Regarding the timing of the raise in minimum wage in Maryland:
Have you noticed a few of the leading issues in the Maryland Assembly and Baltimore City Hall are progressive issues dealing with labor and social justice? IT MUST BE PRIMARY TIME!!!
Did you know that Trans Pacific Trade Pact---(TPP) allows global corporations to ignore all US laws that curtail profit for that corporation? That would include all wage and workplace laws like the minimum wage and paid sick days. Do you know that most progressive laws passed in Maryland are never enforced? They pretend to pass progressive legislation then do not enforce it our write the laws with so many loopholes that corporations just work around it. THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU----PRETENDING TO SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE ISSUES WHEN THEY WORK FOR WEALTH AND JUSTICE.
ANTHONY BROWN INVITES DOUG GANSLER AND HEATHER MIZEUR TO DEBATE IN MAY!!!!! WHY NO CINDY WALSH? I AM NOT A NEO-LIBERAL AND ALL THREE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR ARE!!!! THEY ARE CORPORATE TEAM PLAYERS!
Maybe my invitation is in the mail! Luckily I have networked across the state for people who will spread the word. Republicans even like my Rule of Law and Government Accountability platform. Maybe there will be cross-over to support my candidacy?
Let's talk about the canned National Democratic Party progressive issues pushed during the primary season to hide the fact that neo-liberals are handing all that is public over to those at the top!
The Maryland Assembly has a law that seeks to stop abusive work conditions like Super Shuttle. Yet, Super Shuttle is exactly what TPP will look like. The US labor laws that would stop this would not be enforced because they curtail profit made by that global corporation. So, US minimum wage would not be allowed to be assessed on global corporations which would be allowed to work withing their own nation's labor laws.
THESE TRADE DEALS BRING GLOBAL LABOR LAWS HIGHER THAN THEY ARE NOW SAYS TPP SUPPORTERS? OH, REALLY? NONE OF THE INFORMATION COMING FORTH SHOWS THAT TO BE TRUE.
The Citizens Trade Campaign
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
is a massive new international trade and investment
pact being pushed by the U.S. government at the behest of transnational corporations. If it continues on its current course,
the TPP will serve two primary purposes:
Making it easier for corporations to shift jobs throughout the world to wherever labor is the most exploited and regulations are the weakest; and
Putting checks on democracy at home and abroad by constraining governments’ ability to regulate in the public interest.
The TPP is already being negotiated between the United States,
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam--
but it is also specifically intended as a “docking agreement” that other Pacific Rim countries would join over time, with Japan, Korea, China and others already expressing some interest.
Corporations cheering the TPP include Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wal-Mart, Newscorp, GE and Halliburton.
The TPP has been questioned—if not outright opposed--
by labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, indigenous and other social justice groups on four continents.
Preventing Effective Regulation of Wall Street
The United States first expressed interest
in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
as a mechanism for expanding financial service agreements throughout the Pacific Rim. Learning nothing from the 2008
financial collapse, U.S. negotiators appear to be pushing for a financial services chapter that would not only provide Wall Street
-based firms with greater access to financial service markets abroad, but also explicitly limit governments’ abilities to regulate banks, hedge funds and insurance companies.
Provisions that Wall Street supports include: prohibitions against limiting the size of financial institutions (ie, safeguards against “too big to fail”); prohibitions against firewalls between different types of financial institutions (ie, reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act); prohibitions against bans on specific financial products (ie, banning the sale of toxic assets); and prohibitions against capital controls (ie, tools designed to stabilize the flow of money into and out of a country). The TPP is also expected to grant banks and other transnational corporations the power to
challenge any laws, regulations and even court decisions that they believe violate the pact through international tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems. Under these “regulatory takings” cases, countries would be forced to change their policies and/or pay stiff penalties to the aggrieved corporations.
Trading Good-Paying Careers for Sweatshop Labor
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted in 1994, the U.S. Labor Department has certified more than 2.5 million American jobs as destroyed by either
direct off-shoring or displacement by imports.
Much of this job loss was the result of corporations looking to exploit cheap labor abroad—often times in countries where workers are violently suppressed for speaking out in favor of better working conditions.
Vietnam is currently being marketed as the “low-cost labor alternative” for corporations who feel that Chinese sweatshop workers are overpaid. The U.S. State Department noted in 2010 that independent labor unions, and even opposition political parties, are illegal in Vietnam—with dissidents who’ve
attempted to form both currently behind bars. The oil-rich Sultanate of Brunei is hardly any better; there is virtually no union activity in Brunei, nor any legal basis for collective bargaining or strikes. While considerably better on paper, Mexico’s maquiladora are frequently controlled by company-run “ghost unions,” insofar as there are any unions at all. While trade policy could be a tool for
lifting labor standards throughout the world, reports suggest that
the current U.S. proposal for the TPP labor chapter is similar to the weak labor standards included in Bush-negotiated Free Trade Agreements. If true, the pact’s labor provisions are likely to fall far short of actually protecting jobs at home and basic human rights abroad.
Accelerating Global Warming in the Name of Profits
Leaked text of the TPP’s investment chapter show the U.S. and most other nations backing a plan to grant transnational corporations the power to challenge any environmental or consumer safety protections that negatively affect their profits as “regulatory takings” in international tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems. Portions of the Clean Air Act,
Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act have already been rolled back under past trade policies, as have the
environmental protections of other nations. Policies large and small that are intended to combat climate change would seriously
threatened by expanding so-called “investor rights” provisions.
Beyond this, the TPP is likely to contain a number of other provisions that encourage “rip-and-ship” resource extraction in each of the countries involved, leading to more drilling, mining and logging regardless of the wishes of local communities. Greater access to sweatshop labor overseas would also further act as a disincentive against reigning in wasteful product lifecycles, as it effectively subsidizes the throw-away consumer culture encourage
d by so many retailers and brands.
Destroying Family Farms and Forcing Migration
PacificPartnership is expected to continue allowing U.S.-subsidized corn, wheat, soy, rice and cotton to be dumped on other countries, while also allowing the import of cheaper (and often less
safe) fruits, vegetables and seafood from other countries
—consolidating global food supplies in the hands of
fewer-and-fewer giant middlemen, while forcing more-and-more family farmers off their land and exposing consumers to
wild food price fluctuations. This phenomenon under NAFTA is already a driving force behind migration from Mexico to the U.S., and is the reason why farmers in many countries are already
adamantly opposed to the TPP. Keeping the Public in the Dark For years, the Trans-PacificPartnership negotiations have taken place behind closed doors. Since negotiations began in 2008, none of the negotiating documents have been officially released for public review (although some have been leaked).
In the United States, approximately 600 corporate
lobbyists have been named as official advisors, granting them
regular access to the negotiating texts, as well as the negotiators. Most civic groups, journalists and those whose lives will be
affected by the negotiators’ decisions have no right to see the texts until the negotiations have concluded—at which point, it is more-or-less impossible to change them.
The Dracula Strategy
Besides a stake to the heart, what’s the best way to kill a blood-
Exposing it to the light of day.
Organizers have repeatedly stopped secretive trade negotiations over the years by dragging them out of the
shadows and into public scrutiny:
1998: The Multilateral Agreement on
1999: The “Millennial Round” of the
World Trade Organization (WTO)
2003: The Free Tr
ade Area of the
Learn more & get involved:
Why do you think ALL OF MARYLAND'S CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR ARE SILENT ON TPP EVEN AS THEY PRETEND TO SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE LAWS THAT TPP WILL MAKE VOID? JUST AS WITH OBAMA AND HIS SHOUT OUT TO ALL THAT WAS PROGRESSIVE TO GET ELECTED AND THEN SERVING TO THE RIGHT OF BUSH....THAT IS WHAT BROWN, GANSLER, AND MIZEUR WILL DO! If they are not bringing TPP out of the shadows so people have a chance to raise their voices against it-----THEY ARE WORKING FOR GLOBAL CORPORATE RULE!
My entire organization is about doing just that and this is why you may not see me in state democratic debates or on WYPR to talk about my platform! So, network with me all over the state to shout out that my candidacy is the only one that is REALLY DEMOCRATIC IN THE REAL SENSE OF THE WORD!!!!
'Most suits thus far are over environmental issues. But in June 2012, the French firm Veolia sued the Egyptian government for raising the minimum wage'.
Secret TPP Deal Would Void Democracy
July 08, 2013 / Jane Slaughter LABORNOTES
TPP talks held in British Columbia in June were kept secret, but Canadian activists learned about them the day before from an article in the Peruvian media. Opponents hustled to hold an emergency teach-in and to project messages about the TPP on downtown Vancouver buildings. More talks will take place July 15-25 in Malaysia. Photo: Citizens Trade Campaign.
Many people know NAFTA has cost U.S. workers 700,000 jobs. But how many know another effect was to drive Mexican small farmers out of business?
In the brave new world of free trade, Costco makes tortilla chips and salsa in the U.S. and trucks them to its stores in Mexico.
Congress will soon debate whether to “fast-track” a trade deal that would make job-killers like NAFTA look puny. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would give corporations the right to sue national governments if they passed any law, regulation, or court ruling interfering with a corporation’s “expected future profits.”
They could also sue over local or state laws they didn’t like. The TPP would cover 40 percent of the world’s economy.
Existing laws and regulations on food safety, environmental protection, drug prices, local contracting, and internet freedom would all be up for challenge. And the decision-makers on such suits would not be local judges and juries; they’d be affiliated with the World Bank, an institution dedicated to corporate interests.
CAN IT BE STOPPED?
Citizen groups believe they can stop the TPP if there is enough outcry. They point to previous victories over the WTO (World Trade Organization) and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas).
What Is the TPP?
It might as well stand for “Take Power from the People,” a Detroit postal worker said.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been under hush-hush negotiations since 2008. It includes the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and, soon, Japan.
A “docking mechanism” would allow other countries, including China, to join over time.
The contents have not been made public, but are known to the 600 “corporate advisors” helping write it, such as Chevron, Halliburton, Walmart, Ford, GE, AT&T, Cargill, Pfizer, and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Some information has come to light through leaks.
Like most trade agreements, the TPP is mostly not about trade but about giving corporations more rights to interfere with local laws.
TPP tribunals staffed by corporate lawyers, outside the control of any government, would rule whether a country’s taxpayers must pay monetary damages to wronged corporations.
Negotiations begin in July on a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. Stopping TPP would help derail it, too.
Most unions, however, have been slow to get on board—even though the TPP would jeopardize, according to the AFL-CIO, millions of jobs. The Teamsters and Communications Workers have been the most active.
Greg Junemann, president of the Professional and Technical Engineers, says unions have given up, certain that “what Obama wants to do, they [Congress] are going to do.” Junemann, with other union heads, sits on a labor advisory committee (LAC) on trade—which, he said, has been completely ignored.
In a June 6 letter, LAC chair Thomas Buffenbarger of the Machinists sharply criticized the administration for “restrictions on information that is shared with LAC members,” “unwillingness to share bracketed text or tabled positions from our negotiating partners,” and “refusal to include labor representatives on Industry Trade Advisory Committees.”
Over the opposition of many unions, President Obama signed corporate-friendly trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia in fall 2011.
He singled out the TPP as a priority in this year’s State of the Union speech and wants Congress to give him “fast-track” authority.
Veterans of the fight against Bill Clinton’s NAFTA will remember fast track—Congress gives away its ability to amend an international agreement, in favor of a simple up-or-down vote. Each house may debate the bill for no more than 20 hours.
Fast track is likely to come up in late summer or early fall. But most Democrats in the House are opposed to fast track and the TPP, says Arthur Stamoulis of the Citizens Trade Campaign, and many Republicans will also vote against it (some because they want to deny Obama any appearance of success).
Junemann counters that, in the end, doing what big business wants will weigh more with Republicans than hurting Obama.
In any case, “there is no way they can get TPP through without fast track,” Stamoulis said. “When we defeated the FTAA [in the early 2000s], the first step was cross-border people’s movements dragging the proposal out of the shadows, shining a light on it, and introducing accountability and scrutiny to the negotiations.”
Light and scrutiny have both been sorely lacking thus far, but leaks about TPP’s contents are alarming.
LOCAL LAWS TRUMPED
Corporations could sue governments over laws not to their liking. They are already doing so under existing “trade” agreements, but TPP would vastly expand the number of corporations and countries involved.
For example, Australia passed a law requiring plain packaging for cigarettes (no Joe Camel). U.S.-based Philip Morris is in court over predicted lost sales.
After the Fukushima disaster, Germany enacted a moratorium on nuclear power; a Swedish energy company is now suing the German government. Bechtel sued Bolivia for undoing the privatization of its water supply.
Corporations have already collected $365 million by suing governments, usually in developing countries, under existing treaties, and $13 billion more is pending in suits under NAFTA and the Central America (CAFTA) and Peru FTAs.
Most suits thus far are over environmental issues. But in June 2012, the French firm Veolia sued the Egyptian government for raising the minimum wage.
Under TPP, the corporation would sue the federal government, whether the case pertained to a federal, state, or local law or court decision. If the tribunal awarded damages to the corporation, the federal government would pay.
So if the government doesn’t want more suits, it has to change its laws (or pressure the local government to do so). Under NAFTA, the U.S. chemical company Ethyl Corp. sued Canada because it had banned the use of a gasoline additive called MMT, as a public health measure. Canada backed down, allowed MMT, and paid Ethyl $13 million.
TPP would give international firms equal access to federal government contracts.
TPP would include aggressive intellectual property rules to protect Big Pharma’s patents and restrict access to generic medicines. The consequences for those unable to afford HIV drugs, for example, especially in poor countries, would include hundreds of thousands of deaths.
The U.S. Department of Energy has the authority to regulate exports of natural gas—but not to countries that have free trade agreements with the U.S. TPP would mean stepped-up natural gas exports, without review, to Japan, the world’s largest importer of natural gas, and therefore increased to find that gas.
And presumably, when U.S. states, counties, and cities ban fracking, energy companies from any interested country could try to get those bans overturned. (Domestic oil and gas companies are already suing over local fracking bans, such as in Longmont, Colorado, and Dryden, New York.)
These new rights for corporations are horrifying, but the most widespread effect of TPP would be job loss. The minimum wage in Vietnam, for example, is $2.23 a day, so labor-intensive industries are already eager to move there. The TPP would accelerate that process:
It would remove U.S. tariffs on goods produced in Vietnam and any other TPP country.
Manufacturers in capital-intensive industries (heavy machinery factories, paper mills, semiconductors), who might be reluctant to risk investment, would be protected against the threat of other countries’ passing new environmental or regulatory costs.
TPP’s protections against loss of “intellectual property” would reassure investors about building in Vietnam, where the majority of college grads are in math and science. Such concerns are currently a major disincentive for IT or research work in Vietnam, as its intellectual property practices are far looser than those in the U.S.
Through arm-twisting and over the objections of the unions who’d worked to get him elected, Bill Clinton pushed through NAFTA in 1993. But by the early 2000s, “free trade” had a track record.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas would have extended NAFTA to 31 more countries in the hemisphere. Some Latin American countries, notably Brazil, said no. Big protests were held in Quebec City in 2001 and in Miami in 2003, and the FTAA died.
To stop fast track and the TPP, Citizens Trade Campaign suggests three actions: Contact your Congressperson and urge a “no” vote. Spread the word widely about the TPP, through all channels. And if TPP negotiations are held in North America, mobilize to greet the bargainers—à la Seattle 1999.
See Expose the TPP. The Citizens Trade Campaign site has fact sheets, monthly briefings, and more. See a video interview on “Democracy Now!”
A version of this article appeared in Labor Notes #412, July 2013. Don't miss an issue, subscribe today.
- See more at: http://www.labornotes.org/2013/07/secret-tpp-deal-would-void-democracy#sthash.cB0CKg4q.dpuf
If you look at who is shouting out for minimum wage without saying a thing about TPP------ALL OF THE INCUMBENTS NO DOUBT, BUT MOST NOTABLY THE BLACK AND HISPANIC LEADERS. Now, if you can imagine who will lose the most with the end of WE THE PEOPLE AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS in the US, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know people of color always lose in those conditions. That was what all of the Civil Rights Era was about---EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ALL PEOPLE. TPP ENDS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND PEOPLE OF COLOR WILL FEEL IT MOST.
It's no co-incidence that developing worlds are all the ones having sweat shops----Asia and Africa being hardest hit. These are the immigrants that will come to the US under their own nation's laws and it will be American black and Hispanic workers that are made to compete for jobs working for Asian and African wages. BWI SUPER SHUTTLE PROTEST IS JUST THIS. So, when Montgomery County looks progressive with its minimum wage we know that most global corporations are located in Montgomery County and will not heed these laws. When we see Prince George's County say they too want strong minimum wage laws we know they too are building heavily global corporate presence. THESE LAWS WILL FALL UNDER TPP AND YET NO DEMOCRATIC POL FROM THESE TWO 'PROGRESSIVE' COUNTIES ARE SAYING A WORD ABOUT TPP!
Sadly, people of color are being used in leadership rolls to send US labor and justice to third world levels and we need EVERY CITIZEN IN MARYLAND SAYING NO-BECAUSE AN INJUSTICE FOR ONE WILL BECOME AN INJUSTICE FOR ALL. This will affect 90% of US citizens.
Take a look at this politician and ask-----why is this politician not educating his constituency about TPP?
Minimum Wage Increase Passes in Montgomery County
Friday, 29 November 2013 13:58 Written by Marc Elrich Councilmember At-large
When I proposed minimum wage legislation in August of this year, I wanted to do something that would make a real difference in the lives of people who are suffering in our region. I wanted to close the increasing gap in real wages that plagues our country right now. Although I wish we passed a true living wage yesterday, I recognized when I proposed this legislation that we’re simply not there yet politically. But the increase we passed is meaningful and real. Today, Prince George’s County under Council President Andrea Harrison’s leadership mirrors our legislation and next week DC, under Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Councilmember Vincent Orange’s guidance, is ready to approve similar legislation.
I am proud of this regional approach we have embraced with our neighbors in Prince George’s County and the District of Columbia. I applaud their courage and commitment to raising wages for our most vulnerable residents now. They have not waited for leadership, but demonstrated it by leading the region, state and country.
The final bill we passed yesterday isn’t perfect, but it is significant and important. Our residents will see a real and substantial increase in the money they earn for their hard day’s labor. That money is most likely to be spent locally, on rent, at grocery stores, restaurants and small businesses.
The bill will increase the minimum wage for most workers from its current, untenable level of $7.25 an hour to $8.45 in 2014; $9.55 in 2015; $10.75 in 2016; and $11.50 in 02017. My original bill would have gotten us there a year earlier, in 2016, but this is a compromise we can accept. Sadly, I could not convince enough of my colleagues to include indexing the wage to inflation, which was an important element of my original bill. The reason we find ourselves in this situation now is because state and federal authorities didn’t index the minimum wage to inflation, effectively leaving the minimum wage stagnant while higher paid workers received cost of living increases. If they had indexed it, the minimum wage would be $10.75 today. I urge the state to index their minimum wage to inflation when they address it this spring so that we don’t have to come back five years from now and address this again.
We heard from many local restaurant owners in the past week about the provision added in committee last week to include tipped employees, which would have increased the hourly base wage they are paid, regardless of the fact that the majority of their employees earn above $11.50 already with tips. I proposed an amendment to address that, which passed on an 8-1 vote. It will keep the base tipped wage at its current state level, but require businesses to make up any difference if their workers don’t make enough in tips to meet our county’s new minimum wage. This ensures that we don’t leave those hardworking folks behind, but we also do not create an unnecessary burden on our local small businesses, either.
At a time when Wall Street is setting new record highs and corporate profits are doing quite well, the challenges facing the poor—along with working and middle class families—are only growing larger. Persistent poverty is the reflection of the persistence of low wages in our economy. We have tens of thousands of working people who, despite getting up and going to work every day, do not earn wages that are sufficient to lift them out of poverty. As a result, working people are forced, at best, to rely on the government to provide programs to support their housing, medical and food needs. At worst, people simply do without adequate housing, health care and nutrition.
Their employers have effectively shifted a portion of what should be their labor costs onto taxpayers—both individual taxpayers as well as the majority of private sector companies in our County who do pay a living wage or higher. Large corporations in particular have effectively off-loaded their costs onto taxpayers. We won’t pay companies for machinery maintenance, but they want us to pay for people maintenance. In Maryland, 71% of the minimum wage jobs are with multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporations.
In our region, the impact of low wages is especially harsh. We have one of the highest cost of living levels in the country, with housing costs leading the way. I’ve looked at housing prices and the cost of living in other parts of the state and it’s clear that there are regions in the state where a $10 minimum wage may give someone a reasonable chance of getting by economically. But it won’t get you there here. A self-sufficiency budget was developed for Montgomery County through the work of the Maryland Community Action Partnership. It found that a single adult in Montgomery County would need a wage of $17.07 per hour to support herself; a family of four with two adults would require that each adult earn $19.62 an hour; and a single adult with one child would need to earn $30.59 per hour. The cost of living in the D.C. Metro area is significantly higher than in most of the country—and it requires a wage level that is more closely attuned to our local conditions.
With today’s vote, we have not only increased the amount of money in the pockets of local workers, but research shows increasing the minimum wage leads to less employment turnover. It means more stability in the lives of the families of those earning minimum wage. It means a decreased likelihood of losing your housing or being forced to move, which means less mobility in our schools. I can tell you as a former school teacher that is a good thing. When kids are constantly uprooted from one school and neighborhood to another because of their parents’ job instability, it hurts their chances of success in school and overtaxes the schools and teachers who try to engage them. So in addition to the clear benefits both to families and to local businesses of increasing low-wage workers’ income, a reduction in employment turnover may well translate into a more stability in our neighborhoods and schools, as well as decreased reliance on taxpayer-funded social services, which is better for all of us in the long run.
There were those who encouraged us to be cautious and wait to see what would be done at the state or national level, but I firmly believe in the mantra ‘think globally, act locally.’ We have stricter air quality standards and higher fuel efficiency because California enacted those regulations first and then the rest of the nation followed. As Delegate Tom Hucker stated in a letter to me last week, ‘It is abundantly clear that passage of a higher minimum wage in Montgomery County (and Prince George’s County) will only increase the likelihood that the General Assembly will pass a statewide increase in the minimum wage, possibly significantly so.’ There are many people and organizations working hard to raise the wage at the state level, and I share Delegate Hucker’s view that our victory here, coupled with Prince George’s similar victory today, will help push the state to make that change.
I am especially thankful today for my co-sponsors of this legislation, Council President Nancy Navarro and Councilmember Valerie Ervin, whose early and strong leadership made this possible. I am particularly grateful for the support of our community partners, who worked tirelessly to make this happen. Thanks in particular go to Jews United for Justice, NOW, Progressive Maryland, DC Labor Council AFL-CIO, UFCW Local 1994, Local 400, CASA, Progressive Neighbors, Montgomery County Young Dems and the Jewish Community Relations Council. You took time out of your days, your evenings and weekends, to lobby us, rally your friends and neighbors, and advocate with passion and compassion so we could do what is right for residents of our county. Thank you for helping make passage of this bill a reality.
This issue is about people, our neighbors who work hard every day to put food on the table and keep a roof over their families’ heads. We are not only morally obligated to care about the working poor in our community, but we have a vested economic interest in doing so. Poverty and injustice begets more of the same. I am proud of the work we have done here in Montgomery County and I applaud my colleagues for their engagement on this important issue. Our work is not done, but I hope this first step will give many something concrete to be thankful and hopeful for this holiday season.
ABSOLUTELY NO ONE BELIEVES THAT OBAMA IS NOW WORKING FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR OR ANYONE OTHER THAN WALL STREET. NEO-LIBERALS ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK 'PROGRESSIVE' DURING PRIMARY SEASONS!
I read and listen to many black and Hispanic media outlets to see who is providing REAL NEWS and who is pushing propaganda. Below you see a great big propaganda piece. A BLACK AGENDA--REALLY?????
If people knew about Trans Pacific Trade Pact---(TPP) that works to end the US Constitution and WE THE PEOPLE AND BILL OF RIGHTS.....and Obama and neo-liberals are pushing this----they would know there is no black discussion going on in Washington. All of Obama's policies, from Race to the Top, Affordable Care Act, NSA and spying/police brutality, and suspension of Rule of Law in protecting people against corporate fraud and workplace abuse all hits black and Hispanic communities hardest. Obama's terms have been about allowing all of this to occur on steroids and TPP----pushed by Obama wanting to Fast Track no less----will seek to heighten all of the above to great detriment to communities of color.
Take a look at TPP- protests by labor -----and you will see justice organizations that will be crushed by TPP mostly silent. That is because national justice leaders like Sharpton are working with Obama to silence what TPP will do. Black progressivism by neo-liberals just before a primary season????? REALLY?????
We thank black labor leaders like the Chicago Teachers Union and PURE for coming together to shout out how policies are not working to the benefit of people of color. Many leaders of color are shouting---WE NEED THOSE VOICES HEARD! Communities of color are being deliberately kept in the dark about the goals of all of these policies. I encourage everyone to view these neo-liberal policies as creating an administrative class world-wide and you will have to be part of the Ivy League establishment to participate.
All others will be reduced to third world status no matter what your socioeconomic status now!
Think about what this article below is stating will happen and then think about what all the articles above are saying....outsourcing of jobs and high unemployment, voting rights in an era of TPP-global corporate tribunals ending WE THE PEOPLE. Ending equal opportunity public education and health care?
BELOW YOU WILL NOT HEAR EDUCATION ABOUT TPP----YOU HEAR NEO-LIBERAL PROPAGANDA.
Obama and Race: A ‘Black Agenda’ for 2014?
Feb 20, 2014
By Tom Joyner Morning Show
[Obama and Race: A ‘Black Agenda’ for 2014?]
A few weeks ago, inside my barber shop in Washington, D.C., a somewhat frustrated customer wondered aloud if President Barack Obama would move forward with a “black agenda” in his last term in the White House.
The customer’s thinking was that Obama has nothing to lose in his final two years as the nation’s first black president and could feel more comfortable with his blackness. Many black Americans have said privately they want the president to be more outspoken on race and lead initiatives specifically designed to uplift African Americans.
Well now it’s happening.
I believe the president is focusing more specifically –and publicly — on helping black folks. Call it a black agenda or call it the right thing to do, but there is no doubt that Obama is using his White House bully pulpit to talk about social justice.
Consider this: At the White House this week, Obama met with several civil rights leaders including Rev. Al Sharpton about raising the minimum wage, black unemployment, health care, voting rights and education.
“We talked extensively about the challenges of unemployment, the challenges of under-employment, the challenges of black and urban and brown unemployment in this nation,” Marc Morial, president of The National Urban League, told reporters after the meeting with Obama and U.S Attorney Eric Holder.
“It was helpful to us to hear the president and his team clarify some misconceptions about the Affordable Care Act, one (being) that it adds to the deficit when all the projections are that it will reduce the deficit,” Morial said. “This president’s ear, this president’s concern for our community is as strong as ever.”
Next week at the White House, Obama will unveil “My Brother’s Keeper Initiative,” a national program designed to improve the quality of life for young African American boys.
And, in addition, Obama, a father with two daughters, has an ambitious vision for the nation’s black students during his last two years in the White House: ensuring that all African-American pupils receive an education that fully gets them ready for high school graduation, college completion and productive careers in a highly competitive global job market.
After signing an executive order that created the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans in 2012, the president is dedicating new resources to enable African-American students to improve their educational achievement and prepare them for college and a range of professions after graduation.
There’s more. Last year, Obama announced the new leadership team for the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Joining the HBCU Initiative as Executive Director is Dr. George Cooper with Dr. Ivory Toldson serving as the Deputy Director. As part of the leadership team for the White House Initiative on HBCUs, both Cooper and Toldson will work with the presidentially appointed HBCU Board of Advisors and assist Secretary Arne Duncan as a liaison between the executive branch and HBCUs across the country.
In January, in an article published in the New Yorker, Obama talked candidly about his blackness “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president.”
And last year, in powerful and revealing comments in the White House briefing room, Obama talked about Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in 2012 because Zimmerman thought the unarmed teenager looked suspicious.
“When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said this could’ve been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” Obama said in an unexpected appearance in the White House briefing room. “When you think about why in the African-American community, at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, it’s important to recognize the African-
American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and history that doesn’t go away.”
Obama is speaking out about being black and male in America, but more important the president is creating substantive initiatives that could benefit black Americans for many years to come.
Some of the president’s black critics, however, have questioned why Obama didn’t step up to discuss race during his first term in the White House, but it’s not about lamenting the past, it should be about embracing new initiatives for black Americans and appreciating this moment in history.
“It was one of the most substantive meetings I have had with any President,” Sharpton told reporters after the meeting with Obama. “We are firmly convinced the President will fight for jobs, training, minimum wage and voting rights as well as explore the other areas of concern that we raised.”
Sounds like a black agenda to me.
What do you think?