Robert Reich: The Real Reason Trump Wants to Reopen the Economy (Traducido al Español)

Video: robertreich.org

Donald Trump se está poniendo nervioso. Las encuestas muestran que perdería las elecciones de noviembre a menos que logre reflotar la economía del país.

Entonces, ¿cuál es la estrategia de reelección de Trump? Ignorar las advertencias de los expertos en salud pública y reabrir la economía a toda costa.

Aquí está su letal plan de 4 partes:

Paso 1: Eliminar los subsidios de apoyo a los ingresos para que las personas no tengan más remedio que volver al trabajo.

El US Department of Labor bajo la Administración de Trump ha decidido que los empleados que se encuentran con licencia y suspensión perfecta “deben aceptar” la oferta de su empleador de regresar al trabajo y perder los subsidios para casos de desempleo, todo esto a pesar de que se corra el riesgo de regresar al trabajo antes de que sea seguro.

Obligar a las personas a elegir entre contraer un virus potencialmente mortal o perder la vida es inhumano. También es absurdo. Nuestra salud colectiva en esta pandemia depende de que los trabajadores se queden en casa en la medida de lo posible.

Paso 2: Ocultar los hechos.

Nadie sabe cuántos estadounidenses están infectados porque el gobierno de Trump sigue arrastrándose en las pruebas. Hasta el 5 de mayo, solo se han completado 7,5 millones de pruebas en una población de más de 330 millones de estadounidenses.

¿Es esto lo que Jared Kushner quiso decir con la afirmación “historia de gran éxito”?

Florida, uno de los últimos estados que emitió la orden de cuarentena y uno de los primeros en reabrir, ha dejado de publicar las estadísticas de los examinadores médicos relacionadas con el número de víctimas del coronavirus porque los números son más altos que el recuento oficial del estado.

Pero es imposible combatir el virus sin los datos adecuados. Anthony Fauci, el principal experto en enfermedades infecciosas de la administración Trump, advierte que la reapertura plantea “un riesgo realmente significativo” sin un incremento de las pruebas.

No es sorprendente que la Casa Blanca haya bloqueado a Fauci para que testifique ante la Cámara de Representantes.

Trump despidió al Inspector General de Salud y Servicios Humanos, Christi Grimm, luego de que ella publicara un informe que detalla la escasez generalizada de pruebas y Elementos de Protección Personal (EPP) en hospitales de todo el país. Su reemplazo ahora afrontará una denuncia presentada por el Dr. Rick Bright, el destituido director de la oficina involucrada en el desarrollo de una vacuna contra el coronavirus.

La queja del Dr. Bright alega que la administración ignoró repetidamente sus advertencias sobre la escasez crítica de suministros y fue destituido de su cargo porque se negó a adoptar tratamientos científicamente no probados para combatir el virus.

Paso 3: Impulsar una narrativa falsa sobre “libertad” y “liberación”.

Hace unas semanas, Trump llamó a los ciudadanos a “LIBERAR” el estado de Michigan, luego de que su gobernadora demócrata, Gretchen Whitmer, impusiera reglas estrictas para quedarse en casa.

Michigan tiene el tercer número de muertes de Covid-19 en Estados Unidos, aunque es el décimo en población. Cuando Whitmer extendió las reglas hasta el 28 de mayo, manifestantes armados (2A) se apresuraron camino a la sede del poder ejecutivo gritando y cantando “¡Métanla a la Cárcel!”.

En lugar de condenar su comportamiento, Trump sugirió a Whitmer “hacer un trato” con ellos.

Mientras tanto, el Fiscal General William Barr ha ordenado al Departamento de Justicia que tome medidas legales contra cualquier autoridad estatal o local que imponga medidas de bloqueo que “podrían estar violando los derechos constitucionales y las libertades civiles de los ciudadanos individuales”.

Hacer esto sobre la “libertad” es absurdo.

La libertad no significa que tienes derecho a poner en peligro la vida de los demás a través de tu propia irresponsabilidad e ignorancia.

La Libertad no obliga a las personas a volver a trabajar en entornos inseguros para aumentar las carteras de acciones de los multimillonarios.

La libertad no tiene sentido para las personas que no tienen más remedio que aceptar un trabajo que pone en riesgo su vida.

Paso 4: Proteger a las empresas, negocios y corporaciones contra demandas en caso de producirse una propagación de la infección.

Trump está presionando para que las empresas que vuelvan a abrir gocen de una “exención de responsabilidad” contra las acciones legales de los trabajadores o clientes que se infecten con el virus.

Él dice que usará la Ley de Producción de Defensa (Defense Production Act) para obligar a las plantas de procesamiento de carne a permanecer abiertas, a pesar de las altas tasas de infecciones y muertes por Covid-19 entre los empacadores de carne. “Eso resolverá cualquier problema de responsabilidad”, dijo Trump.

Mitch McConnell insiste en que el próximo proyecto de ley para la creación de un paquete de estímulo debe incluir inmunidad legal para las corporaciones que causen la infección de trabajadores o consumidores.

“Tenemos una línea roja sobre responsabilidad”, dice McConnell. “No pasará el Senado sin ella”.

Pero, ¿cómo puede reabrir la economía de manera segura si las empresas no tienen un incentivo para mantener a las personas seguras? No puede, y no lo hará.

Lo que me lleva a mi punto final:

Aquí está la verdad: el mayor obstáculo para reabrir la economía es la pandemia en si misma.

Cualquier apuro por reabrir sin pruebas y seguimiento adecuados, un aumento masivo comparado con lo que estamos haciendo ahora, causará aún más muertes y una crisis económica más larga.

La primera responsabilidad de un presidente es mantener la seguridad de los ciudadanos de la nación. Pero a Donald Trump no podría importarle menos.

El está tratando de forzar la reapertura de la economía para aumentar sus posibilidades electorales, y está vendiendo la salud de los estadounidenses para sellar el acuerdo. No importa el costo, la principal preocupación de Donald Trump es y siempre será él mismo.

Por: Robert Reich

Traducido al español de: robertreich.org

What Happened When China Joined the WTO?

Video: OMC español

Economically, the United States saw some benefits and some downsides.

  • Consumers broadly benefited from China’s WTO entry because they could buy goods from China at lower prices.
  • Corporations profited from increased access to China’s massive market. In 2017, for example, China accounted for about 20 percent of Apple’s sales, and since 2001, the value of U.S. agricultural exports to China increased by 1,000 percent.
  • However, labor unions in manufacturing and factory work opposed a WTO accession deal, certain that cheaper labor in China would cost jobs in the United States. And they were right: between 1999 and 2011, almost 6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost. A landmark study attributed nearly 1 million of those manufacturing job losses, and 2.4 million total job losses, to competition from China. But because major technological advances such as automation occurred in that same time frame, economists disagree about exactly how responsible Chinese competition was for job losses in manufacturing.

Meanwhile, for China, the economic impact has been remarkably positive:

  • Since 1999, more than four hundred million Chinese people have been lifted from extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 a day).
  • China’s economy is eight times larger than it was in 2001.
  • Trade in goods between the United States and China increased more than thirty times, from less than $8 billion in 1986 to over $578 billion in 2016. China surpassed Germany to become the world’s largest exporter of goods in 2009.

Source: https://world101.cfr.org/global-era-issues/trade/what-happened-when-china-joined-wto

Video: CNN Chile

Video: teleSUR tv

Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon fired

(CNN) President Donald Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon has been fired, multiple White House officials told CNN on Friday.

https://youtu.be/spG-xH5kW0k

Sources told CNN that Bannon’s ouster had been in the works for two weeks and a source said that while Bannon was given the option to resign, he was ultimately forced out. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed Bannon’s departure, but claimed the decision for him to leave was mutual.

“White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day. We are grateful for his service and wish him the best,” Sanders said in a statement.

The President has privately stewed over Bannon in recent days, including Thursday night from his golf course in New Jersey. He was furious with his chief strategist after he was quoted in an interview with the American Prospect contradicting Trump on North Korea and asserting that Bannon was able to make personnel changes at the State Department.

On Saturday morning, however, the President tweeted out his thanks to Bannon: “I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton – it was great! Thanks S.”

Bannon’s exit comes just seven months after Trump took office and three weeks after retired Gen. Kelly took over as chief of staff, looking to instill order in a chaotic White House beset by internal divisions, staff infighting and a storm of controversies.

Bannon’s exit meant one of the White House’s most controversial staffers, the man generally perceived as the driving force behind Trump’s “nationalist” ideology, would no longer be at the center of the Trump universe.

Bannon joined Trump’s campaign last year, moving from the sidelines as one of Trump’s top cheerleaders to a position atop his campaign apparatus.

He did not travel with the President during the first week of what White House officials described as a “working vacation” at Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. Instead Bannon remained in Washington where he worked out of a temporary office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building as the West Wing underwent renovations.

Bannon was supposed to be fired two weeks ago, a White House official told CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, but it was put off.

CNN reports the President equivocated after an initial plan was to fire Bannon and then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus at same time, the official says, because Rep. Mark Meadows, the influential chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and others urged Trump to keep him on board.

The interview this week was enough for Meadows to change his view, a person close to him says.

What Bannon is thinking

After his firing Friday, Bannon spoke to The Weekly Standard, making a pointed case that the Trump presidency that his brand of populist, right-wing conservatives helped make possible is now “over.”

“We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency,” Bannon told The Weekly Standard. “But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”

The question now is whether Bannon will be an ally or a thorn in the side of the Trump administration outside the White House, where he has apparently already returned to his role as head of Breitbart, the right-wing news site he ran until he joined Trump’s campaign a year ago.

However that unfolds, Bannon is expected to remain tightly connected to the billionaire conservative father-daughter pair Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who are major investors in Breitbart News and top Trump donors.

Bannon returned to the role of executive chairman of Breitbart News and chaired the evening editorial meeting, the publication’s White House correspondent reported Friday evening.

Both Bannon and Trump spoke with the Mercers in recent days, a White House official said.

A White House ally who has talked to Bannon said the outgoing chief strategist does not want to go to war with Trump. Bannon is making that clear to close associates in response to Breitbart editor Joel Pollak tweeting #WAR.

“That’s not where Steve’s head is at,” this source said. “He’s been fighting for the exact same things that the President has been fighting for.”

This source quoted Bannon as saying “I want (Trump) to succeed.”

Still, as his firing appeared increasingly likely, Bannon downplayed concerns about being booted from the White House and argued that he would be a more powerful force from the outside, sources close to Bannon said.

He has privately told associates he would return to his “killing machine” — Breitbart — if he was forced to leave for the White House and has said he would be able to more easily target some of his White House rivals — like chief economic adviser Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster — from the outside, the sources said.

Bannon has also worked in recent weeks to put the pieces in place for his agenda to live on without him at the White House, working on hardline trade initiatives in his final weeks.

After pushing the President to start the process of investigating Chinese trade abuses, Bannon also laid the groundwork for a series of aggressive trade actions designed to impose a harder line against China, the sources said.

In his final days at the White House, Bannon was continuing to work up schedules for the rollout of trade initiatives that would come in September, long after he expected to be forced from the White House, the sources said.

“We’re going to run the tables on these guys,” Bannon told The American Prospect in an interview earlier this week.

A quick and contentious tenure.

Bannon’s turbulent White House tenure was marked by controversy.

In the administration, Bannon frequently butted heads with other advisers to the President, feuding with son-in-law and senior adviser Jared

Kushner, chief economic adviser Cohn and other more moderate members of the President’s administration whom Bannon branded as “globalists.”

Bannon was often suspected by colleagues of badmouthing them to reporters and he rubbed colleagues the wrong way by attempting to ramrod his ideological positions.

“Steve was never a team player,” a senior administration official said.

Bannon viewed himself as the populist defender of Trump’s campaign promises in the White House, working daily to tick off items from the list of promises that hung on the walls of his West Wing office.

Bannon focused especially on pushing a hardline trade agenda, recently working to cue up a series of trade policies to aggressively target Chinese foreign trade abuses and work toward rebalancing the trading relationship between the US and China.

Source: CNN

Bannon was an influential voice inside the White House, feeding and encouraging Trump’s nationalist and populist instincts.

In the process, he garnered an infamous reputation as a puppet master pulling the strings in the Oval Office, with pop culture portrayals ranging from the moniker “President Bannon” to his depiction as the grim reaper on “Saturday Night Live.” Those portrayals — coupled with a Time Magazine cover that declared him “the great manipulator” — often angered Trump, who chafes at being outshined.

But the reality is that while Bannon was an influential figure at Trump’s side, he was hardly the all-powerful aide so many sought to portray him as.

He did not always come out victorious in his feuds with fellow White House aides and Trump did not always heed his counsel.

Still, Bannon served as a daily reminder to Trump of his populist campaign promises and his bellicose political instincts. Bannon’s rivals in the White House argued that he encouraged the President’s worst instincts, while his allies said he was keeping the soul of Trump’s movement alive.

The fiery chief strategist also led the charge against proposals by national security officials to deepen US military involvement in Afghanistan, feuding vocally during meetings of the National Security Council with McMaster and working behind the scenes to water down hawkish proposals for troop increases and a longer-term US military commitment.

The President is meeting Friday with members of his national security team at Camp David to consider options for the future of the US war in Afghanistan as he nears a decision, but Bannon is not there — and was not scheduled to be, based on a list of attendees the White House sent out Friday morning.

This story is breaking and will update with additional news.

CORRECTION: This graphic has been updated to reflect Shaub’s duration on staff for the Trump administration. He was on staff 180 days.

CLARIFICATION: This graphic has been updated to clarify Scaramucci’s and Comey’s duration on staff based on the their start and end dates. They stayed on staff 11 days and 110 days, respectively.

CNN’s Jim Acosta, Jeff Zeleny, Miranda Green, Gloria Borger and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.

In: cnn

Pentagon spends 10 times more on erectile disfunction meds than transgender services

The Pentagon spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications in 2014, 10 times the estimated annual medical costs for transgender services.

Military Times reported in 2015 that the military spent $84 million on erectile disfunction medications such as Viagra and Cialis the year before. Meanwhile, a 2016 Rand Corporation study estimated that the maximum annual medical costs for transgender military members would be around $8.4 million, Business Insider reports.

“You’re talking about .000001% of the military budget,” being spent on transgender services, Navy SEAL veteran Kristin Beck, who is transgender, told Business Insider.

President Trump announced Wednesday on Twitter his decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military “in any capacity.” He cited the “tremendous” costs for providing medical services for transgender troops.

“Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” Trump tweeted.

His announcement sparked widespread condemnation from members of both parties, including Republicans who broke with the president to speak out against the ban.

Image: Facebook

In: thehill

Read also:

Trump to ban transgender people from all military service

Retired transgender Navy SEAL: Tell me to my face I’m not worthy of serving

 

BREAKING: Howard University professor reports settlement in Brazilian wax case

Image: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/06073524/Howard-CREDIT-279photo-Studio-Shutterstock.com-FEAT.jpg

By  July 14, 2017

Howard University has reached a tentative agreement with the law professor it found responsible for sexual harassment over a test question about a hypothetical Brazilian wax.

This afternoon, professor Reginald Robinson’s attorney, Gaillard T. Hunt, released the following statement:

We have discussed the case with the University and we believe we have reached a mutually satisfactory solution. Professor Robinson regrets if anyone was offended by the test question.

FIRE reported on the case last week, which we noted at the time was part of a larger pattern of colleges and universities punishing constitutionally protected expression under the guise of addressing sexual harassment.

You can read more about the case in our press release.

Check back to Newsdesk next week for more on this development.

Schools: Howard University Cases: Howard University: Professor Subjected to 504-Day Investigation and Sanctions for Hypothetical Test Question Involving Waxing

In: thefire.org

Case given by the professor translated in spanish:

Pregunta 5.

P es dueño y manager de “Day Spa & Massage Therapy Company, LLC.” P atiende tanto a hombres y mujeres. Entre otros servicios, P ofrece “Brazilian wax” y “bikini wax” – también llamados “Sphynx”, depilada total, o depilación estilo Hollywood.

Para prestar estos servicios, P contrató a A, un esteticista, certificado y licenciado por la escuela ubicada en el Estado en que P realiza sus actividades.

Un día, T visitó la compañía de P. T nunca había buscado tales servicios, pero sus amigos habían elogiado el trabajo de P. A se encontró con T en la mesa de atención. T pidió un Brazilian wax. -¿Un brasileño completo o modificado? -preguntó A a T. T parecía confundido, entonces A procedió a explicarle que un Full Brazilian (“FB”) implicaba depilar totalmente a T desde el ombligo hasta las nalgas,  por lo que un FB requería que T esté desnudo de la cintura para abajo. Un FB además requiere que A toque el cuerpo de T y realice los ajustes necesarios para que este pueda acceder a todos los folículos del vello púbico de T. Asimismo, A le explicó a T cómo sería un “Modified Brazilian” (“MB”). Un MB le dejaría una fina franja de pelo en la parte superior de sus genitales, es decir, un “landing strip” (pista de aterrizaje). Así, T optó por un Full Brazilian.

Una vez más, A le explicó a T que tendría que tocar sus genitales para completar la depilación. T estuvo de acuerdo y firmó en el Contrato de Servicio el espacio donde reconoce la información brindada por A. T se desvistió en un salón privado, donde también bebió un té de hierbas caliente. Por pedido de A, T, quien estaba desnudo de la parte de abajo, se acostó en la mesa de depilación. Una vez sobre ella y con los tonos instrumentales como fondo, T cayó en un sueño ligero. Finalmente A completó el FB. Al despertar, T se sintió físicamente incómodo, preguntándole a A si lo había tocado incorrectamente. A, le dijo que no, y sintiéndose ofendido, se fue.

Semanas después, P recibió una carta del abogado de T, en la que T alegaba que A lo había tocado inapropiadamente, generando que T buscara consejería y medicación para tratar un Trastorno de Estrés Post-traumático. Habiendo trabajado con A durante 10 años, P respondió que A era un esteticista certificado y licenciado, que nunca había tenido quejas presentadas por sus clientes. T demandó a P, y por testimonio de A, Los abogados de P y T descubrieron que A había tocado a T correctamente durante el FB. Sin embargo, T todavía siente que los tocamientos de A fueron impropios. En la demanda, T alegó que A, envuelto en una aparente posición de autoridad, lo había inducido a través de representaciones falsas a confiar razonablemente en él, de modo que A podría causar daño a T mientras actuaba en el marco de su labor. Si P se hubiera opuesto, en efecto diciendo “Sí, ¿Y qué?” a los pedidos de T, ¿la corte se encontraría a favor de T?

(A) Sí, porque T había establecido que A era un empleado que fue colocado como esteticista, lo que permitió a A hacerle daño a T.

(B) No, porque T expresa e implícitamente consintió  los tocamientos de A en cualquier manera razonable para que este le proporcione el servicio FB que aquél solicitó.

(C) Sí, porque P se benefició de los ingresos pagados por T en razón del servicio realizado por A.

(D) No.

This is our chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional

Why you should support Common Cause

In January, a federal judge ruled that the Wisconsin Legislature—tasked with drawing legislative districts—would have to re-draw them to less blatantly favor one party over the other.

The Legislature in Wisconsin drew unconstitutionally partisan lines because they wanted to rig the system.

They’ve appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, and you can bet they’ll be well financed.

This problem is called Gerrymandering, and I’m determined to terminate its poisonous impact on our democracy.

That’s why I’ve partnered with Common Cause, a nonprofit focused on promoting open, honest and accountable government.

We want to hire the best-in-the-business lawyers to argue this and other critical cases before the Supreme Court.

If we win, we have the chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional nation-wide.

But terminating gerrymandering will be expensive.

Arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court, filing amicus briefs, paying for the research and legal expertise necessary to really have a shot at terminating gerrymandering — that’ll take anywhere from $250,000 to $1,000,000.

We’re hoping YOU can help us get to $150,000. And because we must win these cases, I’m personally going to match each and every dollar we raise with my own contribution.

Please chip in whatever you can afford today — even $3 will send a powerful message that the citizens of America won’t stand idly by as politicians protect their jobs instead of earn them.

Message from Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Thank you!

Friends — 

I have been traveling across the globe, but I had to take a moment to write you a quick note of thanks for joining me in the effort to end partisan gerrymandering.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, our work begins in earnest. You are on the front lines of this battle, and I’m grateful to have you with me in this fight. 
 
I can think of no better way to celebrate our patriotism after July 4th than boldly proclaiming that as American citizens, we stand united against gerrymandering and the broken political system it has created.
 
We stand against politicians choosing themselves and their jobs over the people. 
 
We stand for American citizens taking political power into their own hands. 
 
You’ve already done your part by donating — now make sure that your friends know we have the chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional. 
 
Share your support on Facebook.
 

Together, we’re going to make Washington work for regular people again. 
 
I hope you had a fantastic fourth, 

Arnold

1 2 3 14