Fox News didn't want Repubicans to discuss the economy and jobs last night because that didn't fit Fox News' agenda

Jim Tankersley noticed the glaring omission from last night's Republican debate, here:

Polls continue to show that Americans care more about the economy than any other election issue. Fox News moderators noted that they had received more than 3,000 economy-themed questions on Facebook before the debate. Which is why it's so baffling that neither the questioners nor most candidates seemed eager to talk about growth, jobs and - as Republicans have been promising to do all election cycle - America's beleaguered working class. ...

"Way too little discussion" of economic growth, the conservative commentator Larry Kudlow tweeted after the prime-time debate ended. "If you're one of the 65 percent of Americans who think the U.S. is on the wrong track," said James Pethokoukis, a conservative writer for the American Enterprise Institute who has pushed Republican candidates to address worker angst, "what have these debates offered?"

----------------------------------------------

Obviously the economy and jobs didn't fit Fox News' agenda last night, which was to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump, who has pledged to end the flood of illegal immigration stealing Americans' jobs, end the farce of free-trade and become the greatest jobs president the country has ever seen.

Fox News, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by the open borders, free-trade libertarian Rupert Murdoch. It has its marching orders. And every candidate who takes money from the libertarian Koch brothers has his and is similarly beholden to the same ideology which demands the cheapest labor possible in service of the almighty bottom line, not in service of the country's citizens. The involvement of Facebook and Debbie Washerwoman Schultz of the DNC were just the bow around the illegal alien amnesty package.  

And that's why Donald Trump scares the crap out of them and must be destroyed:

He doesn't need their money to run for president, and won't do their bidding when he wins.

Minus TAA, Fastrack Trade Authority passes the House 218-208 thanks to 28 Democrats

The measure faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where TAA is critical for Democrat support.

Just 50 Republicans voted against the so-called free-trade measure both times (the latest Roll Call vote is here), vs. 54 previously (Gosar, Jolly and Young of Alaska didn't vote this time, and Yoho switched to "Aye", while previous "Aye" votes Byrne, Rodney Davis, and Kelly of Mississippi didn't vote this time):

Aderholt Amash Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Buck Burgess Clawson (FL) Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Cook Donovan Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Farenthold Fleming Garrett

Gibson Gohmert Griffith Harris Hunter Jenkins (WV) Jones Jordan Joyce Katko Labrador LoBiondo Lummis MacArthur Massie McKinley Meadows Mooney (WV) Mulvaney

Nugent Palmer Pearce Perry Poliquin Posey Rohrabacher Rothfus Russell Smith (NJ) Webster (FL) Westmoreland Wittman Zeldin

Hillary Clinton was for the TransPacificPartnership only 45 times before she was against it

John F. Kerry was a piker by comparison.

CNN reports:

'But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State. Here are 45 instances when she approvingly invoked the trade bill about which she is now expressing concerns:'

The rest is here.

The 86 Republicans who voted for TAA/the 54 who voted against TPP: Just five appear in both lists

Aderholt Barletta Barr Barton Benishek Bishop (MI) Blum Bost Boustany Brady (TX) Brooks (IN) Calvert Coffman Cole Comstock Costello (PA) Crenshaw Curbelo (FL) Davis, Rodney Dent Dold Donovan Emmer (MN) Fitzpatrick Fortenberry

Frelinghuysen Graves (MO) Grothman Guinta Guthrie Hanna Herrera Beutler Huizenga (MI) Hurt (VA) Issa Johnson (OH) Jolly Katko Kelly (PA) King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kline Luetkemeyer Marino McCarthy McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers Meehan Messer Mica Miller (MI) Moolenaar Murphy (PA) Nunes

Paulsen Pitts Reed Reichert Rigell Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rokita Roskam Royce Ryan (WI) Scalise Shimkus Shuster Simpson Stefanik Stivers Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Trott Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walters, Mimi Whitfield Wilson (SC) Young (IA)

The roll call vote for the TAA is here. John Boehner notably voted "No" with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to defeat TAA in order to be able to say at election time that he has street-cred as a conservative. Typically the Speaker doesn't vote unless the outcome the Speaker supports is in doubt. This was obviously a throw-away vote for him.

Failing 126-302, the bill was one half of a binary bill passed by the Senate which would have provided assistance to US workers displaced by the trade agreement. Its defeat meant the whole bill including the free trade half of the bill, TPP, would not advance to the president's desk for a signature.

A symbolic vote (roll call here) for the free trade half of the bill, TPP, passed 219-211, with these 54 Republicans voting "No" (note the five in blue, who appeared in both lists and voted in this instance ostensibly for the worker and against free trade):

Aderholt Amash Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Buck Burgess Clawson (FL) Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Cook Donovan Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Farenthold Fleming Garrett

Gibson Gohmert Gosar Griffith Harris Hunter Jenkins (WV) Jolly Jones Jordan Joyce Katko Labrador LoBiondo Lummis MacArthur Massie McKinley Meadows Mooney (WV) Mulvaney

Nugent Palmer Pearce Perry Poliquin Posey Rohrabacher Rothfus Russell Smith (NJ) Webster (FL) Westmoreland Wittman Yoho Young (AK) Zeldin

Democrats who voted for TAA and against TPP were similarly few in number, just thirteen: Bass, Carney, Clyburn, Eshoo, Foster, Heck (WA), Hoyer, Israel, Larson (CT), Perlmutter, Price (NC), Richmond, and Smith (WA).

Once conservative National Review magazine is all-in on free trade bill written by the corporate oligarchy

Here:

"Republicans should side with free trade".

What a shock: Now beholden to Amazon, WaPo approves of Senate's TPP vote

Here:

This action is a great victory for the president, who aggressively lobbied wavering members of his party, and for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who piloted the measure past every last-minute obstacle its opponents threw up.

This bipartisan vote was also, we’re obliged to say, a victory for truth. 

48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats give Obama trade power and sell-out American workers

Why are our enemies on the left our friends?

The roll call vote is here, at 8:51pm on the Friday night before a holiday weekend just to make doubly sure you weren't paying attention. But of course you're too poor to pay attention anyway.

The handful of Republicans who did the right thing include Susan Collins, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby. Mike Enzi didn't vote. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio notably voted Yea, along with a bunch of freshmen who have dutifully fallen in line with the establishment.

Story here.

The bill doesn't go to the president for signature unless the House passes the measure. Fortunately it is on vacation this weekend.

On Memorial Day we honor the memory of the war dead, but who will honor the walking dead of America's Zombie working class?

Why we're poorer: America is $10 trillion poorer since 1983 because of libertarian free-trade ideology

That's $10 trillion of GDP we're missing, because net imports are a subtraction from the calculation.

Imagine having an extra $333 billion every year for 30 years: In the last 12 months, GDP is up $670 billion, so we'd have 50% MORE in the last year. Instead we're exporting that GDP to others, building up foreign middle classes at the expense of our own while enriching the few owners at the top in our own country.

Traitors to America they are.

We don't have free trade WITHIN the United States: Companies in just 13 states get over 90% of $110 billion in government subsidies since the 1970s

We're talking over $100 billion of taxpayer money favoring companies, in descending order, in New York way ahead in first, then Washington, Louisiana, and Michigan rounding out the top four, Kentucky, Oregon, Indiana, Texas, New Jersey, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico over every other company in those states and throughout the states.

View the report here, and the state by state map here. For a shorter period involving additional federal subsidies adding another $68 billion to the above total see this report at the same site.

Forbes Magazine is not amused, here:

According to Good Jobs First, there are 514 economic development programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. More than 245,000 awards have been granted under those programs. I ask again, where is the outrage? The system is antithetical to the idea of free markets. A quarter of a million times, state governments decided what is best for producers and consumers. That should make us cringe. First, the government is inefficient at providing public goods, and it is terrible at manipulating the markets for private goods. But more importantly, those 514 economic development programs are almost all the result of insidious cronyism. Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the top four, think Wall Street, aircraft, oil and autos.

Highly secretive trade deal negotiations with Pacific "partners" no doubt reproduce sweeteners all around no different from what has been going on within our own country for a long time right underneath our noses.

The first step to curtailing this cronyism is to stop calling the one free trade and the other free-market capitalism. We have neither.

The libertarian free-traders in both parties have killed the American middle class: Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, Obama

From Patrick J. Buchanan, here:

The average U.S. family has not seen a rise in real wages in 40 years. This is directly traceable to the loss of more than one-third of all U.S. manufacturing jobs. And that loss, that deindustrialization of America, is directly tied to the $10 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Writers who celebrate how U.S. imports have risen in this month or that year almost never mention the trade deficit for this month or that year. Perhaps that is because the United States has not run a trade surplus in four decades, whereas, in the first 70 years of the 20th century, we never ran a trade deficit. Trade surpluses add to GDP; trade deficits subtract from GDP.

And when in a company town the company closes the factory, the town often dies. And all the little satellite businesses—bars, diners, food stores, pharmacies—that rose around the factory, they die, too. The tombstones of countless dead towns across America should read: Killed by Free Trade. Tenured economists on college campuses call this “creative destruction.”

The stagnant wages of two generations of U.S. workers also help to explain the crisis of Social Security and Medicare. For, as workers’ wages fail to rise, or fall, so, too, do their contributions in payroll taxes. If, as Simpson-Bowles contends, our largest entitlement programs are heading for insolvency, free trade played a lead role in that American tragedy. And where is the liberal morality in passing laws to ensure U.S. workers a living wage and clean and safe conditions, and then, through fast track and free trade, signaling their bosses that they can evade these laws by shutting factories here, moving their plants to Asia, paying coolie wages, and subjecting Asian workers to conditions that would earn a U.S. industrialist a tour in Leavenworth?

--------------------------------------------------------

I've checked Buchanan's math and he's exaggerating a bit. The total is precisely $9.5 trillion . . . if you go back as far as 1982 under Reagan, but you get the point.

Free-trade has hollowed out the middle class

So reports Noah Smith, here:

"[T]here is a growing body of research showing that globalization -- and, in particular, the rise of China -- has been the biggest factor hollowing out the American middle class." 

George Will confuses self-defense with imitation

Here:

When Fred P. Hochberg, the [Export-Import] bank’s chairman and president, defends it, an old joke comes to mind: A pastor officiating at a man’s funeral asks if anyone in the congregation would like to say something about the deceased. After a long, awkward silence, a voice shouts: “His brother was even worse.” South Korea, Hochberg says, provides “four to five times more export support than we do.” Thus does sound policy get defined down: Others are even worse, supposedly forcing us to emulate them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, George. War is evil, but when we are attacked, that we fight back doesn't mean that we are evil, too.

In this case a paraprosdokian aptly applies: We dispense with so-called free-trade in order to defend free-market principles.

Ron Paul, delusional as ever, says global war on terror is a lie, champions free-trade and ignores the illegal immigrant invasion

Charlie Hebdo massacre scene: Just lies to Ron Paul!

At, where else?, Zero Hedge, here, in a speech long enough for Fidel Castro to give:

"With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.

"It was all based on lies and ignorance."

Liberal hubris two months ago about Ebola virus may mean death for many Americans

Flashback to late July when you were on the beach. At the time the mendacious CDC said Ebola wouldn't spread "widely" in the US, not that it wouldn't get here, and you went on with your novel and your drink (dateline NBC here):

“It is not a potential of Ebola spreading widely in the U.S. That is not in the cards,” Frieden told reporters on a conference call. “We are not telling people who are essential to leave.” ... “This is a tragic, painful, dreadful, merciless virus. It is the largest, most complex outbreak that we know of in history,” Frieden said. “We at CDC are surging our response along with others. Although it will not be quick and it will not be easy, we do know how to stop Ebola.” ... “We have quarantine stations at all the major ports of entry,” he said. People cannot transmit Ebola to others unless they are sick, and Ebola makes you so sick that it’s pretty obvious pretty quickly, Frieden said. A traveler will be flagged by the flight crew and if someone gets sick after arrival in the U.S. they will almost certainly seek medical care. “Ebola poses little risk to the U.S. general population,” Frieden said. “Ebola is spread as people get sicker and sicker. They have fever and may develop serious symptoms.” Ebola doesn’t spread through the air like measles. People who get sick are family members or healthcare workers in prolonged and close contact with victims. ... “This is a marathon, not a sprint,” he said. “This is going to take at least three to six months, even if everything goes well.”

-----------------------------------------------------

If they knew how to stop Ebola, then why is it here two months later? Maybe because liberals couldn't get past their first ideological barrier: their commitment to the idea of world citizenship and thus of nations without borders and of free travel between them. Kind of reminds me of free trade, which has infected America with a disease known as unemployment and underemployment.

Stopping the spread of deadly viral disease requires restrictions on international travel, and contact tracing by every doctor, two things no longer routinely practiced in America nor supported by the health authorities. The latter has been considered "discriminatory" since the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. And while AIDS has been more or less contained in the US for other reasons, sexually transmitted disease has not. Half the population carries one.

Your doctor is most likely part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Mish finally figures out why the part-timing trend caused by ObamaCare doesn't show up in the stats . . . yet

Here:

The BLS defines part time as less than 35 hours. Low wage industries had a lot of part-timers working 32 hours.

Under Obamacare, the threshold of part-time jobs is 30 hours. Obama made that change on purpose to force more businesses to offer healthcare. 

Instead, busiunesses [sic] cut hours. It was the hours of the already part-timers that got cut, and that explains why there was no spike in part time employment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average hours worked overall isn't affected much by part-timers getting their hours cut, since the part-time portion of the workforce is so small to begin with, about 18%.

On an average annual basis, however, average hours worked overall haven't made it above the 35 hour full-time threshold since 1984. Larger forces have been at work to drive average hours down, mainly social revolution leading to the addition of large numbers of women to the workforce in the 1970s, but also a free trade revolution leading to offshoring of manufacturing. The libertarian rout of America has been terrible for its workers.

The verdict on what ObamaCare may do to hours is still not in, however, and won't be for many years because so much of its implementation has been delayed by the regime itself, notably the employer mandate. For large firms mandates do not kick in until 2015, and for medium size firms 2016. 

The problem with free-market ideology in our time isn't about the tax code, it's about patriotism

Free-marketeers in our time want to wipe away the favors of the tax code, many of which go to the middle class in the form of credits and deductions, and to end the taxes on capital which they say deprive the middle of opportunity. 

That seems to be the upshot of the libertarian attempt to co-opt the meaning of the Dave Brat victory over Eric Cantor as expressed by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street urinal, for one. Central to that thesis is poo-poo-ing the importance of the immigration stance of Eric Cantor, which was attacked by Brat with the support of anti-amnesty conservatives, especially Laura Ingraham, and complaining about "the insane complexity of taxes".

What the kerfuffle shows is that Dave Brat is a mighty conflicted person, as are all libertarians, some more some less, a condition they share with liberals, and that he may end up being worse than the man he now replaces. Brat spent much of the campaign talking about closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, but opposed more immigration because Americans are having massive trouble finding work. The better angels of his nature, all Christian, were at work there. But to his free-market self, there should be no reason why citizenship shouldn't be free. Why should there be a law restricting it to those born here? The federal government has no role "making my life work", he has said. See how well your life works when there's no army to stop an invasion, and there's no will to create one. Just ask Arizona.

Immigration is an issue which ought to direct the attention of the American right toward the bigger picture of what has happened to this country since the Reagan revolution slashed taxes, but hasn't because the right is now obsessed with principles over people. It has become as "ideologized" as any leftist camp. In fact the political discussion on the right deliberately obscures how libertarianism has already impoverished the many and rewarded the few. Some of its adherents today actually foresee an American future more starkly drawn that way, as did Ayn Rand. It isn't capitalism which is to blame for all the income inequality, it's libertarianism.

With the permanently lower tax regime in the US since Reagan also came a headlong plunge into global free trade which has created vast middle classes abroad where there were none before, at the expense of our own. The anchor manufacturing industries of the middle class in this country were exported to places where labor was cheaper, leaving the hollowed out shell of a service industry economy behind to pick up the pieces here.

Where's the patriotism, I'd like to know? Neither side wants to touch the trade argument, mostly because they are all profiting from the new status quo while we are fed a bunch of lies about who are the real conservatives. The answer is none of them are. They've all betrayed us and joined the global investor class where borders no longer matter.

To be a conservative in our time is to be for families with children here, for good jobs here, and for tax and trade policies which prop up those things here and put Americans first, not foreigners and disloyal Americans and disloyal American businesses.

If that's too complicated for you, maybe you shouldn't be in office.  

Brian Wesbury sounds just like the regime: Dude, that bad GDP report was so two months ago

Brian Wesbury, here:

But regardless of which part of the GDP report accounts for the downward revision, the most important thing to remember is that the report is for the first quarter, the last days of which ended almost two months ago. It's a "rearview mirror" picture of the economy. The winter weather was awful, everyone knows it, and everyone knows that the economy in Q1 was weaker than in recent years.

---------------------------

Like Obama administration narratives which have consistently blamed exogenous events for bad economic news everytime it comes out, which has been every time (it is a global economy after all), facts must never be allowed to interfere with the reality, which in Wesbury's case is his narrative of the ploughhorse economy of continued growth of a plodding, unspectacular but nevertheless good-enough sort that we should all embrace as indicative of the resilience of the great free-market economy of the United States.

Ya man, hallelujah.

Nevermind growth has been declining since 1984 and precipitously since 2004 as America made the shift to wanton free trade and debt-fueled economic growth. TCMDO doubled at its fastest pace in the post-war under Carter/Reagan from 1977 to 1983 and under Reagan from 1983 to 1989, building the foundation of our present discontents in the form of massive debt.

When those bad actors pulled prosperity from the future into their present, our past, they neglected to tell us that we have to pay it back when we get to the future they pulled it from, our future, our now.

Welcome to it. Time to pay up, ploughhorses.

Libertarian Free-Trader Immigration Amnesty Supporter Stephen Moore Moves To Heritage From The Wall Street Journal

Demented Jim DeMint makes good on his promise to make overtures to the libertarian movement by making Stephen Moore of Club for Growth fame its chief economist.

Story here.

CHRONICLES' Roman Catholic Tom Fleming Goes All-In For Obedience To The Tyranny

When you hitch your wagon to the grandmothers of Bolshevism, you always end up in the ditch:

Not content with telling wives to obey husbands, slave to obey masters, subjects to obey the rulers, Paul makes obedience a general rule: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation."  So much for the right of revolution, civil disobedience, and, I might add, the myth of the Underground Railroad. ... In everyday political terms, then, we have to perform our duties as subjects or citizens.  "Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; [TAX RESISTERS NEED NOT APPLY], custom to whom custom [SORRY, PAUL IS NO FREE-TRADER], fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.  By the way, the word for honor is good old Greek word time, that implies that different men have a worth or price that must be paid in terms of respect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

None of that good ole' Protestant "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" stuff for Tom Fleming, no siree.

It's nice to see that after all these years our disagreements about politics always end up being theological at their root.

Conservatives take note. The Roman Catholics now in control of most of the conservative movement are the reason America grows less and less free than it used to be. They will do nothing but continue to bow, but patriots will stand with the father of their country and refuse to kneel. 

Doyle McManus Discovers That The Middle Class Is Becoming The Underclass

Here in the Los Angeles Times article "Poof Goes The Middle Class", in which the liberal Doyle McManus relies on a libertarian prognosis for the future where efficiency and economy is all:

. . . middle-class American jobs being eliminated by automation and outsourcing, downward pressure on wages for all but the most skilled, growing inequality between the wealthy and everyone else, and elected officials who don't seem capable of slowing those trends, let alone stopping them. … If people have decent low-cost housing, food and healthcare, they might even be happier in a middle-classless future, [libertarian economist Tyler Cowen] speculates.

----------------------

In other words, an impoverished, stratified society based on free trade which Marx welcomed because it would finally lead to the social revolution of the many have-nots against the few haves after eliminating the rung on the ladder between them, the middle class:

"Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities and renders the contrast between proletariat and bourgeoisie more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade."

-- Karl Marx, 1847

Funny how contemporary libertarianism is completely oblivious to its role in this preparation for revolution and the impetus given to it under America's first Marxist president, while liberalism lies prostrate before it asking, New ideas, anyone?

Libertarians don't just spoil elections for Republicans in favor of Democrats, they ruin conservative republics on behalf of communism no less than liberals do.