Oligarchs without Borders

The Hand of Austerity

The right to collectively bargain for wages is getting the ax in Great Briton. It seems union busting sickness has spread from America's borders clear on over to Europe - or is it the other way around? Bad ideas are like gossip, they spread fast and far, and as long as those precious few with all of that concentrated wealth continue to rule the world - the reaming will continue.

Millions of teachers, nurses, civil servants and other public sector workers are to lose their right to national pay rates, the Chancellor George Osborne will announce in next week’s Budget.

George Osborne will say that public sector employees in poorer parts of the country should have their pay frozen until it is brought into line with local private sector workers.
Gee, that idea seems strangely familiar- isn't Mitt Romney hyping the same thing here? Bringing public wages down to so-called private sector levels? or as it could be called, the Walmartinization of America.


Are we witnessing something akin to Oligarchs without borders?

Mr Osborne originally intended to introduce local pay rates in April 2013, but has decided to bring the plans forward by a year in an attempt to boost growth. ( by making everyone poorer )

The move is likely to be met with a furious response from unions, which are already threatening industrial action over cuts to pensions.

The Chancellor will publish figures that show that in some parts of England and Wales public sector workers earn almost a fifth more than those in equivalent jobs in the private sector. What he and all of the other feudal lords forget to mention is the fact that private sector wages are declining at an alarming rate. It's a race to the bottom on a global scale.

The Treasury argues that the pay gap leaves private companies struggling to compete for the best staff against public sector organisations, whose workers also enjoy better pensions and job security. So the only solution offered is to bring everyone down in order to grow the economy?

Shrinking something makes it bigger.

Does this same solution apply to those banking executives and corporate CEO's?

The National Union of Teachers said it was calling a one-day strike in London on March 28 as the next step in its pensions campaign. Mr Osborne, however, is determined to push ahead with the reforms to pay and pensions. The Treasury wants to base the plans on a local-pay system introduced for staff in courts under the previous government

1. End public union collective bargaining completely
2. End all prevailing wages laws including Davis Bacon
3. Institute National Right-to-Work Laws

Taking away people's right to collective bargaining just like the Republican agenda in the good ole USA.


Public sector wages did not create the economic crisis; the Wall Street banks taking too many risks and getting bailed out by public money did, then they dumped their toxic junk into the financial stream that spread across the planet. How many governments have been crippled by the financial elite and their investments of death?

It wasn't your mail carrier, or your kid's science teacher, or the guy down at the DMV who wrecked the economy.

Don't balance the books on the backs of workers. Instead of bringing down public sector wages, how about bringing private sector wages up to parity? The austerity agenda will only benefit corporations and banks, leaving the 99% in poverty with no purchasing power to buy goods and services. Capitalism has to realize that the workers deserve a fair share of the profit their labor generates, otherwise the labor will cease.

And when that happens - it all comes to a grinding halt.


Austerity and belt tightening is right there at the top of the Banks' agenda. The unconscious parroting of that agenda is what will make us all boiled frogs and serfs, and the world safe for international banking.


The banksters are an international hornet's nest of criminals still running the gambling casino. 

They are addicts in need of an intervention.

We are their intervention. It's time to initiate a little international 12 step solution.

ickenittle

Even God gets Foreclosed On

"What do you mean
I'm 90 days late?"

The latest victims in the foreclosure fraud madness isn't what you'd expect. After making countless thousands of people homeless in their ruthless racketeering, many of the too-big-to-fail banking cartels are now fixing an unholy eye on, of all things, houses of worship.

The surge in church foreclosures represents a new wave of distressed property seizures triggered by the 2008 financial crash, analysts say, with many banks no longer willing to grant struggling religious organizations forbearance.

The church foreclosures have hit all denominations across America, but with small to medium size houses of worship the worst. Most of these institutions have ended up being purchased by other churches in a kind of corporate take-over.

The highest percentage have occurred in some of the states hardest hit by the home foreclosure crisis: California, Georgia, Florida and Michigan.

"Churches are among the final institutions to get foreclosed upon because banks have not wanted to look like they are being heavy handed with the churches," said Scott Rolfs, managing director of Religious and Education finance at the investment bank Ziegler.

Church defaults differ from residential foreclosures. Most of the loans in question are not 30-year mortgages but rather commercial loans that typically mature after just five years when the full balance becomes due immediately, which with falling donations due to the economy, have left many churches struggling.
Its common practice for banks to refinance such loans when they come due. But banks have become increasingly reluctant to do that because of pressure from regulators to clean up their balance sheets.

The factors leading to the boom in church foreclosures will sound familiar to many private homeowners evicted from their properties in recent years.
During the property boom, many churches took out additional loans to refurbish or enlarge, often with major lenders or with the Evangelical Christian Credit Union, which was particularly aggressive in lending to religious institutions.
Then after the financial crash, many churchgoers lost their jobs, donations plunged, and often, so did the value of the church building.

Most churches fell victim to the infamous balloon loan, a long-term loan, often a mortgage, that has a large, or balloon, payment due upon maturity. They often have very low interest payments and require little capital outlay during the life of the loan due to the large end payment.

Right-wingers might argue that these churches were purchased by people who bought more church than they could afford. After all it's never the holiest of institutions who are ever to blame - the big banks. If there was a market for bundling and packaging human souls as investments you know who would be the first to introduce them to investors.

Everything has a price, and as long as someone can profit off of misery there will always be a market.

Isn't that the definition of capitalism?

Capitalism doesn't have to worry however, because it doesn't have a soul.

ickenittle

The US is not the Soviet Union

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

And this means all employers in Arizona folks, not just the ones affiliated with a religious organization.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

Well lady, I hate to inform you that there once was day where mom and pop employers wouldn't hire "coloreds" because it went against their moral beliefs -- Sheesh.


Lesko said this bill responds to a contraceptive mandate in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law March 2010.
“My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said. “All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.”

The term "any religious objections" can certainly cover a wide swath of ground, but of course our benevolent "job creators" wouldn't take advantage of such a gap -- or would they if it meant a larger bottom line?

Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant.

It's all about freedom, she said. But whose freedom are we talking about preserving here? Since when do religious people get to trample on everyone else's rights, then have the nerve to call what they are doing freedom? So a boss gets to dictate to an employee just what kind of care they can have based on the bosses religious beliefs?

 Mired deep within this legislation clearly shows the insanity within.

Removes the provision of law that allows a religious employer whose religious tenets prohibit the use of prescribed contraceptive methods to require the corporation to provide a contract without coverage for all FDA approved contraceptive methods.

 Asserts that a contract shall not be considered to have failed if the contract’s failure to provide coverage of specific items or services related to contraception is because providing or paying for coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan; or because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

 Requires that a written affidavit be filed with the corporation stating the objection, if an objection triggers the subsection.

 Directs the corporation to retain the affidavit for the duration of contract and any renewals of the contract.

Specifies that coverage for prescriptive contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider for uses other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes are not excluded.

Allows a corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan to state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation.

Permits a corporation to charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

Removes the requirement that every religious employer that provide prospective insureds written notice that the religious employer refuses to cover all FDA-approved contraceptive methods for religious purposes.

Deletes the definition of religious employer.

Removes the provision that prohibits religious employers from discriminating against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.
There are some pretty vicious provisions in there. A woman will have to pay out of pocket, make a claim, prove to the corporation's satisfaction that she isn't a slut, then she might get her money back at their discretion. The company can also fire her if she gets her contraceptives from her own insurance company or pays for them out of pocket anyway. Wow.

This is purposefully designed to demonstrate to female employees they are not fully human. It's pure misogyny, which for republicans is shorthand for " We want to control your lady-parts because you might mis-use them for other things than procreation.

These people have no shame at all. They have clearly lost their minds.

Why do conservative republicans continue to wage war on all of us?

Because they are Cheap Bastards - that's why.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety
net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations
can pay you whatever they feel like.... You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to
"work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other
improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo
all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why.
Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a
barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when
labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems
workers don't like being "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality",
"virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why.
So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality",
lack of "values" and "poor choices".

Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia
and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts
them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage
earners.

The party of "cheap labor" are only interested in keeping everyone over a barrel because its the only way they can keep their unfair advantage running along full speed ahead.


I just like to point out to this Debbie Lesko who penned the AZ bill, may be surprised to find out that the Soviet Union ceased to exist quite some time ago, 1991 to be exact. Then again, she's still living in the Nazi era.



Republican ideology



If women have to justify the use of drugs which have contraceptive uses, men should have to sign statements indicating that their Viagra is being taken for procreation only.

Otherwise suffer the consequences boys- and don't expect the tax payer to pick up the tab so you can keep your little soldier saluting at full attention.




ickenittle

Don't Fix What's not Broken H.R 347

Your government's message
to you.

The House of Representatives have come up with a terrible bill that will put conditions on your right to peacefully assemble. H.R. 347 will make it illegal to protest any government owned building - like say for instance, the White house.  Might as well just protest in your own front yard.

According to the First Amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 (H.R. 347 vote tally 388-3) and the Senate (S.1794 passed with unanimous consent, no voting records were kept of which Senators approved, so the cowards could remain anonymous.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 essentially strips Americans of their right to protest and assemble in government buildings or on public or private grounds where events of “national significance” are taking place.

The summary of the bill clearly outlines the direct attack on our First Amendment protections which allow for peaceable assembly and public redress of grievances against our government or elected officials within it:

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance. 

Bill sponsor Tom Rooney (R-FL) claimed in a tweet responding to grievances on the Internet, that “HR 347 does not effect your right to protest in any way whatsoever. It deals with fence jumpers, not protesters.”

Liar...

As it turns out, the two page bill deals not just with ‘fence jumpers,’ but also lays the groundwork for all protests, gatherings and political dissent in any facility or grounds in the United States of America that has been identified as a place of ‘national significance’ or where the Secret Service is charged with the protection of an individual – ANY individual, whether it’s the President, a congressional member or anyone else of national interest.

Obviously aimed at the Occupy Movement, these modifications to U.S. Code Title 18 Section 1752 will seriously diminish the right of American citizens to petition their Government for a redress of grievances by outlawing protests where key government officials or other VIPs may be nearby. Federal law enforcement agents will be empowered to bring these charges against Americans engaged in political protests anywhere in the country, and violators will face criminal penalties that include imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Americans cannot effectively exercise their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances if they cannot get close enough to state their protest to key government officials at "official functions" and "special events" - e.g. fundraisers, campaign stops and political conventions - without risking arrest and imprisonment for a year or more. And any protest that doesn't "impede or disrupt the orderly conduct" of its targeted venue isn't likely to have much of an impact.

Newsflash: Civil disobedience only works if you are challenging those in power and accepting the consequences of breaking the law. You can't get permission to have a revolution.

Will the day come when the likes of Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P.Morgan Chase, or Goldman Sachs's own Loyd Blankfein be considered those "people of national interest." After all corporations are people too.

This is serious business, and you can be assured that, while Tom Rooney may have meant for the bill to stop fence jumpers, it can and will be used for far more than that:

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidentally disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

BTW, just hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection…

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — whether it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense…

For those who will undoubtedly be charged under the new legislation, the penalties will be severe.

If you are found to possess a weapon deemed as dangerous (not necessarily a gun) when you knowingly enter an event of national significance you can be imprisoned for up to ten years.

If you are a peaceful, unarmed protester and you disrupt an event you’ll be treated with a bit more mercy by our benevolent leaders and be given up to one (1) year in prison.
With what we’ve seen over the last few year in Greece, greater Europe, Syria, and even the United States, the legislation makes complete sense from a government standpoint. What better way to keep dissenters and protesters quiet than to imprison them for months or years? It will take only a few public examples the next time a Tea Party or Occupy style protest take place and millions of Americans will understand that staying home and staying silent is their new Patriotic duty.

And, if it so happens that protests turn to violent rioting and civil unrest, the government will have the pretext to arrest, detain and imprison anyone and everyone in those ‘restricted areas of national significance.’

What are they so afraid of?  or better yet, what do they know that we don't?

It seems the elites are making themselves publicly untouchable. There is something in the legislation that says things of national interest, well what happens when banking, big business and everything else they view important becomes something nobody is allowed to protest. They are insulating themselves from the public -  so they think.


Keep your pitchforks handy, and stock up on tar and feathers- while supplies last.


We may need them sooner than we think.

ickenittle