Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Louisiana’

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Republican Party challenge to a federal campaign finance restriction that prevents political parties from raising unlimited amounts of cash to spend on supporting candidates.

The Republican Party of Louisiana had argued that a provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. But the justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that rejected the Republican challenge.

Apparently, the Court’s corrupt class warfare corporate wing (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) has decided that only corporations and people have constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights and not political parties. This is stunning inasmuch as corporations and political parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution, and the only reason why any court would approve of giving corporations any kind of personhood rights is to shift the balance of political power from individual voters to the rich and powerful via their wealth accumulation legal tools known as corporations.

In other words, the court’s corporate wing, whose members have historically come from well-to-do families, is playing class warfare by perverting the meaning of the great document in favor of the rich. By playing make believe that corporations have constitutionally guaranteed legal rights, the court is able to provide a legal lie that corporations have free speech rights, and then by insisting that spending money is free speech, they’ve effectively and deliberately given the airwaves to the only organizations and people who can afford to take them, which happens to be the corporations and rich people with all the money.

This is precisely why the corporate-leaning court in recent years has rolled back campaign finance restrictions. In 2010, the court paved the way to unlimited outside spending on elections in a case called FEC v. Citizens United that concerned corporate spending. Given its bias toward class warfare against the 99 percent, it is shocking the court turned this new case away.

Since the corporate wing of the Supreme Court is in the majority, the US Supreme Court is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the most powerful US corporations and billionaires. Actually, it has been for quite some time.

Read Full Post »

In 2012, in a town hall in India, then US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said,

“Outsourcing jobs is part of our economic relationship with India. I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefited many parts of our country (the USA), and there are disadvantages that goes toward the need to improve the work skills of our own people (those who lose their jobs), and create a better economic environment. It’s like anything. It’s got pluses and minuses.”

What Clinton didn’t say is who benefits and who loses when she supports exporting jobs. Let’s get something straight, nearly thirty million US jobs were exported from the US from 1990 to 2010. Millions more have been exported since. Notice in the graph below how the exporting of US jobs increased with NAFTA, which Clinton supported. Hillary has also supported the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), until she came under intense criticism as a presidential candidate. No doubt, she still supports it because Wall Street does, and she is Wall Street’s candidate.

manufacturing-jobs-exported-per-year

The United States is in the seventh and likely final year of an economic boom. The statistics are staggering about what exporting jobs have brought about here.

  1. Income inequality perhaps never experienced in US history.
  2. The 99 percent has gone from earning 92 percent of all income produced in the USA in 1980 to 63 percent today.
  3. 48 million people on food stamps, which is nearly one out of six Americans.
  4. A middle class that has shrunk from 61 to 49 percent of US adults from 1970 to 2016.
  5. Wages that have declined in real terms for 36 years.
  6. A rising homeless population.
  7. Wealth inequality never experienced in US history.
  8. The worst economic expansion in terms of wage growth and jobs growth since the Great Depression.
  9. Slower job growth than under President Jimmy Carter, back when the population was 65 percent of today, and the Gross Domestic Product was 45 percent the size of today.
  10. A tax base that is shrinking every year as the jobs are being exported, and this has brought about higher college costs, shrinking social safety nets (such as social security), decrepit public infrastructure, and many more negative things.
  11. A massive trade deficit the United States has with US corporations manufacturing abroad and then exporting those products to the USA.

Obviously, exporting jobs is not a winning formula for the vast majority of US citizens, but Mrs. Clinton thinks so. The rich, of course, benefit from exporting jobs.

When jobs are exported (and let’s face it, jobs are the number export product of the United States), the difference between the old higher US wages and the new lower wages in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, go straight into the pockets of the super rich via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices, and surging dividends.

So the good things about exporting jobs that Hillary spoke about in the video are that exporting jobs is the fuel that causes the stock markets and corporate profits to surge at record levels. Clinton doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about the massive collateral damage to the 99 percent, much of which is listed above.

That’s why every geographic area of the United States outside of the old confederacy is Bernie Sanders country, and why he will win the Democratic nomination.

That why Bernie Sanders whipped Hillary Clinton badly in Kansas and Nebraska on Saturday, March 5. He won by 68 percent of the vote in Kansas, and 55 percent in Nebraska. Hillary, as expected, took 70 percent of the vote in Louisiana.

Clinton has yet to prove she can win decisively outside of the southeast. She appears to be nothing more than an over-hyped regional candidate. True, Clinton edged out Bernie in Iowa, Nevada, and Massachusetts, but outside of the South, it is Sanders who has dominated the Democratic primaries.

Not counting the super delegates, most, of which, have declared for Clinton, Hillary leads in delegates 659 to 455. However, most of the Southern states have voted in the Democratic primary (save for Florida) and the rest of the nation appears to be Sanders country.

Sure most of the super delegates temporarily support Clinton, but if she loses the popular vote in the primaries, which is highly likely, the super delegates are not bound to Clinton. They will switch to Sanders, or experience the end of the Democratic Party by sticking with Hillary.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: