Jobs: The all-purpose excuse for feeding the Rich and for anarchy

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The GOP, being our #1 Party of The Rich, (the Dems are a distant #2) hates regulations.

Correction: The GOP actually loves regulations that restrict the middle and the poor. Regulations on immigration, easily bypassed by The Rich, are perfectly fine. The Rich build and expand the Wall to prevent poor immigration while allowing rich immigrants to pay a fee and walk right in. (See: The high cost of immigration and USCIS fees.)

No, what The Rich hate are regulations that prevent their stealing making money and/or widening the Gap between the Rich and the rest.

The infamous Trump University, that stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the poor, did not result in any prison time for the perpetrators. But let an impoverished mother shoplift some food or clothing for her family, and the Law, created by The Rich, will come down hard: Fingerprinting, a mug shot, and even a jail record are likely.

Destroy the economy by selling worthless debt instruments, and no rich banker is punished. But sell a few ounces of marijuana, and you will be treated harshly. That is the way The Rich operate.

The Rich are clever about their thievery. Every time the GOP dumps regulations designed to protect workers and the general public from rich predators, they pull out their all-purpose excuse: Jobs.

The excuse works like this:

 If a company is forced to obey a regulation — any regulation — the company must expend time, effort and money.

Therefore, according to The Rich, all regulations are anti-job, and should be eliminated.

It’s a Libertarian, anarchist approach to governing.

Here are examples from an article in the Chicago Tribune:

Trump, GOP dump Obama-era rules
Lauren Rosenblatt Washington Bureau, Chicago Tribune, 7/2/17

Trump and the GOP-led Congress overturned 14 Obama-era regulations in a number of areas, including the environment and guns.

Here’s what the repeal of these regulations will mean:

Companies no longer have to disclose payments made to foreign governments involving oil, gas or minerals
This regulation required companies to annually disclose any payments made to foreign governments related to the commercial use of oil, natural gas or minerals, specifically the type and total amount of each payment to a certain project or government.

The rule was designed to ensure the American people knew where these companies were drilling and who they were paying. Supporters said it was important for transparency and national security.

Opponents said it was unnecessarily bureaucratic, decreased efficiency, productivity and competitiveness and sacrificed American jobs.

One only can wonder why disclosing payments to foreign governments, something the lowest-paid bookkeeper can do in five minutes, “decreases efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness, and sacrifices American jobs.”

Nothing new needs to be done. Every business has that information at its fingertips. The only reason for the lack of disclosure is to hide The Rich’s evil doings from the American public.

Mining companies have fewer regulations on waste management
The stream protection rule placed restrictions and offered new guidelines on where and how mining companies can dump waste.

The rule required companies to record how their mining processes changed the ecosystem and to develop a plan for later restoring those ecosystems.

Supporters said it would protect waterways, forests and wildlife, potentially contribute to reducing climate change, improve public health and encourage companies to use more innovative technology.

Opponents argue that these benefits come at the expense of jobs, shrink the list of potential mining sites and reduce profits.

Yes, it probably does “shrink the list of potential mining sites,” for instance near a fresh stream or lake, or in a pristine forest, because today’s Congress believes profits for The Rich are more important than clean rivers.

And because every business regulation can be said to “reduce profits,” does that mean there should be no business regulations? Appaently, so.

Companies no longer have to maintain five-year record of workplace injuries
This regulation clarified that employers must maintain proper records of any workplace injury or illness for five years and could be cited for any violations during that time period.

The clarification was in response to some interpretations that employers could only be fined if the violation was caught within six months.

Supporters worry the six-month time frame allows employers to brush aside any injuries and does not give enough time to identify and correct ongoing problems.

Opponents of the regulation say the five-year time period put extra burdens on companies while doing little to protect worker safety.

The “extra burden” excuse is nonsense. When a company maintains an ongoing record of workplace injuries, as it must, the so-called “extra burden” consists of a filing cabinet capable of holding five years worth of records.

The sole purpose of the new law is to make it much harder for poor workers to sue companies for negligence.  Contrary to business propaganda, the vast majority of such suits are legitimate and beneficial in that they motivate companies to adopt safety standards that protect employees.

The above are only a tiny sampling of the “jobs” excuses for taking protections from employees and from the public, and putting dollars into the pockets of The Rich.

Every single business regulation ever created has required businesses to do something, so every one of them can be considered a “burden.” The sole question is: Do the protections for employees and the public outweigh the “burden.”

You seldom hear the right-wing worry about employees or the public. All the concern seems to be for businesses. Is that the “balance” we want?

For instance, should coal mine safety standards, that protect employees, be relaxed so that coal mining companies can make more profits?

Should cars be less safe? Airplanes? Food? Drugs?

Should the banks that caused the “Great Recession” be less regulated? Should stock brokers be relieved of “honest dealing” regulations?

Should doctors be allowed to commit life-destroying malpractice with impunity? Should oil and gas drillers be allowed to spoil pristine areas?

The vast majority of regulations have a good public purpose. Yes, tiny minority don’t, but that does not call for a massive dilution of oversight.

There is another part to the issue. Do all regulations really cost us jobs? For instance, consider automobile safety requirements. When I was young, cars didn’t have seatbelts, airbags, shatter-resistant glass, etc. Now they do.

Have these saved lives?  Yes.  Have they cost jobs, or have they actually increased job availability in industries that sell seat belts, air bags, shatter-resistant glass, etc?

Bottom line: All business regulations require some sort of action by businesses, and so can be said to add to costs and thus “cost jobs.”

But, each regulation should be evaluated individually, to determine whether or not it really costs jobs in the near-term and/or the long-term, and if so, do public and employee concerns outweigh any such job losses.

That is the sensible way to deal with regulations, but it is not the Congressional way.

Instead, we are treated to the ignorant decision by the administration to balance every new regulation with two deleted regulations, no matter what they may be.

Can you imagine any rule less thoughtful than that?

Call it a “Twitter solution,” a pronouncement that can be made in 140 characters, containing no consideration of consequences. (“There are too many regulations so let’s just get rid of them all.”)

The real purpose of most regulation cuts is not to increase efficiency, and certainly not to protect the public or to protect employees or to save jobs.

The real purpose of most regulatory cuts is to enrich The Rich.

President Trump is very rich. He has surrounded himself with a cabinet composed of very rich people, who decide for their own, personal benefit.

His Secretary of the Treasury came from Goldman Sach, one of the banks that never was punished for ruining America. His Attorney General is predisposed against the poor. His Secretary of Health and Human Services opposes Medicaid.

His Secretary of Education opposes free public education. His Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not accept human-caused global warming. His Secretary of Energy is completely ignorant about energy policy and wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy.

His Secretary of Housing and Urban Development believes the poor are at fault for their own poverty. His Secretary of the Interior passionately supports mining and drilling, and is another climate change denier.

In summary, The Rich support Libertarian anarchy, so they may plunder unimpeded. The Rich claim such plunder is to benefit you, the worker, by creating jobs.

“Job protection” is a ploy to pull you into accepting their extermination of your legal protections.

What else did you expect from The Rich? Compassion?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THOUGHTS

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY