Veracious News

[Rory]

 

News Articles | Podcasts | Digital Radio Shows

[Rory]

 

ECONOMY

The Dangers of 'Free Trade': Millions of America's Manufacturing Jobs Lost After 20 Years of NAFTA

A Populist Strain of the Republican Party Is Threatening Their Long-Held Positions On Trade Policy. Will The Democrats Follow Suit?

 

 

By Paul Newman

 

Since NAFTA's enactment and the U.S. and Chinese entrances in the World Trade Organization (WTO), trade deficits have increased more than 600 percent. The economy of the U.S. has hemorrhaged over five million jobs, with nearly 50,000 manufacturing facilities being shuttered. One of those factories that picked up and left the United States - and the families of their employees by the wayside - was Thomson Consumer Electronics.

 

On the day of his swearing in to the United States Senate, 56-year old David Stewart reflected on being laid-off in 2001 when the TV-parts factory picked up and left his hometown. Stewart, an Air-Force Veteran, is a rare breed compared to those who have walked the halls of the Upper House of the United States Congress. He's one of the most inexperienced Senators ever, with just two years of elected-office experience and is one of the most uneducated, having not even attended college. And had his job not been among the millions of casualties of globalization and free trade policies, he contends, he would've never stepped foot in Congress.

 

The freshman Senator is now among a cadre of Republican voices striking an inextricably populist tone related to the economy, particularly as it relates to trade. The policy-stance of the Republican party has long been that of so-called 'free' trade: importing and exporting goods to and from the United States with little to no barriers, and little to no costs. Or so we thought. President Reagan, who is up there with Jesus among conservative-devotees, once decried protectionism. "One of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity," he declared, "is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world.” The idea of 'free-trade' spoke to clear conservative pillars, such as limited government, market orientation, and even strong internationalism. Now a fresh protectionist perspective is gaining increasing spotlight in the GOP. 

 

During the 2016 presidential primaries, General Charles Walker received support from various anti-establishment political figures like former Governor and 2008 VP nominee Sarah Palin and Congressman Joe Wilson. One of the key themes of his campaign: tearing up trade deals. During speeches across South Carolina, a state he ended up winning against establishment Republican Katherine McCord, he promised to renegotiate "some of these bad trade deals that past leaders have gotten us into". On the list? NAFTA. Nearly a year later, Katherine McCord has become the third GOP presidential nominee in a row to lose to the Democratic nominee since 2008 and General Walker is now the Chairman of the Republican party.

 

As the first female president takes office and navigates an increasingly divisive country within a complicated world, some Republicans are not letting right-wing populism fade. Senator Stewart has been joined by other Republicans in opening salvos against NAFTA. Perhaps in a move to try to defuse the populist bomb, Democrats have elevated legislation focused on training programs for workers impacted by automation to the forefront of their agenda in the opening days of the new congressional session. Protectionist Republicans called their bluff, with Senator Stewart forcing a vote on legislation to repeal NAFTA. Democrats fell in the trap, voting en-masse against it, resulting in the likely need for damage control to combat the narrative that they support Wall Street - who are chief defenders of the trade pact. Interestingly, the Democratic party's position on free trade may be more complicated. In Bill Clinton's bid to restore Democrats to power in the 90s, the young president employed the strategy of political triangulation. On the economic front, this included unprecedented support for deregulation in the Democratic party, as wells as focus on balanced budgets and pro-business policies. And, of course, support for free trade. Clinton opined that millions of jobs would be created after the enactment of NAFTA, a trade deal he negotiated, opening up the U.S. economically with its North American partners more than any other pact before it. 

 

Clinton's policies, including the late-90s repeal of Glass-Steagall, a banking regulation package, contributed significantly to the financial crash of 2008, according to many analysts. President Obama's choice to not pursue accountability on Wall Street (besides a very strong lecture and finger-wagging), passing on potential legal ramifications and signing a rather watered-down regulatory reform deal, enraged progressives. President Xiomara de la Cruz ran a campaign largely focused on traditional liberal issues of health care, minimum wage, and breaking the glass ceiling - not populist outrage against the financial elite. Will the Democrats shift their focus toward more populist reforms or will they continue on their traditional trajectory, "finishing the job" of Obama's de-facto third-term? How will the Republican lurch toward populism impact their own party or influence their liberal counterparts? How will economic and political populism realign politics in America - and will it reverberate around the world? Only time will tell, but Veracious will keep track of it all.

Edited April 3 by Rory

[Rory]

BREAKING NEWS: EXCLUSIVE SCOOP

STONEWALL AND SECRECY: President Murphy Under Fire For Lack of Transparency with Gang of Eight on National Security Matters

Source: The Administration has not fulfilled its responsibilities to adequately inform the group on intelligence activities.

 

 

 

By Lucian Dean

 

Sources close to a member on the Gang of Eight reveal to Veracious that President Murphy's administration, carrying over from the former de la Cruz administration, has thus far failed to properly inform the constitutionally-backed leadership group on matters of national security, before or since the terrorist attack in the U.K. The accusations levied against the White House paint a picture of a presidency that has fallen short on transparency, consultation with congressional leadership, and responsiveness to inquiries from members of the Gang of Eight. It also shines a light on newly-confirmed Secretary of State Katrina Valdez, as well as White House National Security Advisor Cynthia Harvey and during a time in which the president is struggling to get a Secretary of Defense confirmed through the Senate.

 

Under normal circumstances, the President of the United States is required by law to brief the group of congressional leaders on matters of national security, or 'intelligence activities'. Of course, following the ISWAP attack on a concert in England, the crisis in Venezuela, and growing calls for security assessments of the southern border and reevaluations of refugee policies, those circumstances have been magnified exponentially. The Gang of Eight, comprised of leaders from both parties in both chambers of Congress, plays a pivotal role in overseeing and being briefed on classified intelligence matters. Their access to sensitive information is crucial for informed decision-making and effective oversight of national security policies. However, recent revelations suggest that the current and former administration has been lax in its duty to keep the Gang of Eight properly informed.

 

Sources close to the situation reveal that the President's team has been remiss in providing timely and accurate intelligence briefings to the Gang of Eight. This failure to keep congressional leaders abreast of significant developments in the realm of national security raises serious concerns about the administration's commitment to transparency and accountability.

 

When asked to comment, former Minority Leader David Stewart, who would have been privy to such briefings during his brief stint, tells Veracious he was not apart of any briefings. We've reached out to current members of the group and have not heard any official word. We've also reached out to White House National Security Advisor Cynthia Harvey, who refused to comment on the matter.

 

The implications of these revelations are far-reaching and raise serious questions about the administration's handling of national security matters. In a time of heightened global threats and geopolitical tensions, national security experts say it is imperative that the President and Congress work together in a spirit of unity and cooperation to protect the safety and security of the American people. 

 

 

Edited May 2 by Rory

[Rory]

 

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Populist Wave Crashes Ashore in France - Is America Next?

With a concerted campaign by certain Republicans on immigration and the economy, right-wing populism may rise on this side of the Atlantic

 

 

By Paul Newman

 

The global populist revolt has begun with a victory in France, where right-wing firebrand Marine Le Pen has stormed the Élysée Palace. Le Pen's stunning defeat of another populist, left-wing politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon, signals a seismic shift in European politics and a resounding rejection of the globalist, open borders dogma peddled by out-of-touch elites.

 

Le Pen's National Front party rode a wave of working-class discontent fueled by economic stagnation, fears over terrorism and unchecked immigration, and anger at a political establishment perceived as corrupt and indifferent to the struggles of ordinary people. Sound familiar? The same forces that propelled Le Pen to power are alive and well here in the United States, perhaps.

 

The ingredients for a populist surge are simmering in America. Wage growth has been sluggish for blue-collar workers, even as the economy has improved. The border crisis remains a flashpoint, with controversial figures like Senator Jason Roy stoking nationalist sentiments and fears about the impact of illegal immigration on jobs and security. Terrorism also remains a top concern.

 

In this climate, unconventional proposals are gaining traction. Since the beginning of the newest congressional session, former factory worker David Stewart, the recently-elected Senator from Pennsylvania, has been preaching a message about the hardworking men and women who form the backbone of America having watched their wages flatline, their jobs disappear, and their communities transformed by a surge of illegal immigration. He launched a war on the now-controversial NAFTA free trade agreement and on the Republican political establishment, saying that the working class has been dismissed and their values mocked by condescending elites in Washington, academia, and the media. In a highly-publicized move, Senator Stewart recently put forward an amendment to an Appalachia-focused bill to open up oil drilling off the West Coast and provide a $5,000 tax credit to workers in industries not requiring a college degree, like building trades, construction and energy. While the measure ultimately failed, with establishment senators on both sides opposing it, the amendment has generated significant buzz and highlighted the appetite for policies catering directly to blue-collar Americans.

As the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential race approach, these undercurrents could pose a challenge to the Democratic establishment. The party currently holds a narrow Senate majority and occupies the White House under President Doug Murphy. But Murphy, despite his working-class Wisconsin roots, may be vulnerable if he's perceived as out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans.

The populist right smells blood in the water. Led by firebrands like Roy and Stewart, they are hammering a message of America First nationalism and vowing to disrupt the status quo. Roy in particular has gained notoriety for his hardline stances on immigration and provocative rhetoric. While more measured Republicans have distanced themselves, Roy commands a devoted following among conservatives who feel the party establishment has failed them. The ingredients are all there: stagnant wages, a still-simmering border crisis, the ever-present threat of terrorism, and a rising tide of anger at a dysfunctional political system rigged to benefit the elite at the expense of the many. The only question is which visionary leader will harness the energy and seize the moment.

The Democrats, on the other hand, face a tricky balancing act. They must shore up their base of minority and educated voters while also making inroads with white working-class voters in key Rust Belt and Midwest states. Failure to do so could hand the Republicans the Senate majority and open the door for a populist outsider to pull a Le Pen-style upset in 2020. However, the Democrats have some factors working in their favor. The economy continues to grow, albeit slowly. Murphy's approval ratings, while not stellar for honeymooner, remain steady. And the party will likely try to recruit a diverse crop of candidates, including military veterans and business owners, to compete in swing districts and states. 

 

Much will depend on whether President Murphy and Congressional Democrats can deliver tangible results for working families in the coming months. Infrastructure investment, job training initiatives, and targeted tax relief could blunt the populist appeal. But if Murphy is seen as prioritizing identity politics over kitchen-table issues, he may pay the price at the ballot box.

One thing seems certain: the populist genie is out of the bottle, and establishment figures in both parties ignore it at their peril. The shock waves from Le Pen's victory are reverberating across the Atlantic, and the 2018 and 2020 elections could bring more seismic shifts. In an age of disruption, no one's political future is secure. The party that can channel the populist energy while offering pragmatic solutions to the struggles of working-class Americans may ultimately emerge victorious. But as France has shown, the winds of change are blowing, and the next populist upset may be closer than we think.

 

 

Edited May 6 by Rory

[Rory]

 

ECONOMY

President Murphy Takes Mayor de Blasio's "Fight for $15" National: How Millions of Small Town Americans Could Be Kicked Off of Public Assistance As a Result

The unintended consequences of a national $15 minimum wage hike might include millions of minority, suburban and rural workers thrust into poverty, in the long-term, from a combination of public assistance banishment and inflationary pressure.

 

 

By Linda Suarez

 

President Doug Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Diego Everhart have fully embraced the "Fight for $15" campaign first championed by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, vowing to more than double the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour. While supporters argue it will provide a much-needed boost to millions of struggling low-wage workers, critics warn of severe economic consequences that could leave the most vulnerable worse off.

 

In a fiery "Gateway Address" in St. Louis, President Murphy declared, "For too long, Americans have been forced to pay for more with less in their bank. It's time to give hardworking folks a raise and make sure full-time work pays the bills." The Democratic leadership has incorporated the $15 wage floor into their "American Families Pact" agenda. However, many economists caution that more than doubling the minimum wage could lead to significant job losses, particularly in the service sector, as businesses struggle to absorb the massive increase in labor costs. Grocery stores, restaurants, and retailers - who employ a large share of minimum wage workers - would be forced to slash hours and positions or raise prices to stay afloat. Perversely, some workers could end up worse off financially.

 

"These policies will only drive up costs for everyone, hurting families and stalling economic growth," warned Sen. Kimberly Atkins (R-AZ) on Meet the Press. "We need responsible, market-based solutions, not big-government mandates that will burden hardworking Americans."

 

There are also concerns that millions of low-wage workers, particularly in small towns and counties throughout America, could lose crucial public assistance benefits if their incomes rise above eligibility thresholds, disproportionately impacting working class Americans in rust belt communities. A single mother with two kids earning $7.25/hour would qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies in most states - aid that would likely be cut off at $15/hour, even as she'd face higher prices for basic goods, banishing her from public assistance while slamming her with inflationary pressure. Some workers could end up with less disposable income. Businesses will look to offset increased labor costs, either through cutting jobs or raising prices. Higher prices would impact all consumers but disproportionately strain the budgets of the poorest households. So while minimum wage workers would earn more, those gains could be diluted by having to pay more for rent, groceries, and other basic goods. These risks are magnified for minorities, who are overrepresented in low-wage jobs and tend to experience higher unemployment. While many minority workers would benefit from a pay bump, they may disproportionately bear the brunt of job losses and safety net cuts.

 

Republicans have pounced on these potential downsides, dubbing the Democrats' plans the "Inflation Expansion Act." In an appearance on CNN, Sen. Jim Cambridge (R-IA) blasted the proposal: "Unfortunately, where the bottom 99% of America live, we just simply cannot afford the consequences that will come from a $15 minimum wage," the Iowan Republican said. "This kind of lurch would throw our economy into chaos, wreaking havoc on the markets and increasing prices so exorbitantly that no American will feel a wage increase but instead will feel their budgets hamstrung so hard they'll be rationing food to their families."

 

Cambridge also chided Murphy and Everhart for hitching their wagon to the deeply unpopular de Blasio who has embraced the "Fight for $15" and pursued it in NYC and is facing a tough reelection battle against moderate Republican Raymond Kelly. "The problem with that Erin, politically, is that most Democrats don't even support Mayor de Blasio," Cambridge continued. "Like Senator Carlsen said, Bill de Blasio and his policies have been terribly out of depth. We cannot afford to have presidential and congressional leadership that is out-of-depth, out-of-step, and out-of-touch with the American people."

 

Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) has publicly endorsed Mayor de Blasio's opponent, former police commissioner Raymond Kelly - who is running on the Republican ticket. Moderate Democrats are indeed expressing reservations about tying the party's national agenda to the controversial mayor. They worry de Blasio's tarnished brand could drag down other Democrats and are urging leadership to chart a more centrist course.

 

Fight for $15 advocates argue the predictions of economic doom are overblown, pointing to cities like Seattle that have raised wages without the sky falling. They say a national $15 minimum wage, phased in over several years, is needed to ensure a basic standard of living for all workers and would boost economic growth by putting more money in the pockets of consumers - providing a much-needed pay boost to millions of low-wage workers struggling to get by; stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending; and reduce reliance on public assistance. 

 

"Activists, donors" said Senator Camilo deSonido (D-CA) at an exclusive, swanky, high-dollar Hollywood donor meeting. "Together, we can and must ensure that the $15 minimum wage becomes a reality, not just a promise."

 

As the debate heats up, all eyes will be on Capitol Hill to see if Democrats can unite around the $15 figure or if moderates peel off amid economic anxieties. Any minimum wage hike will face stiff GOP resistance in a divided Congress, except from Minority Leader Cliff Fleming, who has endorsed a raise, though not as high as $15. But having claimed the mantle of the working class, President Murphy has staked his political capital on delivering a big pay raise to America's lowest earners, betting that voters will reward Democrats for putting more cash in their pockets. Critics contend he may end up putting much more than political fortunes at risk.

 

The Fight for $15 has succeeded in making a national $15 minimum wage a mainstream Democratic priority, but the policy remains contentious. As the debate shifts from city councils and statehouses to Capitol Hill, policymakers will need to grapple with how to raise wages for underpaid workers while mitigating harm to the most vulnerable. A $15 minimum wage would be a monumental, far-reaching economic policy change. The challenge will be making it a rising tide that truly lifts all boats.

 

[Rory]

 

POLITICS

Behind Closed Doors: Heather James' Pro-Wall Street Donor Speech Exposes Democratic Rift, Threatens Party's Working-Class Appeal & "American Families" Agenda

The firebrand Senator from Washington revealed to wealthy donors behind the scenes what Democrats refuse to say publicly, overshadowing the party's new PR plan.

 

 

By Lucian Dean

 

Soon after Doug Murphy took-over from cancer-stricken former President Xiomara de la Cruz, he promised his administration was renegotiating the much-maligned trade deal NAFTA. But behind closed doors at a recent high-dollar fundraiser, Senator Heather James (D-WA) delivered a full-throated defense of free trade, exposing possibly deep divisions within the Democratic party and threatening to undermine the White House's "working class" message and PR plan ahead of the 2018 midterms.

 

"While I have any say in the Democratic party, I will continue to fight for open and free trade, to defend the gains made by NAFTA," Sen. James told the room of wealthy donors, warning that the President's promised NAFTA renegotiations would "likely be devastating" to the economy. The remarks were a stark departure from the almost-populist rhetoric that has been adopted by the White House following President Murphy's "Gateway Address" in St. Louis, where he unveiled his economic agenda focused on raising wages and delivering gains to working class Americans.

 

For decades, Democrats joined with Republicans in championing free trade agreements like NAFTA, which was signed by President Clinton in 1993. But those deals have come under increasing fire from both the left and right for accelerating the offshoring of American jobs, depressing wages, and exploding the trade deficit. Freshman Republican Senator David Stewart has tapped into this backlash this year, breaking with GOP orthodoxy to rail against "disastrous" trade policies and pledge a more protectionist approach. Now it's President Murphy vowing to make trade work for the middle and working class. "As someone who has been a critic of NAFTA's flaws," says Murphy outside of the White House, "I look forward to productive negotiations with our partners in Canada and Mexico that protect American workers and unions." 

 

But Senator James' private assurances to corporate donors suggest that, beneath the populist veneer, much of the Democratic establishment remains wedded to the free trade agenda long favored by its Wall Street wing. While Murphy brushes off concerns and says he's for renegotiating NAFTA, James and her Senate Democratic colleagues have repeatedly voted down measures from Sen. David Stewart (R-PA) that would mandate such negotiations. 

 

Stewart, a former factory worker who lost his job when his plant moved overseas, has found common cause with critics of free-trade, blasting Democrats for siding with "globalist billionaires" over workers. "By voting down the opportunity to get NAFTA renegotiated, the Democrat party have made it abundantly clear that they are on the side of the financial elite," Stewart fumed in a press release. He has charged, before the latest swanky Democratic fundraiser in Hollywood, that Democratic leadership takes "hundreds of millions of dollars from globalist billionaires in exchange for policies...[that have] ruined our country's economy, taking away our jobs and shifting America's economic prowess to other countries, on the backs of real hard-working Americans." While numbers are scarce on how much was raised, it's possible Wall Street will indeed be lining the pockets of the Democratic leadership after being enamored by Senator James' speech.

 

Indeed, while Murphy seeks to brand himself as a working-class crusader, his party remains heavily reliant on contributions from Big Business and Wall Street donors who have benefited from trade deals like NAFTA. That financing has bought not just access, but policy influence. James, for example, is a leading Democratic proponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade agreements, both of which has been widely opposed by labor unions and progressives. James said as much while dining with Wall Street donors. And she made clear her free trade advocacy will continue, with or without the White House's blessing. "So even if we can no longer rely on the bully pulpit of the White House, so long as I'm in a position to influence anything – and I accept, this session, I have largely not been – trade is going to remain on the agenda," James told donors.

 

That agenda seems increasingly at odds with the economic populism Democrats are selling on the campaign trail with proposals like a $15 minimum wage. While President Murphy has made Senator James a prominent fixture of his "American Families Pact" platform, James' closed-door comments suggest Democratic leaders are still pushing a Wall Street-friendly approach behind the scenes, threatening to undercut their public messaging. 

 

Republicans, meanwhile, have made a concerted play for blue-collar voters by largely embracing the protectionist "America First" mantle. "I'll be damned if the Republican party will continue to be complicit in this globalist scheme that has ruined many of our lives forever," Sen. Stewart bellowed in a Wisconsin speech earlier this year. "Now is the time to replace globalism with Americanism. I will fight for America First."

 

As the 2018 midterms approach, this shifting landscape around trade and economic populism is sure to shape races up and down the ballot, particularly in states hit hard by deindustrialization. It remains to be seen if the Republican party will further embrace and advance the kind of right-wing populism flourishing overseas. Democrats' success may hinge on convincing working-class voters that they will fight for them over their corporate donors. Senator James' "free trade" assurances to Wall Street threaten to make that pitch a much tougher sell.
 

Edited Monday at 05:45 AM by Rory