1 & departing Tuesday, December 18
  • H: Entering Japan on Monday, October 8 & departing Friday, December 21
*The Program Office will determine whether participants will follow schedule C, D, E, F, G or H.

How to Apply: 
  • Registration is accepted online via the registration form on the Program Website.
  • Selection is conducted through document screening, primary interview (native language/English/Japanese), and secondary interview (Japanese/English).
  • As part of the selection process, various certificates (university qualifications, language skills, etc.), letters of recommendation, photographs, documents required for the visa, etc. are to be submitted individually.
Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Government of Japan

Important Notes: This program offers work experience, not actual employment. It aims to provide interns with workplace skills and know-how. Please note it is not a substitute for casual or part-time employment etc.

Austrian Govenment Research Grants for International Students 2018/2019 (Undergraduate, Masters & PhD)

Application Deadline: 1st September 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: All (except Austria)

To be taken at (country): Austria

Fields of Study: Natural Sciences, Technical Sciences, Human Medicine, Health Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts

About Scholarship: Foundation of the Republic of Austria is offering scholarships for international students (except Austrians). Applicants who are descendants of forced laborers (regardless of their country of origin) or people coming from countries that have suffered exceptionally from the Nazi regime, especially from the recruitment of forced laborers. Scholarships are awarded to pursue research on their diploma or master thesis or their dissertation at scientific research institutions in Austria.

Type: grants, research, undergraduates, graduates, postgraduates

Eligibility: Eligible for application are
  • descendents of forced labourers (regardless of their country of origin)
  • or people coming from countries that have suffered exceptionally from the Nazi regime, especially from the recruitment of forced labourers.
  • Applicants must not have studied/pursued research/pursued academic work in Austria in the last six months before taking up the grant.
Selection Criteria: Students meeting the above mentioned criteria can apply to pursue research
  • on their bachelor thesis
  • on their diploma or master thesis
  • or their dissertation.
No scholarships are awarded for Bachelor, Master or Doctoral/PhD studies pursued in Austria, summer courses, language courses, clinical traineeships or internships. The scholarship grant is for research.

Age limit:
Doctoral students: 40 years (born on or after March 1, 1978)
for other students: 35 years (born on or after March 1, 1983)


Number of Scholarships: not specified

Value of Scholarship:
  1. monthly scholarship instalment: 1.050 EUR
  2. Health insurance: OeAD scholarship holders need to have health insurance that is accepted by the Austrian authorities for the duration of their stay in Austria. The OeAD can help with taking out such insurance. The monthly costs can vary, at the moment you should calculate 55 to 200 EUR (depending on your age, scholarship category and state of health). The costs for the insurance have to be covered from the scholarship.
  3. Accomodation: It is possible for OeAD scholarship holders to book accomodation (dormitory or apartment) with the OeAD Housing Office.The monthly costs are 220 to 470 EUR (depending on the level of comfort requested by the scholarship holder). The scholarship holder has to pay an administrative fee of 18 EUR/month to the OeAD Housing Office for the provision of accommodation. The costs for the accommodation have to be covered from the scholarship.
  4. Travel Costs: Applicants from countries which are neither members of the EU nor members of EFTA, EEA or OECD can be granted a travel allowance. The lump sum depends on the country of origin.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 – 4 months

How to Apply: The following documents have to be uploaded for the Online Application on www.scholarships.at/:
  • fully completed Online Application form “Application for a Scholarship of the Scholarship Foundation of the Republic of Austria” including a CV and a project plan, describing the plans and completed preparatory work for the research stay in Austria
  • two letters of recommendation from university lecturers. For these letters of recommendation no specific form is required; they have to contain the letterhead, date and signature of the person recommending the applicant and the stamp of the university / department and must be no older than six months at the time of application
  • confirmation of supervision by a supervisor at the chosen Austrian university, university of applied sciences or research institution
  • scanned passport (showing the name and picture of the applicant)
  • university graduation certificate of your diploma, master, PhD or doctoral studies at a university outside Austria resp. proof of enrollment at a study programme at a university outside Austria
  • confirmation, that proves your participation in a study programme (Bachelor, Master/Diploma or PhD) at your home university
  • for descendants of forced labourers: processing number or photocopy of the letter of information or other relevant proofs
Visit scholarship webpage for details to apply

Sponsors: OeAD-GmbH on behalf of and financed by the Scholarship Foundation of the Republic of Austria

Government of Korea K-Startup Grand Challenge for Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 14th June 2018

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Startup Campus in Pangyo Techno Valley, 14 minutes south of Gangnam, South Korea.

About the Award: The Korean government is working to transform the country’s economy for another century of success, ultimately raising employment, the GDP and Korea’s place in the world. In order to do this, the government is supporting talented entrepreneurs and promising startups to turn Korea and Pangyo Techno Valley into a global startup hub in Asia. The top ranked 50 teams selected by the accelerators will be invited to stay in Korea to participate a four-month accelerating program in Pangyo, located south of Seoul. At the end of the accelerating program, the government will host a Demo Day to select the top 25 startups from the program. They will get additional financial incentives, and if they establish their businesses in Korea, they will get additional support from the government.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria: The selection panel will give priority to startups working on disruption in the following criteria, but they will also consider startups with brilliant ideas in any sector:

Number of Awards: 4

Value of Program:
  • The top 40 startups selected will be eligible to receive a total of $22,727 each in funding for settlement in Korea
    based on their performances at the ‘Demo Day’ and according to the Settlement Evaluation.
  • All 80 startups in the program wil each receive about $11,136 (12,250,000 KRW) to cover living expenses in equal installments over 3½ months.
  • State-of-the-Art R&D Labs: Prototyping and testing facilities, expert support.
  • Brand New Startup Campus: Global Startup Campus is purposely built 14 minutes from Gangnam and next to Korea’s tech giants.
  • Expert Support: Experts from some of the world’s top tech companies with experience taking companies global.
  • Corporate Partnerships: Meet Korea’s top tech companies with expertise ranging from smartphones to software to semiconductors.
  • Break into Asia: Korea is safe, developed and two-hour flight away from over 1 billion potential customers.
  • Grant for Top 25 Startups: The top 25 startups selected at the final Demo Day will be eligible for an additional $27,000 (32,000,000 KRW) grant in equal installments over six months if they establish a legal entity in Korea.
  • Grants for Top 4 Startups:
    • Top Prize: $100,000 (120,000,000 KRW)
    • Second Prize: $40,000 (48,000,000 KRW)
    • Second Runner-up: $20,000 (24,000,000 KRW)
    • Third Runner-up: $6,000 (7,200,000 KRW)
  • Additional Investments The five accelerators will make equity investments in the most promising startups. Startups will have access to other VC’s and investors who may choose to invest.
How to Apply: Apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: Ministry of Science, Industry and Planning, National  IT Industry Promotion Agency

India’s Public Banks Are Its Lifeline: Privitisation Will Ruin Them

Moin Qazi

The world’s investment leader, Warren Buffett, once said, “It’s only when the tide goes out that you realise who has been swimming naked”. When the banking system hit the rocks and the tide turned, the naked were caught disrobed.
Similarly, sometimes it takes a pitch-black economy to reveal who and what in the financial firmament really shines. It is only when darkness falls that one can see the stars twinkle. The moonlight coming from the otherwise bleak sky of the financial world, has been made possible thanks to honest taxpayers, who are transfusing precious blood to the currently bleeding banks.
The current crisis in the Indian banking sector led to calls for privatisation of public sector banks (PSB). However, the private sector is no paragon of great virtue. Moreover the faithful supplicants of privatization are ill-informed of the real issues. The huge crowds that throng public banks and put up with various inconveniences indicate the enormous faith that the public has in these banks. The challenge today doesn’t involve providing ultra-sophisticated banking to the 10% upper crust. Instead, the true challenge is to provide basic financial services to India’s 90%, who may not be the source of great revenue to banks. Almost all government pensioners bank exclusively with public banks.
We should never forget the cutting edge role public banks have played in financial inclusion. These banks have been the backbone of socio-economic agenda for the government. In any particular rural area, the role of a PSB is not confined only to banking. It also encompasses a more holistic developmental agenda.
PSBs are the one-stop shop for all financial needs of the local rural populace, including insurance, financial literacy, remittance and receipt of welfare subsidies and grants, amongst others. The government’s socio-economic programmes have to use the banking conduit for movement of funds. Those who talk of privatisation should visit the remote branches of public banks, where managers live at great risk to personal lives, and are mentoring the local population, not just in financial literacy, but, also technical, business and agricultural literacy.
It was public banks that revolutionised rural India in the social banking era of the 1970s. The expansion of bank branches in rural areas was particularly noteworthy. The figure rose from 8,261 in the year 1969 to a whopping 65,521 in the year 2000. The share of households accessing institutional credit rose from 32% to 61.2% between 1971 and 1981.
It was this emphasis on those excluded from the formal financial stream that led to a slew of measures in the field of finance, and drove so many bankers into the arena of the battle against poverty. It is tragic that even as the country is grappling with massive problems confronting its struggling masses, the ignoble billionaires now have regular rides to the public trough.
Politicians are equally guilty of undermining the integrity of banks. They stacked the decks with populist sops using banks as spigots for burnishing their election credentials. This was apart from the huge loans they have forced banks to shovel to their buddies. In India, the proportion of dodgy loans, involving the borrower not making interest payments or repaying any principal, has surged to   the highest among the world’s largest economies. The question is—why should ordinary people bear the burden of the fat cats, who keep indulging their desires by dipping into public savings? These free loaders are gleefully and remorselessly winnowing scarce bank capital. The government has to goose these banks with spruced up balanced sheets to make them lend again. Ironically, instead of being chastised, they are lauded as captains of the industry and adorn glorious positions in industry associations.
India’s pile of soured loans, whose value degrades like an unstable isotope, is a classic example of how powerful and politically influential tycoons undermine the rules to secure credit and then default on it. The thudding losses posted by banks and the desperate attempts by government to detoxify balance sheets show how difficult it is for the rescue plans to deliver.  When borrowers become insolvent, their loans are added to an existing mountain of debt. Each time it happens, banks have to make heavy write-downs, plowing the dud loans like rotten potatoes, ultimately choking the credit line. To keep these banks going, the government has to regularly keep injecting capital into them.
Most big defaulters have the money to employ legal experts who can play the judicial system—it is here where the law flounders. India has some of the most draconian laws in books which are ineffective against powerful dodgers. We keep producing new laws when the existing ones are adequate and just need more teeth to obtain results. We show such promptness in condemning waivers for poor farmers, but, we lack the courage to tame the big fishes because they have enormous clout.
Banks are known to become aggressive in turning mortgage defaulters to the streets. Scores of indebted farmers are tying the noose out of sheer humiliation. Then there is a class of salaried people who rarely default, but, are chased down for their small unpaid bursaries. The bankers seem to be totally helpless when it comes to malfeasant promoters of big businesses. The stink of their scams has leached its poison into the entire financial system.
Scammers and swindlers have outfoxed a system which no longer appears impregnable. The bank’s safeguard systems are buttressed by state institutions, such as regulators, bankruptcy procedures and courts .But what finally underpins the security of the whole ecosystem is trust. When institutions such as banks, which are supposed to embody trust, are shown to be brittle, it leads to concerns of how fragile the economy is. This failure has shown just how deeply lacerated the core of our economic life has become. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) now no longer appears to be the financial seer and therapist that   was lionized for   insulating the domestic economy from the financial turmoil of 2008.
Scams are a product of a deadly concoction of greed and immorality. However, abuse of the financial system has been made possible because of the system’s weaknesses. In an age which heralds technology as the silver bullet, we should not overlook the most important source of competitive advantage—the people. Compliance and controls are weak the world over. They are, to a large extent, dependent on people running it.   A process is only as good as the people managing it. The most agile auditors will also have to struggle to stop managers, who are determined to hide their dirty laundry from view.
The reason for protecting the borrower against the creditor is that the much-reviled moneylender looms large in our collective psyche. The scenario now is totally different. Big borrowers are not like helpless farmers and the lender today is not the cruel sahukar but, the public bank. When these large businessmen default, they rob each one of us taxpayers. In several cases, precious and scarce bank funds are being used to finance the opulent lifestyles of the rich.
The turmoil has prompted calls for improvising risk management models, which seem to have created an illusory sense of security. However, models and machines cannot act as a surrogate for human expertise. Money management is no more a genteel world. Bankers will now have to bring in hard-boiled traders’ instincts to make it safe and secure. In a prophetic warning, way back in 1913, John Maynard Keynes wrote in Indian Currency and Finance: “In a country so dangerous for banking as India, (it) should be conducted on the safest possible principles”. Our departure from the time honoured metrics has come at a heavy cost.
The Indian financial sector is at crossroads now, and its leaders will now have to use their financial alchemy to overcome its most challenging moment. Perhaps, it is one of those occasions where Rudyard Kipling’s advice can be the best guide: “If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too.”
It will not be out of place to quote the former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan, from his Homer Jones Memorial Lecture, delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri on April 15, 2009. “A crisis offers us a rare window of opportunity to implement reforms-it is a terrible thing to waste. The temptation will be to overregulate, as we have done in the past. This creates its own perverse dynamic… Perhaps rather than swinging maniacally between too much and too little regulation, it would be better to think of cycle-proof regulation. ”

President Trump signs executive orders attacking federal employees

Nick Barrickman

President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders Friday making it easier for federal agencies to discipline and fire employees. The unilateral moves follow the president’s vows during the 2016 election to “reduce the federal workforce through attrition” and otherwise shrink the number of government employees to their lowest level in decades.
The orders will give federal managers the power to fire workers alleged to be “struggling” in their performance after “improvement periods” lasting up to a single month. Previously, workers in such a status were given from 60 to 120 days to improve, depending on the agency.
The orders will likewise force government unions to negotiate labor contracts with departments at a faster rate, tie layoffs to performance instead of seniority, charge unions rent for using federal office space, and limit the amount of official time an employee can spend attending to union-related affairs.
“These executive orders make it easier for agencies to remove poor-performing employees and ensure that taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used,” stated White House Director of the Domestic Policy Council Andrew Bremberg. Far from the bureaucratic behemoth that conservatives have painted it as, civilian employment within the federal workforce, numbering 2.7 million, has dropped to levels lower than during the 1960s as a result of multiple bipartisan cutbacks over the past quarter century.
The executive orders build upon legislation enacted last June. The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, passed by Congress in response to numerous scandals at the Department of Veterans Affairs, has led to over 1,600 staff firings, mainly of food service, nursing and housekeeping workers, in the past 11 months, according to statistics from the American Federation of Government Employees union.
Such policies reflect measures enacted at the state level, including in Indiana, where then-Governor Mike Pence tied employee pay to performance. Far from getting the government to behave more efficiently, the current executive orders will have the effect of continuing the assault on federal workers and draining resources from public agencies already starved of funding.
Trump’s legislative efforts were preceded by the Obama administration’s 2014 Veterans Choice Act, which limited the amount of time an employee could have to appeal a wrongful firing. According to the Economix blog of the New York Times, the Obama administration set a record for the number of government employees laid off during the its first three years.
The attack on federal employees occur as Trump has enacted measures to repeal regulations on major Wall Street finance houses that barred risky speculation which contributed to the 2008 financial collapse, increase rent for low-income families receiving federal aid, and restrict funding to clinics that perform abortions. In each case, the Trump administration has gone after segments of the US population that are the most vulnerable in order to whip up support from the more socially backward layers of his supporters.
“This is more than union busting—it’s democracy busting,” declared AFGE President J. David Cox, Sr. “These executive orders are a direct assault on the legal rights and protections that Congress has specifically guaranteed to the 2 million public-sector employees across the country who work for the federal government.” Despite Cox’s fake-militant rhetoric, the AFGE, the largest federal employee union, has collaborated with both Democratic and Republican administrations, accepting hiring and pay freezes for its members.
The latest efforts to squeeze federal employees come as the Trump administration continues to build up the military, the intelligence agencies and other repressive arms of the federal government. While denouncing federal workers in general, Trump has voiced a far different appraisal of the fascistic thugs who make up the bulk of the workforce of the border security and immigration agencies.
Trump’s most recent federal budget includes an increase in funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement of over $600 million. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union released a detailed report showing the widespread abuses of underage immigrants held in detainment camps by Customs and Border Patrol agents.
Previously, civilian federal employee wages rose in general parity with military pay. That ended in 2011, when the Obama administration enacted a civilian pay freeze which did not affect the military. Trump re-instituted the pay freeze upon entering office last year.
In February, the Trump administration signed into a law a spending budget of over $700 billion for the fiscal years of 2018 and 2019. Such largesse caused Military.com to remark at the time, “It’s the biggest year-over-year windfall since the budget soared by 26.6 percent, from $345 billion in 2002 to $437 billion the year after, when the nation was fighting in Afghanistan, invading Iraq and expanding national defense after the 9/11 attacks.”