Monday, November 14, 2016

Re: [socialist-econ] Bill Fletcher: Notes from a Very Close Election

A couple thoughts:

Breadth is crucial, but that presupposes a dialectical (not class first) thread that connects different forms of oppression and diverse oppositional groupings in a broad, expanding, and diverse people's coalition to resist the first 100 days of the Trump agenda. The labor movement as well as the Democratic Party and its leaders in my view must play a major role in this coalition. Besides Chuck Schumer and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate, we don't have many other levers at this moment to stop what looks like an onslaught from the right this winter and spring. And don't tell me a "general strike."

The left will have to stretch out its strategic and tactical thinking, if it hopes to play a positive role in these new conditions.

The march, initiated by some women's organization the day following the inauguration, could become a major national mobilization. Such a mobilization for a lot of reasons would be important now.


On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:42 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

With the exception of this sentence ("We don't know whether Bernie Sanders would have done any better, but we do know that his message is the one that needs to be articulated.") -- this article is mostly a list of EXCUSES for a Fascist force rising to power and dominating all three branches of the US government. THERE CAN BE NO EXCUSES FOR A RESULT THAT WILL COST, CONSERVATIVELY, MILLIONS OF LIVES.  Indeed, Bernie's own message needs to be amplified and expanded. Race and Gender issues will be at the cusp of the Fascist attacks soon to be unleashed in the first 100 days. However -- the class approach of Bernie's essential message must come FIRST FIRST FIRST -- if the anti fascist movement is to be broadened and given the muscle it needs. Brother Fletcher's list of movements to unify is insufficient -- all of them voted for Hillary anyway, except for the Left wing scabs. And he doesn't even mention labor


boo

A



Notes From a Very Close Election

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/trump-victory-close-election-lessons
Portside Date: 
November 13, 2016
Author: 
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Date of Source: 
Friday, November 11, 2016
Dissent

Had it not been for the electoral college, at this moment we would be discussing the plans for the incoming Hillary Clinton administration. That's right. As of Friday morning, she has tallied nearly 400,000 more votes than Trump nationwide. Thus, once again, that institution created by the founding slaveowners has risen from the grave and prevented our exit from the cemetery.

I begin there to put the election into context and to suggest that commentary needs to be quite nuanced. No, I am not trying to make lemonade out of lemons. But I do think that it is important to recognize that the Trump victory was far from a slam dunk. The election was very close. One might not get that impression, however, when one looks at news headlines as well as electoral college maps.

What are some of the conclusions we can arrive at from this election?

The election was a referendum on globalization and demographics; it was not a referendum on neoliberalism. It is critical to appreciate that Trump's appeal to whites was around their fear of the multiple implications of globalization. This included trade agreements and migration. Trump focused on the symptoms inherent in neoliberal globalization, such as job loss, but his was not a critique of neoliberalism. He continues to advance deregulation, tax cuts, anti-unionism, and so on. He was making no systemic critique at all, but the examples that he pointed to of the wreckage resulting from economic and social dislocation resonated for many whites who felt, for various reasons, that their world was collapsing.

It was the connection between globalization and migration that struck a chord, just as it did in Britain with the Brexit vote. In both cases, there was tremendous fear of the changing complexion of both societies brought on by migration and economic dislocation (or the threat of economic dislocation). Protectionism plus firm borders were presented as answers in a world that has altered dramatically with the reconfiguration of global capitalism.

The election represented the consolidation of a misogynistic white united front. There are a few issues that need to be "unpacked" here. For all of the talk about the problems with Hillary Clinton-the-candidate and the failure to address matters of economics, too few commentators are addressing the fact that the alliance that Trump built was one that not only permitted but encouraged racism and misogyny. Trump voters were prepared to buy into various unsupported allegations against Clinton that would never have stuck had she not been a woman. Additionally, Trump's own baggage, including his multiple marriages and divorces and allegations of sexual assault, would never have been tolerated had the candidate been a woman (or, for that matter, of color). Trump was given a pass that would only be given to a white man in U.S. society. All one has to do is to think about the various allegations, charges, and history surrounding Donald Trump and then ask the question: had the candidate been a woman or of color, what would have happened? The answer is obvious.

Connected to this a recurring fact that, for all of the talk about economic fear, many people seem to wish to avoid. Just as with the Tea Party, the mean income of the Trump base is higher than the national mean (and was higher than the mean for Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters). We were not dealing with the poorest of the poor—far from it. Instead, this was a movement driven by those who are actually doing fairly well but are despairing because the American Dream that they embraced no longer seems to work for white people.

This is critical for us to understand because had the Trump phenomenon been mainly about a rejection of economic injustice, then this base would have been nearly interchangeable with that of Senator Sanders. Yet that was not the case. What we can argue, instead, is that this segment of the white population was looking in terror at the erosion of the American Dream, but they were looking at it through the prism of race.

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, but we should be careful in our analysis. Though Clinton had expected a coronation, the Sanders campaign pushed her to represent more than she expected. The platform of the Democratic Party was shifted to the left in many important respects. Yet Clinton could not be champion of an anti-corporate populist movement. Yes, she correctly argued for greater taxes on the 1 percent. Yes, she articulated many progressive demands. But in the eyes of too many people, including many of her supporters, she was compromised by her relationship with Wall Street.

That said, what also needs to be considered is that Trump had so many negatives against him. Yes, he was tsider, so to speak, and used that very skillfully to argue that he would bring another pair of eyes to the situation. Yet this is the same person who is in the upper echelons of the economy; refused to share his tax returns; has numerous allegations against him of bad business with partners and workers; and engages in the same offshoring of production as many of the companies he criticized. Yet none of that haunted him in the way that various criticisms haunted Clinton. Fundamentally this was a matter of sexism, though it is certainly true that Clinton's being perceived as an insider did not help.

We don't know whether Bernie Sanders would have done any better, but we do know that his message is the one that needs to be articulated. It is impossible to accurately predict whether Sanders would have done better in the final election. He certainly would have been subjected to an immense amount of redbaiting and suggestions of foreign policy softness. Yet his message did resonate among millions, especially younger voters. And it was younger voters who did not turn out in force to back Clinton.

In entering the Trump era it is the movement that Sanders was part of coalescing that becomes key in building a resistance with a positive vision. One of the weaknesses of the Sanders message was its failure to unify matters of class with race and gender. This is not an academic exercise. This is about telling the right story about what has been happening in the United States. It is also a matter of tapping into significant social movements—Occupy; immigrant rights; LGBT; environmental justice; the movement for Black Lives. These are movements that are focused on the future and a future that is progressive. This is where hope lies.

I have argued for some time that right-wing populism—with the Trump campaign exemplifying an aspect of this—is a revolt against the future. It is a movement that is always focused on a mythical past to which a particular country must return. In the case of the United States, right-wing populism seeks a return to the era of the "white republic," and it is this that the Trump campaign was so successful in articulating. It did so by disparaging Mexicans, invoking them as a source of crime while completely ignoring, for example, criminal syndicates that have historically arrived in the United States from Europe, or the cycle of violence that U.S. policy has helped fuel in Central America. It did so through demonizing Arabs and Muslims, invoking them as sources of terror while completely ignoring that the greatest sources of political terror in this country have been white-supremacist formations.

Right-wing populism has grown as a result of both the ravages brought on by neoliberal globalization as well as the demographic and political changes within the United States. It is the latter—demographic and political changes—that have unfolded over the decades as previously disenfranchised groups have asserted themselves and articulated, to paraphrase the poet Langston Hughes, we, too, sing America.

Yes, let us lick our wounds and reflect on the future. This election result was one that more of us should have anticipated as a real possibility. In either case, that the results were so close, even when we did not have the ideal candidate to represent the new majority emerging in the United States, remains for me a source of immense hope.

The struggle certainly continues.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk show host, writer, and activist. He can be found on Twitter, Facebook, and at www.billfletcherjr.com [1], where this article originally appeared.

This is part of an ongoing series of responses to the election results [2].


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Socialist Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to socialist-economics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to socialist-economics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/socialist-economics.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/socialist-economics/CADH2idKUEY_WbZpU3KP5O-uy5RnW6%2Bt6vr4w%3DRO6rCEVN56BLA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Posted by at No comments:

Bill Fletcher: Notes from a Very Close Election

With the exception of this sentence ("We don't know whether Bernie Sanders would have done any better, but we do know that his message is the one that needs to be articulated.") -- this article is mostly a list of EXCUSES for a Fascist force rising to power and dominating all three branches of the US government. THERE CAN BE NO EXCUSES FOR A RESULT THAT WILL COST, CONSERVATIVELY, MILLIONS OF LIVES.  Indeed, Bernie's own message needs to be amplified and expanded. Race and Gender issues will be at the cusp of the Fascist attacks soon to be unleashed in the first 100 days. However -- the class approach of Bernie's essential message must come FIRST FIRST FIRST -- if the anti fascist movement is to be broadened and given the muscle it needs. Brother Fletcher's list of movements to unify is insufficient -- all of them voted for Hillary anyway, except for the Left wing scabs. And he doesn't even mention labor


boo

A



Notes From a Very Close Election

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/trump-victory-close-election-lessons
Portside Date: 
November 13, 2016
Author: 
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Date of Source: 
Friday, November 11, 2016
Dissent

Had it not been for the electoral college, at this moment we would be discussing the plans for the incoming Hillary Clinton administration. That's right. As of Friday morning, she has tallied nearly 400,000 more votes than Trump nationwide. Thus, once again, that institution created by the founding slaveowners has risen from the grave and prevented our exit from the cemetery.

I begin there to put the election into context and to suggest that commentary needs to be quite nuanced. No, I am not trying to make lemonade out of lemons. But I do think that it is important to recognize that the Trump victory was far from a slam dunk. The election was very close. One might not get that impression, however, when one looks at news headlines as well as electoral college maps.

What are some of the conclusions we can arrive at from this election?

The election was a referendum on globalization and demographics; it was not a referendum on neoliberalism. It is critical to appreciate that Trump's appeal to whites was around their fear of the multiple implications of globalization. This included trade agreements and migration. Trump focused on the symptoms inherent in neoliberal globalization, such as job loss, but his was not a critique of neoliberalism. He continues to advance deregulation, tax cuts, anti-unionism, and so on. He was making no systemic critique at all, but the examples that he pointed to of the wreckage resulting from economic and social dislocation resonated for many whites who felt, for various reasons, that their world was collapsing.

It was the connection between globalization and migration that struck a chord, just as it did in Britain with the Brexit vote. In both cases, there was tremendous fear of the changing complexion of both societies brought on by migration and economic dislocation (or the threat of economic dislocation). Protectionism plus firm borders were presented as answers in a world that has altered dramatically with the reconfiguration of global capitalism.

The election represented the consolidation of a misogynistic white united front. There are a few issues that need to be "unpacked" here. For all of the talk about the problems with Hillary Clinton-the-candidate and the failure to address matters of economics, too few commentators are addressing the fact that the alliance that Trump built was one that not only permitted but encouraged racism and misogyny. Trump voters were prepared to buy into various unsupported allegations against Clinton that would never have stuck had she not been a woman. Additionally, Trump's own baggage, including his multiple marriages and divorces and allegations of sexual assault, would never have been tolerated had the candidate been a woman (or, for that matter, of color). Trump was given a pass that would only be given to a white man in U.S. society. All one has to do is to think about the various allegations, charges, and history surrounding Donald Trump and then ask the question: had the candidate been a woman or of color, what would have happened? The answer is obvious.

Connected to this a recurring fact that, for all of the talk about economic fear, many people seem to wish to avoid. Just as with the Tea Party, the mean income of the Trump base is higher than the national mean (and was higher than the mean for Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters). We were not dealing with the poorest of the poor—far from it. Instead, this was a movement driven by those who are actually doing fairly well but are despairing because the American Dream that they embraced no longer seems to work for white people.

This is critical for us to understand because had the Trump phenomenon been mainly about a rejection of economic injustice, then this base would have been nearly interchangeable with that of Senator Sanders. Yet that was not the case. What we can argue, instead, is that this segment of the white population was looking in terror at the erosion of the American Dream, but they were looking at it through the prism of race.

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, but we should be careful in our analysis. Though Clinton had expected a coronation, the Sanders campaign pushed her to represent more than she expected. The platform of the Democratic Party was shifted to the left in many important respects. Yet Clinton could not be champion of an anti-corporate populist movement. Yes, she correctly argued for greater taxes on the 1 percent. Yes, she articulated many progressive demands. But in the eyes of too many people, including many of her supporters, she was compromised by her relationship with Wall Street.

That said, what also needs to be considered is that Trump had so many negatives against him. Yes, he was tsider, so to speak, and used that very skillfully to argue that he would bring another pair of eyes to the situation. Yet this is the same person who is in the upper echelons of the economy; refused to share his tax returns; has numerous allegations against him of bad business with partners and workers; and engages in the same offshoring of production as many of the companies he criticized. Yet none of that haunted him in the way that various criticisms haunted Clinton. Fundamentally this was a matter of sexism, though it is certainly true that Clinton's being perceived as an insider did not help.

We don't know whether Bernie Sanders would have done any better, but we do know that his message is the one that needs to be articulated. It is impossible to accurately predict whether Sanders would have done better in the final election. He certainly would have been subjected to an immense amount of redbaiting and suggestions of foreign policy softness. Yet his message did resonate among millions, especially younger voters. And it was younger voters who did not turn out in force to back Clinton.

In entering the Trump era it is the movement that Sanders was part of coalescing that becomes key in building a resistance with a positive vision. One of the weaknesses of the Sanders message was its failure to unify matters of class with race and gender. This is not an academic exercise. This is about telling the right story about what has been happening in the United States. It is also a matter of tapping into significant social movements—Occupy; immigrant rights; LGBT; environmental justice; the movement for Black Lives. These are movements that are focused on the future and a future that is progressive. This is where hope lies.

I have argued for some time that right-wing populism—with the Trump campaign exemplifying an aspect of this—is a revolt against the future. It is a movement that is always focused on a mythical past to which a particular country must return. In the case of the United States, right-wing populism seeks a return to the era of the "white republic," and it is this that the Trump campaign was so successful in articulating. It did so by disparaging Mexicans, invoking them as a source of crime while completely ignoring, for example, criminal syndicates that have historically arrived in the United States from Europe, or the cycle of violence that U.S. policy has helped fuel in Central America. It did so through demonizing Arabs and Muslims, invoking them as sources of terror while completely ignoring that the greatest sources of political terror in this country have been white-supremacist formations.

Right-wing populism has grown as a result of both the ravages brought on by neoliberal globalization as well as the demographic and political changes within the United States. It is the latter—demographic and political changes—that have unfolded over the decades as previously disenfranchised groups have asserted themselves and articulated, to paraphrase the poet Langston Hughes, we, too, sing America.

Yes, let us lick our wounds and reflect on the future. This election result was one that more of us should have anticipated as a real possibility. In either case, that the results were so close, even when we did not have the ideal candidate to represent the new majority emerging in the United States, remains for me a source of immense hope.

The struggle certainly continues.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a talk show host, writer, and activist. He can be found on Twitter, Facebook, and at www.billfletcherjr.com [1], where this article originally appeared.

This is part of an ongoing series of responses to the election results [2].


--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
Posted by at No comments:

Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio:Anti Fascist Poetry on the Poetry show

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio
Post: Anti Fascist Poetry on the Poetry show
Link: http://www.enlightenradio.org/2016/11/anti-fascist-poetry-on-poetry-show.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, November 13, 2016

RE: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Re: Left wing Scabs; IN these times

"Far superior" – murders people around the world – way superior to a certifiably crazy person  -  Norma

 

From: Members [mailto:members-bounces+normaha=pacbell.net@lists.cc-ds.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Webb Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 12:11 PM To: John Case jcase4218@gmail.com Cc: Socialist Economics <socialist- conomics@googlegroups.com>; Blogger Socialist Economics <jcase4218.lightanddark@blogger.com>; CCDS-Members members@lists.cc-ds.org Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] [socialist-econ] Re: Left wing Scabs; IN these times

 

But the fact is that she did BOTH, at least the Hillary I heard and the adds I saw, while in Michigan two weeks before the election. And by the way, Trump's unfitness because he's a brazen racist, misogynist, nativist, thoroughly indecent - not to mention danger to humanity - is a class issue to anyone who has more than smidgen of class consciousness.

And the notion that the angry white workers who voted for Trump would have seamlessly cast a vote for Bernie had he been a candidate is wishful thinking, not a materialist analysis.

One, but no means the only, starting point after any defeat - and keep in mind Hillary won the popular vote - is to ask what did we do?

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

I emphatically do NOT agree with this assessment. The loss to  Trump is INEXCUSABLE, on ANY grounds. From the beginning, Bernie's STRATEGY and LINE was the correct strategy. The Clinton strategy of focusing on Trump's unfitness, rather than the many positive vision, and pro worker positions on issues, points she shared with Sanders during the primary, was the PRIMARY MISTAKE. There are many others. I share some of them. But the bottom line is: Trump was beatable, and Hillary Clinton did NOT get it done.

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Samuel Webb <swebb1945@gmail.com> wrote:

To hang the outcome last Tuesday on Hillary Clinton nearly exclusively, as many are, is very mistaken, and makes going forward more difficult. I'm writing a post for my blog that will address this.

But in the meantime, I just read Bernie Sanders' op ed in the NY Times. To write, as he does, that the vote across the Midwest was a "protest vote," and leave it at that, is shocking. And yet I'm not surprised. This is a blind spot in his "class politics."

When Trump threw particular sections of the working class and their communities under the bus, as he did in the campaign, no one, including Bernie should do anything now to dignify or give legitimacy the actions of white workers who helped elect him. And calling their vote a "protest vote" does exactly that. It would be fairer to characterize it as "scabbing," but that wouldn't be helpful either.

"Them versus Us" isn't class politics, especially in our country, if it doesn't have at its core an understanding of other forms of oppression experienced by particular sections of the working class and their communities and the necessity of unity of the multi-racial, male-female, native born and immigrant working class family.

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:13 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Every union engages in "business unionism" when it signs a contract granting management rights to the employer, as it is required to  do under everry labor law since the Wagner Act. Speaking as former UE member and organizer, I love "rank and file" unionism. However, that is not the cure for the crisis in the labor movement The UE did no better than the so-called "business unions" on either  contracts or organizing over the long run.

 

2. Clinton was far superior to Trump -- and the ONLY alternative to trump after the primary. The AFL-CIO decision to endorse Clinton was delayed several times in deference to the significant labor support for Bernie. But the AFL-CIO Executive council decision was, IMO, an essentially democratic one, reflecting the balance of support in affiliated unions.

 

3. The loss was due, first,  to Clinton errors (and others, including myself) in following through on Bernie's class politics, errors -- the biggest -- including NOT putting Bernie on the ticket, thee next biggest being focusing on Trump's unfitness, rather  than the demonstrated disaffection and alienation of  many workinig class voters who hav e not had a fucking raise in 40 years.

 

4. The left wing,Jill Stein, head up your ass, feet planted in mid-air Half-trump voters, are as close to scabs in the poliitical  arena as i can imagine. They are not the biggest reason for Trump's election, but they played a disgraceful, mostly white-privileged, role.,

 

Thats a short explanation.

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Ellen Schwartz <ellen@nicetechnology.com> wrote:

John, please explain.  Is what we used to call "business unionism" not a real thing? Did organized labor play a positive role in the election?  Or is it that you feel Hillary was a positive candidate as compared with Bernie?

 

Ellen Schwartz

Sent from my iPad


On Nov 12, 2016, at 6:55 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

Posted by at No comments:

Donald Trump on the First 100 Days

via Portside/NPR

Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days
Portside Date: 
November 12, 2016
Author: 
Amita Kelly and Barbara Sprunt
Date of Source: 
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
National Public Radio

The plan (below) outlines three main areas of focus: cleaning up Washington, including by imposing term limits on Congress; protecting American workers; and restoring rule of law. He also laid out his plan for working with Congress to introduce 10 pieces of legislation that would repeal Obamacare, fund the construction of a wall at the Southern border (with a provision that Mexico would reimburse the U.S.), encourage infrastructure investment, rebuild military bases, promote school choice and more.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. On Trump's proposal to impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate." McConnell has been a long-standing opponent of term limits, as NPR's Susan Davis reports. "I would say we have term limits now -- they're called elections."

McConnell also threw some cold water on Trump's infrastructure plans, calling it not a top priority.

McConnell did say repealing Obamacare is a "pretty high item on our agenda" along with comprehensive tax reform and achieving border security "in whatever way is the most effective." But he also declined to discuss the Senate's immigration agenda further.

"We look forward to working with him," McConnell said. "I think most of the things that he's likely to advocate we're going to be enthusiastically for."

Below is the 100-day plan Trump's campaign released in October, called "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter."

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter -- and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under   American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values

Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
Posted by at No comments:

Re: [socialist-econ] NYTimes: Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

She and her campaign did NOT make the case. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 12, 2016, at 8:52 PM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss http://nyti.ms/2eOiVcJ

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Socialist Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to socialist-economics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to socialist-economics@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/socialist-economics.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/socialist-economics/CADH2idKEcSqP-UpeZ0niSnFo5b7%2BrZ7nBuUE27Wmd4nDagFi1A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, November 12, 2016

NYTimes: Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss http://nyti.ms/2eOiVcJ

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)