Yesterday Obama gave a speech on the economy in Elcart, Indiana or some place where the unemployment rate fell from double digits to four percent as though President Obama did that. The President, one has the feeling, lives in a parrellel universe when it comes to the economy. We know for example that as a percentage of the population, the labor force is down to 62% and that was last seen in March of 1978. Incomes have fallen steadily for the past sixteen years under the Bush - Obama administration. There are some areas such as enforcement of certain laws such as Whistle Blowing are up and Wall Street Prosecutions have never been lower. There has been an almost seamless transition in foreign policy as we ease from one Mideast war on to another. We are told that there are still carrier Bush people in the justice department. Productivity gains per worker are through the roof and it’s not being reflected in wages. The 1968 minimum wage figure translates to $12.40 in today's dollars. However if you factor in productivity per worker, Thom Hartman says it figures out to about twenty dollars per worker in terms of what we'd have to raise the minimum wage to to match. There are four myths Obama talked about in his speech on economics yesterday. One was that we are getting more “free stuff” today from the federal government and this is bankrupting our workers. Tax rates of course have dropped from what they were in the "good old days" of the Clinton administration, which Dr Levy talks about so fondly. The Clinton administration added 23 million jobs and this administration has added only 14 million jobs. However if you look at the month to month figures on unemployment you know that an awful lot of months see a relative LOSS in jobs due to people leaving the labor market and going on welfare. The number of people on food stamps has never been higher. This of course subsedizes Wall Mart employees with low wages so that the government is really subsedizing Wall Mart profits. Then there is the myth that regularions are choaking out business. Of course back when we had a democratic congress prior to 1994 there were always new regulations being passed. We used to hear it in the news all the time such as the Americans with disabilities act passed under a republican administration. President Obama stated that as a proportion of funds this administration spends less on domestic spending than it did in the Ronald Reagan administration. You can credit the change in congress for this. The magnitude of the revolution of 1994 can't be overstated. Then there is the subject of immigration. It could be that immigrants are taking our jobs. But the president's stance on immigration was reasonable saying that deportations are up since the Bush or Reagan administrations. The Obama admimistration's position really isn't far removed at all from what Marco Ru7bio advocates in terms of "bringing people out of the shadows" and paying taxes. Obama reminds us that immigrants can't get food stamps and most of them are working at low wages helping the economic bottom line of corporations. Whether these immigrants drive down the wage base isn't that important because there are other more obvious reasons for drops in wages including these trade deals. The fourth “myth” is that trade deals are bad. Obama thinks trade deals are good. Here is an area where Obama is truely living in a parrellel universe. These trade deals are tailor made for corporations of an international variety and Obama knows this. These trans-national corporations are catered to at the expense of what Americans might consider more important. These would be product safety and environmental considerations and rights of labor. We've passed too many trade deals in the past twenty plus years and Obama wants to ratify more of them and all of them will be equally bad and in many cases worse. It would appear right now that the Trans Pacific Partnership will not be passed by this congress. We can only hope they won't.
Chris Matthews stated or "uncovered" a media conspiracy to declare the race over and Hillary Clinton the winner of next June's primaries before the Western states are done voting at five o clock. The goal is obviously to discourage people voting for Sanders. But in point of fact Hillary Clinton will have to win 59% of the elected delegates to win the nomination and she won't reach that figure even with New Jersey's votes. Sanders is pulling even in California and I've heard rumors that for once California is a winner take all state for the democrats. This would make it very important. Hillary has decided to rearrange her schedule and spend more time campaigning out here. California is obviously important to her. Back inh 1960 all Jack Kennedy lacked at one point was four votes from Wyoming to get a winning majority of the deligates and win a first ballot nomination, and he got it. But he wouldn't be able to do that today if it takes 59% of the vote of all elected delegates to win. By the way I sympathise with Hillary in 2008 and I would be the first to say she got a raw deal then. She sent a letter to the party in May of 2008 complaining that she'd gotten more votes than Obama and they were in key states needed to win. If I'm not mistaken Hillary even won here in California. She said that Obama had won in the rural states while she took the urban states. Today the situation is almost completely reversed and Bernie Sanders finds himself in a similar place to Hillary in 2008. However Hillary Clinton had a better case. I highly doubt that Bernie Sanders will get a high ranking Cabinet post if he plays ball with Hillary. I don't even think Sanders would want such a job because it's too important to keep a guy like that in the US Senate. Back then Hillary argued that the super-deligates should vote for her at the convention. Sanders is trying to make the same argument for the same reason, that Sanders does better in the polling against Trump. Sanders beats Trump by double digits whereas Hillary is struggling with many key states in doubt. In 2008 Hillary made her case that only she could beat John Mc Cain and Mc Cain beat Obama in a head to head poll. But I imagine the democratic head honchos won't listen to Sanders this year any more than they listened to Hillary in 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment