In jobs like construction, manufacturing, and the service
sector, I just don’t see how you can. A study by the
Center for Economic and Policy Research showed that 45
percent of workers age 58 to 69 are in physically demanding
jobs. And in a tough labor market, who would hire someone in
their late 60s?
In fact, without Social Security, 19.8 million more Americans
would be poor, according to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities (CBPP). Without
Social Security, 45.2 percent of older Americans would have
incomes below the poverty line. With Social Security, only 9.7
are poor. CBPP’s Paul Van de Water and Arloc Sherman reminds us
that Social Security isn’t only for retired folks:
Social Security lifts more than 1 million children out of
poverty.
More children and elderly living in poverty doesn’t seem to
bother the likes of Boehner. He’s too busy
playing golf at the ritzy clubs he belongs to when he’s not
relaxing in his gated community.
There
was a lot of concern about an amendment added to the House health care bill that
was referred to by some in the media as the “black liquor” amendment.
To
clarify, the amendment proposed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., does
not impact the tax credit in the paper industry also known as
“black liquor.”
Last year alone Clearwater Paper benefited by this tax credit to the tune of $19
million. A tax credit brought to the attention of the company by one of
our blue collar brothers.
The
USW, led by president Leo Gerard, proudly represented paper workers in front of
congress, and strongly opposed repeal of the
vital tax credit in the paper industry given when alternative fuel is mixed with
very small amounts of taxable motor fuel. The paper industry is the largest
industrial user of bio-fuel in the
United States.
The USW, North America's largest Organized Labor Union, whose
membership staffs a great number of pulp and paper industry jobs, fought to keep
these tax credits alive with the thought that the credits earned might
'trickle-down' into the pockets of the laborer in an industry that has seen
little to now economic movement in the past decades.
Our
union believes this tax credit is encouraging paper companies to make greater
use of bio-fuel, which helps our environment. And the credit, in theory by
keeping struggling businesses alive, is saving thousands
of jobs. But what about corporations that are doing well to start with.
This tax credit is strengthening their bottom line, allowing growth and
expansion of their market shares... but is it encouraging these work places to
create safer work
environments? To provide wage increases for the workers to keep up with
the rate of inflation? You can read more about the USW position on this issue on our Web
site here, http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_advisories?id=0187.
Dozens of media outlets ran stories on
Tuesday about the fact that industry titan News
Corp -- the parent company of Fox News and the
Wall Street Journal, among many other media
properties -- had donated $1 million to the
Republican Governors Association.
Notably, though, Fox News itself apparently
chose not to run a single story on the
contribution. "While many news organizations
reported Tuesday on the $1 million gift, a
late-afternoon search of Fox News' Web site
produced no mention of it," the New York Times
reported. Media Matters also
noted, "Fox News has not mentioned the
contribution, according to searches of the
TVEyes and Nexis databases."
Democrats, meanwhile, are doing their best to
keep the controversy alive. Howard Kurtz
reported on Wednesday:
In a letter Wednesday to Fox News Chairman
Roger Ailes, the head of the Democratic
Governors Association said: "In the interest
of some fairness and balance, I request that
you add a formal disclaimer to your coverage
any time any of your programs covers
governors or gubernatorial races between now
and Election Day."
Nathan Daschle, the group's executive
director, even suggested the wording: "News
Corp., parent company of Fox News, provided
$1 million to defeat Democratic governors in
November." Otherwise, he said, Fox
executives should demand that the donation
be returned.
The full text of the DGA's letter to Fox is
below.
* * * *
Mr. Roger Ailes
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
and VIA EMAIL
Dear Mr. Ailes,
For the first time in history, your organization
is openly and proudly supporting the defeat of
Democratic governors with an unprecedented
political contribution of $1 million to the
Republican Governors Association. In fact, your
company provided the single largest corporate
contribution to our opposition.
In the interest of some fairness and balance, I
request that you add a formal disclaimer to your
news coverage any time any of your programs
cover governors or gubernatorial races between
now and Election Day. I suggest that the
disclaimer say: "News Corp., parent company of
Fox News, provided $1 million to defeat
Democratic governors in November." If you do not
add a disclaimer, I request that you and your
staff members on the "fair and balanced" side of
the network demand that the contribution be
returned.
As you are well aware, the stakes could not be
higher in the 37 gubernatorial races this
election cycle. Your corporation and your allies
know well that these races have grave and
substantial implications for Congressional
redistricting. In fact, your allies in the GOP
hope to change our election map for decades by
electing governors who will redraw 30 seats into
Republican territory.
I look forward to hearing from you - or any of
your programs - at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Nathan Daschle
P.S. Many news outlets have covered this
controversy, but your own news programs have
been strangely silent. I am available to appear
on any of your programs to discuss the case for
Democratic governors - particularly why our
governors best for business growth. Despite my
efforts to immediately reach out to your news
programs, more than a dozen requests were
ignored.
Cc: Bret Baier
Carl Cameron
Gretchen Carlson
Neil Cavuto
Steve Doocy
Trace Gallagher
Major Garrett
Sean Hannity
Bill Hemmer
Brian Kilmeade
Megyn Kelly
Martha MacCallum
Bill O'Reilly
Jon Scott
Shepard Smith
Greta Van Susteren
Chris Wallace
GOP Fighting To Keep Wall Street
Negotiations Secret
April 27, 2010 - From Ryan Grimm: "The Financial Fix" of the Huffington Post
For the better part of a year, the GOP has
blasted Democrats for legislating "behind closed
doors" and making "secret deals." On Monday
afternoon, the Senate will vote on a motion to
proceed to debate Wall Street reform in public
on the Senate floor.
Yet Republicans say their 41 members are
united and will oppose the motion, in order to
encourage Democrats to continue negotiating with
them behind closed doors.
Condemning closed-door negotiations yet
voting to prevent public debate is the height of
hypocrisy, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) told
HuffPost on Monday. "By voting against cloture,
Republicans are voting to keep Wall Street
negotiations behind closed doors, demanding
changes to the bill without public scrutiny.
Instead of closed-door deals, they should
support open floor debate," said Merkley.
[UPDATE: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) took to
the Senate floor Monday night following the vote
to hammer Republicans for voting to continue
negotiating "behind closed doors" instead of, as
they routinely insist, in public.
"Rather than make the case out in the open,
on the floor of the Senate, for the changes they
want to the Wall Street reform bill, the 41
Senators who voted to block debate are instead
saying they want changes worked out behind
closed door," said Shaheen. "They are actually
saying that they will prevent debate and hold
this Wall Street reform bill hostage until they
are accommodated behind closed doors."]
The GOP acknowledges that it's time to move
forward. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the
lead Republican negotiator, spoke before the
Independent Community Bankers of America Monday
morning and was asked if Congress should allow
more time to pass with a commission
investigating the root causes of the financial
crisis.
"I think we basically know what went wrong.
We had a lot of hearings. We've been working on
it 15, 16 months now," said Shelby. "The
question is, do we agree basically on how to fix
it, for lack of a better term, deal with it?"
Shelby said that the global nature of the
financial system makes it impossible to
guarantee there will never be another crisis,
but that the likelihood and severity of them can
be mitigated.
"I don't know that you can fix it, because
you can't anticipate every problem down the road
in the financial sector because of the world --
the way we've connected in the world," he said.
"But we can mitigate it as much as we can. And
we can send a message, hopefully, that this is
not the status quo."
Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are portraying
the vote as one for or against Wall Street.
"Today, Republicans face a major choice: Will
they stand up for the American people, and join
us to hold Wall Street accountable for the
reckless gambling that cost 8 million Americans
their jobs and millions more their economic
livelihood?" said Jim Manley, spokesman for
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Or will
they follow the marching orders they've been
getting at their secret, closed-door meetings
with Wall Street executives, and continue to
protect Wall Street?"
UPDATE -- From Shaheen's floor statement:
I am deeply disappointed that 41 Senators
voted this evening to stop us from even
beginning debate on legislation to reign in
the reckless and risky Wall Street conduct
that brought our economy to its knees.
Rather than make the case out in the
open, on the floor of the Senate, for the
changes they want to the Wall Street reform
bill, the 41 Senators who voted to block
debate are instead saying they want changes
worked out behind closed door. They are
actually saying that they will prevent
debate and hold this Wall Street reform bill
hostage until they are accommodated behind
closed doors.
I would like to see some changes to the
bill, too. For example, I think we need to
strengthen the provisions in the bill to
prevent financial institutions that are
supposed to be helping American companies
finance their growth plans and families save
for their retirement and kids' college
educations from making risky side bets for
their own profit. But rather than block the
Senate from taking up the Wall Street reform
until I get what I want, I intend to
cosponsor an amendment with Senators Levin
and Merkley and then debate the issue openly
on the floor. Our amendment prohibits
federally-insured banks from engaging in
proprietary trading and will impose strict
capital charges on large nonbank financial
institutions to limit their proprietary
trading. We have all learned in recent days
about the proprietary trading Goldman Sachs
was doing - betting their own money that
mortgage-backed securities would fail while
getting their clients to invest in
mortgage-backed securities.
Mr. President, we need to enact a strong
Wall Street reform as soon as possible.
While we delay, the big banks on Wall Street
have returned to the same types of reckless
and risky gambles that brought our economy
to the brink of a complete economic
meltdown. My grandmother used to say: while
the cat's away, the mice will play. Today I
think my grandmother would say: while Wall
Street reform is delayed, middle class
families are being played. Let's be clear: a
vote against opening debate on holding Wall
Street accountable is a vote to protect Wall
Street.
It's fitting that President Barack Obama delivered a
speech about Wall Street at Cooper Union, the same auditorium where
Abraham Lincoln launched his national career. It is also safe to say
that if Lincoln were alive today, he would take a tough stand on
"derivatives," "credit default swaps" and all those other exotic
instruments. And he was a Republican.
No, I won't torture some Lincoln quote to prove that
he'd be opposed to what's going on at, or wrong with, Wall Street.
Suffice it to say that he earned the nickname Honest Abe as well as his
place in history for fighting the forces that allow people to profit
mightily from the toil and misery of others.
Wall Street crashed by picking the pockets of
hard-working Americans and rebounded to a healthy profitability by the
loans it received from American taxpayers.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans remain unemployed or
underemployed. Mothers worry how they'll feed their children. Those
lucky enough to still own a home worry how they'll pay their mortgage
next month. And, also in the meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal Magazine
can again publish a full-page ad for a diamond-encrusted toilet.
Clearly, something's not right. Equally clear is that we
need to make it right.
Since we all have short memories, let's recall how we
got to where we are today. Let's recall that at the end of the Clinton
years, the Republicans, under the guise of freedom, removed most
government regulations on Wall Street. An orgy of greed and swindling
followed. Make no mistake: this is a bipartisan farce that should demand
bipartisan cooperation in fixing the problem.
President Obama, the Tea Party's Mad Hatters and both
political parties should get on the same page and demand accountability,
transparency and, yes, that Wall Street pay back taxpayers with
interest. Wall Street has a moral obligation to help Main Street.
Let's face it, had Congress not made legal most of Wall
Street's swindles, there would be even more Wall Street executives with
Bernard Madoff for a cellmate. Wall Street raised gambling to its
highest dark art during the last 10 years. It's called "derivatives."
Warren Buffett, no enemy of free enterprise, called
derivatives, a fancy name for gambling, "financial instruments of mass
destruction." Even a financial wizard like Buffett had to admit that "no
one really understands how they work." Though heads nodded in agreement
across Wall Street, nothing was done to rid the financial world of those
instruments of mass destruction.
Let's recall that Buffett, one of the richest men in
America, also noted, "my secretary pays more in taxes than I do." Let's
recall that Sen. John McCain wanted us to sympathize with Joe the
Plumber because Obama wanted to restore taxes on the rich that he,
McCain, helped to remove. And, to be honest, let's also recall that some
Democrats have received gobs of campaign money from these rich Wall
Street titans.
In a delicious twist of history, President Obama, who
also benefited from some campaign contributions from Wall Street, is
merely seeking to return to average Americans a huge amount of wealth
that Wall Street redistributed - to itself. In his remarks, the
president stated: "I believe in the power of the free market. I believe
in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get
loans and invest their savings. ... But a free market was never meant to
be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it.
That is what happened too often in the years leading up to this crisis.
Some ... on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or
leveraged, there is a family looking to buy a house, pay for an
education, open a business, or save for retirement. What happens here
has real consequences across our country."
The slick Wall Street gambling resulted in placing
billions of dollars on high-risk subprime mortgages that were then
bundled and sold off, deceptively, to others. Thanks to lax or
nonexistent regulatory agencies and lawmakers sleeping at the switch,
some of whom remain unwilling to acknowledge their own bad deeds, clever
Wall Street gamblers were free to make billions, legally, by betting
that the mortgages would fail. And did they ever! Again, Wall Street
pocketed our losses as profit. Damn! Where are my pistol-packing Second
Amendment friends now?
Today, as I write this, it is legal for canny Wall
Street operators to take out insurance policies on elderly people they
aren't related to, betting when they will die. Would you be comfortable
with a politician or Wall Street as your life insurance beneficiary?
This is beyond sick. It's depraved.
Finally, let's recall that Wall Street executives paid
themselves billions of dollars in bonuses that they wouldn't have had
without the money taxpayers loaned them.
Enough!
Remember the commercial "When E. F. Hutton talks, people
listen"? Well, when Wall Street speaks, members of Congress start to
move their lips. But what about us? Who speaks for us?
Wall Street greed adversely and profoundly affects the
security of this nation. It's ruined the incomes and lives of millions
of American families. It's an evil. Wall Street still doesn't get it.
They like what they did. They're proud of it. They profit from it. They
want to do more of it.
What's worse, they are now betting that the average
American won't 'get it.'
Fat chance!
Donna Brazile is a political commentator on CNN, ABC
and NPR; contributing columnist to Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol
Hill; and former campaign manager for Al Gore.
Most back stricter financial reform,
advantage Obama
The Washington Post
About two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way
banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according
to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Majorities also back two main components of legislation congressional
Democrats plan to bring to a vote in the Senate this week: greater
federal oversight of consumer loans and a company-paid fund that would
cover the costs of dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy
at risk.
A third pillar of the reform effort draws a more even split: 43
percent support federal regulation of the derivatives market; 41 percent
are opposed. Nearly one in five - 17 percent - express no opinion on
this complicated topic.
President Obama, who traveled to New York last week to
deliver
his case for sweeping changes to the financial system gets an
even-up review of his performance on the issue, with 48 percent of those
polled approving of his handling of financial regulation and 48 percent
disapproving.
But compared with congressional Republicans, Obama has a clear
advantage. A slim majority - 52 percent - of all Americans says they
trust Obama over the GOP on the issue, while 35 percent favor the
Republicans in Congress. Independents prefer Obama 47 to 35 percent,
with 16 percent trusting neither side on the issue.
In the poll, most Democrats back each of the three major elements of
the reform legislation and most Republicans oppose them, echoing the
congressional showdown expected this week.
The area with the highest levels of cross-party
support is on more robust federal oversight of the way banks and other
financial companies make consumer loans, such as auto loans, credit
cards and mortgages. Here, 44 percent of Republicans approve of stricter
guidelines, joining 75 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of
independents on the issue.
In this poll, support for new federal regulation was about the same
for "banks and other financial institutions" as for "Wall Street firms."
A recent Gallup poll taken before Obama took his case for reform to
New York last week showed somewhat greater support for new laws aimed at
Wall Street, suggesting the phrase had become a pejorative.
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling
regulation of the financial industy? Do you approve/disapprove strongly
or somewhat?
- Approve -- -- Disapprove -- No
NET Strgly Smwht NET Smwht Strgly opin.
Regulation of
the financial
industry 48 22 26 48 14 33 4
Q: Whom do you trust to do a better job handling [ITEM] - (Obama) or
(the Republicans in Congress)?
Both Neither No
Obama Reps (vol.) (vol.) opinion
Regulation of the
financial industry 52 35 1 11 2
Q (HALF SAMPLE): Do you support or oppose stricter federal
regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct
their business?
----- Support ----
NET Much Smwht Oppose No opinion
4/25/10 65 34 32 31 4
2/8/10 62 36 26 34 3
2/22/09 76 49 27 22 2
Q (HALF SAMPLE): Do you support or oppose stricter federal
regulations on the way Wall Street firms conduct their business?
----- Support ----
NET Much Smwht Oppose No opinion
4/25/10 63 35 28 29 8
Q: Please tell me whether you support or oppose each of these items.
Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
a. Having the federal government regulate the complex financial
instruments known as derivatives
----- Support ----- ------ Oppose ----- No
NET Stgly Smwht NET Smwht Stgly op.
4/25/10 43 16 26 41 19 21 17
b. Requiring large banks and other financial companies to put money
into a fund that would cover the cost of taking over and breaking up any
large financial company that fails and threatens the broader economy
----- Support ----- ------ Oppose ----- No
NET Stgly Smwht NET Smwht Stgly op.
4/25/10 53 27 26 42 18 24 5
c. Increasing federal oversight of the way banks and other financial
companies make consumer loans, such as mortgages and auto loans, and
issue credit cards
----- Support ----- ------ Oppose ----- No
NET Stgly Smwht NET Smwht Stgly op.
4/25/10 59 36 23 38 15 24 2
This poll was conducted April 22 to 25, among a random national
sample of 1,001 adults. Interviews were conducted on conventional and
cellular telephones. The results from the full sample have a margin of
sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on
Friday announced that it would offer $2.3
billion in clean-energy manufacturing tax
credits to 183 companies, seeking to renew
its emphasis on domestic economic issues
after two weeks spent focused on terrorism.
The biggest winners were companies tied
to the solar industry, including Hemlock
Semiconductor Corp. and Wacker Polysilicon
North America LLC. Brand-name companies that
were big awardees included
United Technologies Corp., which plans
to retool existing plants to produce a more
fuel-efficient jet engine.
The announcement begins a renewed
administration drive on economic issues and
follows a report that the U.S. unemployment
rate
stayed at 10% in December as the economy
lost 85,000 jobs. Unemployment remains one
of the Democrats' thorniest challenges as
they look ahead to November congressional
elections.
The attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound jet
on Christmas Day has for the past two weeks
riveted the administration on a review of
flaws in the nation's intelligence
apparatus, a summary of which was
released Thursday.
Mr. Obama has placed heavy emphasis on
incentives for Americans to make
energy-efficient improvements to their
homes, and investments in renewable energy
projects as ways to generate "green jobs."
But the administration has faced skepticism
from important constituencies such as
unions, which fear that U.S. policies will
create demand for overseas goods. The
manufacturing tax credits are designed to
counter those fears, to ensure that U.S.
manufacturing capacity can meet U.S. demand.
Mr. Obama expressed support for a package
of clean-energy job initiatives late last
year, and in late fall announced $3.4
billion in investments from the $787 billion
economic stimulus package for more efficient
"smart grid" electricity distribution
projects. In mid-December Vice President Joe
Biden announced the administration's support
for up to $5 billion in additional funding
for a stimulus-related clean-energy
manufacturing program.
When Congress returns from its holiday
recess in a week it is expected to continue
work on an overhaul of the nation's
healthcare system, a rework of U.S.
financial system regulation and a
jobs-creation bill, in that order,
congressional leadership aides say. The jobs
bill likely will include investments and
incentives backed by Obama to spur
clean-energy manufacturing jobs.
Democrats urged to back union rights
As reported by "MORNING STAR" online.co.uk's -Foreign Desk-
US union leader Richard Trumka urged Democrats
yesterday to advance President Barack Obama's pledge
to pass a pro-union law and "give workers the
freedom to organise a union."
The AFL-CIO union federation president was
responding to US Labour Department figures that
revealed the past 10 years were a "lost decade" for
US workers.
For the first time ever, there was zero net job
creation during an entire decade.
In the 10 years from December 1999 more jobs were
lost than created, while workers' wages registered a
fall in real terms for the first time since the
1960s.
Labour Secretary Hilda Solis insisted that
President Obama was determined to "turn this around"
and added that her department was committed to
"aggressively" enforcing workers' rights.
Highlighting bosses' widespread evasion of
minimum wage and health and safety laws, Ms Solis,
who is the daughter of two Latino union organisers,
declared that the administration "will not rest
until the law is followed by every employer."
"Each worker must be treated and compensated
fairly," she stressed, announcing that the Labour
Department was taking on 250 workplace inspectors to
crack down on bosses cheating workers out of minimum
wage and night-shift premium payments.
Ms Solis also revealed that the government had
taken on 100 workplace safety inspectors and had
begun targeting and fining companies with
"egregious" health and safety violations.
She said it would also introduce rules forcing
bosses to disclose whether they were employing
union-busting "consultants" to undermine union
organising campaigns.
AFL-CIO chief Mr Trumka welcomed the
announcements and urged Congress, which is dominated
by President Obama's Democrats, to follow through on
a campaign promise to pass the Employee Free Choice
Act (EFCA), which will give legal protection to
activists trying to organise a union in their
workplace.
"We need to give workers the ability to bargain
for a fair share," the AFL-CIO leader asserted.
"That means passing EFCA to give workers the
freedom to form a union and get a fair contract."
Obama to GOP: 'Stop
trying to frighten the American people'
President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders
to "stop trying to frighten the American people" even as
he and Democrats said they see a possibility for
bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told
reporters that Obama made the admonition during a
bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday,
producing a chart to show Republicans that "things are a
lot better."
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said
there was broad agreement on their side of the aisle
about how to create jobs by aiding small businesses and
boosting infrastructure spending. Pelosi said she thinks
on those issues, "it's possible for us to find some
common, bipartisan ground."
But moments later, Republicans made it clear that they
want to see a "spending freeze" and a "no-cost" jobs
plan that consists largely of tax cuts.
"We can't keep spending money we don't have," House
Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed back
on Obama's request for an end to Republicans' scare
tactics by saying that Obama's policies have led to a
hiring freeze, and the GOP is simply telling
constituents what is happening.
"[E]mployers are sitting there and they're frozen
because they don't know what's really going to happen
here," Boehner said. "And the president wants to blame
us for informing the American people about what's
happening here and how it will affect them, but it's not
what we're doing; it's the policies that they're
promoting here in Washington."
The Republicans presented a letter to Obama detailing
how they think he should approach job creation,
including by way of tax cuts and trade expansion.
For his part, Obama also expressed hope that
Republicans would support him on his proposals,
particularly on items like a one-year elimination of the
capital gains tax that the GOP has supported in the
past.
"It's appropriate that I met with leaders of both
parties," Obama said after the meeting. "Spurring hiring
and economic growth are not Democratic or Republican
issues. They are American issues that affect every
single one of our constituents."
The president noted Republican opposition to his $787
billion stimulus package, but he said he hopes that he
will get some GOP support for his attempts at job
creation.
"It's no secret that there's been less than full
bipartisan support for the recovery act and some of the
steps that have broken the free-fall of our economy,"
Obama said. "But my hope is that as we move forward we
can do so together, recognizing that we have a shared
responsibility to meet our economic challenges on behalf
of all Americans: those who elected us to make sure that
we're doing the people's business."
Despite the GOP opposition, Democratic leaders seemed
optimistic they can move quickly on a jobs bill that
contains much of what the president outlined in a speech
Tuesday.
Reid declined to say when a jobs bill might come up in
the Senate, but he said after Tuesday night's
"breakthrough" on healthcare reform that he does think
the Senate will pass a healthcare bill before lawmakers
leave for Christmas.
![McCain-Strip[1].jpg (645689 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/McCain-Strip[1].jpg)
![handouts[1].jpg (508506 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/handouts[1].jpg)
![Vote_Counts[1].jpg (333830 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/Vote_Counts[1].jpg)
![GovEconomists[1].jpg (450959 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/GovEconomists[1].jpg)
![CCC-Strip[1].jpg (456416 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/CCC-Strip[1].jpg)
![EmployFC20Plant[1].jpg (618414 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/EmployFC20Plant[1].jpg)
![AntiWorker_Politician[1].jpg (157836 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/AntiWorker_Politician[1].jpg)
![PoliticianEducTrips[1].jpg (631590 bytes)](images/Political%20Folder/PoliticianEducTrips[1].jpg)
