BIG BUSINESS ORGANIZES TO ABET THE INVASION OF MILLIONS MORE ILLEGAL PREGNANT AND ILLITERATE MEXICAN CRIMINALS WAVING THEIR MEX FLAGS....
It ain’t really news, is it?
It’s really not as much about the 40 million illegals that have invaded this nation, it’s about the WAL-MARTing of America. The war to depress wages for Americans.
You saw how hard it was for our elected whores to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, a period in which they had voted themselves mucho big raises!
But all this “cheap” Mexican labor has a staggering price! It’s just that the business interests, most of which are generous La Raza “the race” contributors, as they give to the La Raza candidates, don’t pay the ultimate price. YOU DO!
Visit bankrupt California which has the largest concentration of La Raza owned politicians working for the business interests. The state is bankrupt, yet spends billions on welfare for illegals, prison cost for illegals, education for illegals, and to defend Americans against their crimes, from Mexican gangs that are spreading all over the state from “sanctuary city” and Mexican gang capital of America (source Christian Science Monitor) Los Angeles ---- home of 1 out 5 state paid anchor babies.
The pictures is already way beyond bleak and the population of illegals is predicted to DOUBLE in a very short time as result of the Mexican invasion and Mexican heavy breeding.
In California ALL the elected politicians are secretly working for amnesty. It’s the bit by bit by bit multitudes of amnesties that La Raza and Big Business demands.
La Raza whores Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi work hard for the welfare for BIG AGRI BIZ plan the Senate has, of course, passed. The three old whores wanted to get their amnesty for one million illegal farm workers and then their extended families up from Mexico, worked in the bill. You see, Nancy Pelosi has for decades hired illegals for her St. Helena, Napa winery. She might barf on her designer togs if she had to pay an American a living wage!
La Raza whore (google Clinton and La Raza) Hillary Clinton has received nearly 90% of her campaign bribes from Wall Streeters. The other 10% came from illegal Chinese felons, like the ones that have followed the Clintons from their White House days, and also from her Indian-Pakistanis business pals. You see not only do the La Raza whores want another 40 million heavy breeding (your tab!) Mexicans for generation after generation of depressed wages, they have this visa program going to permit millions of Chinese and Indians in to take our jobs. When was the last time you were in Silicon Valley, California? They bring Indians in for gas station jobs, and Office Depot positions. The rest of Bay Area is just a Chinese - Indian third-world country. Half the storefronts are only signed in Chinese characters now.
....It’s all about the WAL-MARTing of America, and there’s no one better to explain it than former Wal-Mart board member, Hillary R Clinton.
Barak Obama, is also a La Raza whore. You didn’t hear Oprah talking about how much Obama wants to depress American wages, or the fact that he appeared recently in Los Angeles and only talked votes for him will help buy amnesty for illegals. Not a word on the numerous articles in the Los Angeles Times on illegal Mexican gangs murdering African-AMERICAS (google it!).
John Edwards is an actor that spends $400 getting his locks cut. He’s made millions from the corporate interests that benefit from depressed wages. He’s also an open borders amnesty advocate. You don’t really think he could get all that Wall Street money if he hadn’t a proven record on protecting the billionaire class! He’s made millions off the sub-prime bankers and is building a 30,000 foot home while millions get foreclose on by crooked bankers.
It’s not really hard to connect the dots on these clowns, because just like George W Bush, a man that failed at everything he’s ever done, other than his massive transfer to the Nations’ economy and environment to the corporate class, these politicians’ stories have never been different. Not matter what spin they spew, ultimately they only want to serve their masters, THE CORPORATE CLASS.
Businesses Will Fight Immigration LegislationVa. Coalition Opposes Punishing Employers
1. By Amy GardnerWashington Post Staff WriterSaturday, December 15, 2007; B01
A broad coalition of Virginia business interests, including some of the most powerful trade groups in the state, has created an organization to oppose laws that would punish employers with undocumented workers on their payrolls.
Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy was formed in anticipation of another flurry of legislation in the General Assembly seeking to crack down on undocumented residents and employers that hire them, business leaders said. Individual trade groups and companies have spoken out before about specific anti-illegal immigration proposals, but the new group is the business community's most visible and organized effort to influence the immigration debate.
"This is a major issue in Virginia, and we wanted to come together as a group and have a seat at the table," said Julia Ciarlo Hammond, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business. She was one of the organizers of the new group.
The coalition's formation comes at a critical time, just after a bruising state and local election season during which public anxiety over illegal immigration figured prominently in many campaigns. Politicians seeking to get tough on illegal immigration have been targeting employers with increasing frequency, a tactic that critics have said allows them to appear responsive without being vulnerable to accusations of intolerance or meanness toward immigrants.
One proposal that failed last session in Richmond would have revoked the state business license of any employer found to hire undocumented workers. Another would have prohibited employers from filing workers' compensation claims for undocumented employees; the employers would have been required to pay such claims from their own pockets. Variations on those bills are certain to reappear in the session that begins Jan. 9, advocates said.
Claire Guthrie Gastanaga of the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations said she expects more than 50 pieces of legislation touching on immigration in the session. She said she welcomes help fighting policies that she believes make all immigrants, documented or otherwise, feel unwelcome in Virginia.
"This coalition is important," she said. "Frankly, it takes some of the heat off of me."
The coalition includes some of the most influential industries in the state, including many that rely heavily on low-cost and migrant labor. The group includes home builders, contractors, hog and poultry growers, retailers, truckers, the hospitality industry and the state Chamber of Commerce.
"Our coalition at this point wants to be at the table to make sure that business is able to participate in the discussion," Hammond said. "It's very straightforward. We are interested in making sure that our employers have a legal immigrant workforce and that we comply with the rules and regulations that help us maintain our legal immigrant workforce."
Hammond said the group will focus exclusively on proposals affecting employers, in part because such laws are expected in the coming session and in part to maintain a narrow focus for a new and fragile coalition. Some business groups, including the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, have taken stands on immigration laws affecting not only employers but also access to public universities.
"It's time for the business community to come together and voice some sense of reason and balance in the immigration debate," said William D. Lecos, president of the Fairfax chamber. "It's clear that at its worst, some of the legislation is either poorly placed, meaning the state is trying to do what is a federal responsibility, or it is just so fundamentally unfair and imbalanced that it threatens to compromise the quality of life and economy of Virginia rather than improve it."
State Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R-Fairfax), who has supported a variety of measures to restrict undocumented residents, said it is entirely legitimate to impose sanctions on businesses that hire illegal workers. Rust is a businessman himself, an engineer with his own company in Herndon. He noted that many of the industries represented in the coalition, particularly construction and agriculture, are known to rely heavily on undocumented labor.
"It's against the law to hire folks who are not in the country legally," Rust said. "As an employer of a fairly substantial number of people, I would take issue with the fact that it's difficult to check."
Business leaders said the reverse. They said the business sanctions cast too wide a net and place an undue burden on employers to police the immigration status of their workers. They said the measures also send an unwelcome signal to legal immigrants, who have provided a crucial labor pool, particularly in Northern Virginia, as the economy has boomed in recent years.
The business leaders also argued that some of the measures are not proper because they are preempted by federal law.
Rust did not argue that point, although he said the federal government has failed so "miserably" to enforce its immigration laws and police the nation's borders that the state has no choice but to step in.
"My constituents are saying, 'If they're not going to do it, you've got to do something,' " Rust said. The business coalition, he said, is asking Virginia to mirror the approach of the federal government, which is to "shut your eyes and don't enforce the law."
HOW THEY REALLY WORK FOR
Earmarks Put Candidates On the SpotObama, Clinton Camps Defend Requests Made for Constituents
2. By John Solomon and Matthew MoskWashington Post Staff WritersFriday, October 12, 2007; A01
Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The beneficiary of the Aug. 2, 2006, earmark from him and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) was undeniably close to home: the University of Chicago, where his wife, Michelle, worked as the university hospital's vice president for community and external affairs.
Earlier this year, Obama made dozens of additional earmark requests, and -- consistent with his position that such requests be transparent -- he publicly disclosed the beneficiaries. More than half a dozen requests were meant for clients of a lobbying and law firm whose partners have donated more than $38,000 to Obama in the past two years.
Obama's work highlights the delicate balancing act faced by several members of Congress running for president, as they try to sound a populist, anti-special-interest message while also fulfilling their traditional role of delivering federal money for their constituents' pet projects.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has rejected Obama's attacks that she is too close to lobbyists, arranged a $3 million earmark this spring for the development of hydrogen-fuel and hybrid technology by General Motors, whose lobbyists include one of her biggest fundraisers.
And Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose presidential campaign frequently attacks excessive spending by Congress, requested more than five dozen earmarks this year worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley and helping his state's shrimp industry.
"Yes, Barack Obama is indeed guilty of fighting for important projects in Illinois that help veterans, kids and important infrastructure priorities," said Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman. "He is committed to dramatically reforming the earmark process, and as president he will do so."
Durbin spokesman Joseph Shoemaker said that the senator originally came up with the idea for the University of Chicago earmark and that he invited Obama to join in the request. Shoemaker added that he was unaware of any conversations about Michelle Obama's role at the university.
The earmark faced stiff opposition on the Senate floor last year. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), then the Appropriations Committee chairman, said directing the funds to the University of Chicago would circumvent the normal process by which the National Institutes of Health hands out research funds.
"For this to be earmarked here, now, means they no longer have to compete," Stevens said of the university. "The program [NIH has] for allocating money, I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor." The spending proposal was eventually set aside.
Bernadette Sargeant, a former counsel for the House ethics committee, questioned whether Obama should have put his name on a request that would have sent funds to his wife's employer. "It is not like her salary is going to change because of this benefit," she said. "But, given her title and the stature of her position, it is a prestige enhancement, or could be perceived as a prestige enhancement."
Sargeant said Obama's decision to co-sponsor the earmark raises concerns under two provisions of the Senate ethics code. The first requires senators to avoid performing official acts that can directly benefit a spouse, and the second more broadly tells senators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
"There should be a protective wall between benefits directed to her employer and her husband's official acts," Sargeant said. "I would have said, 'Stay away from it.' "
Robert Bauer, an ethics lawyer who advises Obama and others, said the senator from Illinois did nothing wrong. "There's absolutely no violation here," he said. "Senate rules on this point are absolutely clear. Michelle Obama is not a lobbyist. Nor has she personally benefited in any way from a request for funding for a research project at one of the largest and most distinguished hospitals in the city and in the country."
On the campaign trail, Obama has been among the most vocal critics of the way things work in Washington, tapping into a public disdain for the influence wielded by lobbyists. "The more people know about how federal laws, rules and regulations are made, and who's making them, the less likely it is that critical decisions will be hijacked by lobbyists and special interests," he told a crowd in New Hampshire in June, according to published reports.
Until this year, lawmakers were able to shield from public view the work they did to help companies and causes -- and often campaign supporters -- get federal money.
"The new disclosure requirements raise questions that all the candidates will have to answer for the first time," said Ellen S. Miller, co-founder and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation.
Obama's campaign aides said there is nothing in his long list of earmarks that he needs to apologize for, noting that the recipients included Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, the Chicago Botanic Garden, the Illinois Primary Health Care Association and the Illinois Institute of Technology.
These and four other groups hired the firm Holland & Knight to lobby for the earmark requests. Though Obama does not accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists, he took 30 contributions totaling $25,900 for his presidential bid from lawyers at the firm who are not lobbyists. Those lawyers also gave about $12,000 to his Senate campaign in the past two years.
Susan Bass, a spokeswoman for Holland & Knight, said firm members' political contributions are not orchestrated to gain influence with a specific lawmaker. "Individuals who choose to contribute to presidential campaigns do so as individuals and not as representatives of the firm," she said.
Clinton, over the past three years, has secured $8 million in earmarks for General Motors for hybrid, hydrogen and fuel-cell research. The latest installment came in May, when she announced that she had secured $3 million for GM in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending bill.
One of GM's main lobbyists on the issue is Steve Ricchetti, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and one of Hillary Clinton's "Hillraisers" who are committed to raising at least $100,000 for her presidential campaign. As a donor, he has given $4,600, the maximum allowed, to the campaign.
Ricchetti's firm reported earning $120,000 in the first half of this year from lobbying for GM on issues that included the "development and promotion of hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid vehicles."
Ricchetti said he and his firm did not lobby Clinton on that specific earmark and he did not know how the funding was secured. Though his partners at times lobby Clinton's Senate office, Ricchetti said, he has decided not to do so because he still does political work for both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the senator does not consider contributions or fundraising when making official decisions. "One thing has nothing to do with the other," Singer said.
Paul confirmed through aides to his presidential campaign that he has requested earmarks for Texas projects. But they said he subsequently voted against all of the spending bills that contained the requests.
"He does think it is his congressional duty to forward all of his constituent requests, and he forwards those requests, and those are earmarks," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. "It is not the earmarks that are the problem. It's the size of the spending bills. . . . Ron wants to shrink the size of the pie, and that is why he votes against these overly expensive, unbalanced spending bills."
December 16, 2007
It’s the Politics, Stupid
By NOAM SCHEIBER
THE SQUANDERING OF AMERICA
How the Failure of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity.
By Robert Kuttner.
337 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $26.95.
This July, when the Democrats John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all proposed closing a tax loophole that saves hedge fund managers hundreds of millions of dollars each year, it wasn’t immediately clear what to make of it. On the one hand, it was the sort of proposal you’d expect from the party of working people. On the other, these three presidential candidates had stayed silent on the issue for months — while raising gobs of money from wealthy financiers. Why would they turn on them now?
Only later did we get some hint of an explanation. The New York Times reported that Charles Schumer, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, had spent June assuring Wall Street donors that the loophole would remain intact. This made the pronouncements a victory for everyone involved. The Democratic candidates could take the high road publicly, while their contributors could rest easy knowing those tax breaks were safe.
In “The Squandering of America,” Robert Kuttner says financial elites have too much sway over the Democratic Party — and, as a result, over public policy. Judging from the tax-loophole episode, it’s hard to disagree.
Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect and a columnist for The Boston Globe, won’t wow you with the novelty of his arguments. Liberals like him spent most of the 1990s groaning about Wall Street’s grip over the Clinton White House, and about the “neoliberal” agenda that resulted. (In his own book, Gene Sperling, once an economic adviser to Bill Clinton, recalls facing off against “the Three Bobs” — one of them Kuttner — during the bruising internecine fights of that decade.) The strength of Kuttner’s latest effort is that, with seven years’ distance from the Clinton era, his arguments now look emphatically right.
Kuttner takes on four pillars of neoliberalism: the preference for balanced budgets and modest-size government; free trade; economic austerity as a condition for development aid; and financial-market deregulation. In each case, the evidence suggests neoliberal policies were either irrelevant or downright disruptive.
Consider the budget. In 1993, Robert Rubin, then the president’s top economic adviser, helped persuade Clinton to pursue a huge deficit-reduction package. The theory was that the bond markets would reward him with lower interest rates. It seemed to work: the package passed, interest rates fell, and the economy boomed. But two hitches would become apparent. First, the productivity gains that underlay the boom had taken root years earlier. Second, interest rates didn’t actually fall much once you factored in a drop in inflation.
Kuttner doesn’t dispute the need for deficit reduction, given all the red ink Clinton inherited from his Republican predecessors. He just takes issue with what became a fetish for balanced budgets. It led Clinton to underinvest in areas like infrastructure and research and development, which some economists, including the Nobel laureate and former Clinton adviser Joseph Stiglitz, believe slowed growth. Meanwhile, the alarming rise in income inequality since 2000, coupled with European countries’ record of rapid, evenly distributed growth, suggests that a more activist government might be preferable on both social and economic grounds.
The story repeats itself over and over. The Clintonites spent the ’90s negotiating one trade deal after another. But once the dust had settled, the laissez-faire approach appeared to have accelerated the decline of American industry. What the Clintonites (and, to be fair, this commentator) missed was that clearing aside trade barriers can leave you dangerously exposed when many of your trading partners — especially in East Asia — don’t reciprocate.
Perhaps the most disturbing story involves financial markets. It’s no surprise that an administration staffed with Wall Street refugees would view New Deal-era restrictions on banking and investing as excessive. What’s surprising is that the Clinton White House would champion deregulation with so little regard for the consequences. One of the heroes of those years was Brooksley Born, an obscure bureaucrat who headed the equally obscure Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 1998, Born wanted to scrutinize a financial instrument called a derivative, whose market she nominally oversaw. This earned her enormous helpings of scorn from Rubin and Alan Greenspan, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and she eventually backed down. Later that year, derivatives were at the center of one of the most spectacular financial meltdowns in history. They continue to threaten the economy to this day.
For all his insights into political economy, Kuttner sometimes goes astray on questions of crass politics. He says socially conservative working-class voters “would vote for progressive candidates if Democrats gave them more of a reason to vote” — by which he means greater “pocketbook benefits.” Kuttner is right that there are legions of blue-collar workers whose economic interests should make them Democrats. But he offers no hard evidence that they’d support the party if only it moved left on economics — as opposed to, say, right on issues like abortion and gay marriage.
Kuttner can be too hard on Democrats. In retrospect, Bill Clinton may not have had sound economic reasons to obsess over the deficit. But he had sound political reasons: namely, that the party’s association with liberal interest groups had made voters loath to trust Democrats with the federal purse strings. Kuttner also plays down many Democrats’ courageous opposition to the most egregious deregulatory efforts of the ’90s — including Clinton’s veto of a pernicious anti-shareholder measure in 1995.
For their part, the party’s presidential front-runners have learned a lot from the ’90s. All three have proposed ambitious health insurance programs and savings benefits while voicing doubts about the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Still, given the influence of wealthy investors on the Clinton and Obama campaigns in particular, Kuttner is right to be worried. In May, the legendary hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones II held a 300-person fund-raiser for Barack Obama at his Greenwich, Conn., mansion. If a future Obama administration were to consider, say, reining in derivatives, could the president resist pressure from the likes of Jones? It’s possible. But, like Kuttner, I’m skeptical.
Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at The New Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment