More evidence that Rep. Scholten votes in favor of systems of power and oppression
On Friday, Rep. Scholten voted for a resolution that was introduced by Cuban-American Rep. Salazar from Florida.
Scholten voted for resolution H.Con.Res.58, also known as Denouncing the horrors of socialism. This resolution harkens back to McCarthyism, using half-truths and associating socialism with all evils in the world. Everyone really ought to read the resolution and see how ridiculous it is, not to mention that every Republican voted for it.
However, this is not the first time that Rep. Hillary Scholten voted for a resolution to condemn socialism, as she voted for the GOP proposed resolution first introduced in 2023, during the Biden Administration. At least she consistently votes for awful resolutions.
Perhaps Rep. Scholten might want to read about what the fundamental principles of socialism are by reading Bhaskar Sunkara’s important book, The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality, Understanding Socialism, by Richard D. Wolff, or The Case for Socialism, by Alan Maas.
In the end it would appear that Rep. Scholten is merely wanting to appease the more Republican voter base in West Michigan, which so often equates socialism with fascism, when in fact capitalism is a necessary component of fascism, as Professor Wolfe explains in the video below.
Protection for me, but not for thee: Senate Slotkin gets round the clock police protection
For the entire time that Elissa Slotkin has been a politician in the federal government, beginning in 2019, there have been millions of undocumented immigrants living in constant fear for their lives.
Undocumented immigrants have been living in fear of being arrested by police for driving without a license or for simply being racially profiled and asked by cops to see some ID. Undocumented immigrants are afraid, they are afraid to drive, to go to the grocery store, the pharmacy or to drop their kids off at school.
Since the beginning of this year, when President Trump issued his Executive Order to arrest, detain and deport an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, those immigrants have been living in constant fear, since they have a target on their backs. The Trump Administration has been using the National Guard in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, Charlotte and now likely New Orleans to engage in mass arrests of undocumented immigrants.
In the Greater Grand Rapids area Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been responding to increased calls of ICE sightings or ICE arrests, which has resulted in over 100 people that they know of who have been taken by ICE, with most of them being in detention, while others have already been deported. Family separation is real and it is a constant.
During this entire time, Senator Slotkin has not stood in solidarity with those 11 million undocumented immigrants. The Michigan Senator has not called for the abolition of ICE nor the abolition of ICE detention facilities, both public and private. Senator Slotkin has not called for an end to deportations nor has she encouraged the good people of Michigan to rise up against ICE terrorism and communities of faith to declare themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. In fact, the only position Senator Slotkin has taken on this matter is to propose weak legislation that requires ICE agents to not cover their faces.
However, as soon as Senator Slotkin was called a traitor by President Trump earlier this week, the Michigan Senator now has round the clock police protection. According to MLive, “She said the U.S. Capitol Police told her they would put her on 24/7 security. She said there was law enforcement in front of her house.” Well, this is nice for Senator Slotkin, but what about the 11 million undocumented immigrants?
Undocumented immigrants will never receive police protection, especially since cops are cooperating with ICE daily to arrest and detain these same immigrants. Senator Slotkin uses her privilege as a white politician, which gives her access to the news media to make whatever statements she wants and to demand police protection 24/7. The fact that Senator Slotkin has done nothing to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from arrest, detention and deportation, while being the target of verbal threats, demonstrates she isn’t interested in practicing solidarity with undocumented immigrants, she only wants to protect her own ass. Where I come from, we name call that person a coward.
Community demands answers from the Kent County Sheriff about their cooperation with ICE and complicity in separating immigrant families
During the lunch hour, around 15 people with Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE entered the Kent County Sheriff’s office to engage in a disruption action, since these groups have learned that the Sheriff’s office is collaborating with ICE by putting holds on immigrants who have already been bonded out of the Kent County Jail.
Two weeks ago, a similar action took place at the Kent County Sheriff’s office, where the Sheriff did not come out, instead one of her underlings spoke with those who were demanding answers.
During this action people were chanting loudly to disrupt business as usual at the Sheriff’s office, using chants like ICE and Cops go hand in hand, No Hate No Fear Immigrants are welcome here, and Up Up with Liberation…Down Down with deportation.
After about 20 minutes of chanting the Kent County Sheriff, Michelle LaJoye-Young, did come out to speak with those who were involved in the disruptive action. The Sheriff initially said that if we wanted to hold a silent vigil and peacefully protest, then we were welcomed to stay. Someone from GR Rapid Response to ICE said that they were here two weeks ago to demand some answers, and the Sheriff responded that she was not told about our presence two weeks ago.
The Sheriff was asked to give a simple response to the question, “Is the Kent County Sheriff’s office cooperating with ICE, by engaging in ICE holds with immigrants who have already been bonded out of the jail.” The Sheriff said that if we wanted answers that we should set up an appointment with her to meet. Cosecha uses the tactic of public meetings/conversations to make sure that politicians do not say one thing in private and another thing in public.
The Sheriff went on to say, “this is a place of business and I have other obligations right now.” Someone asked if they could just respond to the questions about ICE holds. Again, the Sheriff said that if we want to have a conversation that we needed to make an appointment. She went on to say that she did not have time to talk with us right now and that she was not going to speak with us because we would just take excerpts of what she said and spin it.
The Sheriff then said that we needed to be quiet or we will be asked to leave. A Cosecha organizer then shared what the Sheriff had said, followed by inviting people to chant once again. The Sheriff then came back out to the lobby, this time with two large cops and demanded that people leave or they would be arrested. Everyone slowly walked out of the building, still chanting until they were all outside.
Now, I was under the impression that the Sheriff’s office was not a business and that they existed for public safety, which is what we were all taught about cops in 8th grade civics class. In addition, they are supposed to work for us, since they are public servants, a sentiment that we were also taught in school. Those who live in Kent County and pay taxes here, pay for their salaries, which make their work in the public sphere. Despite what we were all taught, cops exist to enforce the laws created by those with power and privilege, laws there generally protect property and those with more power and privilege.
Last year I reported that Kent County Sheriff Michelle LaJoye-Young was re-elected and ran unopposed during the November 2024 election. Despite running unopposed, she raised $131,531.39, with the majority of her campaign contributions coming from the DeVos family and other members of the local power structure. It seems clear to me that she represents their interests and not that of the most vulnerable in Kent County.
Movimiento Cosecha also made it clear that this action at the Kent County Sheriff’s office was part of the larger sanctuary policy demands that they have been working on since the beginning of the year.
Michigan State Legislators have passed bills that will allow them to have police protection and conceal their home addresses
Last week, the Michigan State House and State Senate voted to adopt HB 5505, which will provide increased security for state legislators.
Michigan legislators have their own police force at the Lansing State Capitol, but now they will be able to have those same security officers to protect their families, even when they are in public and not at work as state legislators.
A recent MLive article entitled, Why Michigan lawmakers are beefing up their own security force as political violence surges, where several state lawmakers are justifying these decisions to use their own police force.
House Speaker Matt Hall was cited as talking about the Minnesota legislators that were killed in June, along with the killing of Charlie Kirk. The MLive article then states:
Michigan has seen threats against politicians as well, including recent bomb threats to the homes of state Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, and Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist. Hall’s office also pointed to protesters demonstrating outside the home of state Rep. Angela Rigas, R-Caledonia, last month.
This paragraph is talking about bomb threats against elected officials, but then says, “Hall’s office also pointed to protesters demonstrating outside the home of state Rep. Angela Rigas, R-Caledonia, last month.” For the MLive reporter to conflate bomb threats with people showing up at the home of Rep. Rigas is patently absurd. I say this, because I was a participant in the protest outside of Rep. Rigas’s home. This protest was a non-violent protest, where people came to the home of Rep. Rigas because she co-sponsored legislation that would criminalize anyone providing assistance/support to undocumented immigrants. During that protest people chanted and a few knocked on her door to have a conversation about her co-sponsorship that would punish people for being in solidarity with undocumented immigrants. Since Rep. Rigas refuse to talk with people, they left a document for her to sign on the front door.
In addition, state legislators also passed a bill to conceal their employment, property addresses and other personal information from public view, according to a separate MLive article. State legislators argued that concealing this information is a direct response to threats against politicians.
While I don’t doubt that some politicians are concerned about their safety, there are several reasons why I believe that the public is unhappy with state legislators. First, when activists or other organized efforts to engage politicians at the state level, rarely are state legislators present. More often than not people only have an opportunity to speak with staff of elected officials and they generally just take down people’s comments and concerns, but never address the reasons why people show up to the offices of elected officials.
Second, more and more elected officials do not hold in person public meetings, which minimizes any chance for people they represent to directly engage these politicians. When they do hold public meetings it is always organized to benefit the politicians. Quite often people have to register to attend a public meeting with a legislator and only then will the location of the meeting be revealed. Once the meeting starts, most politicians talk at length about what they are doing before allowing the public to speak. When the public finally gets a chance to speak they often have to write their questions on a card, which allows the staff of legislators to screen questions.
Third, the lack of availability to the public as stated in the previous points, while important, are not as significant as the issue that more and more people believe that politicians do not represent their interests, or worse, they are passing bills that will do harm to their constituents. This was exactly why people showed up to the home of Rep. Rigas, because she co-sponsored legislation that would criminalize acts of solidarity and compassion directed at undocumented immigrants.
People are pissed and disillusioned with electoral politics, especially when it seems to primarily perpetuate business as usual. And when I say business as usual I mean politics that serves the interest of the rich and not the majority of people. State legislators can pass all the bills they want to protect themselves, but the best way for state legislators to reduce public outrage directed at them would be to adopt policies that benefit working class people and families.
What are the Sanctuary policies that Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE are demanding from Grand Rapids and Kent County: Part IV
This is the fourth in a series that will further examine the various sanctuary policies that Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE are demanding that the City of Grand Rapids and the Kent County Commission adopt.
In Part I, I looked at the policy that allows officers to provide assistance to federal immigration authorities when there is an emergency that poses an immediate danger to public safety or federal agents. In Part II, I looked at policies that would prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention. Kent County used to have a contract with ICE that began in 2012, a contract you can read here. In Part III, I looked at policies that could prevent immigration detention centers from being established in Grand Rapids or Kent County.
Today I want to look at two policies that are connected, since they both have to do with local government bodies sharing information with ICE. The first is a policy restricting the police or other city/county workers from asking about immigration status. The second is a policy that will not allow the GRPD or the Kent County Sheriff’s office to share Flock camera images or any other information gathered by the city of Grand Rapids with ICE or any other law enforcement agency seeking to arrest, detain and deport immigrants.
Demanding that the City of Grand Rapids and Kent County staff not ask people about their immigration status seems like an easy demand. Why would they ever have a reason to ask people what their immigration status is? Both the City and the County have repeatedly said that immigration matters are left to the federal government and federal agents. If this is the case, then agreeing to the demand that they not ask people their immigration should be a no brainer and yet, both the City and the County have ignored this demand.
The other demand has to do with the Flock cameras that are located in Kent County, with the majority of them within the City of Grand Rapids. I reported on the exact locations of the Flock cameras within the City and the County, which you can find in this article.
To be clear, Flock cameras are being used throughout parts of the US to provide license plate information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials/agents. Now that we know the Flock camera location in the GR area, people who are vulnerable to ICE might consider alternate routes and destinations.
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are a threat to your privacy and civil liberties. They’re regularly used to track everyone’s movements without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. Law enforcement agencies use them for various purposes, no matter how unethical, including ICE raids and tracking abortion seekers across state lines.
The Kent County Sheriff’s Office first began using the Flock camera technology in the Spring of 2022. According to a recent article on 404 Media, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is now using what are called Flock cameras to obtain license plate numbers to track down undocumented immigrants.
Using the Flock technology provides an additional tool to be used by the Kent County Sheriff’s Department, the GRPD and other local law enforcement agencies to assist ICE in hunting down those who are undocumented and those that the administration are targeting, regardless of immigration status.
It is well know that ICE is constantly using numerous types of technology to track undocumented immigrants, such as:
- ICE uses systems like FALCON, Investigative Case Management (ICM), and the forthcoming AI-powered ImmigrationOS platform developed by the company Palantir to aggregate data from various sources. These platforms pull information from government databases, including passport records, Social Security files, IRS tax data, and driver’s license data, to identify patterns and flag individuals for potential enforcement action.
- ICE agents use mobile apps like “Mobile Fortify” that allow them to photograph individuals in the field and check their images against federal databases in real time. ICE has also purchased software from companies like Clearview AI and uses iris scanning technology.
- ICE is expanding its efforts to monitor social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, using AI-powered tools and contractors to generate leads for investigations and deportation raids.
- ICE has contracts for spyware like “Graphite” from Paragon Solutions, which can remotely access data, location, and encrypted messages from smartphones without the user’s knowledge or consent.
What Movimiento Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE are demanding is that the City and the Kent County not share Flock camera images with ICE agents to track undocumented immigrants and to not allow City or County staff to ask people about their immigration status. These demands might seem insignificant, but for members of the affected community it is vitally important that they know that local governments are not sharing information with ICE about immigration status for those who live and work in the area, along with not sharing the Flock camera images with ICE under any circumstances.
Senator Slotkin prefers to use cops as a tool of state carceral violence as opposed to the US military in US cities
Last week Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin introduced a bill called the No Troops in Our Streets Act of 2025, SB 3167. Slotkin announced the bill in a speech at the Brookings Institution and used it as an occasion to blame Trump for soling making the decision to use US troops in cities across the country.
This proposed legislation from Senator Slotkin states in part that with a majority vote members Congress can prohibit US military personnel (including the National Guard) from being deployed domestically.
Seems like reasonable idea, but one question I have is, why now? The US Congress has supported the use of US Military personnel, especially the National Guard, to be used throughout US history, particularly to suppress popular struggles within the US. Some examples have been to suppress labor strikes, such as the Ludlow Massacre, along with National Guard troops being deployed against Black-led uprisings in numerous US cities in the 1960s (see Elizabeth Hinton’s book, America on Fire: The Untold History of Police Violence and Black Rebellion Since the 1960s) all the way up to 2020 during the George Floyd protests, even right here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Thus, deploying US Military personnel in US cities has a long and bipartisan history.
However, the more important aspect of Senator Slotkin is proposing in her No Troops in Our Streets Act of 2025, is that the Michigan Senator wants the federal government to provided additional funding to local police departments across the country to. “fight crime in American communities,” according to Press Release from Slotkin on November 13th.
Senator Slotkin not only wants to provide additional funding to cops around the US, she is proposing $1 Billion in funding for police departments. Here is the breakdown of funding in Senator Slotkin’s proposed bill:
(1) $600,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.) (except that section 1001(c), and the special rules for Puerto Rico under section 505(g), of title I of that Act shall not apply for purposes of this Act);
(2) $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, for a community violence intervention and prevention initiative; and
(3) $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, for emergency law enforcement assistance, as authorized by section 609M of the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 50101), to support any of the purposes specified in section 501 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152), of which the President may direct not greater than $10,000,000 per law enforcement emergency, as defined in section 609N of the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 50102), with the approval of the chief executive of the State and locality, to support State and local law enforcement.
(b) Community-Oriented policing hiring.—In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for fiscal year 2026, there is appropriated $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers under section 1701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381).
It is instructive to see that Senator Slotkin’s response to the Trump Administration’s deployment to cities like Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago and now to North Carolina, is to just increase the funding for police departments, which essentially act as occupying forces in urban communities. It’s also worth noting that Senator Slotkin has not denounced ICE in Chicago or other cities for kidnapping people and acting as an additional police force targeting immigrants.
Senator Slotkin states that the $1 Billion in funding for cops is to fight crime, even though there is no evidence of increased crime in the US, especially violent crime. In fact, the last FBI report released in August of this year states that violent crime has decreased by 4.5% from the previous year.
Lastly, why isn’t Senator Slotkin proposing massive funding to meet people’s basic needs instead of funding the cops? Slotkin’s proposed legislation is not only deeply problematic, she demonstrates that liberals are equally committed to state carceral violence as the Republicans are.
History of US Immigration policy sessions at Fountain Street Church: Part III- Countering anti-immigrant narratives
Last week I posted an article providing a summary of the first two sessions that I had done at Fountain Street Church about the History of US Immigration Policy. In Part I, I provided an immigration policy overview since the US was founded through the current Trump Administration.
In Part II, I talked about the importance of asking the question about the root causes of people fleeing their country to come to the US, particularly those entering the US through Mexico. I presented a brief historical overview of US military and economic interventions in Central America from the mid-19th century til today. I talked about how the US sent the Marines to invade many of those countries, plus the history of US funded and military training for the counterinsurgency wars in the 1970s and 80s, followed by some analysis of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, also known as CAFTA.
In Part III of the History of US Immigration Policy this past Sunday, I focused heavily on the anti-immigrant narrative or the xenophobic narrative(s) about immigrants that politicians and US news media companies use when talking about undocumented immigrants.
For decades now, there have been certain narratives about immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, narratives that are false. Despite these false and unsubstantiated narratives, politicians parrot them, and most commercial news agencies perpetuate them. Here are a few of the more dominant false anti-immigrant narratives:
- Immigrants take jobs fro real Americans
- Immigrants drive down wages
- Immigrants don’t pay taxes
- Immigrants are a drain on the US economy
It is important that we create accurate narratives to counter these false narratives, so let’s do that for each of these 4 dominant anti-immigrant narrative. Much of what I am sharing here comes from an excellent book by Aviva Chomsky, “They Take Our Jobs!”and 20 other myths about immigration.”
Immigrants take jobs from real Americans – In one sense, the idea that there are American jobs is somewhat meaningless, especially since the economy is increasingly a global economy. More importantly, immigrants to take jobs away from anyone, they actually do work that so few are willing to do. If we look at migrant worker jobs, where people are doing seasonal work, primarily outdoors, under harsh conditions, and for very little money, to claim that immigrants are taking migrant jobs from real Americans is ridiculous.
A narrative that we should be thinking about and promoting is, corporations take our jobs. As I have noted in previous articles, NAFTA had a huge impact on Mexican workers, but it also impacted jobs in the US. Grand Rapids was impacted by de-industrialization since the 1970s, which escalated with NAFTA being adopted in 1994. According to data compiled by Public Citizen, since NAFTA, Michigan lost over 168,000 jobs (21.3 percent) because companies had relocated. Corporations and their pursuit of profits take our jobs, not immigrants.
Immigrants drive down wages – This false narrative is similar to the first one, in that immigrants have no control over wages. Business owners and corporations set low wages and they don’t care who takes their shitty jobs. The fact that undocumented immigrants take low paying jobs has more to do with their level of desperation to support themselves, but because many of them send money back how to family members still living in their country of origin. In addition, if there was more class solidarity amongst working class people, which included a push to invite undocumented immigrants to be part of labor unions, then they might be able to improve wages for immigrants and everyone else who should earn a livable wage.
Immigrants don’t pay taxes – This might be the most absurd of the false anti-immigrant narratives. First, if people are employed and receive a paycheck, federal, state and local taxes are automatically taken out of your paycheck. The majority of undocumented workers obtain fake social security numbers, in order to find employment. However, when federal, state and local taxes are taken out of their paycheck, they can’t claim them. So what happens to the tax money taken out of undocumented worker checks? Those taxes stay in the coffers of state and federal governments. The reality is, if undocumented immigrants are part of the formal economy, they have taxes taken out, but they can’t claim them. This is why this false narrative is so awful. Can you imagine if average American workers who were paying taxes, were unable to claim those taxes? There would be an uprising amongst the working class.
Immigrants are a drain on the US economy – This false narrative is tied to the previous narrative about immigrants not paying taxes. Undocumented immigrants do pay into the system through taxes, but don’t have equal access to resources and services available to those with government sanctioned immigration status. The area that undocumented immigrants use more government services than everyone else are food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free or reduced-cost school lunches. However, it’s not the immigrants themselves who use this aid – they are not usually eligible – but rather their US-born children, who are citizens.
When we have clear and well substantiated counter-narratives to the false anti-immigrant narratives being tossed about by politicians and perpetuated by commercial news media, we can contribute to reducing the hate and harm being directed at the undocumented immigrant communities.
Community Historians workshop focuses on the Grand Rapids Public Schools in the 1980s
In September I wrote about the first Community Historians workshop, which focused on the 1960s. In that session
Those in attendance that went to South High talked a great deal about what went down during that period and how it has continued to impact public education and the Black community since. Several of those who were students tin the 1960s talked about how the impact of the closure of South High and how it ties to the way the Grand Rapids Public School district has evolved, especially with the two-tiered system, where some schools, like City High, cater to students from privilege, while other students are often taught by substitute teachers, with fewer resources, along with lower expectations for the students who attend Union or Ottawa Hills.
I was unable to attend the second session in the Community Historians series, but did attend the 3rd session held on Saturday. I was also asked to present some information up front, contextual information regarding larger policy dynamics in the US, along with social and economic realities that impacted what was taking place in the Grand Rapids Public School District.
I presented several slides, beginning with the one here above, which focused on the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership document, which was fundamentally adopted by the Reagan Administration, especially concerning public education.
A second slide shows some of the members of the Free Congress Foundation, specifically Joseph Coors and Rich DeVos, both of which provided millions of dollars to the Heritage Foundation beginning in the mid-1970s.
In the 3rd slide you can see economic factors that impacted families in Grand Rapids, the loss of good paying jobs for working class people, the advent of an accelerated Drug War in Grand Rapids and how the GRPD budget exponentially grew over time.
The fourth slide involved content created by a graduate student who has been looking at GR Press coverage and other source documents on the GRPS from the 1980s. Here is the summary of the top ten issues they came away with.
A final slide here below has information about a resolution that was passed by the GRPS Board of Education, which agreed to divest from South African in 1985. You can read about this campaign at this link.
Once the contextual information was presented, the workshop was then open to participants, some of which either were students or teachers during the 1980s at GRPS. Ned Andree shared information about two GRPS schools that were built in the 1970s in predominantly Black neighborhoods, Alexander School and Sigssbee Elementary, both of which were designed by architects who also built prisons. This information led to a larger discussion about the school to prison pipeline and how there was a not so public sentiment within the GRPS to assume that certain students would end up in jail or prison.
Other people talked about there own experience at GRPS, such as Jermar Sterling who was a student in the 1980s and was the subject of an interview in the oral history project that Professor Kang has been doing for the past 2 years.
Other major themes that were discussed dealt with the beginning of school closings in the 1980s, what role religious schools played in taking students away from the public schools, the shift from schools being a place to teach life skills to a business-centric focus, how white flight impacted the GRPS, where Latinx students fit into the GRPS narrative at this time, and how the financial instability of the Grand Rapids Public Schools saw good teachers leave for other districts because of job insecurity.
The discussion was lively and engaging, making the 2 hour workshop time fly by. There will be three more of these workshops offer in 2026 and Professor Kang invited people to offer up ideas on topics people would like to explore for future session. For updates on future Community Historians workshops go here https://grpsuncovered.org/.
The national 8 day economic blackout campaign starts on November 25th: Some questions and critiques
There are several versions of visuals circulating on social media calling for an economic blackout from November 25th through December 2nd. While I understand the sentiment behind this call to target certain larger corporations during this economic blackout I think it is worth dissecting the intent such actions.
The memes are calling for no work, no projects, no spending, no events, no restaurants, and one version says to shop local non-Maga. Now, this coordinated effort is not calling for a general strike, which I’ll address later, but some of the messages are conflicting.
It says no spending, but it also says shop local non-maga. I get this sentiment, but are they calling on people to not spend money at all during this 8 day economic blackout or not? Again, I get the notion of not spending money at businesses that have connections to the Trump Administration, but this raises another issue. There are plenty of businesses, arguably most businesses, which exploit workers, have little concerns for environmental sustainability and are focused primarily on making profits, regardless of whether or not they are not supporters of the Trump Administration.
Take for example the heath care sector in the US, which most definitely centers making profits over the well being of the public. According to Open Secrets, the health sector has consistently supported by Republicans and Democrats with campaign contributions since 1990, but has favored Democrats since 2016.
If the economic blackout is just committed to getting rid of Trump, then are they saying that what happens under other administrations is ok, even good for workers, families and the environment? To suggest that only the Trump Administration is bad for workers, families and the environment is to ignore the overwhelming data and analysis that demonstrates that workers, families and the environment has suffered under other administrations.
Another question I have is if we are all being called to not work during this 8 day economic blackout, is this campaign considering that there are millions of workers that might lose their jobs if they don’t go to work during this time? There are millions of workers in the US, most of which work in the service industry who do not not a livable wage already and even if they didn’t lose their jobs by not going to work during this 8 day period, they will have even less money to survive on.
Looking at the website for this campaign, I could find no organizations listed as being part of the effort, but there is this description:
BLACKOUT THE SYSTEM is a national, non-partisan grassroots movement born from frustration, injustice, and the undeniable truth that the people hold the power – not corrupt governments, not billionaires, and not broken systems.
However, on the main page of Blackout the System there are two additional flyers shown here above. One centers on the Hands Across America event that took place 40 years ago, which was nothing more than a feel good performative action that had no real power. The other flyer is from a separate group with their own website https://www.themassblackout.com/.
The Blackout the system doesn’t have groups or organizations listed, but The Mass Blackout website does. Most of the groups listed are the groups coordinating the 8 day economic blackout, with lots of different 50501 groups (which I have critiqued previously), some veterans groups and other progressive groups, most of which are singularly committed to getting rid of Trump. However, there are at least two groups listed that have a broader goal, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and The General Strike. Groups that are curiously not co-sponsors of partners in this effort are US Labor organizations. This seems strange to me, since this 8 day economic blackout, which is calling for people to not go to work and not spend money is not being endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the UAW, other national unions, as well as the thousands of local unions around the country.
Some of the memes say that this 8 day economic black out will be the largest economic blackout protest in US history. It is possible that this will be true, since we have no way of knowing how many people will participate, nor do we know the outcome or the impact of this action. We do know that there have been very effective local and national boycott and divestment campaigns. During the Civil Rights Movement, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was extremely effective, since the Black community won the demands they were calling for.
Another powerful example of an effective economic blackout campaign was the South African Anti-Apartheid campaign, which involved boycotts and divestment efforts. This campaign lasted for roughly 40 years, but it eventually worked to end the system of racial apartheid in South Africa. Grand Rapids groups participated in this campaign, which you can read about here.
One final example if the famous 1919 general strike that happened in Seattle. On the morning of February 6, 1919, Seattle, a city of 315,000 people, stopped working. 25,000 other union members had joined 35,000 shipyard workers already on strike, which is well documented on the Seattle General Strike Project website.
Created with GIMP
While I have lots of questions and criticisms of the 8 day economic blackout, I am not saying that people shouldn’t participate. However, we should be looking out for people who are already extremely vulnerable under the economic system of Capitalism, especially those with multiple jobs, immigrants and BIPOC communities, which regardless of who sits in the White House are being screwed under Capitalism. We also need to come to terms with the fact that most of the people who will be able to participate in the 8 day economic blackout are privileged. Until we can center those most impacted under Capitalism and make sure they are the ones leading boycotts, strikes and other forms of economic resistance, we should all apply a critical lens to campaigns that are led by those with privilege.
More propaganda from the West Michigan Policy Forum about the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative
Members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure are once again spreading propaganda about a ballot initiative that would mildly raise taxes for the wealthiest people in Michigan.
Here is the language for the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative:
Constitutional amendment to: add, beginning in 2027, an additional 5% tax on annual taxable income over $1 million for joint filers and over $500,000 for single filers. This tax is in addition to existing state income taxes, and is to be deposited into the State School Aid Fund and required to be used exclusively on local school district classrooms, career and technical education, reducing class sizes, and recruiting and retaining teachers; and subject funds to annual audits.
There are currently 12 billionaire families living in Michigan, with 2 right here in the Grand Rapids area, the Meijer and DeVos families. According to one source, there are 73,364 households in Michigan with $500,000 or more in income, which makes up only 1.8% of the population. Therefore, if the ballot initiative is passed, then 1.8% of the population – the wealthiest members of Michigan – will pay increased taxes that will generate billions for public schools.
What Propaganda looks like
In July, I wrote about groups that were against the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative, specifically in this area, like the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce and the West Michigan Policy Forum. I have identified both of these groups as members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure for years.
The latest attack against the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative was posted in Crain’s Grand Rapids Business, with the headline, Michigan can’t afford a tax hike wrapped in education promises. This commentary piece was written by Dan Meyering, who is the CEO of Trillium Investments and a board member of the West Michigan Policy Forum.
Meyering makes numerous claims in this article, but never sources any of his claims. In addition Meyering uses the standard Capitalist Class argument for raising taxes for the wealthiest members of society. Here Meyering argues:
If adopted, this income tax increase would fall hardest on Michigan’s small businesses, not its largest corporations. In fact, over 75% of those who would pay more under this plan are small business owners. That’s because many small businesses are “pass-through” entities, meaning owners pay taxes on business earnings and even money reinvested into growth, hiring, or equipment. The simple truth is these entrepreneurs aren’t forced to pay additional taxes on household income of $500,000 for single filers; they’re taxed on their business’ income.
First of all, if passed, the Invest in MI Kids ballot initiative would not increase taxes for corporations, yet Meyering includes corporations in his deceptive argument. Second, Meyering makes the claim that whatever profits small businesses make gets reinvested in new hiring or equipment, but again does not provide evidence or data to support such a claim.
Later in the article, Meyering uses the standard anti-public education talking points, where he states:
We should focus on three clear changes to help kids learn:
- Make sure third-grade reading works by supporting teachers with proven science-of-reading instruction and literacy-based advancement.
- Give parents transparency to make school performance data clear, comparable and accessible.
- Expand options for families. Every child learns differently, and every family deserves access to the education model that works best for them.
It is worth noting that Meyering refers to himself as a small business owner. Now, when I think of a small business owner I think of someone who owns a neighborhood restaurant or a bookstore. Meyering is the CEO of Trillium Investments, which owns a growing number of multifamily apartments across the midwest. These apartments are not affordable to most people, thus Meyering’s company owns apartment complexes that cater to members of the professional class. Thus, owning apartment complexes in Michigan and Minnesota hardly makes one a small business owner.
Meyering has a history of using his wealth and position of influence to impact public policy that benefits the wealthy and punishes working class people. For example, Meyering sits on the board of the Michigan Strategic Fund, which uses public dollars to support private projects, like the one he voted on to give $252.3 million of incentives for Amphitheater in downtown Grand Rapids. Meyering was also a signatory to the GR Chamber’s push for the City of Grand Rapids to adopt ordinances that would criminalize the unhoused.
Lastly, Meyering contributes to political campaigns locally, where he uses his wealthy to influence the outcome of elections. Meyering contributed $1000 or more in the following local elections since 2022:
$1000 to Andrew Robbins who ran for Grand Rapids 1st Ward Commissioner in 2022
$1000 to Kenneth Hoskins who ran for Grand Rapids 3rd Ward Commissioner in 2022
$1225 to Dean Pacific who ran for Grand Rapids 1st Ward Commissioner in 2024
$1225 to John Krajewski who ran for Grand Rapids 3rd Ward Commissioner in 2024
If Meyering can spend that kind of money to influence local elections and sit on state boards that approve millions of public dollars for private projects, he can surely pay a modest increase in income taxes to benefit public education. This is what propaganda looks like and why we need to call it out.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 