The judicial branch can declare those acts unconstitutional---and our Congressional pols can impeach judges if they do not do so.
'The Constitution doesn’t mention executive orders explicitly, but they’re considered an implied power of the presidency. They’ve been around since George Washington’s presidency, during which he issued a total of eight, including the Neutrality Proclamation in April 1793'.
'The executive branch can declare Executive Orders, which are like proclamations that carry the force of law, but the judicial branch can declare those acts unconstitutional'.
Checks and Balances
The Constitution divided the Government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. That was an important decision because it gave specific powers to each branch and set up something called checks and balances. Just like the phrase sounds, the point of checks and balances was to make sure no one branch would be able to control too much power, and it created a separation of powers. Here are some examples of how the different branches work together:
- The legislative branch makes laws, but the President in the executive branch can veto those laws with a Presidential Veto.
- The legislative branch makes laws, but the judicial branch can declare those laws unconstitutional.
- The executive branch, through the Federal agencies, has responsibility for day-to-day enforcement and administration of Federal laws. These Federal departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities that vary widely, from environmental protection to protecting the Nation’s borders.
- The President in the executive branch can veto a law, but the legislative branch can override that veto with enough votes.
- The legislative branch has the power to approve Presidential nominations, control the budget, and can impeach the President and remove him or her from office.
- The executive branch can declare Executive Orders, which are like proclamations that carry the force of law, but the judicial branch can declare those acts unconstitutional.
- The judicial branch interprets laws, but the President nominates Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges who make the evaluations.
- The judicial branch interprets laws, but the Senate in the legislative branch confirms the President’s nominations for judicial positions, and Congress can impeach any of those judges and remove them from office.
Here we have that history of using Presidential Executive Order and it is tied to that ROBBER BARON period of US history after an economic crash brings the US to a crippled economy and GREAT DEPRESSION. While FDR used Executive Order to bring NEW DEAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY-----Trump will use it to bring far-right LIBERTARIAN MARXISM. He is just getting warmed up---watch as the economic crash comes during these few years and TRUMP will be called on to make drastic changes to SAVE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
'Three presidents—John Adams, James Madison and James Monroe—issued no executive orders. Only four of our presidents have issued more than 1,000 each: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3,522); Woodrow Wilson (1,803); Calvin Coolidge (1,203); and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081)'.
We can already anticipate Trump will be allowed to use EXECUTIVE ORDER as Robber Baron Presidents to install ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE WAGE.
Executive Orders and Checks and Balances
Submitted by Maureen Costello on January 31, 2017
The message came via Facebook: “Anyone have an unbiased lesson out there about executive orders? I feel that I need to focus on them for a day and explain how they work.”
It’s a good question. Although most of us learned how a bill becomes law, that lesson probably didn’t have a lot to say about executive orders. Think about it: We teach students that the legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive enforces the laws. Executive orders don’t fit neatly into that formula.
The Constitution doesn’t mention executive orders explicitly, but they’re considered an implied power of the presidency. They’ve been around since George Washington’s presidency, during which he issued a total of eight, including the Neutrality Proclamation in April 1793.
Three presidents—John Adams, James Madison and James Monroe—issued no executive orders. Only four of our presidents have issued more than 1,000 each: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3,522); Woodrow Wilson (1,803); Calvin Coolidge (1,203); and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081). You can go to the Federal Register to read all the executive orders since the start of the Clinton presidency, and Wikipedia maintains an up-to-date list of the number of orders issued since 1789.
To be lawful, an executive order must either relate to how the executive branch operates or exercise an authority delegated to the president by Congress. But that last power is limited: Congress can’t delegate legislative powers to the president that are specifically assigned to Congress in the Constitution.
Figuring all that out can be complicated, so presidents usually take care to ensure that their executive orders pass muster. Typically, the orders get vetted by relevant government agencies and are reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure that they comply with existing laws. One criticism of this past weekend’s “Refugee and Visa” executive order was that it was not reviewed by any agencies, including the DOJ.
Critics of presidential power worry about executive orders because they bypass the debates and deliberations that go into making a bill a law. Just like acts of Congress, though, executive orders are subject to checks and balances—after the fact. Congress can pass legislation to invalidate the action taken in an executive order. That’s not likely, however, when the president’s party is also the majority in Congress. Executive orders are also subject to judicial review; like laws, they can be challenged in the federal courts and ultimately go all the way to the Supreme Court.
When does a president use an executive order? Clearly, many of President Barack Obama’s 274 orders were prompted by having to work with a hostile Congress; he responded by doing as much as he could without legislative approval. During times of crisis, Congress may give power to the president to act quickly. That was certainly the case during World War I (Wilson) and during the twin crises of the Great Depression and World War II (FDR).
Executive orders have a checkered history; they’ve been the instruments of some of our proudest achievements and some of our most shameful.
President Abraham Lincoln issued 48 executive orders. One, issued at the beginning of the Civil War while Congress wasn’t in session, suspended the basic right of habeas corpus. Lincoln reasoned that he was empowered by the Article I provision that allowed for suspension of the right during times of rebellion. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, however, sitting as a trial judge in a Maryland case that came up under the order, issued an opinion that it was exclusively a congressional power. Lincoln ignored the opinion, the Supreme Court never took it up, and eventually Congress did pass a law upholding the executive action.
On the other side of the scale, Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation was also an executive order, one that was made into fundamental law by ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.
Similarly, FDR had executive orders good and bad. On his first day in office, amidst massive bank failures, he ordered a bank holiday and closed all banks until federal examiners could warrant that they were sound. Most historians think that order saved the U.S. financial system. But later, in the midst of World War II, FDR signed the infamous Executive Order 9066, ordering the relocation of Japanese Americans, including U.S. citizens, to internment camps.
President Harry Truman’s use of executive orders shows both the courage and the limits of presidential power. In 1948, Truman signed Executive Order 9981, and with a stroke of his pen ended the segregation of the nation’s military, six years before the Supreme Court ended segregation in schools. But later, in 1952, faced with a potentially massive steel workers’ strike, Truman nationalized the steel industry, ordering the secretary of commerce to seize and operate the country’s steel mills. He claimed it was a national emergency and that the mills were needed to produce munitions for the ongoing Korean War. By that time, Truman was an unpopular president, and Congress didn’t back him. Meanwhile, the steel companies brought a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Truman’s seizure of private property was unconstitutional.
The decision in that case, Youngstown, Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, also clarified when the president has clear authority to issue an executive order and when the courts might intervene. It’s a useful guide: 1) The president’s authority is clear when acting under the express consent of Congress; 2) the president’s authority is uncertain when it’s an area that Congress hasn’t acted on, either approving or disapproving presidential actions. In this “zone of twilight,” a court might closely analyze the circumstances; 3) when the executive order is incompatible with an act of Congress, the court is likely to overturn the action.
As you discuss current events with your students, we hope this rundown on executive orders will provide some context.
Looking across the national media spectrum on articles covering Trump and executive order----they all seem to be written to assure WE THE PEOPLE our courts are functioning as CHECKS AND BALANCES. We knew Trump's immigration order was unconstitutional because courts ruled the same under Obama---and through modern history. It seems likely this action was simply to make the Federal system of checks and balances look to be working. FUNNY, NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON FEDERALISM ACT tied to allowing Federal agencies ignore all US Constitutional protections of EQUAL PROTECTION and enforcement of national, state, and local sovereignty laws. The broadness of Executive Orders through CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has been astounding---yet no CHECKS AND BALANCES. This was SHOWMANSHIP.
'The president of the United States does not have the same power as a dictator or an autocrat. Strictly speaking, he or she doesn’t even have the same power as a prime minister in a parliamentary system like the United Kingdom or Canada'.
'Courts ruled, the administration obeyed, and – at least for a brief moment – the dust settled. Specifically, a federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked the order from being enforced nationwide last Friday (just hours after a federal judge in Boston had ruled the opposite way), and the Trump administration complied'.
There is no intent to export our Latino immigrants as US Foreign Economic Zones and sanctuary status has been about building global labor pool density. This is how we know these OBAMA/TRUMP executive orders on immigration were POSING.
OUR US CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE WORKING GLOBAL WALL STREET SAYS--OH, REALLY? Funny how 99% of people don't think so.
It also keeps our immigrant citizens in constant fear-----their status is always in flux.
In Trump's orders, a test of America's checks and balances countering fear
The rollout of President Trump's travel ban led to no small amount of chaos and confusion. But the system has stood firm so far.
February 6, 2017 --[Update: This story has been updated at 8:10 a.m.]
For a week, chaos reigned. Protesters massed outside airports, lawyers filed lawsuits across the country late into the night, and thousands of immigrants to the United States were thrown into legal limbo by President Trump’s executive order.
There was confusion and claims by some that the administration appeared to ignore judicial orders.
Then, something normal happened.
Courts ruled, the administration obeyed, and – at least for a brief moment – the dust settled. Specifically, a federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked the order from being enforced nationwide last Friday (just hours after a federal judge in Boston had ruled the opposite way), and the Trump administration complied.
Trump's 12 biggest executive actions, explained
Although Mr. Trump has continued to criticize the decision, the Department of Homeland Security has stopped enforcing the order, the State Department is allowing those with valid visas to enter the country (after saying it previously revoked as many as 100,000), and the Justice Department is arguing its case through the courts, where Vice President Mike Pence has said he is “very confident that we’re going to prevail.”
A federal appeals court is now scheduled to hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
On one hand, a president who vowed to shake up Washington has clearly done just that – and more. But viewed another way, this past week has simply been a new test of America’s centuries-old checks and balances – with a new president testing the limits of executive power and the courts pressing the pause button, at least for now.
“What we’re seeing is a salutary operation of checks and balances,” says Ernest Young, a constitutional law professor at Duke University School of Law.
“A lot of presidents come into office with a very broad view of what they’re going to be able to do,” he adds. “It’s not that uncommon [to be blocked by the courts], but that’s how the system is supposed to work.”
Where things stand now
The Supreme Court, for example, blocked President Obama’s executive action on immigration. The high court also blocked President George W. Bush’s executive order putting Guantánamo Bay detainees on trial before military commissions.
But Trump’s order has added new layers of confusion, some say. Not only was the order broad – suspending the entry of people from seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days, the admissions of any refugees for 120 days, and the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely – but it was crafted and implemented poorly, they say.
That seemed to create only more confusion.
At Dulles International Airport in Virginia, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials refused to allow lawyers and congressmen access to people being detained. At John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, CBP agents tried to remove classes of immigrants protected by the injunction, the Guardian reported. And at Los Angeles International Airport, CBP officials detained some immigrants in the days after the order was signed, according to a court filing from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
Now, many of those detainees have been released, and what may have appeared to some to be the administration flouting judicial orders instead might simply have been confusion and misinformation, says Professor Young.
“If that sort of behavior continued, that would be a real problem,” he adds. Then, “if they refused to comply with court orders [beyond] that point we would have a constitutional crisis.”
There has not been much evidence of that, says Lee Gelernt, a lawyer at the ACLU national office who argued one of the first cases challenging the executive order. There have been some isolated cases of people not being allowed to board flights to the US over the past week, but they were all eventually able to get on flights.
The legal path ahead
Civil rights groups are still monitoring the situation and how it was first handled, Mr. Gelernt says. A lawsuit filed in district court in Philadelphia, for example, claims that CBP officers told two Syrian-born men with valid visas they had to either leave the US on the flight they had arrived on or be arrested and have their visas taken away. Other immigrants claim in legal briefs to having been forced by border officials to sign documents waiving their right to enter the United States.
“Exactly what is happening on the ground remains unclear,” says Gelernt. “If we hear about noncompliance we’re prepared to go to court immediately.”
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit – Judge William Canby Jr., a President Carter appointee; Judge Richard Clifton, a President George W. Bush appointee; and Judge Michelle Taryn Friedland, a President Obama appointee – will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. Either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene if they disagree with the decision, but with the high court still absent a justice and split ideologically down the middle, a 4-to-4 tie would preserve whatever decision the appeals court reaches.
In blocking Trump’s executive order, federal District Judge James Robart cited a federal court decision in 2015 that blocked Mr. Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
The role of the judiciary, he wrote, “is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches [of government] comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution.”
“The circumstances brought before [the court] today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government,” he continued.
Justice Department lawyers have argued Judge Robart's order was "vastly overbroad" and that the executive order was "a lawful exercise of the President's authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees."
However the courts ultimately rule, recent days have sent a message, says Gelernt.
“One thing we’ve learned over past 10 days is that the courts will not be cowed into simply rubber stamping administration policies.”
COOLIDGE/TEDDY ROOSEVELT/WILSON were the Robber Baron Presidents who allowed Wall Street frauds go wild just as today's CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. We see where they were the ones as well using Executive Orders to pretend Presidents can simply negate all US Rule of Law and US Constitutional and Federal precedent and just ABUSE EXECUTIVE POWER. The US is different than any other Western democracy in that our FOUNDING FATHERS created a Constitution to protect against a growing GLOBAL 1% control. Not only monopoly and estate tax laws but this system of checks and balances with a US Constitution that GUARANTEES OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS TO LEGISLATE. Simply allowing every century for Presidents to go wild during ROBBER BARON season does not meet this structural CHECKS AND BALANCES.
'Three presidents—John Adams, James Madison and James Monroe—issued no executive orders. Only four of our presidents have issued more than 1,000 each: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3,522); Woodrow Wilson (1,803); Calvin Coolidge (1,203); and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081)'.
FDR was the Robber Baron himself rounding off the roaring 20s Wall Street frauds with a complete reform of our government structure with NEW DEAL. That NEW DEAL was good for WE THE PEOPLE as we had a Congress filled with plenty of pols still believing in an American future. CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA as global Wall Street sees an end to that AMERICAN future so TRUMP will be FDR---and totally restructure America to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE WAGE.
WE THE PEOPLE MUST BE PROACTIVE---NOT REACTIVE. WE HAVE GLOBAL WALL STREET LEADERS TO ALL OUR LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS DELIBERATELY MAKING ACTIVISM REACTIVE.
Los Angeles Lifts Its Minimum Wage to $15 Per Hour
By JENNIFER MEDINA and NOAM SCHEIBERMAY 19, 2015
Members of Unite Here Local 11 in the Los Angeles City Council chambers on Tuesday before the Council voted to increase the city’s minimum wage from $9. Credit Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times
LOS ANGELES -- The nation’s second-largest city voted Tuesday to increase its minimum wage from $9 an hour to $15 an hour by 2020, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far for labor groups and their allies who are engaged in a national push to raise the minimum wage.
The increase, which the City Council passed in a 14-to-1 vote, comes as workers across the country are rallying for higher wages and several large companies, including Facebook and Walmart, have moved to raise their lowest wages. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same. In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wages by ballot initiative.
The effect is likely to be particularly strong in Los Angeles, where, according to some estimates, almost 50 percent of the city’s work force earns less than $15 an hour. Under the plan approved Tuesday, the minimum wage will rise over five years.
“The effects here will be the biggest by far,” said Michael Reich, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was commissioned by city leaders to conduct several studies on the potential effects of a minimum-wage increase. “The proposal will bring wages up in a way we haven’t seen since the 1960s. There’s a sense spreading that this is the new norm, especially in areas that have high costs of housing.”
The groups pressing for higher minimum wages said that the Los Angeles vote could set off a wave of increases across Southern California, and that higher pay scales would improve the way of life for the region’s vast low-wage work force.
Supporters of higher wages say they hope the move will reverberate nationally. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York announced this month that he was convening a state board to consider a wage increase in the local fast-food industry, which could be enacted without a vote in the State Legislature. Immediately after the Los Angeles vote, pressure began to build on Mr. Cuomo to reject an increase that falls short of $15 an hour.
“The L.A. increase nudges it forward,” said Dan Cantor, the national director of the Working Families Party, which was founded in New York and has helped pass progressive economic measures in several states. “It puts an exclamation point on the need for $15 to be where the wage board ends up.”
The current minimum wage in New York State is $8.75, versus a federal minimum wage of $7.25, and will rise to $9 at the end of 2015. A little more than one-third of workers citywide and statewide now make below $15 an hour.
Los Angeles County is also considering a measure that would lift the wages of thousands of workers in unincorporated parts of the county.
Local Minimum Wages
Many cities have enacted or proposed legislation in recent years to create a local minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum and their state’s minimum, if there is one.
City minimum wage
Kansas City, Mo.
Santa Fe, N.M.
Note: Most minimum wages take effect in the next few years, some gradually. New York state has proposed to raise the minimum wage for employees of fast-food chain restaurants only. Mayor Bill DeBlasio has proposed a $15 minimum wage for all industries in New York City.
Source: National Employment Law Project
By The New York Times
Much of the debate here has centered on potential regional repercussions. Many of the low-wage workers who form the backbone of Southern California’s economy live in the suburbs of Los Angeles. Proponents of the wage increase say they expect that several nearby cities, including Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Pasadena, will also approve higher wages.
But opponents of higher minimum wages, including small-business owners and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, say the increase approved Tuesday could turn Los Angeles into a “wage island,” pushing businesses to nearby places where they can pay employees less.
“They are asking businesses to foot the bill on a social experiment that they would never do on their own employees,” said Stuart Waldman, the president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, a trade group that represents companies and other organizations in Southern California. “A lot of businesses aren’t going to make it,” he added. “It’s great that this is an increase for some employees, but the sad truth is that a lot of employees are going to lose their jobs.”
The 67 percent increase from the current state minimum will be phased in over five years, first to $10.50 in July 2016, then to $12 in 2017, $13.25 in 2018 and $14.25 in 2019. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees will have an extra year to carry out the plan. Starting in 2022, annual increases will be based on the Consumer Price Index average of the last 20 years. The City Council’s vote will instruct the city attorney to draft the language of the law, which will then come back to the Council for final approval.
The mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, had proposed a slightly different increase last fall and later negotiated the details with the Democratic-controlled Council. Mr. Garcetti said Tuesday that he would sign the legislation and that he hoped other elected officials, including Mr. Cuomo, would follow Los Angeles’s path.
Business By Samantha Stark 4:30
Labor’s $15 Wage Strategy
Labor’s $15 Wage StrategyEbony Hughes works two jobs and still struggles to make ends meet. She is an example of the kind of worker that organizers are trying to galvanize under the banner of civil rights to raise wages.
“We’re leading the country; we’re not going to wait for Washington to lift Americans out of poverty,” Mr. Garcetti said in an interview. “We have too many adults struggling to be living off a poverty wage. This will re-establish some of the equilibrium we’ve had in the past.”
New York City does not have a separate minimum wage, but Mayor Bill de Blasio has spoken out in favor of higher wages statewide. “Los Angeles is another example of a city that’s doing the right thing, lifting people up by providing a wage on which they can live,” Mr. de Blasio said in a statement “We need Albany to catch up with the times and raise the wage.”
The push for a $15-an-hour minimum wage is not confined to populous coastal states. In Kansas City, Mo., activists recently collected enough signatures to put forward an August ballot initiative on whether to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. The City Council is deliberating this week over how to respond and could pass its own measure in advance of the initiative.
As the Los Angeles City Council considered raising the minimum wage over the last several months, the question was not if, but how much. The lone councilman who voted against the bill — a Republican — did not speak during Tuesday’s meeting.
Still, for all their enthusiasm, some Council members acknowledged that it would be difficult to predict what would happen once the increase was fully in effect.
“I would prefer that the cost of this was really burdened by those at the highest income levels,” said Gil Cedillo, a councilman who represents some of the poorest sections of the city and worries that some small businesses will shut down. “Instead, it’s going to be coming from people who are just a rung or two up the ladder here. It’s a risk that rhetoric can’t resolve.”
Even economists who support increasing the minimum wage say there is not enough historical data to predict the effect of a $15 minimum wage, an unprecedented increase. A wage increase to $12 an hour over the next few years would achieve about the same purchasing power as the minimum wage in the late 1960s, the most recent peak.
Many restaurant owners here aggressively fought the increase, saying they would be forced to cut as much as half of their staff. Unlike other states, California state law prohibits tipped employees from receiving lower than the minimum wage. The Council promised to study the potential effect of allowing restaurants to add a service charge to bills to meet the increased costs.
And while labor leaders and the coalition of dozens of community groups celebrated in the rotunda of City Hall after the vote, they acknowledged there was a long way to go.
“This says to Los Angeles workers that they are respected, and that’s an important psychological effect,” said Laphonza Butler, the president of Service Employees International Union-United Long Term Care Workers here and a leader of the coalition. “To know that they have a pathway to $15, to getting themselves off of welfare and out of poverty, that’s huge. This should change the debate of the value of low-wage work.”
We just talked about the goal of $15 an hour NOW----in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones was pushing small businesses out of business to give global corporations control of these zone markets. Here we see what the IMF will require a Trump to do as US falls to sovereign debt crisis---this is when TRUMP will turn FDR---and a thousand executive orders will fly. Our Congressional pols know this---they MOVED FORWARD our national, state, and local government bond debt just so this will happen.
Know who else knows this? Our international labor union leaders---our national women's and civil rights organization leaders.
This is why all the energy going to labor and justice activism these several years focused on important issues---MADE IRRELEVANT by these gorilla-in-the-room issues.
'The IMF also requires countries to eliminate assistance to domestic industries while providing benefits for multinational corporations -- such as forcibly lowering labor costs. Small businesses and farmers can't compete. Sweatshop workers in free trade zones set up by the IMF and World Bank earn starvation wages, live in deplorable conditions, and are unable to provide for their families. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated, not eliminated, as governments' debt to the IMF grows'.
Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF
What is the IMF?
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and are now based in Washington, DC. The IMF was originally designed to promote international economic cooperation and provide its member countries with short term loans so they could trade with other countries (achieve balance of payments). Since the debt crisis of the 1980's, the IMF has assumed the role of bailing out countries during financial crises (caused in large part by currency speculation in the global casino economy) with emergency loan packages tied to certain conditions, often referred to as structural adjustment policies (SAPs). The IMF now acts like a global loan shark, exerting enormous leverage over the economies of more than 60 countries. These countries have to follow the IMF's policies to get loans, international assistance, and even debt relief. Thus, the IMF decides how much debtor countries can spend on education, health care, and environmental protection. The IMF is one of the most powerful institutions on Earth -- yet few know how it works.
- The IMF has created an immoral system of modern day colonialism that SAPs the poor
The IMF -- along with the WTO and the World Bank -- has put the global economy on a path of greater inequality and environmental destruction. The IMF's and World Bank's structural adjustment policies (SAPs) ensure debt repayment by requiring countries to cut spending on education and health; eliminate basic food and transportation subsidies; devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper; privatize national assets; and freeze wages. Such belt-tightening measures increase poverty, reduce countries' ability to develop strong domestic economies and allow multinational corporations to exploit workers and the environment A recent IMF loan package for Argentina, for example, is tied to cuts in doctors' and teachers' salaries and decreases in social security payments.. The IMF has made elites from the Global South more accountable to First World elites than their own people, thus undermining the democratic process.
- The IMF serves wealthy countries and Wall Street
Unlike a democratic system in which each member country would have an equal vote, rich countries dominate decision-making in the IMF because voting power is determined by the amount of money that each country pays into the IMF's quota system. It's a system of one dollar, one vote. The U.S. is the largest shareholder with a quota of 18 percent. Germany, Japan, France, Great Britain, and the US combined control about 38 percent. The disproportionate amount of power held by wealthy countries means that the interests of bankers, investors and corporations from industrialized countries are put above the needs of the world's poor majority.
- The IMF is imposing a fundamentally flawed development model
Unlike the path historically followed by the industrialized countries, the IMF forces countries from the Global South to prioritize export production over the development of diversified domestic economies. Nearly 80 percent of all malnourished children in the developing world live in countries where farmers have been forced to shift from food production for local consumption to the production of export crops destined for wealthy countries. The IMF also requires countries to eliminate assistance to domestic industries while providing benefits for multinational corporations -- such as forcibly lowering labor costs. Small businesses and farmers can't compete. Sweatshop workers in free trade zones set up by the IMF and World Bank earn starvation wages, live in deplorable conditions, and are unable to provide for their families. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated, not eliminated, as governments' debt to the IMF grows.
- The IMF is a secretive institution with no accountability
The IMF is funded with taxpayer money, yet it operates behind a veil of secrecy. Members of affected communities do not participate in designing loan packages. The IMF works with a select group of central bankers and finance ministers to make polices without input from other government agencies such as health, education and environment departments. The institution has resisted calls for public scrutiny and independent evaluation.
- IMF policies promote corporate welfare
To increase exports, countries are encouraged to give tax breaks and subsidies to export industries. Public assets such as forestland and government utilities (phone, water and electricity companies) are sold off to foreign investors at rock bottom prices. In Guyana, an Asian owned timber company called Barama received a logging concession that was 1.5 times the total amount of land all the indigenous communities were granted. Barama also received a five-year tax holiday. The IMF forced Haiti to open its market to imported, highly subsidized US rice at the same time it prohibited Haiti from subsidizing its own farmers. A US corporation called Early Rice now sells nearly 50 percent of the rice consumed in Haiti.
- The IMF hurts workers
- The IMF and World Bank frequently advise countries to attract foreign investors by weakening their labor laws -- eliminating collective bargaining laws and suppressing wages, for example. The IMF's mantra of "labor flexibility" permits corporations to fire at whim and move where wages are cheapest. According to the 1995 UN Trade and Development Report, employers are using this extra "flexibility" in labor laws to shed workers rather than create jobs. In Haiti, the government was told to eliminate a statute in their labor code that mandated increases in the minimum wage when inflation exceeded 10 percent. By the end of 1997, Haiti's minimum wage was only $2.40 a day. Workers in the U.S. are also hurt by IMF policies because they have to compete with cheap, exploited labor. The IMF's mismanagement of the Asian financial crisis plunged South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries into deep depression that created 200 million "newly poor." The IMF advised countries to "export their way out of the crisis." Consequently, more than US 12,000 steelworkers were laid off when Asian steel was dumped in the US.
- The IMF's policies hurt women the most
- SAPs make it much more difficult for women to meet their families' basic needs. When education costs rise due to IMF-imposed fees for the use of public services (so-called "user fees") girls are the first to be withdrawn from schools. User fees at public clinics and hospitals make healthcare unaffordable to those who need it most. The shift to export agriculture also makes it harder for women to feed their families. Women have become more exploited as government workplace regulations are rolled back and sweatshops abuses increase.
- IMF Policies hurt the environment
- IMF loans and bailout packages are paving the way for natural resource exploitation on a staggering scale. The IMF does not consider the environmental impacts of lending policies, and environmental ministries and groups are not included in policy making. The focus on export growth to earn hard currency to pay back loans has led to an unsustainable liquidation of natural resources. For example, the Ivory Coast's increased reliance on cocoa exports has led to a loss of two-thirds of the country's forests.
- The IMF bails out rich bankers, creating a moral hazard and greater instability in the global economy
The IMF routinely pushes countries to deregulate financial systems. The removal of regulations that might limit speculation has greatly increased capital investment in developing country financial markets. More than $1.5 trillion crosses borders every day. Most of this capital is invested short-term, putting countries at the whim of financial speculators. The Mexican 1995 peso crisis was partly a result of these IMF policies. When the bubble popped, the IMF and US government stepped in to prop up interest and exchange rates, using taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street bankers. Such bailouts encourage investors to continue making risky, speculative bets, thereby increasing the instability of national economies. During the bailout of Asian countries, the IMF required governments to assume the bad debts of private banks, thus making the public pay the costs and draining yet more resources away from social programs.
- IMF bailouts deepen, rather then solve, economic crisis
During financial crises -- such as with Mexico in 1995 and South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, and Russia in 1997 -- the IMF stepped in as the lender of last resort. Yet the IMF bailouts in the Asian financial crisis did not stop the financial panic -- rather, the crisis deepened and spread to more countries. The policies imposed as conditions of these loans were bad medicine, causing layoffs in the short run and undermining development in the long run. In South Korea, the IMF sparked a recession by raising interest rates, which led to more bankruptcies and unemployment. Under the IMF imposed economic reforms after the peso bailout in 1995, the number of Mexicans living in extreme poverty increased more than 50 percent and the national average minimum wage fell 20 percent.
We showed last week an image of mass protest of citizens in Hungary---they came out en masse and stayed for weeks and this was the object of their protests. The Eastern block nations invited to join the EU obviously were set up for these massive frauds and sovereign debt crises so Romania is one where the IMF was called in for sovereign debt REQUIRING A CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION to allow strict IMF economic and governance changes to be installed. This guy is POSING tough on IMF because his citizens are ready to take him out.
THIS MAN IS TRUMP. Trump will allow the IMF to do the same here in the US saying sovereign debt necessitates this takeover and Constitutional changes making the US this same authoritarian dictatorship with its markets completely deregulated and Foreign Economic Zones installed----SAME THING AND NO PROTESTS BEFORE IT ALL HAPPENS. It is much harder to get back to where we are by waiting until this is all in place.
'Ever since Orbán became prime minister in 2010, Hungary has had trouble with international institutions. His government pushed through a new constitution and many laws that curtailed democracy, the powers of the constitutional court, the justice system and press freedoms. The EU responded by launching several proceedings against Hungary for breaching EU treaties'.
'No Longer Necessary' Hungary Wants to Throw Out IMF
A long-running dispute between Hungary and the International Monetary Fund escalated on Monday when the head of the country's central bank called on the IMF to close its office in Budapest, saying it was no longer needed.
AFPHungarian Central Bank Gyorgy Matolcsy: IMF office in Budapest not necessary any longer.
July 15, 2013 06:12 PM
Relations between the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the International Monetary Fund have never been especially good. Now they have hit rock bottom.
Orbán's former economy minister and current central bank governor, Gyorgy Matolcsy, wrote a letter to IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Monday calling on the fund to close its representative office in Budapest as it was "not necessary to maintain" it any longer.
Hungary owes its economic survival to the IMF. When the country was caught up in the global financial crisis in 2008, the fund and the EU came to the rescue with a €20 billion ($26 billion) loan. At the time, Orbán's predecessor was in office.
Ever since Orbán became prime minister in 2010, Hungary has had trouble with international institutions. His government pushed through a new constitution and many laws that curtailed democracy, the powers of the constitutional court, the justice system and press freedoms. The EU responded by launching several proceedings against Hungary for breaching EU treaties.
In early July, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on Hungary to repeal the "anti-democratic changes." Orbán angrily dismissed the demands as "Soviet-style" meddling.
Hungary Says Will Repay IMF Loan This Year
Under Orbán, all negotiations with the IMF about fresh aid have failed. On Monday, central bank chief Matolcsy said the country didn't need the IMF's money and that Hungary would repay the 2008 loan in full by the end of this year.
He said the government had succeeded in pushing its budget deficit below the EU ceiling of 3 percent of GDP and had reduced government debt.
Matolcsy is the architect of Orbán's unorthodox economic policy which is based on imposing heavy special taxes on large companies. He became central bank governor four months ago.
The Hungarian economy shrank by 1.7 percent last year. The EU Commission expects it to return to weak growth in 2013. The budget deficit is expected to rise again, back up to 3 percent of GDP.
Here we have what was supposed to be open borders between European nations. What occurred first was Eastern block workers were forced to Western nations for jobs---this was during the Clinton/Blair years so pressure was placed on Western Europe's employment for it's own citizens and wages started to drop. Then in 2000 -2010 the EU started expanding OPEN BORDERS to all refugee nations bringing more and more workers into Western and Eastern Europe from Africa, Arabia, Afghanistan et al. THEN COMES THE ECONOMIC CRASH FOR MASSIVE BANKING FRAUD AND SOVEREIGN DEBT FRAUD. So, we have a mix in Europe of global labor pool workers in all nations as an economic crash and austerity hit. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THERE WILL BE FACTIONING AND ANGER AGAINST ALL THESE MIGRATIONS. This anger is directed not only on global citizens brought in ---it is directed at EU -centered migration. ALL OF THIS WAS DELIBERATE FROM CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-- ---so yes, there is now a right wing fascism growing against migrating workers. It's not about not embracing immigrants ---it is about creating economic chaos.
This is to where the US will be heading under Trump----he will tie to World Bank IMF who will tell him to open borders to more global labor pool----in the midst of widespread economic depression/unemployment---with the same goals of widespread factioning and anger.
WE MUST STAND AS A 99% VS 1% ---DON'T BE ANGRY AT OUR IMMIGRANTS--GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS!
The EU's €110bn problem: slow death of Schengen risks new crisis for Europe's battered economies
One of EU's harshest critics calls on Brussels to preserve passport-free travel at all costs to stop the continent from descending into economic turmoil
Around 0.8pc of the EU’s total economic output would be lost within a decade if Schengen were fully dismantled Photo: Alamy
By Mehreen Khan
7:00PM GMT 07 Feb 2016
The collapse of the Schengen system of open borders risks plunging Europe into fresh economic turmoil, Hungary’s foreign minister has warned.
Europe’s escalating migration crisis- which saw over a million people pour into the continent last year - has led to the re-introduction of temporary border controls in the EU for the first time time in two decades, threatening to reverse one of Brussels’ landmark integration projects.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto
A full blown dismantling of the borderless zone - where people and trade can move without restriction between 26 countries - would cause “unforeseeable damage” to continent’s beleaguered economies, Peter Szijjarto, Hungary’s foreign minister has said.
“If the Schengen zone is going to be demolished or destroyed, then it will cause such serious economic damage that I don’t know how Europe is going to handle it", Mr Szijjarto told The Telegraph.
It will cause such serious economic damage that I don’t know how Europe is going to handle that
His warning comes amid fears that abolishing Europe's open borders would wipe €110bn off the EU's economies in 10 years.
Around 0.8pc of the EU’s total economic output would be lost within a decade if Schengen were fully dismantled, according to Strategie, a think-tank funded by the French government.
Falls in tourism would make up nearly half of the lost output, as the return of internal border checks would disrupt the widespread practice of short-term travel in the continent.
Permanent borders would also impose a 3pc tax on trade and lead to a 10pc-20pc decline in trade until 2026, said Strategie.
France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, and Slovenia have all introduced temporary border checks to deal with the unprecedented migrant and refugee flows which have descended on Europe since last summer.
EU leaders will gather next month to decide whether to suspend the Schengen agreement - first reached three decades ago - replacing it with a two-year emergency system of border controls as nations buckle under the pressure of the migrant crisis.
A further 1.3 million people are expected to arrive on the continent this year, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Goods worth €2.8 trillion travelled within the Schengen area last year and risk losing transport companies €3bn a year in revenues should permanent border restrictions return.
Around 1.7 million EU citizens also earn their salary in a different country to where they live, and face commuter disruption and border waiting times.
Last week, Pierre Moscovici, European Commissioner for economic affairs, called the move to roll back borderless Europe a “political and economic mistake”. The Commission has warned reversing Schengen would "have a disruptive impact on economic growth" in years to come.
Hungary’s Mr Szijjarto called on Brussels to preserve the passport-free area at all costs in a bid to stop Europe’s terminal economic decline in the global race of regional powers.
“The US is very strong, China has extensive economic policy, Arab states are getting stronger, and we Europeans are deeply into our own problems”, said Mr Szijjarto.
Without Schengen, the euro makes no sense
Hungary has been a ferocious critic of the EU’s handling of the migrant crisis, which has seen the biggest movement of people on its shores since the Second World War.
The right-wing government of prime minister Viktor Orban has drawn opprobrium for building a 25-mile razor wire fence along its southern border to deter refugee flows from Syria, Afghanistan and North Africa.
But Mr Szijjarto said his government was doing its “utmost” to keep Schengen alive by complying with its duty to protect the EU’s external border against the rest of the world.
“The Schengen zone is based on two elements: the first is that there is no controls within; and secondly, that we protect ourselves externally,” he said.
“If you break the second consensus, the first can be broken very easily.”
He warned that Europe's southern border was "defenceless" against migrant inflows, criticising Greece for its failure to set up hotspots to register the hundreds of thousands of people that have arrived on its shores.
If Greece does not comply with Schengen regulations, then we need another defence
Supported by Germany, Hungary has called on Brussels to step up its aid for Macedonia - which is not a member of the EU - creating a new de facto Schengen frontier, excluding Greece.
"If Greece does not comply with Schengen regulations, then we need another defence", said Mr Szijjarto.
"We expect a non-EU member state to defend the Schengen zone. But crisis times brings about crazy situations."
Now in its 21st year, the Schengen Agreement is at the heart of the EU's vision of a economically integrated continent. But its demise could also put new strains on Brussels other landmark federalist project - the euro.
Jean Claude-Juncker, president of the European Commission, has said restricting cross-border movement would undermine the sanctity of monetary union.
"Without Schengen, the euro makes no sense", Mr Juncker said last month.
"What is the point of having a single currency for the continent if you can’t travel freely across the continent?"
The Schengen Agreement
What is it?
An agreement, signed in 1985 in the town of Schengen in Luxembourg, to remove border checks within Europe. It means anyone, regardless of nationality, can move freely between member states without showing a passport or visa
Who is a member?
Not the UK. But most EU states are in, as are Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. In total, 26 countries comprising 400 million people
Why is it under strain?
Terrorists and mass migration. Police checks have been brought in on the Italian border at the request of Bavaria, amid a wave of non-EU migrants attempting to reach Germany. Angela Merkel warns the system will be pulled apart unless countries share asylum seekers. And Belgium wants more ID checks on trains in the wake of the Thalys train terrorist attack
Are checks legal?
Police are allowed to make targeted 'security' checks on the border, and states can impose border controls in an emergency or for major events for up to 30 days. But permanent, systematic checks on passports are forbidden
What does the European Union say?
Jean Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, says the system is non-negotiable, irreversible, and the EU's greatest achievement
What do Eurosceptics say?
"Schengen has now hit the buffers of the real world and is falling apart," says Nigel Farage, Ukip leader