Saturday, January 22, 2011








“Among the commodities that Mexico exports is labor power. US corporations depend on a supply of labor power from Mexican workers for their plants in Mexico and the United States. The remittances of the latter, a major source of income for millions of Mexican families, are crucial for Mexico’s GDP. Those US and foreign plants that operate on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border, across from US cities such as Laredo, McClaren and El Paso, Texas, and San Diego, California, depend on a constant migration of low-wage workers from southern to northern Mexico. Despite the draconian controls on immigration, the integration of the labor markets is such that, according to one estimate, a 10 percent increase in wages for unskilled workers in the US over time results in a 1.8 percent rise in Mexican wages.”


Mexican economy in free-fall

By Rafael Azul

26 August 2009

The Mexican economy shrank at an annual rate of 10.3 percent in the second quarter of 2009. This is the worst economic performance since the National Statistics Institute (INEGI) began issuing quarterly numbers in 1981. This statistic signals a continuing deceleration for the economy, an increase over the six-month average decline of 9.2 percent for the first half of 2009.

Were one to predict a 7 percent decline for the entire year—a wildly optimistic estimate, given the above figures—Mexico would have faced its worst year since the Great Depression. Among the worlds’ major economies, only that of Russia has contracted more than Mexico’s, about 10.9 percent.

The third second quarter contraction follows a drop of 8 percent in the first quarter and 1.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. So-called secondary activities—construction, manufacturing, mining and utilities—fell by 11.5 percent. Tertiary activities, such as transportation and storage, fell by 10.4 percent. A somewhat positive result was generated in the primary sector—agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishing—which rose by 1.1 percent of GDP.

By far the largest drop was in services associated with tourism, 17.1 percent, followed by manufacturing, 16.4 percent. This grim statistic is a direct result of a slowdown affecting the most industrialized parts of the country.

The drop in GDP has been accompanied by a crisis in the peso/dollar exchange rate. The rate changed from approximately 11 pesos to the dollar at the beginning of 2008 to 15.50 at the beginning of 2009. Only massive intervention by the Mexican Central Bank and the fall of the dollar itself restored some value to the peso, back to about 13 per dollar.

The social consequences of this dramatic decline are being felt. Mexico City residents report increases in nearly every measure of social unrest. Youth crime, drug use and corruption—all driven by increases in youth unemployment—have escalated.

Since the imposition of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992, the economies of the United States and Mexico have become much more closely integrated. Mexico transformed itself from an economy that relied mostly on domestic demand—less than 10 percent of GDP was involved in foreign trade—to an export platform, with over 30 percent of its GDP involved in foreign trade. This is particularly true for northern Mexico. Sixty percent of Mexico’s imports—mostly of manufactured goods—and two thirds of capital investments come from the United States. Over 90 percent of Mexico’s exports go to the US. In 2008 the total value of exports fell by 34 percent, while imports fell by 33 percent. This includes a 54 percent drop in the dollar value of oil exports.

Among the commodities that Mexico exports is labor power. US corporations depend on a supply of labor power from Mexican workers for their plants in Mexico and the United States. The remittances of the latter, a major source of income for millions of Mexican families, are crucial for Mexico’s GDP. Those US and foreign plants that operate on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border, across from US cities such as Laredo, McClaren and El Paso, Texas, and San Diego, California, depend on a constant migration of low-wage workers from southern to northern Mexico. Despite the draconian controls on immigration, the integration of the labor markets is such that, according to one estimate, a 10 percent increase in wages for unskilled workers in the US over time results in a 1.8 percent rise in Mexican wages.

The impact on the border economy has been devastating. The loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industrial centers such as Ciudad Juarez, Laredo and Tijuana has affected the economies of the industrial corridor that stretches on both sides of the border from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas.

Consequently, the current US recession had an immediate impact on the Mexican economy. Exports, investment and remittances fell. Commodity prices, including the price of oil, also fell in response to the global drop in demand.

The collapse of exports, investments and remittances, however, are only part of the story. Food prices were on the rise throughout 2007, affecting living standards.

The official rate of unemployment, 5.2 percent of the labor force, up from 3.5 percent last year, obscures the actual state of affairs. Even before the crash, the economy was unable to create enough jobs to occupy new entrants into the labor force, a chronic problem for the Mexican economy.

Those that did not emigrate found employment in the so-called informal sector, which consists of what are euphemistically called “micro-enterprises.” This underground economy employs some 20 million people, 45 percent of the entire labor force of 45 million people. (Mexico has a population of 107 million; the labor force is officially defined as those over the age of 14.)

Since June 2008, the Mexican economy has lost 232,000 jobs, while the informal sector gained 99,000. If one adds this last group to the unemployed, the actual rate of unemployment would exceed 20 percent of the labor force. Such rates approach those of the 1930s and far exceed the jobless rates generated by the economic crisis of 1994.

The reaction of President Felipe Calderón’s National Autonomous Party (PAN) government to the new economic news resembles that of a US state governor, rather than the leader of a sovereign state. After dismissing warnings that the Mexican economy would be hard hit by the recession as “catastrophe mongering,” the Calderón administration proceeded to impose contractionary policies that reduced internal consumption and added to the unemployment rolls. The federal government will reduce spending by 85,000 million pesos, roughly US$6.5 billion, in the 2010 budget to be presented September 8.

At the same time, the Central Bank, with its policy of selling dollars to prevent the collapse of the peso, in effect has drastically reduced the money supply, increasing interest rates and further restricting economic activity. Central Bank officials have made it clear that the recovery of the Mexican economy depends on the recovery of the world economy.

The contractionary measures have been dictated by Wall Street. Last November, Fitch Ratings, a Wall Street Bond rating agency, gave a “negative” assessment of Mexican government debt. In May of this year, Standard and Poor’s also gave a Mexico a negative rating. Both agencies had threatened to reduce the government’s bond rating, presently at BBB+, three steps above junk bond status. In effect, the banks and the Obama administration are denying Mexico, a semi-colony of the US, the kind of bailout they have granted themselves. That the measures being imposed will result in increasing hunger and unemployment is of no consequence to the US ruling elite.

In February 2008, the corporatist Mexican Workers Confederation (CTM) and Workers Congress (CT) agreed to a pact with the Calderón administration, pledging labor peace. At a meeting at the presidential mansion, CT/CTM leader Gamboa Pascoe promised that the union bureaucracy intended to place Mexican national interests ahead of the interests of the union movement.

In the intervening months CTM leaders have had to confront the anger of the ranks, including construction workers, miners, sweatshop workers at the border, and teachers.

Wary of their ability to control the anger of the rank and file, the union bureaucracy, in the aftermath of the INEGI announcements, made public their concern with potential social conflicts generated by the current crisis. CTM leaders warned Calderón of the lessons of 100 and 200 years ago—the dates of the Mexican Revolution and the Mexican War of Independence respectively.

However, the union bureaucracy stopped short of calling on Calderón to rescind the budget cuts and to use the resources of the state to create jobs. Instead it demanded that whatever budget cuts take place be shared equally among all the government agencies. On Friday, Calderón placed a wage ceiling on government officials; from now on no government official will be allowed to earn a higher salary than the president himself. “Before we ask for further sacrifices from Mexican families, it is necessary that government officials show transparency in the efficient use of government resources,” declared Calderón, signaling further cuts in living standards.

About the WSWS
Contact Us
Privacy Statement
Top of page


EXPORTING POVERTY... we take MEXICO'S 38 million poor, illiterate, criminal and frequently pregnant

........ where can we send AMERICA'S poor?

The Mexican Invasion................................................

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

March 30, 2006 edition

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? • When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. • A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. • Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. • Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.



JANUARY 21, 2011, 9:11 PM

Big Paydays Return With Big Profits at Wall St. Banks


Jin Lee/Bloomberg News Vikram S. Pandit of Citigroup saw his salary raised to $1.75 million, from $1. But James P. Gorman of Morgan Stanley, below, is expected to earn less than the $15 million he got for 2009.

Jin Lee/Bloomberg News

Talk about a raise.

Citigroup’s chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, after nearly two years of earning a mere $1 in salary while he tried put the bank back on track, has been awarded a $1.75 million salary, according to a regulatory filing on Friday.

The lifting of Mr. Pandit’s symbolic hair shirt came as Morgan Stanley disclosed much, though not all, of the compensation for its leader. James P. Gorman, in his first year as chief executive of Morgan Stanley, will earn less than the $15 million he took home in 2009 when he was the firm’s co-president, according to a person familiar with his compensation but not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Other Wall Street banks — including Goldman Sachs and Bank of America — are still to report what their leaders will be paid. JPMorgan Chase disclosed compensation for some of its senior mangers, but has not yet approved the pay package for its chief executive and chairman, Jamie Dimon. Mr. Dimon is expected to earn as much, if not more, than the $17.5 million he took home in 2009, which made him among the highest-paid Wall Street executives. No decision has been made. But JPMorgan had a banner 2010 — it was the most profitable year in the company’s history — and four of Mr. Dimon’s top lieutenants have already been awarded stock worth more than $10 million each.

Two years since emerging from the financial crisis, Wall Street profits — and big paychecks — appear to be back. But the public uproar that erupted over outsize bonuses that banks awarded, even after accepting a government bailouts, has not yet been tamed. Banks are still trying to balance the need to attract star executives and traders with regulators’ demands to ensure that their pay programs do not create excessive risk. Gone is some of the sensitivity to lawmakers and the broader public, who were angry at seeing such lavish paydays as they were losing their homes and jobs.

As bonus checks were doled out at several big banks earlier this week, it is clear that 2010 is shaping up to be a very good year — although perhaps not as good as a year earlier. Alan Johnson, a longtime Wall Street compensation consultant, said that he expected pay to fall about 10 to 15 percent for 2010, and perhaps more than twice that amount in many trading businesses where the results were much weaker.

Amid greater scrutiny from the public and federal regulators since the financial crisis, the banks have awarded a greater portion of compensation in the form of stock — some even higher than 50 percent — and emphasized the use of deferred pay and policies to claw back ill-gotten bonuses.

Over all, what is remarkable is the wide variation in pay packages among the banking giants. At the industry’s strongest banks, employee compensation, on average, fell markedly from a year ago. At Goldman Sachs, workers earned, on average, about $398,000 in 2010, down 11 percent from a year ago. At JPMorgan’s investment bank, employee pay was, on average, about $370,000 — about 2.4 percent lower than in 2009 and in line with the overall firm’s decline in compensation.

Wall Street’s star bankers and traders, regardless of where they work, will still reap paychecks worth millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, several of the weaker players ratcheted their compensation packages upward. At Morgan Stanley, for example, workers’ paychecks rose about 8 percent, on average, to about $257,000. Citigroup and Bank of America, whose average paychecks are substantially lower because they employ tens of thousands consumer bankers who draw smaller salaries and bonuses, reported increases of about 3 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

Some pay analysts suspect that this divergence may stem, at least in part, from the need of these more troubled firms to offer bigger paydays to attract and retain top talent.

Those occupying offices in the corporate suite continued to score big paydays.

Citigroup’s board had signaled a pay increase for Mr. Pandit last fall when they granted stock awards to several of his top lieutenants and announced that they planned to restore his compensation so that it would be in line with other Wall Street chiefs. Mr. Pandit had vowed at a Congressional hearing in February 2009 that he would accept only $1 until the bank returned to profitability.

On Tuesday, Citigroup posted an annual profit in 2010, the first time it had done so since the financial crisis struck. Richard D. Parsons, Citigroup’s chairman, said that the board was “very pleased with the progress the company has made under Vikram’s leadership” and that he merited the raise for the coming year. Citigroup’s board could also choose to award him additional stock and options when it reviews his 2011 compensation later this year. Of course, Mr. Pandit still holds about $79.7 million in cash from the sale of his investment fund, Old Lane Partners, to Citigroup in April 2007.

At JPMorgan Chase, Jes Staley, the head of its investment bank, was awarded more than $14.5 million in stock and options, according to Equilar, a compensation research firm. His total compensation may be even higher when his salary and bonus are disclosed. Ina R. Drew, the bank’s chief investment officer, and Mary Callahan Erdoes, the head of its asset management division, each received stock and options worth more than $11 million. That poises them to be among the highest-paid women on Wall Street.

On Friday, Morgan Stanley’s board awarded Mr. Gorman stock and options valued at $7.4 million, according to Equilar. But this represents only the equity portion of Mr. Gorman’s pay package; the cash component will be announced later this year.

Morgan Stanley also released details of more than $32 million in stock awards for 10 other top executives.


Simon Johnson reviews Too Big to Fail by Andrew Sorkin and other books on the financial crisis

Sunday, December 27, 2009; B01


The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System -- and Themselves

By Andrew Ross Sorkin

Viking. 600 pp. $32.95


The Ascent of Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase

By Duff McDonald

Simon & Schuster. 340 pp. $28


The End of Easy Money And the Renewal of the American Economy

By Peter S. Goodman

Times. 336 pp. $25

At 6:30 a.m. on June 6, 1944, U.S. forces began their assault on Omaha Beach as part of the Normandy landings. Casualties among the first wave were horrendous as infantry struggled out of their landing crafts, known as Higgins boats, under intense fire. Incredible acts of individual heroism and great leadership on the spur of the moment eventually saved the day, but not before chaos and death swept the sand. Combat historian S.L.A Marshall described Omaha Beach as "an epic human tragedy which in the early hours bordered on total disaster."

At 11 a.m. on Sept. 15, 2008, Lloyd Blankfein pulled up in front of a Manhattan office building to continue working on a way to save his firm, Goldman Sachs. "I don't think I can take another day of this," one of his employees remarked. Blankfein shot back, "You're getting out of a Mercedes to go to the New York Federal Reserve. You're not getting out of a Higgins boat on Omaha Beach."

Blankfein was right: Being a Wall Street banker in 2008 was nothing like being a soldier during the Normandy invasion. The financial crisis may have been a once-in-a-lifetime struggle for a group of very well-paid banking executives, but the hardships they endured were long hours, uncomfortable phone calls, and mediocre takeout food. The only thing that JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs had in common with the U.S. forces was that, ultimately, they won: The Wall Street executives kept their jobs, their bonuses and their pensions; they benefited from unprecedented rule changes and unlimited monetary and fiscal support; and their firms became even bigger and more dangerous to the economic health of society.

Stephen Ambrose retold the human dimensions of World War II in convincing and excruciating detail. Andrew Ross Sorkin is the Stephen Ambrose for our financial crisis, with the blow-by-blow story of how rich bankers fought to save the Wall Street they knew and loved. The details in "Too Big To Fail" will turn your stomach. The arrogance, lack of self-awareness, and overweening pride are astonishing.

Sorkin puts you there -- you see events unfold moment by moment, you hear the conversations, you can sense the hubris. The executives of our largest banks ran their firms into the ground, taking excessive risks that even now they fail to understand fully. But, as these individuals saw it, unless they personally were saved on incredibly generous terms, the world's economy would grind to a halt. This is as compelling as it is appalling.

Jamie Dimon, the astute, well-connected and ultimately victorious head of JPMorgan Chase -- a character whose development is revealed meticulously in Duff McDonald's "Last Man Standing" -- told his shareholders' meeting earlier this year that 2008 was probably the company's "finest year ever." He was talking about what you and I call the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Sorkin in his general narrative and McDonald in his biography are sympathetic to their protagonists, but the portraits that emerge are not encouraging. Perhaps for this reason, both shy away somewhat from a key point: You can blame the bankers all you want, but it is the government's job to prevent the financial sector (and anyone else) from holding or exercising this kind of power over us. Where was the government?

By 2008, our executive and legislative branches had long been deep in bipartisan slumber, allowing vulnerabilities to build up in the form of overspending, rising consumer debt levels and lax (or nonexistent) protection for consumers against outrageous practices by the financial sector. This bigger picture is missing from Sorkin's and McDonald's blow-by-blow accounts, but it is a recurrent theme in "Past Due," by journalist Peter S. Goodman.

We can quibble about the relative importance of some details -- such as the role of China's high savings rate in lowering global interest rates and feeding the American credit boom -- in Goodman's highly informative account. But there is no question that politicians either believed that crazy "financial engineering" created a sound basis for sustainable growth or just loved what the financial system could do for them at election time.

And, as Sorkin relates, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the rhetoric regarding our supposedly free markets without government intervention just masks the reality -- that there is a revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, and powerful people bend the rules to help each other out. In an illustration of Wall Street clubbiness, Sorkin documents a meeting in Moscow between Hank Paulson, secretary of the treasury (and former head of Goldman Sachs), and the board of Goldman Sachs. As the storm clouds gathered at the end of June 2008, Paulson spent an evening talking substance with the board -- while agreeing not to record this "social" meeting in his official calendar. We do not know the content of the conversation, but the appearance of this kind of exclusive interaction shows how little our top officials care about public perceptions of favoritism.

In saner times, this would constitute a major scandal. At moments of deep crisis, understanding what influences policymakers and having access to them can help a firm survive on advantageous terms. Goldman Sachs was saved, in large part, by suddenly being allowed to become a bank holding company on Sept. 21, 2008. Our most senior government officials determined that the United States must allow Goldman to keep its risky portfolio of assets, while offering it essentially unfettered access to cheap credit from the Federal Reserve. In rescuing a crippled investment bank, the Treasury created the world's largest government-backed hedge fund.

In the face of these developments, Andrew Haldane, head of financial stability at the Bank of England, has become blunt about the way our banking system interacts with (and rips off) taxpayers. In a recent paper that represents the straightest talk heard from the official sector in a long while, Haldane puts it this way: The government may say "never again" to bailouts, but when faced with the choice to either "rescue big banks or allow the world economy to collapse," it will reasonably choose the route of rescue. But, knowing this, the people running our biggest banks have an incentive to take more risk -- if things go well, bank executives get the upside, and if there's a problem, the taxpayer will pick up the check. If a financial sector boss wants greater assurance of a bailout, he or she should make bigger and potentially more dangerous bets -- so the government simply cannot afford to let that bank fail.

This, Haldane argues, is our "doom loop" -- big banks know they can get away with the same behavior (and more) again, and we are doomed to repeat the same boom-bust-bailout cycle. A long time ago, President Andrew Jackson's private secretary, Nicholas Trist, described the Second Bank of the United States, the last financial institution to seriously challenge the power of the president, thus: "Independently of its misdeeds, the mere power, -- the bare existence of such a power -- is a thing irreconcilable with the nature and spirit of our institutions." Unless and until we break the political power of our largest banks, the middle class will be hammered down. Whose taxes do you think will be raised to reflect the costs of repeated financial shenanigans? The financial sector will become even richer and more powerful. If you didn't like where inequality in the United States was already heading, wait until you see the effects of this recession.

The most significant result of the financial crisis is the emergence of six large banks that are undoubtedly too big to fail and therefore enjoy a strengthened government guarantee; Goldman, JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley are the beneficiaries of the doom loop. The most significant non-result is the fact that no comprehensive legislation has yet been passed to reform the financial sector. Without really serious reform, we have every reason to start counting down to the next financial crisis, and to the next fleet of Mercedes lining up before the New York Fed.

Simon Johnson is co-founder of the blog BaselineScenario, co-author of "13 Bankers," to be published in April, and a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management.

BOOK - OBAMANOMICS: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall St.Donors


Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses


Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.


Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.

Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:

* The Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate profits and more government control

* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda

* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)

* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists

* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics

If you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs, this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.


Praise for Obamanomics

“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”

—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author

“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”

—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama

“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”

—Congressman Ron Paul

“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”

—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History


• Hardcover: 256 pages

• Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30, 2009)

• Language: English

• ISBN-10: 1596986123

• ISBN-13: 978-1596986121






Citizen Advocate: Ralph Nader

"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference." - Ralph Nader


January 21, 2011

Obama Sends Pro-Business Signal With Adviser Choice


SCHENECTADY, N.Y. — President Obama, sending another strong signal that he intends to make the White House more business-friendly, named a high-profile corporate executive on Friday as his chief outside economic adviser, continuing his efforts to show more focus on job creation and reclaim the political center.

Here in the birthplace of General Electric, Mr. Obama introduced the new appointee, Jeffrey R. Immelt, the company’s chairman and chief executive officer, who will serve as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers. Mr. Immelt succeeds Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who is stepping down.

The selection of Mr. Immelt, who was at Mr. Obama’s side during his trip to India last year, and again this week during the visit of President Hu Jintao of China, is the latest in a string of pro-business steps taken by the president. He has installed William M. Daley, a former JPMorgan Chase executive, as his chief of staff; is planning a major speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce next month; and just this week ordered federal agencies to review regulations with an eye toward eliminating some.

Together, the moves amount to a carefully choreographed shift in strategy for the White House, both substantively and on the public relations front. Mr. Obama has started making the case that the United States has moved past economic crisis mode and is entering “a new phase of our recovery,” which demands an emphasis on job creation.

And with corporate profits healthy again, the president has begun engaging business leaders more on what it will take for them to start investing again in new plants and equipment and stepping up hiring.

As he moves into the second half of his term and lays the foundation for his 2012 re-election campaign, Mr. Obama is trying to frame the national conversation on the economy around this crisis-to-job-creation narrative. Republicans, who have spent their first weeks of the new Congress talking about repealing Mr. Obama’s health care bill and cutting federal spending, have given the president an opening to do so.

The themes the president struck here, on competitiveness and the turning point in the economy, are expected to be at the heart of the State of the Union address he will deliver Tuesday.

“The past two years were about pulling our economy back from the brink,” Mr. Obama said, standing against the backdrop of a huge generator in a well-lighted plant, with a giant American flag hanging from the ceiling.

“The next two years, our job now is putting our economy into overdrive.”

He went on, “Our job is to do everything we can to ensure that businesses can take root and folks can find good jobs and America is leading the global competition that will determine our success in the 21st century.”

It is not clear how much substantive influence Mr. Immelt’s new role will give him. Under Mr. Volcker, the panel met relatively infrequently, and Mr. Volcker at times appeared frustrated by a lack of access to the inner circles of White House decision-making.

The appointment of Mr. Immelt, who will retain his posts at G.E., is not without complications for Mr. Obama. G.E., one of the nation’s largest companies, routinely has a wide variety of regulatory, trade, contracting and other issues before the federal government, on matters as varied as television mergers, military hardware and environmental cleanup.

During the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve provided $16.1 billion to General Electric by buying short-term corporate i.o.u.’s from the company at a time when the public market for such debt had nearly frozen. Having the chief executive of such a company advising the White House on job creation at a time when Mr. Obama is assuming a more deregulatory posture could further alienate liberals and be seen as undermining the White House’s commitment to reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests.

Another complicating factor is union uneasiness about outsourcing by G.E. Officials at the United Electrical Workers Union say the company has closed 29 plants in the United States and one in Canada in the past two years, eliminating more than 3,000 jobs.

“We understand the logic of asking someone like that to step up and play a leading role,” said Damon Silvers, the policy director for the AFL-CIO. “But there’s a real tension there in making a G.E. executive a central figure thinking about U.S. jobs.”

But Gary Sheffer, a General Electric spokesman, said the company has also been shifting operations back to the United States, and has added 6,000 jobs in this country, for a net increase. For example, Mr. Sheffer said, G.E. is moving all of its refrigerator manufacturing business back to the United States. He said 60 percent of G.E.’s revenues come from outside the country.

At the same time, G.E.’s exports have roughly doubled in the past five years, which makes the company a good showcase for a president who is trying to promote trade and exports as a way to repair the battered economy. Exports were a major theme of the president’s India trip and the state visit by President Hu; Mr. Immelt was among the business leaders who attended a high-level meeting with Mr. Hu, as well as the state dinner at the White House on Wednesday.

General Electric is benefiting from Mr. Obama’s emphasis on exports. When the president was in Mumbai, he announced a string of deals involving American companies, including a $750 million order from Reliance Power Ltd., in Samalkot, India, for steam turbines manufactured by G.E. Those turbines will be made here in Schenectady, a point Mr. Obama drove home in his remarks.

“This plant is what that trip was all about,” Mr. Obama said. “That new business halfway around the world is going to help support more than 1,200 manufacturing jobs and more than 400 engineering jobs right here in this community, because of that sale.”

Mr. Immelt’s White House job will be as chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that Mr. Obama is creating by executive order; the president said Friday that he intends to name additional members, including business and labor leaders and economists, “in the coming days.”

The change in the council’s name is intended to signify a shift in White House focus. It will be a reconfigured version of the board that Mr. Volcker led, the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, of which Mr. Immelt was a member.

That body, created by Mr. Obama when he took office in the thick of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, is set to expire Feb. 6.


JANUARY 21, 2011, 3:50 PM

Obama’s Corporate Makeover


The Thread is an in-depth look at how major news and controversies are being debated across the online spectrum.


Economy, general electric, jeffrey immelt, jobs

True or false? “Business leaders should provide expertise in service of our country.”

For titans like Bernard Baruch, J.P. Morgan, Nelson Rockefeller, Robert McNamara and Robert E. Rubin, it’s self-evidently correct. But the phrasing above comes from Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric who has been tapped to head President Obama’s outside panel of economic advisers, and in his case there are plenty of bloggers taking issue with the premise.

First, though, here is Immelt’s explanation of his intentions from The Washington Post:

My hope is that the council will be a sounding board for ideas and a catalyst for action on jobs and competitiveness. It will include small and large businesses, labor, economists and government …

Government can help business invest in our shared future. A sound and competitive tax system and a partnership between business and government on education and innovation in areas where America can lead, such as clean energy, are essential to sustainable growth. It is possible to be a competitive global enterprise and still care about your home. In fact, it is not just possible but imperative. There is no easy solution to “fix” the American economy. Persistent and high unemployment – and the pessimism it breeds – should not be accepted. We must work together to construct an economy that creates more opportunity for more people.

For some of that pessimism he mentions, here is emptywheel at FireDogLake:

I noted the other day that GE had signed a big deal with China that will involve us sharing our jet technology with China, which will ultimately help China compete with both GE and — China has said explicitly — Boeing. Then there’s the fact that, even as Immelt has been calling for manufacturing in the U.S., his company has been shutting U.S. plants to move the work to China …

GE managed, alone of “manufacturing companies” in the U.S., to turn itself into a Too Big To Fail overleveraged finance company in need of a $16 billion bailout from the government (as has happened with all the TBTF finance companies, bailouts have made GE’s financing business profitable again).

In short, no matter how many times Immelt gets up on a podium or in an op-ed and feigns an interest in American jobs, his actions make him the poster child for everything wrong with the U.S. economy right now.

Alex Seitz-Wald at ThinkProgress has some praise for the man from G.E.: “Immelt has adeptly led America’s fourth-largest corporation, pushing major investment in alternative energy and green technology, and would likely provide valuable insight to any president.” And then brings up a curious incident:

But he is interesting choice for this president, considering that Immelt has expressed some very negative sentiment about Obama in the past. At a dinner with Italian executives last July, as quoted by the Financial Times … Immelt remarked that business does not like the president, and the president does not like business … The question is whether Immelt still believes that Obama is anti-business, even though, for example, the stock market has gained more under Obama than any president except for Franklin Roosevelt and Coolidge. If he has had a change of heart in the past seven months, then Immelt could be an excellent messenger for Obama. If not, then Immelt is an odd choice. Of course, “Immelt’s appointment comes as Mr. Obama has increasingly turned to people with close ties to the business sector for counsel.”

Seitz-Wald’s colleague Pat Garofalo isn’t reassured by Immelt’s G.E. credentials:

Immelt’s company already highlights a need for change: due to a corporate tax system that is loophole-ridden and full of giveaways, General Electric pays a pittance in corporate income tax. Though the statutory corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, GE last year paid a paltry 3.6 percent. In 2009, despite making $10.3 billion in pretax income, GE paid nothing in corporate income tax (and, in fact, received $1.1 billion in tax benefits).

Immelt isn’t to blame for this; it makes sense that a company would take advantage of a tax code that enables it to dramatically lower its tax rate. The problem is that it is far too easy for companies to take advantage of the corporate tax code by shifting and sheltering income.

Scott Paul of the Campaign for America’s Future has a laundry list of similar concerns:

* In a speech to the Detroit Economic Club in 2009, Immelt berated “Buy American” policies while acknowledging that GE lived under domestic preference regimes in China, France, and other nations. In Immelt’s mind, it is fine for China and France to require to GE to make what it sells in their nations, but it’s not OK for America to do the same.

* Immelt essentially rules out any enforcement of our trade laws in his Washington Post op-ed today through a spurious claim that distorts the issue. So China can cheat all it wants, and Immelt wants us to do nothing. Trade enforcement is not “erecting barriers,” as Immelt alleges. Rather, trade enforcement is about removing distortions from the free market. Immelt reveals his true stripes with this ridiculous assertion. It’s a dangerous statement, and it demands an immediate and forceful rebuke from the White House.

* Immelt supported two of the most disastrous economic policies of the post-World War II era: financial deregulation and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization with few, if any, consequences for breaking the rules.

“When (one half of) the economy is in free-fall, definitely the best thing to do is keep pandering to the half that’s doing awesome, because trickle-down economics totally works and has not been comprehensibly discredited by 30 years of demonstrable evidence of its utter failure,” adds Melissa McEwan at Shakesville. “Also: You should totally hire someone who’s in touch with the plight of the hoi polloi to run your Economic Advisory Panel, like an executive from GE.”

The White plan involves more than just the addition of Immelt and the departure of Paul Volcker, including a re-branding of the advisory team. “Mr. Immelt will chair a new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness that Mr. Obama intends to create by executive order,” reported The Times’s Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Anahad O’Conner. “The council will be a reconfigured version of the board Mr. Volcker chaired, the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board … The changes signal what the White House describes as ‘a new phase of our recovery,’ a shift from crisis to job creation.”

“Does this council have any power, or is it just something to titillate the villagers like the SS commission?” asks John Cole at Balloon Juice. “Who is this Immelt (other than a GE exec)? How do they expect to put people back to work without a jobs program, which no one will pay for in our new ages of austerity? Is this just another wet kiss on the lips for our corporate overlords? Did the DNC need some GE donations?”

For similar musings from across the political divide, here’s Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

The White House has to hope that the increased reliance on private-sector executives will improve Obama’s relationship with the business community as well as answer critics who have blasted the administration for its dearth of real-world business experience. But it also comes as a rather large coincidence. The White House just announced the start of its re-election campaign efforts, which will be run out of Chicago, and which will be tasked with beating the $700 million in contributions Obama raised in the 2008 campaign. He will want businesses to get involved in that effort; his sudden interest in what CEOs think at least has the appearance of self-interest more than a change in economic philosophy.

Hopefully, Obama actually takes their advice and puts pro-growth economic policies in place while pulling back hard on regulatory innovation. I suspect, however, that this is more intended as window dressing while Obama pursues the same economic policies that have led to stagnation and persistently high unemployment.

“Government at its worst,” is the judgment of William Teach of Pirate’s Cove. “Create a blue ribbon panel which will spend millions trying to solve a problem that people in 7th grade inherently understand: keep taxes low, reduce government interference, stop passing legislation that damages the private sector, and, heck, stop talking about passing legislation that damages the private sector.”

“Whatever happened to giving your political cronies ambassadorships?” asks Steve Gilbert at Sweetness and Light, noting that Immelt will keep his position at G.E. “Or would that mean that Mr. Immelt would have to quit his day job. Speaking of which, has Mr. Obama ever told Mr. Immelt that he makes too much money? Mr. Immelt’s compensation from GE was $9.9 million in 2009.” Gilbert was also struck by this passage in The Times article: “Mr. Immelt, who was a member of the original board, has been a frequent presence by the president’s side in recent months, as Mr. Obama has sought to spotlight his efforts on behalf of American companies overseas …” The blogger’s response: “Wait a cotton picking minute. Aren’t these the very same overseas companies that Mr. Obama and his stooges demonized throughout the midterm campaign for having given money to the US Chamber of commerce? What Olympian chutzpah.”

One wonders, is that the sort of chutzpah that Bernard Baruch would have admired?

(Update, 7 p.m.: I missed this earlier — a very interesting if somewhat technical post on G.E. Capital’s business practices by Mike Konczal at Rortybomb.)



Immelt, GE Capital, and the Financialization of Manufacturing.

Posted in Uncategorized by Mike on January 21, 2011

Joe Klein:

Gotta admit I’m not too pleased by the departure of Paul Volcker from Barack Obama’s circle of adviser. He was one of the few, along with Elizabeth Warren, in the current administration who had a proper perspective on the outrageous behavior that the financial community considers business as usual. And while the appointment of his replacement Jeffrey Immelt, of General Electric, signals a desire to snuggle up to the business community–at least Immelt comes from the manufacturing sector. He has experience actually making products, a skill notably lacking among every one of Obama’s other economic advisers.

Again, I’ll repeat: the important distinction here is between the business community, which should be encouraged to create more jobs, and the financial community, which should be shamed for its casino-gaming shenanigans and kept away from the inner circles of economic policy-making.

I agree with all that except the part about GE not being part of the casino-gaming shenanigans sector. That part, ummm, no. Before anything else, the idea that we have 15 million unemployed because of our “competitiveness” is just wrong, lacking any real substantial evidence. But the idea that GE can, as Joe Klein puts it, point a way forward from a financialized economy is also wrong. Two points.

1. As Raj Date cleverly put it, to understand the bailouts, you need to understand “the Killer G’s”: Goldman Sachs, GMAC, and GE Capital.

GE Capital, the major subsidiary of GE, is a major shadow bank. It used GE’s high-quality credit rating to become a major player in the capital markets, much in the same way AIG FP used the boring insurance high credit rating. GE Capital was the single largest issuer of commercial paper going into the financial crisis.

GE Capital received major bailouts during the crisis, including having the FDIC guarantee more than $50 billion dollars of unsecured debt that was issued. To put that in perspective, only about $24 billion of GE Capital’s funding comes through deposits, allowing a shadow bank with massive unsecured debt obligations and only a small depository base to be carried through the financial panic. Both graphs from Date:

2. Next I want to go to the book Financialization and Strategy: Narrative and Numbers (authors: Froud, Sukhdev, Leaver, Williams, 2006), which does an extensive case study of General Electric and the financialization of the manufacturing business model from 1980 onwards:

Our analysis of the undisclosed business model is relatively straightforward and focuses on seven principles of GE’s cost recovery under Welch:

1 run the industrial business for earnings;

2 add industrial services to cover hollowing out of the industrial base;

3 buy and sell companies through acquisition and divestment to achieve returns and

growth objectives;

4 rely on large-scale acquisition to prevent like-for-like comparisons and to increase

opacity and the power of narrative;

5 grow the financial-services business up to the limit of the company’s credit rating;

6 accept the balance-sheet costs in terms of return on capital but focus on managing

return on equity and cost of capital;

7 add financial engineering to smooth earnings and manage growth….

The story of GE Capital is a story of upward mobility, as GE has found growth of sales revenue by moving beyond captive finance into many other lines of financial business. GE has sold financial services since the 1930s, starting with domestic credit for refrigerators, a classic form of captive finance. Up to the late 1970s, GE was arguably not so different from other US corporates, such as GM or Westinghouse, with a financial-services division whose central activity was captive finance. However, through the 1980s and 1990s, GE Capital greatly expanded and increased its offering in everything from LBO finance to store cards. GE has stayed away from retail banking and, after its problems with Kidder Peabody, moved out of securities dealing. But, in general, its expansion has been as a general supplier of consumer and commercial financial services, while also developing niche areas, such as mortgage insurance. The company’s expansion into financial services is neatly summarized by Fortune: ‘GE Capital pours wealth into the corporate coffers by doing just about everything you can do with money except print it’ (21 February 1994). Hence, GECS overtook General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) in terms of total assets in 1993 and was twice as large by 1997 (Forbes, 21 April 1997)….

In all this, the GE Capital board was engaged in high-stakes risk management where misjudgements about a class of business would have undermined GE’s financial record. By way of contrast, Westinghouse, GE’s conglomerate rival, had its finance arm liqui- dated by the parent company after losing almost $1 billion in bad property loans in 1990 (The Economist, 30 April 1994). GE Capital’s expertise in making acquisitions is acknowledged by S&P as one of the factors that supports its triple-A rating: ‘GECC (GE Capital Corp.) tends to be a very savvy buyer, understanding the various business risks and pricing the acquisition appropriately’ (S&P 2002: 2).

If the expansion of GE Capital rested on judgement and controls, it also reflected the structural advantage of the triple-A credit rating, which effectively made the financial business (as user of the credit rating) dependent on the industrial business (as credit-rating generator), and this in turn set limits on how much GE could expand without risking reclassification by credit-rating agencies. GE Industrial may be a low-growth business but it has high margins, is consistently profitable over the cycle and has funded almost all of the dividends that GE Consolidated has paid out, as well as providing the funds for acquisitions and repayment of debt. This solid industrial base is the basis for GE’s triple- A credit rating, which allows GE Capital to borrow cheaply the large sums of money that it lends on to consumers and commercial customers…

If there’s demand, we can dig into the huge debate in the analyst community about what was going on with GE and earnings management, a worry that hit an explosive moment post-Enron and Worldcom, during the Sarbannes-Oxley debates.

GE has been at the forefront of blurring a “financial services”-centric model of business onto the remains of a hollowed out manufacturing base, one kept in a minimal state just strong enough to qualify for high credit scoring. Marcy Wheeler has written about how that manufacturing part of the company is driven by outsourcing. In his recent, excellent book Cornered, Barry Lynn talks about how GE’s manufacturing business model becomes focus on business lines with government buyers (defense) and with government regulators and industry standard setters that can be worked (health care). They use the ratings agencies to only look at those business lines when determining the ratings they get, and lever up in the shadow banking network off that. Success!

This is not a big win for the notion of Jobs and Competitiveness.


NEW FBI STATS ON ILLEGAL’S CRIMES..........................................

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants

CRIME STATISTICS 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally

29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border.

71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".

47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens

66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens.

97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.

66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers



“…We’re here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we’re here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children… We’re here in Westwood… to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it’s always been ours, and we’re still here, and none of the talk about deporting.”

– Fabian Nunez, California assemblyman



“Back in 1969, Gutierrez said: "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." He has continued to promote the same hateful "reconquista" ideology ever since.”





About The National Council of The Race - La Raza

Corporate Board of Advisors


Established in 1982, the Corporate Board of Advisors (CBA) is made up of senior executives from 25 major corporations, as well as liaison staff from each company. The CBA meets twice a year, and presentations and discussions keep the CBA updated on NCLR’s activities and provide opportunities for dialogue and decision-making about issues and programs of common concern. Throughout the year NCLR benefits from advice and assistance from these closest corporate associates. CBA members also assist NCLR and its network through financial, in-kind, and programmatic support.


Al Bru, President and CEO, Frito-Lay North America

Principal Members

Peter Debreceny, Vice President, Corporate Relations, Allstate Insurance Company

Sue Oliver, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, American Airlines

Connie Weaver, Executive Vice President, Public Relations, AT&T

Deval L. Patrick, Executive VP, General Counsel, Secretary, The Coca Cola Company

Hugo Patiño, Vice President, Research and Development, Coors Brewing Company

Jim Padilla, President, North American Operations, Ford Motor Company

Peter J. Capell, Senior Vice President and President, Big G Division, General Mills

Roderick D. Gillum, VP Corp. Relations and Diversity, General Motors Corporation

Wynn Watkins, Sr. VP, Director of Community and Public Affairs, J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

Russ Deyo, Corporate Vice President and Executive Committee Member, Johnson and Johnson

Terry M. Faulk, Senior. Vice President, Human Resources, Kraft Foods, Inc.

Joseph B. Gleason, Managing Director, Manning, Selvage and Lee

James Kallstrom, Senior Executive Vice President, MBNA America Bank, NA

Jim Johannesen, U.S. Senior Vice President, Cheif Support Officer, McDonald’s Corporation

Charlotte Frank, Vice President, Research and Development, The McGraw-Hill Companies

Mike Jones, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Miller Brewing Company

Sharon C. Taylor, Sernior Vice President, Corporate Human Resources, Prudential Financial

Mary Jane Hall, Senior Vice President, HR for Control Systems, Rockwell Automation

Barbara Cowden, Executive Vice President, State Farm Insurance Campanies

Kathy Bushkin, President, Time Warner Foundation

Jovita Carranza , Vice President of Air Operations, United Parcel Service

Katherine Brown, Senior VP, Public Policy Development, Verizon Communications

Jay Allen, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


Natalie L. Belisle, Communications Consultant, Corporate Relations, Allstate Insurance Company

Lourdes Hassler, Manager, U.S. Latin America and Development, American Airlines

Marie Long, Vice President, Constituency Relations, AT&T

Alfred J. Argüello, Senior Vice President, Bank of America

Luddy Hayden, Federal Relations Representative, Chevron Corporation

Ana Duarte McCarthy, Director of Global Workforce Diversity, CitiGroup

Rudy Beserra, Vice President, Corporate Latin Affairs Department, The Coca-Cola Company

Olga García, Corporate Relations Manager, Coors Brewing Company

Raquel Egusquiza, Director, Community Development, Ford Motor Company Fund

CeLois J. Steele, Senior Manager, Multicultural Community Relations, General Mills

Orlando Padilla, Director Public Policy Center, General Motors Corporation

Vicki Lynn Cartwright, Women’s and Multicultural Events, J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

José Sosa, Director, State Government Affairs, Johnson and Johnson

Carlos Abrams-Rivera, Business Director, External Development, Kraft Foods North America

Rudy Mendez, Vice President, Diversity Affairs, McDonald's Corporation

Luis Viada, Managing Director, Global Development,The McGraw-Hill Companies

José R. Ruano, Manager Corporate Relations, Miller Brewing Company

David Gonzales, Vice President, Community Affairs, PepsiCo, Inc.

Ron Harrison, Retired Senior Vice President, PepsiCo, Inc.

René O. Deida, Program Officer, The Prudential Foundation

Christine G. Rodríguez, Vice President, State and Community Relations, Rockwell Automation

Art Ruiz, Federal Affairs Director, State Farm Insurance Companies

Luis Castro, Director of Corporate Responsibility, Time Warner

Gerri Warren-Merrick, Vice President, Community Relations, Time Warner

Bernard Collins, United Parcel Service

Fred Fernández, Director, Corporate Relations, United Parcel Service

Emilio Gonzalez, Director, Public Policy and Strategic Alliances, Verizon Communications

José "Pepe" Estrada, Director, Hispanic Markets, Diversity Relations, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Delia Garcia, Director of Diversity, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is not only one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful militant organizations in the country, it is also notoriously racist and subversive. The group's name, "La Raza," means "The Race," by which they are referring to ethnic Mexicans, or more broadly to "hispanics" or "latinos." And it is quite clear from their decades of vitriolic rhetoric — both spoken and written — that the La Raza activists are trying to engender not only race consciousness amongst hispanic U.S. citizens and Mexican migrants, but also racial militancy and animosity toward "Gringo America."

The NCLR grew out of the La Raza Unida (The Race United) Party and the Southwest Council of La Raza in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The key leaders were Marxist-Leninist followers of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra.

In 1970, the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities said this about La Raza Unida: "Its president is Maclovio Barraza. Mr. Barraza has been identified by the Subversive Activities Control Board as a member of the Communist Party, and presides over the Council which recently received a grant of $1,300,000 from the Ford Foundation."

Maclovio Barraza was the NCLR Board of Directors' founding Chairperson, and the NCLR continues to honor this hardcore Marxist by awarding the Moclavio Barraza Award to its top activist each year.

One of the early founders of La Raza was Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, whose violent, extremist rhetoric has caused NCLR some public relations problems. Back in 1969, Gutierrez said: "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." He has continued to promote the same hateful "reconquista" ideology ever since. But that didn't stop NCLR from bestowing on him their "Hero Award" in 1994.

The radical student group MEChA (Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan), with which NCLR has been closely allied for several decades, is even more explicitly and militantly, having adopted the slogan, "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada," which translated means: "For the Race, Everything; Outside the Race, Nothing."

MEChA's founding documents and literature are replete with appeals to "La Raza de Bronce" (The Bronze Race) and condemnation of the "brutal gringo." MEChA, as its name suggests, is also a leading promoter of the radical "reconquista" (reconquest) movement, a plan of to take over the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — a region they refer to as "Aztlan" — which they claim was stolen from the "Aztecan" peoples. NCLR provides major financial support to MEChA and many of NCLR's leaders were MEChA leaders in their college days.

NCLR: Agents for the Government of Mexico?

Especially troubling is NCLR's leading role in the Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (Foundation for Mexican-American Solidarity, FSMA), an organization founded and funded by the government of Mexico and directed by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Public Education. Both of these ministries have been engaged in efforts aimed at demanding full political rights for illegal aliens in the U.S. and indoctrinating America's Hispanic population in radical, racist La Raza ideology.

Top members of La Raza, MALDEF, the National Immigration Forum and other leading immigration activist organizations also serve on the Council of the FSMA. As such, they are acting as agents for a foreign power that is actively seeking to influence our national, state, and local laws and policies, in ways that are inimical to the interests of our nation and our citizens. NCLR and these other participating groups should be investigated by Congress to determine if they are breaking any laws, especially since these organizations and/or their affiliates not only enjoy tax-exempt status, but even receive millions of dollars from federal and state government agencies.

New Stealth Federal Funding Bill for La Raza

Which brings us to an extraordinary matter of some urgency. Several weeks before the White House and its Senate allies announced their big "breakthrough" legislation (S.1348), radicals in the House quietly introduced legislation to pump $5 million directly into La Raza next year — and $10 million per year for "each fiscal year thereafter."

H. R. 1999, entitled the Hope Fund Act of 2007, should truthfully be labeled the "Perpetual Funding of La Raza Radicals Act."

It is being sponsored by Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.) and Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.).

Since the bill [4] is rather short, we include the entire text below:

To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.


April 23, 2007

Mr. HINOJOSA (for himself and Mr. RENZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services


To authorize appropriations for assistance for the National Council of La Raza and the Raza Development Fund.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Hope Fund Act of 2007'.


(a) Use- The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent amounts are made available pursuant to subsection (b), make a grant to the National Council of La Raza for the purpose of providing technical and financial assistance to local non-profit organizations to undertake community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low- and moderate-income households, particularly through organizations located in neighborhoods with substantial populations of income-disadvantaged households of Hispanic origin. Assistance provided by the Secretary under this section may be used by the National Council of La Raza or the Raza Development Fund to--

(1) provide technical and financial assistance for site acquisition and development, construction financing, and short- and long-term financing for housing, community facilities, and economic development;

(2) leverage capital from private entities, including private financial institutions, insurance companies, and private philanthropic organizations;

(3) provide technical assistance, training, support, and advice to develop the management, financial, and administrative capabilities of housing development organizations serving low-income households, including Hispanic households; and

(4) conduct such other activities as may be determined by the Secretary and the National Council of La Raza.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section--

(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and

(2) $10,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.

Although S.1348, the immigration bill, is far more important and will have a much larger and more dramatically harmful impact than H.R. 1999, nevertheless, the La Raza funding bill is such blatant pork-barrel pandering to an extremist, racist lobbying group, that it sends an unmistakable message about what the "stakeholders" behind the Kennedy-Bush amnesty are really after: more money, more power, more revolution — and the complete destruction of our borders and security.

With millions more tax dollars in their political war chest, they would become even more brazen in their demands. They know that this is a volatile issue that could rouse the wrath of American voters. Which is why none of the sponsors of the legislation have mentioned H.R. 1999 on their House web sites, and why the NCLR has also kept mum about this planned political payoff.

But their dirty secret is out. If it is sufficiently exposed, it can stir enough opposition not only to stop H.R. 1999, but also to defeat S.1348 or any other amnesty "compromise" that comes out of the White House-Congress immigration wheeling and dealing.

The SHOCKING REALITY of the Mexican Occupation & Welfare State In California







Published December 7, 2004


Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.

A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state's already struggling kindergarten through 12th grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.

The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration.

"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle class tax base," said FAIR President Dan Stein.

"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become," he said.

California is estimated to be home to nearly 3 million illegal aliens.

Mr. Stein noted that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but do not match expenses. The total of such payments was estimated in the report to be about $1.6 billion per year.

He also said the total cost of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were added into the equation.

Gerardo Gonzalez, director of the National Latino Research Center at California State at San Marcos, which compiles data on Hispanics, was critical of FAIR's report yesterday. He said FAIR's estimates did not measure some of the contributions that illegal aliens make to the state's economy.

"Beyond taxes, these workers' production and spending contribute to California's economy, especially the agricultural sector," he said, adding that both legal and illegal aliens are the "backbone" of the state's $28 billion a year agricultural industry.

In August, a similar study by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002, but paid $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion.

The FAIR report focused on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994, Mr. Stein said. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants at about $1.1 billion a year.

Mr. Stein said an enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants in 10 years is because of the rapid growth of the illegal population. He said it is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.

"1994 was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration," he said. "Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens.

"Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy," he said.

Mr. Stein said that the state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal alien use of taxpayer funded services and on where they are employed, and that policies need to be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.

The net cost to the federal government in 2002 for public services provided to illegal aliens was $10.4 billion or $2,736 per household according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies. Estimates for 2005 put the amount at $11.7 billion or $3,080 per household.

Illegal Alien Costs By Social Service

Lost Revenue: The U.S. may be foregoing up to $35 billion in lost tax revenue because of the growing size of the underground labor market using illegal workers in the cash economy, according to a January, 2005 report by the Wall Street firm Bear Sterns.

Health Costs: Medicaid costs for illegal aliens and their U.S. born children are $2.8 billion annually, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. Approximately 70% of households headed by illegal aliens have at least one person without medical insurance, compared to 20% of all other households. The federal government spends $250 million each year reimbursing states for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens, which is less than 10% of the true cost of those services.

Education Costs: The Center for Immigration Studies has shown that federal aid to K 12 public schools for the education of the children of illegal aliens is $1.4 billion annually, not including the cost of free school lunches. The total cost to state and local taxpayers for educating 3.5 million children of illegal aliens is estimated at $28.6 billion, according to a Federation for American Immigration Reform study.

Incarceration: Illegal aliens account for less than 5% of the U.S. adult population, but were 17% of the federal prison population in 2004, imposing a net cost of $1.8 billion in court and incarceration expenses.

Fortunately, Americans have seen through the protestors’ half truths. A Rasmussen poll released last week showed widespread disfavor of recent immigration protests, with 26 percent holding a favorable opinion and 54 percent holding an unfavorable opinion.

84 hospitals in California alone have closed or are scheduled to close due mostly to rising costs of caring for uninsured Illegal Immigrants since 1993. It is estimated that 50% of their services went to Illegal Immigrants who did not pay their bills. According to the American Hospital Association the estimated uncompensated cost of care in 2000 was $21.6 billion. Roughly 6% of total expenses. The government allotted only $1 billion to help cover those costs.

Anchor babies account for roughly 10% of all US births. In 2003, anchor babies accounted for 70% of all births in San Joachim General Hospital in Stockton, California.

US taxpayers spent an estimated $7.4 Billion in 2003 to educate illegal immigrants. 34% of students in the Los Angeles school system are illegals or children of illegals. Two thirds of Illegal Immigrants adults DO NOT have a high school degree or equivalent. The illiteracy rate for Illegal Immigrants is 2.5 times higher than that of US Citizens.




Lies that the illegal alien lobby perpetuates:

Lie #1: Illegal aliens take jobs Americans won't do.

Truth: Americans are willing to do most jobs at a fair wage, but they won't do those jobs at "slave wages" or minimum wage. Thus, American workers are constantly replaced by illegal aliens willing to work for half or a third of what American workers once received. These jobs that once afforded a middle class life style now only offer illegal alien workers poverty level wages, resulting in the shrinkage of the "American Middle Class" and the enormous growth of an ever-increasing "underclass" dependent on government entitlements.

Lie #2: Illegal aliens contribute more to the economy and tax base than they take.

Truth: A large portion of illegal aliens work for cash "under the table" paying no taxes. The great majority of illegals make $6-$8 per hour, ($12,480 - $16,640 per year). At such income levels, not only is there no tax due, but they also qualify for the "earned income tax credit". In California, public education alone costs over $7,500 per pupil. Multiply that times 2-4 children, add the costs of free school breakfast and lunch, free medical care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and other entitlement "give-aways". Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates illegal immigration costs the U.S. 70 billion dollars per year and Californians $1,300 per household annually in additional taxes. The Center for Immigration Studies estimate that the average Mexican illegal alien will use $55,200 more in public services during his lifetime than he pays in taxes.

Lie #3: Without illegal alien farm labor, a head of lettuce would cost $3.00.

Truth: It already costs $3.00. You just make a $1.00 down payment at the grocery store. The government finances the other two dollars until tax time, when the additional $2.00 balance is extracted from your wallet in the form of higher taxes. The Agriculture industry gets cheap labor and higher profits, while shifting all the social costs of illegal immigrant labor to the American tax payer.

Lie #4: Most illegal aliens come here only to seek work and are law-abiding "citizens".

Truth: In Los Angeles, as of January, 2004, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico. (Source: The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave, by Heather MacDonald, City Journal, Winter 2004)

Also see the list of contributors to the National Council of La Raza ("The Race").



“PUNISH OUR ENEMIES”… does that mean assault the legals of Arizona that must fend off the Mexican invasion, occupation, growing criminal and welfare state, as well as Mex Drug cartels???


Friends of ALIPAC,

Each day new reports come in from across the nation that our movement is surging and more incumbents, mostly Democrats, are about to fall on Election Day. Obama's approval ratings are falling to new lows as he makes highly inappropriate statements to Spanish language audiences asking illegal alien supporters to help him "punish our enemies."


The fastest growing political party in America is NOT the tea baggers! It is the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA… “The Race”. .. The House now as 90 members, nearly one-quarter, that are CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS pushing for AMNESTY, no e-verify, expanded sanctuary cities, open borders, and illegals voting!


NCLR: Agents for the Government of Mexico?

Especially troubling is NCLR's leading role in the Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (Foundation for Mexican-American Solidarity, FSMA), an organization founded and funded by the government of Mexico and directed by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Public Education. Both of these ministries have been engaged in efforts aimed at demanding full political rights for illegal aliens in the U.S. and indoctrinating America's Hispanic population in radical, racist La Raza ideology.



Why the new jobs go to immigrants

By David R. Francis

Wall Street cheered and stock prices rose when the US Labor Department announced last Friday that employers had expanded their payrolls by 262,000 positions in February.

But it wasn't entirely good news. The statisticians also indicated that the share of the adult population holding jobs had slipped slightly from January to 62.3 percent. That's now two full percentage points below the level in the brief recession that began in March 2001.

Why the apparent contradiction? Reasons abound: population growth, rising retirements. But one factor that gets little attention is immigration.

In the past four years, the number of immigrants into the US, legal and illegal, has closely matched the number of new jobs. That suggests newcomers have, in effect, snapped up all of the new jobs.

"There has been no net job gain for natives," says Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University.

In the US, President Bush calls for giving millions of illegal immigrants a kind of guest-worker status as a legal path to US citizenship. So far, no specific legislation to implement his suggestion has been put before Congress.

Meanwhile, US border patrols spend millions of dollars a year trying to keep illegals out. And yet, they keep coming, evidently little discouraged by recession or the 9/11 attacks. In the past four years alone, the number of immigrants ran some 2.5 million to 3 million, of which about half were illegal.

They come for jobs, of course. And the Bush administration makes barely any effort to enforce current law. In 2003, a total of 13 employers were fined for hiring undocumented employees.

In fact, neither Republicans nor Democrats have promoted enforcement of immigration law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants, says Mr. Sum, head of Northeastern's Center for Labor Market Studies.

What employers really want in many cases by hiring immigrants is to hold down wage costs, experts say.




Labor Secretary Pledges Help For Illegal Workers

Last Updated: Tue, 06/22/2010 - 11:00am

Two months after the Department of Labor launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrants in the U.S. the Obama cabinet official who heads the agency is personally encouraging undocumented workers to report employers that don’t pay them fairly.

In a Spanish-language public service announcement, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assures that “every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not.” Illegal aliens who are not getting fair wages are encouraged to call a new hotline set up by the agency on a new “Podemos Ayudar” (We Can Help) web page designed to administer worker protection laws and ensure that employees are properly paid “regardless of immigration status.”

In the short video, also posted in English, Solis tells illegal immigrants that it’s a “serious problem” when workers in this country are not paid fairly and that all workers have the right to receive their salary regardless of immigration status. She encourages those who are not to call the new hotline and assures it’s free and confidential. “Podemos ayudar,” (we can help), Solis guarantees at the end of the brief segment.

The Labor Secretary’s new message is part of a campaign launched a few months ago to help illegal immigrant workers in the U.S., who she refers to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid.” At least 1,000 new field investigators have been deployed to reach out to Latino laborers in areas with large numbers of illegal alien employees and the agency will focus on enforcing labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.

For a government agency to protect law breakers in this fashion may seem unbelievable but not if you consider the source. A Former California congresswoman, Solis has close ties to the influential La Raza movement that advocates open borders and rights for illegal immigrants. She made the protection of undocumented workers a major priority upon being named Labor Secretary, assuring illegal aliens that “if you work in this country, you are protected by our laws.”


Obama Unleashes His Wall St. Paymasters For Even More Rape and Pillage

Obama orders further deregulation of US economy

By Tom Eley

19 January 2011

On Tuesday, President Obama issued an executive order requiring a review of all existing government regulations. The order was accompanied by an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal, in which Obama made clear his intention to water down or remove regulations on behalf of the most powerful financial and corporate interests.

The executive order, among other things, requires that each federal agency “adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs.” Under the system of so-called “cost-benefit analysis” any improvements in workplace, environmental or public health conditions must be weighed against the financial costs to big business.

Under the order, regulators should “specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt,” and should furthermore “identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior.” In other words, corporations should not be compelled to abide by health, safety and environmental standards, but only encouraged to meet non-binding “performance objectives,” and be paid for it to boot.

Finally, regulations should be based upon “open exchange” with “affected stakeholders in the private sector” (i.e., banks and corporations), and prior to rule implementation regulators should “seek the views of those who are likely to be affected.” Agencies will also be required to find “regulatory approaches that reduce burdens,” a task they will no doubt accomplish with the assistance of corporate lobbyists.

There is absolutely nothing in the order requiring or even suggesting that agencies beef up their regulatory capacity. This, after the decades-long evisceration of government regulation—conducted by Democratic and Republican administrations alike—has produced one social disaster after another. The last few years alone include the 2007 collapse of the subprime mortgage lending Ponzi scheme, which has resulted in the worst social crisis since the Great Depression; the April 20 BP Deepwater Horizon blowout that killed 11 workers and produced the worst environmental catastrophe in US history; the April 5 explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia that killed 29 in the deadliest US coal mine disaster in decades; and the 2010 recall of millions of poisoned food products by Wright County Egg, Hillandale Farms and Tyson Foods.

Obama began his Wall Street Journal column with a rendering of US history that could have been delivered at a gathering of college Republicans. “For two centuries, America’s free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the worl d has ever known,” Obama declared. “That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.”

The claim that the capitalist “free market” has been “the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known” begs the question, prosperity for whom? The last three decades have seen the deregulation of the airlines, the finance industry, coal mining, oil production, and virtually every other sector of the economy. This has led to unfathomable riches for America’s ruling elite. For the working class, however, the wonders of the market have produced greater exploitation and death and maiming in the workplace, along with the poisoning of the food supply and eco-system.

Obama’s editorial never mentions the words “worker,” “factory,” “mine,” “food,” or “toxins.” Instead, the column was replete with the sort of coded language and euphemisms aimed to curry favor with the financial and corporate elite.

In touting his executive order, Obama said it would “remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive [and] root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”

The notion that government regulation is “stifling job creation” has become a shibboleth of the media. US corporations are hoarding over $2 trillion in cash, the result of the Wall Street bailout, corporate tax cuts, and an 80 percent run-up in the stock market since March 2009. The story goes that businesses are hesitant to invest this money in production, and thereby bring down the 9.4 percent unemployment rate, because of uncertainty created by the Obama administration’s health care “reform” and the Dodd-Frank financial “overhaul.” The finance industry, in particular, has launched an intense campaign against the largely symbolic restrictions of the new financial legislation.

Federal agencies responsible to write the regulations for the enforcement of the Dodd-Frank law—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—have missed their mandated deadlines. Given Obama’s executive order this raises the possibility that finance industry lobbyists will be directly involved in drafting the rules.

“We are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends,” Obama wrote. “This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens.”

“More affordable, less intrusive” regulations means, quite simply, that regulatory agencies—from the SEC, to the CFTC, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency—will see their already severely underfunded budgets slashed further. Their work will be increasingly carried out by “experts” and “businesses” who will write and enforce their own rules.

In Obama’s telling, it is big business that must be protected from the government. His executive order will “safeguard people and businesses from abuse” arising from “regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties.” All of this is rhetoric long espoused by right-wing ideologues.

The American financial aristocracy seeks the elimination of all restrictions on its ability to make money. If its stranglehold over the economy is not broken, the disasters of the past three years—financial panics, industrial disasters, food poisoning, environmental catastrophes—will be repeated with even more devastating consequences.