Subscribe via RSS Feed

Republicans Trying to Make TrumpCare Even More Reprehensible in Order to Pass It

[ 131 ] March 22, 2017 |

Screenshot_9

The Freedom [sic to the power of 8 billion] Caucus is getting concessions that make already-disgusting legislation considerably worse:

Politico’s Josh Dawsey and Jennifer Haberkorn report that the White House is in negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus about getting the caucus’s hard-line conservative members to support the American Health Care Act, the Obamacare repeal package put forward by House Speaker Paul Ryan and backed by President Trump.

Key to the deal, they report, are changes to the law that would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s “essential health benefits,” a list of 10 categories of procedure that all insurance plans offered to individuals or small businesses must cover. The 10 are, in the words of Healthcare.gov:

  • Outpatient care without a hospital admission, known as ambulatory patient services
  • Emergency services
  • Hospitalization
  • Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care
  • Mental health and substance use disorder services, including counseling and psychotherapy
  • Prescription drugs
  • Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, which help people with injuries and disabilities to recover
  • Laboratory services
  • Preventive care, wellness services, and chronic disease management
  • Pediatric services, including oral and vision care for children

These provisions set a baseline, mandating that all offered plans meet a certain threshold. They can’t skimp out and not cover big things like emergency room visits or pregnancy or mental health. Particularly for previously undercovered areas like mental health and addiction services, which plans didn’t have to cover before the ACA, this provision was a huge deal.

As to the question of whether this could pass the Senate even thought these regulatory changes would seem to be inconsistent with the Byrd rule, well, a determined Senate majority can essentially do what ever it wants irrespective of internal procedural rules and norms. McConnell’s behavior so far would seem to suggest that said determined majority isn’t there, and it seems unlikely that an even wingnuttier and less popular bill would make things better. But it would be preferable if we didn’t have to find out.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Is the Kinderhook Kickback Constitutional?

[ 44 ] March 22, 2017 |

Chief-Justice-John-Roberts

A few people on Twitter have asked whether the provision secured by New York Republicans to end Medicaid reimbursements in New York for county expenditures outside of New York city is constitutional. The answer is that it’s very difficult to answer that question. I, personally, don’t see a serious constitutional issue but whether the Supreme Court would is a different question.

I can certainly see an argument that the Elmira Emolument* is inconsistent with the spending powers doctrine minted by John Roberts in Sebelius. The Watertown Wallet-Grab attempts to use Medicaid funds to force the state to change its policies concerning who is responsible for Medicaid spending. One could argue that this is an unconstitutional use of the spending power. But, of course, one could also argue that the Buffalo Bribe is more like the conditions placed on highway spending in South Dakota v. Dole, and does not rise to the level of being unconstitutionally “coercive.”

In other words, I can’t really answer the question of whether the Glens Falls Grift is unconstitutionally coercive because the Medicaid expansion holding Sebelius is ludicrously incoherent and unprincipled and offers no meaningful guidance to Congress. I would compare it to Potter Stewart’s legendary concurrence in Jacobelis except that the invocation of “hard-core pornography” gives Stewart’s standard more content than Roberts’s. The line between what is constitutionally and unconstitutionally “coercive” is completely unknowable. Well, not entirely — since this policy was passed by a Republican Congress is it overwhelmingly likely that the Republican Supreme Court will uphold it. But to paraphrase the Chief Justice, his opinion in Sebelius will have nothing to do with it. Hopefully the point will be moot.

*Although I like the various “kickback” metaphors, they’re actually far too kind to the New York Republicans, who didn’t exactly drive a hard bargain for what by all rights should be career-ending votes. I mean, say this for Ben Nelson — he tried to get more money for his state. At best, the Kinderhook Kickback would be neutral on net, and if Albany is forced to change its Medicaid disbursements because TrumpCare passes it’s entirely possible they would just put other mandates and/or reduce aid to the counties, making them no better off. Heckuva job!

Behold the Power of the BULLY PULPIT!

[ 172 ] March 22, 2017 |

Trump_the_art_of_the_deal

Oddly enough, Trump’s attempts to muscle Congress and sell TrumpCare to the public are not going terribly well:

Trump’s ownership of the bill is being widely praised by some Republicans. “He’s all in,” gushed Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). “It was the right thing for the president to take ownership of it,” enthused Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). Meanwhile, other Republicans report that Trump has made an aggressive pitch to them for the bill, arguing that they will face a voter backlash in 2018 if they don’t deliver on their promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

But NBC News reports that House Republicans are moving away from the bill:

Yesterday morning, we wrote that 17 House Republicans opposed or leaned strongly against the GOP health-care plan that’s scheduled for a vote Thursday. Then President Trump visited Capitol Hill and appeared to threaten GOP lawmakers …

After that visit, the number of Republicans opposing or leaning strongly against the legislation grew to 27, per NBC News’ count — when Trump and GOP leaders can’t afford more than 21 defections.

As the NBC First Read crew observes, it’s “clear that Trump’s arm-twisting hasn’t paid dividends — at least not yet.”

Meanwhile, a new Politico/Morning Consult poll finds that support for the bill has dropped six points among American voters nationwide, and more voters approve of Obamacare than of the GOP replacement:

Since the Congressional Budget Office released its cost estimate of the Obamacare alternative last week, showing steep coverage losses, the legislation’s approval rating has dipped six points, from 46 percent to 40 percent. Obamacare’s approval rating, on the other hand, sits at 46 percent, as it did in February.

Meanwhile, disapproval of the GOP bill has ticked up two points, for a total net swing against the bill of eight points. What’s more, the new Morning Consult poll shows that only 1 in 5 voters thinks it will decrease their health-care costs, while a plurality of 39 percent think they will increase.

I can imagine voting for this bill for ideological reasons. I can also imagine a House Republican voting for this under the assumption that it will die in the Senate. But any Republican who thinks that it’s better politically to pass this than not pass anything is a maroon. The less popular the bill becomes, the less chance it has of passing the Senate, where the odds are already long.

Still, though, Obama could totally have gotten a public option by threatening to primary senators who weren’t running for anything in states where he wasn’t popular.

Crime infested inner city housing

[ 62 ] March 22, 2017 |

725 5th Ave., NYC. Thanks to CaptainBringdown for the alert.

There, indeed, was an FBI wiretap involving Russians at Trump Tower.

But it was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York.

The FBI investigation led to a federal grand jury indictment of more than 30 people, including one of the world’s most notorious Russian mafia bosses, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov. Known as the “Little Taiwanese,” he was the only target to slip away, and he remains a fugitive from American justice.

Seven months after the April 2013 indictment and after Interpol issued a red notice for Tokhtakhounov, he appeared near Donald Trump in the VIP section of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Trump had sold the Russian rights for Miss Universe to a billionaire Russian shopping mall developer.

[…]

The FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic skyscraper — just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence — running what prosecutors called an “international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring.”

The Trump building was home to one of the top men in the alleged ring, Vadim Trincher, who pleaded guilty to racketeering and received a five-year prison term. He is due to be released in July.

Questions I hope reporters ask, a lot, because I like watching Press Sec. Skeevy Spice twitch:

  1. Is this the wire “tapp” that tRump keeps complaining about?
  2. If so, what’s his problem with busting up an international gang?
  3. How well does he know Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov?

McConnell Wants TrumpCare Killed Quickly

[ 122 ] March 22, 2017 |

BWW-McConnell-Trump-1200

I’ve seen several people assume that if the House passes TrumpCare it will get through the Senate, because McConnell is promising to do so. Only McConnell is not saying that he has the votes, only that he wants TrumpCare off his calendar in a timely manner:

Trumpcare may or may not grind out enough votes to pass the House. In the Senate, it’s hopelessly short of the 50 votes it needs. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has laid out a wildly aggressive time frame, under which his chamber would essentially xerox the House bill and pass it into law within a few days — no hearings, no negotiations. A few weeks ago, I suggested the possibility that McConnell’s plan was not wildly aggressive but actually designed to fail. His latest comments make this scenario seem far more likely.

“We’re not slowing down,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday. “We will reach a conclusion on health care next week.” And while he is brimming with certainty about the speed of the process, he is hardly confident of its outcome: “We’ll either pass something that will achieve a goal that we’ve been working on,” he said. “Or not.”

The only possible way a health-care bill could pass the Senate would be a heroic feat of negotiation to bridge the chasm between Republicans who think the House bill provides too much care (Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz) and those who think it provides too little (a group numbering perhaps as many as a dozen, depending on how one interprets various fretting remarks). Republicans can lose no more than two votes in the upper chamber. What’s more, one of their senators, Georgia’s Johnny Isakson, is out indefinitely while recovering from back surgeries. Isakson’s absence in the short term cuts the GOP’s margin for error in half, which means — unless he rushes back faster than expected — a vote next week is all the more hopeless.

If McConnell has concluded that there’s no way he can get 50 votes for anything the House passes — and I haven’t seen any whip count suggesting that they’re even particularly close to 50 — all failing to “conclude” the process means is that it will drag on for a long time and still fail. And having TrumpCare linger will get in the way of voting on Gorsuch an tax cuts, which are almost certainly much higher priorities for McConnell than health care anyway.

Anyway, if McConnell starts saying he has the votes, be very worried. If he keeps saying he will “conclude” the process one way or another quickly, he wants TrumpCare dead and is telling the House to forget health care and get to work on a stand-alone upper-class tax cut.

Sanctuary

[ 39 ] March 22, 2017 |

sanctuary-march-24-article

Today, I am participating in an event at my university about supporting immigrants against Trump’s racist and fascist immigration regime. In preparing for it, I thought this piece on the sanctuary movement of the 1980s and its relevance today was quite useful and important.

In Guatemala, the decades-long civil war would eventually claim 200,000 lives, with state forces responsible for 93 percent of the violence, according to a UN report; in El Salvador, 75,000 were killed, with state forces responsible of at least 85 percent of the crimes. The Reagan administration also covertly and illegally armed and supported paramilitary “contra” forces against the Sandinista government, financing this illicit venture through clandestine arms deals with Iran.

As these anti-communist proxy wars ravaged Central America, a massive grassroots response arose in the United States.

This movement, sometimes referred to as the Central America solidarity movement or the Central America peace movement, encompassed a vast and diverse amalgamation of organizations and tactics fighting to halt U.S. support for the wars, defend the revolutionary projects of Central American popular movements, and protect Central American refugees seeking a safe haven in the United States.

As part of the movement, activists traveled to Sandinista Nicaragua under siege from the contras, indigenous communities facing genocidal violence in Guatemala, liberated guerilla territory in El Salvador, and Salvadoran refugee camps in Honduras to witness first-hand the collective organizing for social and economic justice so fiercely opposed by the “Free World” and to gather testimonies on the depredations of U.S. foreign policy. In the United States, they engaged in collective acts of civil disobedience, put their lives on the line in courageous direct actions, waged national political campaigns, provided aid and services for victims of the violence, and organized mass mobilizations.

As an array of forces again raise the mantel of “sanctuary,” it’s important to remember that the sanctuary movement of the 1980s was but one component of a broad-based, cross-border, anti-imperialist liberation struggle. This is the radical heritage that our organized responses to mass deportations, refugee bans, and imperialist wars must claim today.

There are of course critical differences between the sanctuary movement then and now, the most important of which is that the movements of the 80s were closely connected to particularly awful Central American governments. Those governments aren’t that great today, but protecting people from Efrain Rios Montt and Jose Napoleon Duarte gave very concrete targets because of their relationship to Reagan’s horrendous Central American policies that the drug wars don’t. That said, breaking the law to protect people’s rights to stay in this country is going to be absolutely necessary for resisting Trump’s whitening of America. I’m not entirely sure of quite what that should look like of course, but past movements ranging from the Underground Railroad to ACT-UP to the sanctuary movements of the 1980s provide real, concrete examples we can learn from. Because if we care about protecting our immigrant neighbors, that might mean hiding them in our houses, allowing them to stay in our churches, and shuttling them to Canada for their safety.

“Will you be ready when I call your bluff?”

[ 73 ] March 22, 2017 |
Grand Ol' Gang - Andy Thomas

Grand Ol’ Gang – Andy Thomas. The updated version will show you-know-who pouting because he lost

As Commentarion McAllen accurately guessed, the Banana Republican’s threat to “come after” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-Freedom’s Carcass) was inversely effective.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, says he’s not worried about losing his seat in 2018 if the ObamaCare repeal plan fails.

“I serve at the pleasure of the people of western North Carolina, and when you serve at their pleasure, it’s only those 750,000 people that can send you home,” Meadows told reporters Tuesday.

“It’s a temporary job, and I’ve known that from day one.”

Meadows’s comments came minutes after President Trump addressed the GOP conference Tuesday, telling members that they could lose their seats — and the House majority in 2018 — if they fail to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

In a battle of bullshitters, President Angry Apricot is going to lose against anyone who is willing to engage him and has at least one more brain cell than he does. So like every bully who receives a request to fuck off that he can’t refuse, the Tangerine Nightmare then squirmed a bit and claimed he was only joking.

“Mark Meadows is a longtime, early supporter of the president,” Spicer told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing. “He had some fun at his expense this morning during the conference meeting.”

[…]

In Spicer’s telling, Trump simply “continued to express hope that Congressman Meadows … would continue to see the efforts that have been made to make this better and address a lot of the concerns out there.”

“But he has made it very clear that he was having fun with him,” Spicer claimed. “The president’s committed to making sure that this gets passed.”

Sure. And if cringing and admitting that the empty threat was empty don’t do the trick, the Twitterer in the Dorkness can offer Meadows the cupcake his mom packed in his lunch.

Trump’s campaign manager was paid $10 million per year to be an agent for Putin

[ 154 ] March 22, 2017 |

Secret agent man.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”

Manafort’s plans were laid out in documents obtained by the AP that included strategy memoranda and records showing international wire transfers for millions of dollars. How much work Manafort performed under the contract was unclear.

It’s also unclear whether Manafort used an unsecured email server when he committed treason in return for tens of millions of dollars.

 

TrumpCare Is Class Warfare

[ 68 ] March 22, 2017 |

Screenshot_4

Some House wingers have their price for voting for what would already be one of the worst statutes ever passed by the United States Congress, and the price is making it even worse:

The “manager’s amendment” changing the legislation, which is set to be released Monday night by House leaders and expected to be adopted through a House Rules Committee vote before the full House votes on Thursday, includes new provisions cracking down on Medicaid beneficiaries. The changes would allow states to impose work requirements on able-bodied childless adults getting Medicaid, and to receive funding in a “block grant” that doesn’t rise at all with enrollment, which would likely amount to a still-larger cut.

The amendment would also eliminate federal funding for Medicaid beneficiaries making over 133 percent of the poverty line — a cut that would hurt states like New York that have generous Medicaid programs. And it would cut off states’ ability to join the Medicaid expansion immediately, before phasing out the expansion for states that joined before March 1 of this year.

The measures were reportedly adopted to win over House conservatives, like Republican Study Committee’s leader Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), who vocally opposed the bill at first. Walker is now on board with the plan after securing the Medicaid changes. “The president asked us specifically: Would we support him on this American Health Care Act [with the increased Medicaid restrictions],” Walker told the Washington Post’s Mike DeBonis. “We all agreed, to a man.”

The original legislation was already a historic cut to aid for the poor. “No legislation enacted in recent decades cut low-income programs this much — or even comes close,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Robert Greenstein told me when the CBO’s score was released. But the two new provisions — allowing work requirements and enabling states to take a block grant — are both major changes that will diminish access to Medicaid even further. They make a bill that already represented a historic cut to the health care safety net for poor Americans even more harmful.

The fact that the fate of the ACA may well rest on members of Congress who think TrumpCare is still insufficiently cruel to the poor is not terribly reassuring.

Ketchup, Steaks, Classism and Barro

[ 188 ] March 21, 2017 |

Recently had a weird experience reading Matthew Continetti column on the hubbub over Trump’s steak-related fake pas; I actually agreed with some of it. Expecting to sneer my way through the column, I instead found myself cringing a little at some of the distinctly classist critiques of Steakgate he catalogued.

The idea of eating a steak well-done and topping it with ketchup sounds really unappealing to me. But I like to eat my steaks cooked medium and I sometimes eat them Bearnaise. I imagine some people would find that offensive. So, the bottom line is that I’m sometimes a tad squeamish about harshly critiquing people’s food choices, especially if there’s a classist bent to the critique. In other words, have fun making fun Trump’s (pretty gross, to me) habits, but for crying out loud, don’t pull a Barro:

Screen Shot 2017-03-21 at 4.40.54 PM

 

Of course, Continetti gives away the game later in the column:

“Trump eats $50 steak with ketchup, foodies aghast,” reports SFGate.com. It is hard to read stories like these without coming to the conclusion that so much of our elite’s abhorrence of Trump is a matter of aesthetics, of his not fitting in, of his stubborn devotion to practices and ideas deemed retrograde by opinion leaders but that still appeal to, oh, about half the country.

This is, of course, Kobe-grade, dry-aged bullshit. People–even most elites–don’t dislike him because he’s tacky and crude. They dislike him because he is petty, childish, stupid and cruel, all perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike someone.

That being said, I had to address the Barro tweet, because he is sometimes right, but when he’s wrong, he’s spectacularly wrong. It comes with being spectacularly privileged and being a Democrat for about 2 minutes. His tweet is classist, ugly and cruel. (Oh, and fat-shamey!)

I have issues with fast food. I don’t mind it existing and partake of it myself from time to time. But I do think it’s palate-perverting empty calories and I wish people didn’t subsist on it. That being said, I understand why people do–it’s cheap and easy.

Eating good food can be expensive and time-consuming. I’m a stay-at-home mom and even I sometimes just DON’T. FEEL. LIKE, COOKING. Then I remember there are people who cook while working outside the home, while working and having kids, while being a single parent, while doing it on a tight budget. And I get my ass in the kitchen.

So do I understand the lure of fatty, salty, quick (tasty, sometimes) food? You bet I do. So let’s try to create a world where fast food is a once in awhile treat (or necessity), not a way of life. We probably can’t do that by posting nasty, judgmental, classist, shitty tweets. There is good snobbery and bad snobbery and my god that is THE WORST kind of snobbery.

Will Donald Trump be a GAME-CHANGER Who Can BULLY PULPIT the OVERTON WINDOW?

[ 68 ] March 21, 2017 |

8.-Michael-Douglas--The-American-President

I see Donald Trump is trying the same tactics people that some people are convinced would have led to a much better ACA but Obama Didn’t. Even. Try:

President Trump stormed Capitol Hill on Tuesday to sell the House Republican leadership’s plan to overhaul the health-care system, warning his party that not passing the legislation would yield a political crisis and sweeping electoral defeats.

The president addressed a closed-door meeting of House Republicans days before the measure is expected to come to a vote on the House floor.

Trump used both charm and admonishment as he made his case, reassuring skittish members that they would gain seats in Congress if the bill passed — and singling out Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, in front of colleagues.

“I’m gonna come after you, but I know I won’t have to, because I know you’ll vote ‘yes,’ ” Trump said, according to several Republican lawmakers who attended the meeting. “Honestly, a loss is not acceptable, folks.”

And you have to admit his political analysis is pretty shrewd:

“If we get this done, and tax reform, he believes we pick up 10 seats in the Senate and we add to our majority in the House,” said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), the first member of Congress who endorsed Trump’s presidential bid. “If we don’t get it done, we lose the House and the Senate.”

Sure, seems plausible that passing a massively unpopular bill will be worth +10 in the Senate for the in party.

Anyway, I think Sean McElwee has the basic dynamic exactly right:

If the Freedom Caucus kills TrumpCare by voting no and attacking it from the right, it will hurt Trump and Ryan much more than it hurts them. I don’t think there’s much leverage to be used against them if they’re determined to stop the bill; the question is how determined they are.

Ryan’s best chance of passing a bill would be to make it even more wingutty and drop it on the Senate’s lap and let them kill it. But Ryan and Trump want something that can actually pass the Senate for a variety of reasons but most importantly because they’d prefer that the next round of upper-class tax cuts be permanent rather than having to sunset. But getting the House to pass anything that would have a chance in the Senate will not be easy, and hopefully it will fail.

Of course, we also have to hope that Donald Trump doesn’t try writing down the names of marginal House votes on index cards, because then we’d be totally doomed.

Feminism and Class at Harvard

[ 179 ] March 21, 2017 |

lean-in-sheryl-sandberg

This is an outstanding essay about the class divisions within feminism, using Harvard as a background. Sarah Leonard and Rebecca Rojer note that both famed Harvard graduate Sheryl Sandberg and Harvard president and historian Drew Gilpin Faust talk about feminism but neither of them cares at all about the 90 percent female workforce at the Doubletree that Harvard owns in Cambridge. Noting how the workers and their student allies had to fight for years to finally win a union while Sandberg spoke repeatedly to rich women at the school and Faust has done everything in her power to hurt the school’s workers, the essay gets at a critical issue in feminism: a feminism that only speaks to rich white women really isn’t a feminism at all.

 What the majority of women want has, in many ways, not changed—economic security, good and accessible childcare, freedom from violence, the pleasures of life with enough education and leisure time to allow us to flourish. But intractable problems remain: Pregnancy is penalized by lack of time off, or time off for women but not for men, which exacerbates the wage gap. Childcare has been deemed unaffordable by the Department of Health and Human Services in every single state. Ninety-eight percent of women in abusive relationships are subject to financial abuse, and a woman without an income has a hard time getting away—a topic that was the subject of Sandberg’s own undergraduate thesis, “Economic Factors and Intimate Violence.” Luckily, we actually know quite a bit about how to fix these things. In Sweden, women and men are motivated to take parental time off (if the man doesn’t take his time, they both lose some), ensuring family time and a smaller wage gap. We know that universal childcare, as organized in Norway, produces happy kids and greater gender equity. In fact, America almost had something comparable in 1971, when a bill for universal childcare passed both houses, only to be vetoed by Nixon under the influence of a young Pat Buchanan.

Lobbying for universal childcare, unionization, or any of the other things we know help most women would mean making enemies in a way that advocating for “empowerment” or “banning bossy” never would. It would mean a fight not just with Republicans (Sandberg gives money mostly to Democrats, although she has paid into Olympia’s List and Facebook’s PAC, both of which have supported several Republicans), but with Democrats, too, and maybe even some of Sandberg’s pals on the Davos circuit. It would mean being political, and it would not serve her as PR. It would not help Facebook. But it would place her considerable resources in the service of women. Without solidaristic feminism, in the words of Osorio, “you haven’t solved the problem. You’ve just solved your problem.”

When I asked Lemus what she would have Sandberg do, she offered that Sandberg had enough money to make the government listen to the needs of women. Osorio noted that Sandberg might listen to women who are unlike her. The problem is not that women like Sandberg and Faust have failed to be saviors; as the DoubleTree workers have shown, working-class women are leading their own movements and stand at the head of their own struggles. It’s that women like the DoubleTree housekeepers are doing the concrete work of increasing equality, and women like Faust and Sandberg are thwarting instead of helping them. It is possible for a woman to sound like a feminist, and serve the function of The Man. We don’t need them to lead us, but if they aren’t going to express solidarity, they can at least get out of the way.

That’s the conclusion but the whole thing is really well worth your time. I will also say that Faust is an embarrassment to the reputation of historians. Faust herself works on issues of justice in her writing and yet has sold out all the way. I really struggle to understand how you can know everything she knows and then want to treat pregnant hotel workers or impoverished dining hall workers in this way. I guess that’s why I will never climb the corporate ladder.

Page 2 of 2,51312345...102030...Last »