Katrina vanden Heuvel | The Nation

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Politics, current affairs and riffs and reflections on the news.

Today’s GOP Is Out of Sync With Cuban-Americans

Cuban and US flags

A Cuban and US flag sit on the dashboard of an American classic car in Havana, Cuba. (AP Photo/Franklin Reyes)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

“I probably have six Cuban grandmothers, and ten Cuban mothers,” joked then–Florida governor Jeb Bush at the Cuban Liberty Council’s annual dinner 10 years ago, where he was the guest of honor. “You can always count on me to do what I can to make sure that the cause of a free Cuba is front and center in Washington.”

This was in 2004, not long after the first millennials became eligible to vote. Back then, the “cause of a free Cuba,” as Bush described it, was clear to the Cuban American community: No lifting of the embargo. No normalizing of relations. No reconciliation.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising, then, that after stepping back onto the political stage so many years later, Bush’s position on Cuba has changed not at all. “We’re not a step closer to freedom in Cuba because of the steps the president is taking,” he said last week. Nor should it be of note that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a Cuban American who grew up in the Florida Republican establishment during the 2000s, would declare soon after announcing his own campaign that he planned to “reverse every single one of the decisions [the president] has made” with regard to Cuba.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Why ‘The Nation’ Has Joined With the ACLU to Sue the NSA


(AP Photo)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Forty years ago, Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. played a crucial role in exposing decades of appalling secret conduct by US intelligence agencies. Today, he is publishing Democracy in the Dark: The Seduction of Government Secrecy, a timely and provocative book exploring the origins of the national security state and the urgent challenge of reining it in.

As the chief counsel to the Church Committee I, Schwarz helped bring to light shocking abuses that occurred under administrations of both parties. Led by Idaho Senator Frank Church (D), the committee’s 1976 investigation uncovered, for example, the FBI’s monstrous attempt to drive Martin Luther King Jr. to suicide and the CIA’s enlistment of the mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro. Foreshadowing future scandals, it also revealed that the National Security Agency spent three decades spying on telegrams sent by US citizens.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

In response to the findings, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and established permanent select committees to oversee intelligence operations. Indeed, it was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that produced the bombshell report on the CIA’s torture program released in December—though not the unredacted report the nation deserves to see. In the post-September 11 era, however, these intended safeguards against excessive secrecy have undeniably and disastrously failed. As I have written before, it’s long past time to form a modern Church Committee to investigate fully secret US intelligence activities in the twenty-first century.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

The TPP Is a Rigged Agreement

TPP protest

Police remove a woman protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership during a Senate hearing in January. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

“China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region … We should write those rules,” President Obama declared in his State of the Union address. To sell Congress on giving him authority to “fast track” consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade and investment treaty with 12 nations that has been under negotiation for five years, the president argues it is vital that “we” write the rules. The real question, of course, is what does he mean by “we”?

Our global trade and tax policies have been and still are controlled by corporate and financial interests. They, not workers or consumers, write the rules. In the early post-World War II years, trade treaties were focused on lowering tariffs. In theory at least, workers in both nations might benefit from larger markets and increased trade. But now a significant portion of our trade is intra-corporate trade, an exchange between one branch of a multinational and another. Multinationals have different interests than national companies. They profit even if U.S. workers suffer. Increasingly companies choose to report their profits or ship their jobs to countries with the lowest standards where the legal position of companies is the strongest. Companies like Wal-Mart set up global distribution systems designed to drive down wages here and abroad. The Waltons are the richest family in the world. Their workers are paid so little that they are forced to rely on taxpayer subsidies like Medicaid and food stamps.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

One product of the corporate-defined trade rules is that the United States has run unprecedented trade deficits, totaling more than $8 trillion since 2000 alone. Trade deficits cost jobs. Worse, companies have used the threat to move jobs abroad to drive down wages here at home. Our corporate-defined trade policies contribute significantly to the reality that,as Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz writes, “the real median income of a full time male worker is lower now than it was 40 years ago.”

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Tell the Election Success Stories, Too

Bill de Blasio

Bill de Blasio and his children celebrate his win in September 2013 (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

“I had a college degree, a decade of experience, and the only job I could get was making $8 an hour at the local convenience store in my neighborhood,” Maine state Representative Diane Russell (D) said in January, recalling her unlikely path to public office. “I have no business being in politics. I was not groomed for this. But thanks to public financing, I have a voice. And thanks to public financing, a gal who takes cash for the convenience store for selling sandwiches can actually talk about the stories that she’s learned from behind the counter.” Russell was speaking at an event on the fifth anniversary of the Citizens United ruling that set off an avalanche of money in politics. After her state’s “clean elections” system propelled Russell into office in 2008, she quickly became a force in Maine politics. Her progressive record of defending voting rights and workers, for example, led The Nation to recognize her as its “Most Valuable State Representative” in 2011.

In the era of super PACs and outsized corporate influence in politics, Russell is an inspiring success story—and not the kind we’re used to hearing when it comes to campaign finance. Instead, we hear about the Koch brothers, who plan to spend nearly $1 billion in the months leading up to the 2016 election. We hear about Republican presidential wannabes lining up to court billionaire casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson, in what has come to be known as “The Sheldon Primary.” And if we’re paying close attention, we hear about places like North Carolina, where Koch ally Art Pope has essentially bought the Republican Party, as well as a stint as the state budget director. Incidentally, Pope used that lofty position to attack the state’s public financing of judicial elections, opening the door for his political network to exert even more influence on the process.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

These stories are undeniably important, as are the long-term battles to overturn the Citizens United decision, pass a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform and eliminate the corrosive influence of money in politics. But there is another story being written that deserves our attention, too, in which progressive activists and lawmakers are working to make our elections more democratic—a story less about containing the influence of billionaires and corporations than empowering small donors and unlikely candidates—candidates like Diane Russell.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Adolescents Do Not Belong in the Adult Legal System

 (REUTERS/Joshua Lott)

 (Reuters/Joshua Lott)

Currently, only New York and North Carolina automatically treat 16- and 17-year-old offenders as adults in the criminal-justice system. This means that New York is one of just two states in the country that has failed to recognize what research and science have confirmed—namely, that adolescents are children, and that placing them in the adult criminal-justice system doesn’t work for them and doesn’t work for public safety. Not only is it immediately cruel to incarcerate children along with hardened adult offenders, it also destroys their future prospects: children who go through the adult system are more likely to reoffend and less likely to go on to a productive life.

Acknowledging New York’s exacerbation of the problem, Governor Cuomo included in his 2015–16 Executive Budget juvenile justice reform recommendations from his Commission on Youth, Public Safety & Justice. In a comprehensive plan that would reform New York’s system, Governor Cuomo outlined reforms that will ensure that the state’s legal process provide children with age-appropriate consequences and treatment and thereby improve outcomes for youth, communities and the criminal-justice system as a whole. He must get this proposal passed in the budget this week. There is no time to waste.

The proposed legislation includes a number of critical reforms, including:
—Raising the overall age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18, consistent with other states.
—Raising the lower age of juvenile delinquency from 7 to 12 (except for murder offenses, which would be raised to 10).
—Ensuring that no 16- or 17-year-old youths are placed in adult facilities.
—Moving the majority of cases for 16- and 17-year-olds to Family Court and creating a new “Youth Part” in the adult system for youths who have allegedly committed more violent crimes.
—Expanding services—including alternatives to detention and incarceration—to keep youth in their communities and not incarcerated.
— Increasing the age for youthful offender status to 21 and broadening eligible crimes to better address the collateral consequences of court involvement.

These changes were unanimously recommended by the Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public, Safety & Justice, a group of legal, criminal justice, and social services experts Governor Cuomo tasked in 2014 with providing clear recommendations on how to reform New York’s criminal and juvenile justice systems. If adopted, the proposed changes would make New York a national leader on juvenile justice and public safety. You can read a more detailed outline of the proposed reforms in the Commission’s Summary of Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform in New York State.

In New York in 2013, nearly 35,000 16- and 17-year olds were arrested, presenting them with the possibility of prosecution as adults in criminal court. Never mind that the vast majority of these arrests were for minor crimes, and that misdemeanors accounted for 74 percent of the arrests. In 2013, more than 650 children aged 13 to 15 were prosecuted in adult criminal courts, seriously diminishing these youths’ prospects before they’ve even entered high school. What is worse, more than 70 percent of the children and youth arrested in New York are black or Latino. And of those sentenced to incarceration, 80 percent are black and Latino.

Research into brain development underscores that adolescents are, in fact, more like children than adults. A child’s brain is not fully formed until he is 25 years old. As the cognitive skills of adolescents are developing, their behavior is often impulsive and, well, childlike. Compared with adults, adolescents have diminished ability to focus on the consequences of their behavior. Furthermore, because the adolescent’s brain is still developing, his character, personality traits and behavior is highly receptive to change. That is, adolescents respond well to interventions, learn to make responsible choices and are likely to grow out of negative or delinquent behavior. Of course, those interventions need to be appropriate, and those responsible choices need to be effectively modeled.

Treating children as adults in the criminal-justice system is short-sighted and ineffective. Youths who are incarcerated in adult facilities are more likely to suffer physical and emotional abuse, and to recidivate. Obviously, these realities are at odds with the correctional goal of rehabilitating youth and protecting public safety. Studies show that young people transferred to the adult criminal justice system have approximately 34 percent more re-arrests for felony crimes than do young people retained in the youth justice system. Around 80 percent of youth released from adult prisons reoffend, often going on to commit more serious crimes.

Studies have also shown that, compared to children placed in youth facilities, youths in adult prisons are twice as likely to report being beaten by staff, and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon. Youths in adult prisons face the highest risk of sexual assault. Children in adult prisons are often placed in solitary confinement. This isolation is destructive to their mental health and can cause them irreparable harm. Children are thirty-six times more likely to commit suicide in an adult facility than in a juvenile facility.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Rather than continuing to lock up young people in adult prisons, it is critical for New York to ensure that children involved in the criminal justice system are provided with court processes, services and placement options that are developmentally appropriate. A comprehensive approach to raising the age of criminal responsibility in New York State is in the best interest of New York’s children and youth, communities, and public safety. I urge New York not to let this opportunity pass by.

Read Next: Katrina vanden Heuvel on the one sensible budget in Washington

The One Sensible Budget in Washington

U.S. Capitol

(AP Photo/Khue Bui)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This week, Washington descends into its annual budget brawl. House Republicans unveiled their planon Tuesday, with Senate Republicans to follow Wednesday. Their hope is to pass a common budget resolution through both bodies by mid-April. Their incentive is that if—and that is a big if—Republicans in the House and Senate can agree, they can use the process known as “reconciliation” to pass various right-wing passions by majority vote, no filibuster allowed. The House budget plan, for example, calls for repealing Obamacare, partial privatization of Medicare, turning Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and tax reforms that lower rates and eliminate any taxation on profits reported abroad, turning the rest of the world into a tax haven for multinationals. The president can veto the appropriations bill containing these items, setting up another government shutdown melodrama. This is not the way to run a railroad, much less a government.

Budgets bore and numbers numb, so reporters tend to focus on the politics. The press now is touting the fight between so-called “deficit hawks” and “defense hawks.” The former want to adhere to harsh “sequester” spending limits this year and cut them even further in out years. The latter led by the dyspeptic Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) want to blow up sequester limits for the military. But this fight is more bluster than substance. The House budget plan squares the circle by adding some $94 billion to the military’s “Overseas Contingency Operations Fund” — the money spent on fighting wars abroad — that isn’t counted under sequester limits. The real story of the Republican budget is the triumph of the anti-tax hawks. With few exceptions, Republicans are committed to slashing the basic functions of government and programs that support education, food stamps, energy and R&D to avoid asking corporations or the wealthy to contribute even one more dime in taxes.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Too often neglected in this Beltway brawl is the budget alternative offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The fifth annual CPC alternative — “The People’s Budget: A Raise for America” — is about as close to common sense as Congress gets. And it is honest: Its numbers are carefully laid out and add up. It actually says what it would invest in and how it would pay for it.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Martin O’Malley Sounds Like He’s Running

Martin O'Malley speaks to reporters at the Maryland State House

Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley speaks with reporters at the Maryland State House in January 2015. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

At a moment when everybody in Washington is talking about e-mails, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley (D) wants to talk about Wall Street reform. Indeed, while Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address at the State Department has created a media frenzy and overshadowed other issues, the past week brought additional news in the Democratic primary: O’Malley is almost certainly running for president. And he’s determined to make his voice heard despite some pundits dismissing his ability to mount a “credible” challenge to Clinton for the party’s nomination.

The swirl of controversy surrounding Clinton has not only called her inevitability into question but also given much of the media an excuse to focus on optics rather than policy coverage, which is just one of the reasons O’Malley’s emergence is a positive development. A contested Democratic primary will be good for the country, good for the party, good for democracy and good for driving issues that might otherwise be ignored into the election.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Since leaving office in January, O’Malley has been traveling the country and laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. During recent visits to Kansas, New Hampshire and elsewhere, O’Malley has delivered a progressive populist message. Specifically, he has called for reinstating Glass-Steagall banking regulations, hiking the capital gains tax, increasing the minimum wage, raising the threshold for overtime pay and strengthening collective bargaining rights. And while he is far more comfortable discussing his policies than his potential opponents, O’Malley took a perceived shot at Clinton in South Carolina when he declared, “Triangulation is not a strategy that will move America forward.”

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Say It Ain’t So, Jeb

Jeb Bush speaks at Economic Club in Detroit

Jeb Bush speaks at an Economic Club of Detroit meeting in February 2015. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Potential Republican presidential candidates are neck-deep in the "money primary," schlepping from one wealthy watering hole to another, kissing the proper palms, stroking the insatiable egos, and if successful, pocketing commitments and cash.

The “ideas primary” apparently is still a distant destination. Republican pundits have decided that they must compete on a populist message. With the economy growing, they’ve turned to bemoaning the "people in the shadows" (Ohio Gov. John Kasich), demanding a revival of (Jeb Bush), or pledging a quality,  education, "regardless of background or birthright," even while trying to slash hundreds of millions from public universities (Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker).

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Echoing President Obama, Bush described the "opportunity gap as the defining issue of our time." In what was billed as a major economic speech in Detroit, Bush was content to trot out old conservative bromides on small government and competition as the answer to that challenge; his promised “new vision” and a “plan of action” would come... later. His basic “principle” was “growth above all.” A growing economy—at 4 percent, twice the current rate of growth—is Bush’s fix for what ails us.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

The Koch Cash Behind the Latest Attack on Obamacare

Kathleen Sebelius testifies before Senate Finance Committee

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius discusses the challenges facing the Affordable Care Act before the Senate Finance Committee in November 2013. (AP Photo/Scott Applewhite)

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell this Wednesday, and once again the fate of the Affordable Care Act will be in the nine justices’ hands. Unlike National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the 2012 case that affirmed the ACA’s individual mandate but gutted its expansion of Medicaid, King turns not on the act’s constitutionality but rather on an statutory issue variously described as “bordering on frivolous,” “nested in a fictional history of Congressional intent,” and “fluff.” But like the prior case, whose result effectively denied health insurance to half of the 17 million intended to have been covered by the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, King, if decided against the government, could leave another 8.2 million uninsured and, effectively, send the ACA into its oft-cited “death spiral.” Naturally, the Kochs are pulling more than their fair share of strings.

The Kochs and their affiliated groups spent vast sums to try to stop the Affordable Care Act from passing in the first place; to unseat those that backed the law over the course of several election cycles; and more recently, to stymie the law’s implementation (e.g., killing Medicaid expansion in Tennessee last month). And the influence of the Koch network pervades nearly every part of the challengers’ case in King v. Burwell.

As Mother Jones noted last month, “The King case started out as a legal theory hatched by a group of conservative lawyers in 2010 at a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, the right-leaning think tank.” AEI, of course, is a very large recipient of Koch cash, and David Koch co-chairs its National Council. One of the speakers on that AEI panel was Michael Greve, now a law professor at George Mason (where the “staunchly anti-regulatory,” Koch Industries–funded Mercatus Center is located). “This bastard has to be killed as a matter of political hygiene,” Greve said about the Affordable Care Act during the AEI panel. “I don’t care how this is done, whether it’s dismembered, whether we drive a stake through its heart, whether we tar and feather it and drive it out of town, whether we strangle it. I don’t care who does it, whether it’s some court some place, or the United States Congress. Any which way, any dollar spent on that goal is worth spending, any brief filed toward that end is worth filing, any speech or panel contribution toward that end is of service to the United States.” Greve has continued to comment on King v. Burwell, including when he recently compared health reform to the Holocaust.

Greve previously worked under the Kochs’ influence at the Center for Individual Rights, but most important, perhaps, is that Greve is former chairman and a current board member of Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI, which is heavily Koch-backed, brags that it is “coordinating and funding both the King v. Burwell case and the DC Circuit Halbig v. Burwell case.” It was CEI that reached out to Michael Carvin, the lawyer who filed the King and Halbig cases and who will be arguing King before the Court. Carvin also argued NFIB in 2012.

Shoring up another flank of the assault on the Affordable Care Act is the Koch Army’s Cato Division. The Cato Institute, for its part, has lent much of the substantive heft to the anti-ACA effort. Michael Cannon, Cato’s director of Health Policy Studies, previously worked at other Koch groups, including Citizens for a Sound Economy/Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (where he battled FDA regulation of tobacco, among other things). In an interesting twist, Cannon spoke out publicly during the 2012 brouhaha about the Kochs’ taking over Cato. While that might seem to work against his Koch bona fides, Cannon nevertheless said in an NPR interview at the time, “This is a very difficult issue and it’s a very difficult thing for folks at Cato, because we wouldn’t have our jobs without Charles and David Koch. They are billionaires who have funded the libertarian movement. Not just the Cato Institute, but other groups that have—where I’ve worked and others at Cato have worked. We owe a lot to them.”

Cannon and Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve Law, are the lawyers who have most aggressively pushed the dubious legal theory behind King. Adler reached out to Cannon in 2011, and the pair published a paper in July 2012, saying that the IRS had acted illegally and that the ACA’s tax credits and subsides should not be available to those purchasing insurance on the federal exchange. Cannon has been flogging this theory relentlessly—in the media, in Cato products, on Twitter, in his Forbes column, anywhere he can find the column inches or bandwidth. He participated in a debate last month at Georgetown Law, and in an online forum as well. In December, Cannon and Adler filed their SCOTUS amicus brief for King.

Adler’s Koch connections are what you might expect (although, like Cannon, he criticized the Kochs regarding their Cato donnybrook in 2012). He worked at CEI between 1991 and 2000, and he’s also linked to Koch money through his seats on the NFIB Legal Foundation Board, the Cato Supreme Court Review Board, the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, as well as through his role as a senior fellow at the Property & Environment Research Center.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Thus, much of the financial and legal muscle behind King v. Burwell directly traces back to Koch Industries. Moreover, aside from the major players in the King case discussed above, a quick glance at the case’s filings finds more Koch-linked amici:

— Cannon/Adler
Heartland Institute
Citizens Council for Health Freedom (part of the State Policy Network)
Galen Institute (part of the State Policy Network)
Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason law professor with formal affiliations with AEI and the Center for Individual Rights)
Landmark Legal Foundation
Mountain States Legal Foundation (Donors Trust funding recipient)
Pacific Research Institute, Individual Rights Foundation, and Reason Foundation
Washington Legal Foundation

All told, Koch influence informs about half of the twenty-one briefs filed on the anti-ACA side, and little more than half if you don’t count the briefs from states and elected officials. The petitioner might be “King” in body, but it’s Koch in heart, mind, spirit—and bank account.


Read Next: Laura Windsor on the Koch brothers’ secret billionaire summit

A National Call for Criminal-Justice Reform

Justice for All rally and march

Demonstrators march in New York City during the Justice for All rally and march in December 2014. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

On the heels of the Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Trayvon Martin tragedies—and in light of more recent injustices like the fatal shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes, an unarmed Mexican national whom Pasco, Washington, police officers saw fit to shoot multiple times despite his apparent surrender—there’s plenty of reason to despair the sorry state of our criminal-justice system and the havoc it wreaks on the lives of too many innocent victims and their families.

But these days, there is some reason for hope. In the wake of so much cop-on-civilian violence, we’re beginning to hear a national rallying cry for criminal justice reform—and not just from protestors and progressives, who have been leading the charge for decades, but also from unlikely allies, including the Koch brothers and Newt Gingrich. This is an issue that unites the ACLU and Americans for Tax Reform, the Center for American Progress and FreedomWorks. And given this broad-based enthusiasm behind fixing our criminal justice system, it’s time we paid attention to a critical component that’s been missing from the conversation: the crisis in our nation’s local jails.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Although we hear plenty about increasing rates of mass incarceration within state and federal prisons, we hear much less about the role played by local jails. This silence should be startling, as there are 11.7 million local jail admissions every year in the United States—twice as many as there were twenty years ago—compared to 631,000 state and federal prison admissions. The problem looks especially stark—and constitutionally troublesome—when you consider that, at any given moment, some three-fifths of the 722,000 prisoners in America’s local jails have not been convicted of the alleged crime for which they’re being detained. Many, in fact, are simply too poor to post even a small bail to get out while their cases are being processed.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Syndicate content