Why Does Texas Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R) Hate America and Low Income Women

Why Does Texas Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R) Hate America and Low Income Women

Over the past several weeks, thousands of Texas activists have been protesting their GOP-controlled legislature’s decision to push through a controversial package of abortion restrictions. Nonetheless, the anti-abortion bills are successfully advancing this week. The Texas House gave preliminary approval to the legislation on Tuesday evening — after Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R), the bill’s sponsor, kicked off the debate by prominently displaying a pair of baby shoes “to represent aborted babies who can’t speak out against the procedure.”

Laubenberg has been thrust into the national spotlight amid the ongoing protests over Texas’ proposed abortion bill. And, even as the rest of the country continues to follow the contentious debate in the Lone Star State, the Republican lawmaker has steadfastly refused to back down from her stringent anti-choice agenda. For more than nine hours on Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers attempted to tweak the abortion legislation. They suggested adding an exception for victims of rape or incest, adding an exception for Texans who can prove they didn’t receive accurate sex ed, and repealing the provision that will force abortion clinics across the state to close, among other changes — but Laubenberg rejected each one.

But it’s hardly the first time that the GOP lawmaker from Parker, TX has stubbornly staked out an extreme position. Laubenberg, who ran unopposed in the 2012 election, has a long history of far-right politics in the Texas legislature:

    She’s ranked the third most conservative member of the Texas House.

    The Texas Conservative Coalition gives Laubenberg a 94.15 out of 100 on the “comprehensive TCC scorecard,” which rates lawmakers on their right-wing credentials. That’s the third highest score among all the legislators in her chamber, securing Laubenberg a place in the conservative group’s “Member Spotlight” hall of fame. She joined the state’s Tea Party Caucus in 2010, and she was one of a handful of representatives endorsed by the Texas Tea Party in the 2012 elections.

    She recently claimed rape kits are a form of abortion.

    During Texas’ first special session, Laubenberg attempted to defend the fact that her proposed 20-week abortion ban didn’t include an exception for rape victims. “In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out,” Laubenberg claimed on the House floor, suggesting that rape kits include an optional abortion procedure. In fact, rape kits collect DNA evidence that could be useful in a criminal investigation, and are completely unrelated to pregnancy. The AP reported that Laubenberg “has difficulty debating bills” and chose to remain silent during the rest of the discussion about her abortion legislation, rejecting all future proposed amendments to the bill without speaking.

    She accused Texas’ budget board of using “government math” when it pointed out that cutting family planning funds would lead to more unplanned births.

    In 2011, when the Texas legislature approved deep cuts to family planning programs, the state’s Legislative Budget Board warned lawmakers that decision would have some financial consequences. The government estimated that funding affordable contraception would save Texas $80 million in its next two-year budget because fewer babies would be born to low-income women enrolled in Medicaid (a health outcome that the Health Department regularly measures). “We’re going to save on the non-babies that are being born? We’re going to prevent baby births?” Laubenberg responded. “This has got to be government math.”

    She argued that low-income pregnant women shouldn’t get government-sponsored prenatal care because their fetuses aren’t born yet.

    Laubenberg has been arguing in favor of her proposed abortion restrictions under the logic that life begins at conception. “If you believe that (a fetus) is a human being, then that human being also has rights, and we must protect that baby’s rights,” Laubenberg said earlier this month. But she doesn’t necessarily take that stance when it comes to poorer women’s fetuses. In 2007, she proposed requiring pregnant women to wait three months before becoming eligible to receive prenatal and perinatal benefits under the Children’s Health Insurance Program. When Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia pointed out that change would kick more than 95,000 low-income women — and their unborn children — out of the government program, Laubenberg responded, “They’re not born yet.” When Anchia suggested her amendment wasn’t pro-life, Laubenberg yelled at him — but later withdrew her amendment.

    She backs unconstitutional legislation to allow Texas to defy federal gun regulations.

    It’s already harder to get an abortion than it is to get a gun, but Laubenberg wants to keep furthering the divide. As just one of many pro-gun advocates in the Texas House, she recently sponsored a bill that would allow firearm and ammunition manufacturers operating inside Texas to exempt themselves from federal gun laws. She also co-sponsored an even more far-reaching proposal that would make enforcing federal gun laws a felony in Texas. Laubenberg’s positions on gun issues have earned her a 92 percent approval rating from the NRA.

    She’s the state chair for ALEC in Texas.

    Perhaps unsurprising given her legislative positions, Laubenberg serves as Texas’ state chair for ALEC, the right-wing group that coordinates conservative legislation across different states. The lawmakers who are appointed to state chairmen positions help recruit new members for the group, as well as help push ALEC’s draft legislation — like measures to ban paid sick days, eliminate environmental protections on public lands, allow the use of deadly force for self-defense, bust unions, and ultimately further corporate interests — toward approval in their states.

Jodie Laubenberg is taking us back to the days of the Confederacy, claiming that some Americans have the right to deny other Americans dominion over their own bodies. Jodie, Rick Perry and other anti-American Texas conservatives have passed legislation that will increase dangerous illegal abortions. In her view of what rape kits are, Jodie displays the kind of willful ignorance that one usually finds in radical Islamic fundamentalists - so hey Texas, Jodie and her conservative radical friends just made Texas more like Iran. ALEC is known to be the real life version of the corrupt sleazy money+power organizations we see in political thrillers. They bypass the democratic process, humanity and common decency by buying legislators like Jodie and the legislation they want passed. What is the difference between Jodie and Confederate president Jefferson Davis or between Jodie and the supreme ayatollah of Iran? Not much.

Conservatism, The Movement of UnAmerican Neo-Confederates

Top,    Here's Jim DeMint laughing it up with the neoconderate who wrote his book

Neo-Confederate Rand Paul Aide A Daily Caller Contributor, Fox Regular

Jack Hunter, a congressional aide to Sen. Rand Paul with a history of "neo-Confederate" and "pro-secessionist" views, has produced dozens of articles and video commentaries for The Daily Caller and appeared as what one Fox Business host termed a "regular" guest on that network. He also helped then-Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), currently the president of The Heritage Foundation, write his most recent book.

The conservative Washington Free Beacon reported today that Hunter, a "close" Rand Paul aide who also co-wrote the Kentucky Republican's 2011 book, "spent years working as a pro-secessionist radio pundit and neo-Confederate activist ... Hunter was a chairman in the League of the South, which 'advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic.'"

Free Beacon also quoted Hunter's South Carolina radio commentary under the pseudonym "The Southern Avenger" in which he expressed adoration for Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth, indignation that white Americans are treated to a "racial double standard," and opposition to Spanish-speaking immigrants. Hunter reportedly "told the Free Beacon that he no longer holds many of these views," including his pro-Lincoln assassin views, but "declined to say that he no longer supports secession."

Free Beacon further reported that "[d]uring public appearances, Hunter often wore a mask on which was printed a Confederate flag"

Conservatives Love America So Much They're Making America More Like Chile

Conservatives Love America So Much They're Making America More Like Chile

An 11-year-old Chilean girl who has become pregnant from rape is renewing a contentious debate over abortion in the conservative Catholic country, where the medical procedure is illegal under all circumstances. Doctors have warned that continuing the pregnancy will be dangerous for the 11-year-old’s health, as well as for the health of her fetus. But, under Chile’s total abortion ban, she is forced to continue it anyway.

The young girl is now 14 weeks pregnant. Her mother’s boyfriend has confessed to sexually abusing the child over the past two years, and is now in custody.

Abortion was legal in Chile under some medical circumstances until Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship instated a total ban in 1973. The current conservative administration has remained firmly opposed to loosening the harsh ban. According to the Santiago Times, Chile is now one of just six countries in the world — including Vatican City — with such stringent anti-abortion laws.

But now that the 11-year-old’s case has been made public, Chileans are beginning to push for change. Some opponents have started an online petition to demand legal abortion access in cases when the woman has been raped or when the woman’s health is at risk.

“It’s the first online petition I’ve signed in my life, but I think this case really deserves it. I hope this case serves as precedent to have a serious discussion about abortion,” Eduardo Hernandez, a 30-year-old Chilean web designer, told the Associated Press. “When I heard about this little girl, my first reaction was to support abortion because I think it’s the best option in this case.”

This past year, the Chilean Senate rejected three different bills that would have loosened the total ban. But some of Chile’s presidential candidates have indicated that they support amending the abortion law. Former president Michele Bachelet, who is emerging as a front-runner in the country’s upcoming election, confirmed on Twitter that she would work to decriminalize abortion for rape victims if she is elected.

Yet, apparently modeling themselves on the governing principles of Chilean dictators, governors Rick Perry and Scott Walker, with the backing of their authoritarian comrades in their state legislature, are making the USA a little more like Chile.

UnAmerican conservative libertarian activist Adam Kokesh thinks the only Constitutional right that matters is a loaded shotgun

UnAmerican conservative libertarian activist Adam Kokesh thinks the only Constitutional right that matters is a loaded shotgun

The libertarian activist Adam Kokesh who called for and then canceled an armed march on Washington uploaded a YouTube video on July 4 that shows him loading a shotgun in the center of Freedom Plaza, Washington, D.C, near the White House. In the video, Kokesh cryptically warns, “We will not allow our government to destroy our humanity. We are the final American revolution. See you next Independence Day.”

...Kokesh, who has also compared himself to Gandhi, has even implied violence as the end result. “Should one whole year from this July 4th pass while the crimes of this government are allowed to continue, we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible,” he said in a statement.

So Kokesh thinks the 2nd Amendment, the one about a well "regulated" militia is the only right worth killing people for. Note he shows no support for the right to free speech or the rights enumerated in the 4th Amendment. he would love living in Iran where the only right they have is the right to have an assault weapon.

Anti-American Fanatics Breitbart and Sarah Palin Get Immigration Reform's Impact Completely Wrong

Anti-American Fanatics Breitbart and Sarah Palin Get Immigration Reform's Impact Completely Wrong

Right-wing media outlets cherry-picked data from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Senate's immigration reform proposal to incorrectly claim that the bill would hurt American workers. In fact, the CBO report found that the Senate immigration reform bill would have temporary and small negative effects but over the long term would greatly benefit both American workers and the economy, which is reinforced by past studies.
Right-Wing Media Twist CBO Report To Claim That Immigration Reform Would Hurt American Workers

Breitbart Claimed CBO Report Predicted Immigration Bill "Would Drive Down The Wages Of American Workers." Breitbart's Matthew Boyle selectively quoted the CBO report to claim that the Senate immigration bill "would drive down American workers' wages":

    On page seven of the analysis, the CBO and [Joint Committee on Taxation] conclude that the "Gang of Eight" bill would drive down American workers' wages. "Taking into account all of those flows of new immigrants, CBO and JCT expect that a greater number of immigrants with lower skills than with higher skills would be added to the workforce, slightly pushing down the average wage for the labor force as a whole, other things being equal," the report reads. [Breitbart, 6/18/13]

Washington Examiner: "Schumer-Rubio Will Also Make Unemployment Worse Too." The Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll claimed the CBO report found that the immigration reform bill would raise the unemployment rate:

    In addition to not ending illegal immigration, CBO estimates that Schumer-Rubio will also make unemployment worse too. "Employment would increase as the labor force expanded, because the additional population would add to demand for goods and services and, in turn, to the demand for labor," the report reads. "However, temporary imbalances in the skills and occupations demanded and supplied in the labor market, as well as other factors, would cause the unemployment rate to be slightly higher for several years than projected under current law." [Washington Examiner, 6/19/13]

Ingraham: CBO Report "Is Devastating." On her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham characterized the CBO report as "devastating" to immigration reform and went on to depict the report's economic conclusions as negative, claiming, "we find out that wages go down over twelve years" and "that per capita GNP declines over the next twelve years." [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 6/19/13, via Media Matters]
In Fact, CBO Report Finds That Many Negative Effects Of Legislation Are Temporary And Unlikely To Affect American Workers

CBO: Wages Would Be "Slightly Lower" Over The First Decade But Higher By Next Decade. According to the CBO, the rapid increase in the numbers of workers would temporarily decrease wages but those wages would increase in the second decade of the legislation:

    CBO's central estimates also show that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation than under current law. Average wages would be slightly lower than under current law through 2024, primarily because the amount of capital available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers and because the new workers would be less skilled and have lower wages, on average, than the labor force under current law. However, the rate of return on capital would be higher under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

Real GNP Would Rise Overall By 2.4 Percent In 2023 And 4.5 Percent In 2033. According to the CBO report, real Gross National Product (GNP) could increase by as much as 4.8 percent in 2033 but would be greater by 2.4 percent in 2023 and 4.5 percent in 2033:

    The effects of the legislation on real GNP would be slightly smaller because increases in the rate of return on capital and in interest rates would imply greater flows of profits and interest to foreigners. According to CBO's central estimates, real GNP would be greater by 2.4 percent in 2023 and by 4.5 percent in 2033. Under the full range of estimates, the bill could boost GNP by an amount between 4.1 percent and 4.8 percent in 2033. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

CBO: Per Capita GNP Would Decrease Due To Increase In Population. According to the CBO, the per capita GNP would decrease temporarily over the next decade, even though Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would increase by 5.4 percent by 2033 due to the increased population growth associated with immigration reform, and GNP is expected to rise again by 2033:

    Taking account of all economic effects (including those reflected in the cost estimate), the bill would increase real (inflation adjusted) GDP relative to the amount CBO projects under current law by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033, according to CBO's central estimates. Compared with GDP, gross national product (GNP) per capita accounts for the effect on incomes of international capital flows and adjusts for the number of people in the country. Relative to what would occur under current law, S. 744 would lower per capita GNP by 0.7 percent in 2023 and raise it by 0.2 percent in 2033, according to CBO's central estimates. Per capita GNP would be less than 1 percent lower than under current law through 2031 because the increase in the population would be greater, proportionately, than the increase in output; after 2031, however, the opposite would be true. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

CBO: Temporary Reductions In Wages And Per Capita GNP "Do Not Imply That Current U.S. Residents Would Be Worse Off." The estimated reduction in average wage and per capita GNP include immigrants who would be newly legalized who would earn lower wages, on average, than other residents, but that does not mean current U.S. residents will be worse off than under current law:

    The estimated reductions in average wages and per capita GNP for much of the next two decades do not necessarily imply that current U.S. residents would be worse off, on average, under the legislation than they would be under current law. Both of those figures represent differences between the averages for all U.S. residents under the legislation--including both the people who would be residents under current law and the additional people who would come to the country under the legislation--and the averages under current law for people who would be residents in the absence of the legislation.

    As noted, the additional people who would become residents under the legislation would earn lower wages, on average, than other residents, which would pull down the average wage and per capita GNP; at the same time, the income earned by capital would increase. [emphasis added] [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

Unemployment Would Increase By 0.1 Percentage Point Over The Next Five Years. According to the CBO report, enacting the immigration reform bill would increase the unemployment rate by 0.1 percent over the next five years:

    As a result, enacting S. 744 would raise the unemployment rate over the next five years by up to roughly 0.1 percentage point relative to projections under current law; the rate would remain slightly elevated through 2020, CBO estimates. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

Short-Term Increase In Unemployment Rate Due In Part To Immigration Reform Is Due To Expanding Workforce And Lack Of Occupations Available To Workers. According to the CBO report, the short-term increase in the unemployment rate would be in part due to the arrival of new immigrants who would not be able to fill the jobs demanded. Some workers would be forced to move into new fields in order to restore equilibrium which causes short-term unemployment. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

CBO: Legislation Would Have "No Effect On Unemployment After 2020." According to the CBO report, the immigration reform bill would have no effect on the unemployment rate after the year 2020. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

CBO: Over Long Term, "There Would Be Little Effect On The Unemployment Rate." According to the CBO report, the long-term unemployment rate would be "comparable, on average, to that of the current population":

    In the long run, the actual unemployment rate in the economy tends to be close to its natural rate. The natural rate of unemployment of the additional immigrants would be comparable, on average, to that of the current population, CBO expects, so there would be little effect on the unemployment rate in the long run. Thus, in the long run, the number of employed people would increase by the same percentage as the growth in the labor force--by about 3½ percent in 2023 and by about 5 percent in 2033, CBO estimates. [Congressional Budget Office, June 2013]

Actual, Long-Term Effects Of Legislation Would Be Positive For American Workers And Economy

Over 2014-2023 Period, U.S. Could See A Net Savings Of $175 Billion. According to a summary of the CBO's report, the United States would see the federal budget deficit decrease by $197 billion between 2014 to 2023. Combined with increased discretionary outlays of $22 billion over the same time period, the net savings for the U.S. would be $175 billion. [Congressional Budget Office, 6/18/13]

Over 2024-2033 Period, U.S. Could See A Net Savings Of $700 Billion. According to the CBO, changes in direct spending and revenues would decrease federal budget deficits by approximately $700 billion over the second decade following the bill's enactment:

    The additional amount of federal direct spending stemming from enactment of S. 744 would grow after 2023 as more people became eligible for federal benefits as a result of the bill. The additional amount of federal revenues owing to the legislation also would increase after 2023 as the labor force continued to increase. On balance, CBO and JCT estimate that those changes in direct spending and revenues would decrease federal budget deficits by about $700 billion (or 0.2 percent of total output) over the 2024-2033 period. In addition, the legislation would have a net discretionary cost of $20 billion to $25 billion over the 2024-2033 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. According to CBO's central estimates (within a range that reflects the uncertainty about two key economic relationships in CBO's analysis), the economic impacts not included in the cost estimate would further reduce deficits (relative to the effects reported in the cost estimate) by about $300 billion over the 2024-2033 period. [Congressional Budget Office, 6/18/13]

Relative To Current Law, Immigration Bill Would Increase Average Wages, Boost Capital Investment And Raise Productivity Of Labor And Capital Over Long Term. According to a summary by the CBO, long-term benefits to the U.S. economy include increases in employment, wages, capital investment, and productivity of labor and capital. [Congressional Budget Office, 6/18/13]
CBO Findings Supported By Various Studies

Center For American Progress: "The Positive Economic Impacts" Of Providing Immigrants Legal Status "Likely To Be Very Large." In a comprehensive report titled, "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants," the Center for American Progress found that immigration reform that includes legal status and a pathway to citizenship yields significant economic benefits:

    The positive economic impacts on the nation and on undocumented immigrants of granting them legal status and a road map to citizenship are likely to be very large. The nation as a whole would benefit from a sizable increase in GDP and income and a modest increase in jobs. The earnings of unauthorized immigrants would rise significantly, and the taxes they would pay would increase dramatically. Given that the full benefits would phase in over a number of years, the sooner we grant legal status and provide a road map to citizenship to unauthorized immigrants, the sooner Americans will be able to reap these benefits. It is also clear that legalization and a road map to citizenship bestow greater gains on the American people and the U.S. economy than legalization alone. [Center for American Progress, 3/20/13]

Cato Institute: Immigration Reform Would "Lay The Foundation For Robust, Just, And Widespread Economic Growth." The Cato Institute made the case for immigration reform in a 2012 study, which concluded that immigration reform will benefit both undocumented immigrants and the U.S. economy:

    The experience of IRCA and the results of our modeling both indicate that legalizing currently unauthorized immigrants and creating flexible legal limits on future immigration in the context of full labor rights would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs, and generate additional tax revenue--particularly in those sectors of the U.S. economy now characterized by the lowest wages. This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current "vicious cycle" where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already-low wages, and toward a "virtuous cycle" of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages.

    Legalization of the nation's unauthorized workers and new legal limits on immigration that rise and fall with U.S. labor demand would help lay the foundation for robust, just, and widespread economic growth. Moving unauthorized workers out of a vulnerable underground status strengthens all working families' ability to become more productive and creates higher levels of job-generating consumption, thereby laying a foundation for long-term community revitalization, middle-class growth, and a stronger, more equitable national economy. [The Cato Journal, Winter 2012]

Manhattan Institute: "Embracing A More Flexible Legal Immigration System Can Dramatically Improve" Economy. A Manhattan Institute issue brief linked increased immigration with economic growth and touted "the need for policy change":

    America's economic growth is hovering around 2 percent, public debt is $16 trillion and rising, and job creation and labor market participation remain low. Embracing a more flexible legal immigration system can dramatically improve this situation. This paper describes the link between economic growth and immigration, the need for policy change, the misguided history of America's political opposition to immigration, and a rational immigration policy.

    Immigrants increase economic efficiency by reducing labor shortages in low- and high-skilled markets because their educational backgrounds fill holes in the native-born labor market. However, the share of immigrants in the U.S. workforce has declined since its 1991 peak. Increased immigration would expand the American work-force, and encourage more business start-ups. Businesses ranging from Apple Corporation to apple growers would be able to find the workers they need in America.

    Current law has inhibited such positive developments. [The Manhattan Institute, 2/18/13]

Conservative Culture: America's Wage Slaves Are Getting Crushed Making Corporate Plutocrats Rich

America's Wage Slaves Are Getting Crushed Making Corporate Plutocrats Rich

In cities all across the country, workers stand on street corners, line up in alleys or wait in a neon-lit beauty salon for rickety vans to whisk them off to warehouses miles away. Some vans are so packed that to get to work, people must squat on milk crates, sit on the laps of passengers they do not know or sometimes lie on the floor, the other workers’ feet on top of them.

This is not Mexico. It is not Guatemala or Honduras. This is Chicago, New Jersey, Boston.

The people here are not day laborers looking for an odd job from a passing contractor. They are regular employees of temp agencies working in the supply chain of many of America’s largest companies – Walmart, Macy’s, Nike, Frito-Lay. They make our frozen pizzas, sort the recycling from our trash, cut our vegetables and clean our imported fish. They unload clothing and toys made overseas and pack them to fill our store shelves. They are as important to the global economy as shipping containers and Asian garment workers.

Many get by on minimum wage, renting rooms in rundown houses, eating dinners of beans and potatoes, and surviving on food banks and taxpayer-funded health care. They almost never get benefits and have little opportunity for advancement.

Across America, temporary work has become a mainstay of the economy, leading to the proliferation of what researchers have begun to call “temp towns.” They are often dense Latino neighborhoods teeming with temp agencies. Or they are cities where it has become nearly impossible even for whites and African-Americans with vocational training to find factory and warehouse work without first being directed to a temp firm.

In June, the Labor Department reported [3] that the nation had more temp workers than ever before: 2.7 million. Overall, almost one-fifth of the total job growth since the recession ended in mid-2009 has been in the temp sector, federal data shows. But according to the American Staffing Association [4], the temp industry’s trade group, the pool is even larger: Every year, a tenth of all U.S. workers finds a job at a staffing agency.

The proportion of temp workers in the labor force reached its peak in early 2000 before the 2001 slump and then the Great Recession. But as the economy continues its slow, uneven recovery, temp work is roaring back 10 times faster than private-sector employment as a whole – a pace “exceeding even the dramatic run-up of the early 1990s,” according to [5] the staffing association.

The overwhelming majority of that growth has come in blue-collar work in factories and warehouses, as the temp industry sheds the Kelly Girl image of the past. Last year, more than one in every 20 blue-collar workers was a temp.

Several temp agencies, such as Adecco and Manpower, are now among the largest employers in the United States. One list [6] put Kelly Services as second only to Walmart.

“We’re seeing just more and more industries using business models that attempt to change the employment relationship or obscure the employment relationship,” said Mary Beth Maxwell, a top official in the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division. “While it’s certainly not a new phenomenon, it’s rapidly escalating. In the last 10 to 15 years, there’s just a big shift to this for a lot more workers – which makes them a lot more vulnerable.”

The temp system insulates the host companies from workers’ compensation claims, unemployment taxes, union drives and the duty to ensure that their workers are citizens or legal immigrants. In turn, the temps suffer high injury rates, according to federal officials and academic studies, and many of them endure hours of unpaid waiting and face fees that depress their pay below minimum wage.

The rise of the blue-collar permatemp helps explain one of the most troubling aspects of the phlegmatic recovery. Despite a soaring stock market and steady economic growth, many workers are returning to temporary or part-time jobs. This trend is intensifying America’s decades-long rise in income inequality, in which low- and middle-income workers have seen their real wages stagnate or decline [7]. On average, temps earn 25 percent less than permanent workers.

The CEO of Manpower is like a bandit without the risks. He made $5.5 million over 6 years for supplying wage slaves to other plutocrats. He, like the Walmart family take more out of the economy and suppress more economic activity than they create.

Morally Corrupt Conservatives On Supreme Court Steal Voting Rights From Millions of Americans

Morally Corrupt Conservatives On Supreme Court Steal Voting Rights From Millions of Americans

Let's be clear about what has just happened. Five unelected, life-tenured men this morning declared that overt racial discrimination in the nation's voting practices is over and no longer needs all of the special federal protections it once did. They did so, without a trace of irony, by striking down as unconstitutionally outdated a key provision of a federal law that this past election cycle alone protected the franchise for tens of millions of minority citizens. And they did so on behalf of an unrepentant county in the Deep South whose officials complained about the curse of federal oversight even as they continued to this very day to enact and implement racially discriminatory voting laws.

In deciding Shelby County v. Holder, in striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the five conservative justices of the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, didn't just rescue one recalcitrant Alabama jurisdiction from the clutches of racial justice and universal enfranchisement. By voiding the legislative formula that determines which jurisdictions must get federal "preclearance" for changes to voting laws, today's ruling enables officials in virtually every Southern county, and in many other jurisdictions as well, to more conveniently impose restrictive new voting rules on minority citizens. And they will. That was the whole point of the lawsuit. Here is the link to the ruling.

In a 5-4 ruling over liberal dissent, the Supreme Court today declared "accomplished" a "mission" that has become more, not less, dire in the four years since the justices last revisited the subject. They have done so by focusing on voter turnout, which surely has changed for the better in the past fifty years, and by ignoring the other ruses now widely employed to suppress minority votes. In so doing, the five federal judges responsible for this result, all appointed by Republican presidents, have made it materially easier for Republican lawmakers to hassle and harry and disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. And they have done so by claiming that the Congress didn't mean what it said when it renewed the act by landslide votes in 2006.

More here, Three Ways The Supreme Court Gutted Voting Rights Today.