http://hotairdaily.com/ en-us Nucleus CMS v3.64 © Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://hotairdaily.com//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://hotairdaily.com/ xml-rss2.php?itemid=43
Wal-Mart Stores Inc has in recent months been only hiring temporary workers at many of its U.S. stores, the first time the world's largest retailer has done so outside of the holiday shopping season.

A Reuters survey of 52 stores run by the largest U.S. private employer in the past month, including one in every U.S. state, showed that 27 were hiring only temps, 20 were hiring a combination of regular full, part-time and temp jobs, and five were not hiring at all. The survey was based on interviews with managers, sales staff and human resource department employees at the stores.The new hiring policy is to ensure "we are staffed appropriately," when the stores are busiest and is not a cost-cutting move, said company spokesman David Tovar. Temporary workers, he said, are paid the same starting pay as other workers.

Using temporary workers enables the company to have adequate staff on busy weeknights and weekends without having to hire additional full-time staff.

Tovar said fewer than 10 percent of its U.S. workforce is temporary - or what the company internally calls "flexible associates" - compared to 1 to 2 percent before 2013. The majority of its workforce is still regular full-time staff, he said.

Here's the rest of the story on yet another
reason why Walmart sucks...

]]> economy xml-rss2.php?itemid=43 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:09:05 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=41 The Nation

Walmart’s board—rife with billionaires and industry titans—has recently become a lightning rod for company critics. During their lengthy and high-profile business careers, several board members have faced allegations—from worker exploitation to financial malfeasance—that parallel those facing Walmart itself.Over the past year, labor activists have targeted board members with dossiers on the Internet and protests around the country, from a hunger strike and vigil by guest workers outside Michele Burns’s New York mansion, to demonstrators placed along the route of a Bay Area marathon to shout messages at Greg Penner as he ran towards the finish line. Over the past week, striking retail workers from the union-backed group OUR Walmart have staged a series of board-focused protests, including one at Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer’s Palo Alto mansion, and another outside her penthouse atop the San Francisco Four Seasons hotel.

Read more: Reasons why WalMart sucks....



]]> economy xml-rss2.php?itemid=41 Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:09:15 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=39
“Working for Walmart has become too costly,” said Sparks, who said she relies on credit cards to eat and buy gas. Saki Knafo

saki.knafo@huffingtonpost.com

Kim Bhasin

Kim.Bhasin@huffingtonpost.com


Read more here.....

]]> economy xml-rss2.php?itemid=39 Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:00:28 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=37
When Republicans look back at Reagan nine years after his death, here are seven legacies they won't be remembering.

1. Reagan was a big FDR fanboy.

Though Reagan famously quipped, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help,'" he admired Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who arguably did more to expand the role of government than any other American leader. Reagan voted for FDR all four times and called him "one of history's truly monumental figures." It would be hard to find a GOP candidate today willing to admit a similar admiration for Roosevelt. 2. Reagan was no stranger to tax hikes.

Reagan was not afraid to raise taxes. As governor of California, he signed the largest tax increase in the history of any state at that time. Though it's true that under President Reagan, the top income tax rate decreased from roughly 70 percent to 28 percent, taxes increased 11 times during his tenure. As professor Douglas Brinkley, author of The Reagan Diaries, said in a 2011 NPR interview, "There's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way."

3. Reagan helped expand the federal government.

Though the myth persists, Reagan did not reduce the size of the government during his tenure. Annual federal spending during his terms averaged 22.4 percent of the gross domestic product, which is greater than the 20.8 percent average under President Jimmy Carter. As then-Slate editor Michael Kinsley once noted, the federal government's spending increased by 25 percent in real terms from the time Reagan entered office to the time he left. During the same time, the federal civilian workforce grew from 2.8 million to 3 million.

4. Reagan gave amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants.

With today's heated rhetoric over immigration reform and border security, many tea party supporters should be horrified that Reagan signed a 1986 law granting amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants. Anyone who came to the U.S. prior to 1982 was eligible for the amnesty. The comprehensive legislation also mandated tighter security along the Mexican border and provided for penalties on employers who hired immigrants without papers.

5. Reagan blew up the national debt.

Debt reduction is now a central tenet of Republican ideology, but during the Reagan presidency, the national debt tripled -- from $995 billion to $2.9 trillion. In a 1998 book, Richard Darman, the former president's adviser, declared, "In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States."

6. One of Reagan's Supreme Court appointees saved abortion rights.

When Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, she came with a record of pro-choice votes as an Arizona state legislator, much to the chagrin of evangelicals. The first woman justice, O'Connor would become a critical swing vote on abortion and reaffirm the core of Roe v. Wade in 1992. In other words, Reagan's decision to name O'Connor to the Supreme Court ensured that women had the right to choose for another generation.

7. Reagan negotiated with terrorists.

In the events that became known as Iran-Contra, Reagan went where Republicans wouldn't dare today: He negotiated with terrorists. Trying to free American hostages held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon, Reagan violated the U.S. embargo and secretly sold weapons to Iran. The funds from selling those weapons were then used to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Some would argue that Iran-Contra was a far greater scandal than those now facing President Barack Obama.









http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/ronald-reagan-death_n_3391925.html]]> politics xml-rss2.php?itemid=37 Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:24:37 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=36 More reason why Walmart sucks ]]> economy xml-rss2.php?itemid=36 Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:29:56 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=35 More reason why Walmart sucks]]> economy xml-rss2.php?itemid=35 Sat, 1 Jun 2013 06:24:13 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=34 One of China’s largest food conglomerates on Wednesday announced a $4.7 billion purchase of Smithfield Foods, the biggest pork producer in the United States, prompting food-safety advocates to warn of potential dangers to American consumers' health. The proposed deal -- the largest Chinese takeover of an American firm in history -- would put Smithfield in the hands of Shuanghui International, a company based in the central Chinese province of Henan. Two years ago, Shuanghui was embroiled in a food-safety scandal ...More ways we are helping the Chinese kick our asses]]> politics xml-rss2.php?itemid=34 Thu, 30 May 2013 05:23:12 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=33

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - After months of casting Republican Mitt Romney as someone who often changes positions for political convenience, President Barack Obama's campaign is calling Romney a far-right conservative - a contradictory set of messages that essentially invites voters to decide what they don't like about Romney.And Romney, who has built his campaign around declaring Obama a failure - particularly on the economy - began sounding a more positive note this week, offering hints about his vision for governing if he defeats the Democratic president in the Nov. 6 election.

The subtle changes in tactics by both candidates in recent days are benchmarks for the fall campaign. They symbolize the multiple angles of attack each man plans to use to try to define his rival and appeal to the 20 percent or so of U.S. voters who describe themselves as independent - and who will decide what both sides agree is likely to be a very close election.

And as a new wave of biting video ads from each side made clear this week, this will be a campaign in hyper drive. The election is more than six months away, but with many polls showing Obama and Romney in a virtual tie, voters already are seeing the type of sharp attack ads that typically dominate the final weeks of a presidential campaign.

Just before the first anniversary of the Obama-ordered raid in Pakistan that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the president's campaign released a provocative ad that signaled it would not be shy about making political use of bin Laden's death - or questioning whether Romney would have made the same call.

The Web video, narrated by former president Bill Clinton, takes a direct swipe at Romney by using four-year-old quotes in which Romney questioned whether chasing bin Laden in Pakistan was worth the time and expense.

"The commander-in-chief gets one chance to make the right decision," the ad says. "Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?"

Meanwhile American Crossroads, a Republican group that supports Romney, released a video ad that took aim at Obama's "cool" image, casting the president as a jet-setting celebrity at a time when many Americans are struggling under his economic policies.

"After four years of a celebrity president," the ad asks, "is your life any better?"

'MULTIPLE FRONTS'

After finally knocking out a relatively weak field of conservative challengers, Romney has run into the full force of Obama's campaign.

During the primary season Democrats targeted Romney repeatedly, mostly ignoring his Republican opponents, and tried to label him as a wealthy former private equity executive with a history of being a flip-flopping moderate as the governor of Massachusetts.

But after a campaign in which Romney sought to appeal to conservative Republicans by espousing strict views on limiting immigration, opposing abortion and opposing most government efforts to ease student debt, Obama's campaign is casting Romney as a candidate who has embraced right-wing, extremist views.

Obama told Rolling Stone magazine that he did not believe Romney would be able to disavow the conservative positions he took during the primaries.

"I don't think that their nominee is going to be able to suddenly say, 'Everything I've said for the last six months, I didn't mean,'" the president said.

Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf rejected the notion that Team Obama should choose between labeling Romney as either a hard-core conservative or a finger-in-the-wind politician.

"They're going to attack him on multiple fronts," Elmendorf said. "This will not be a positive campaign."

But Republican strategist Dave Carney, who advised Texas Governor Rick Perry's 2012 short-lived presidential campaign, sees a Democratic campaign that is "flailing around."

"You can't be a flip-flopper one minute and a hard-core conservative the next," he said.


'LAWN SPRINKLERS'

Romney aides say Obama's tactics are aimed at diverting attention from annual $1 trillion government deficits and an unemployment rate that remains above 8 percent.

"The Obama campaign is like one of those gyrating, intermittent lawn sprinklers, spewing out attacks in seemingly random directions, hoping to get somebody wet," said Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades.

The challenger continues to load his speeches with attacks on Obama's handling of the U.S. economy and say that the president wants government to have an unacceptably large role in Americans' daily lives.

But now Romney is softening his tone so he doesn't come across so negatively, emphasizing what his priorities would be as president.

During his victory speech after the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday, Romney made a point of saying he would try to bring Americans together in a way Obama has not.

"Today the hill before us is a little steep but we have always been a nation of big steppers," he said. "Many Americans have given up on this president but they haven't ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves. Not on each other. And not on America."

Romney still has much explaining to do before his vision for governing becomes clear. He has vowed deep spending cuts in the federal budget, for example, but has not outlined which programs he would cut.


THE BUSH FACTOR

During a week in which Obama campaigned before cheering crowds of university students and stared down Republicans in Congress over keeping low rates for student loans, Romney showed some flexibility on student debt, agreeing with Obama's push to extend low rates on student loans.

Republicans acknowledge that to defeat Obama, Romney will need to do more than attack the president on the economy and stress his own record as a corporate executive.

Instead, they say he needs to outline an economic narrative that separates him not just from Obama, but also from the policies of Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush. Obama's campaign has cast Romney's policies as a return to Bush's failed agenda.

This week Romney got advice from a lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal, whose opinion pages typically reflect the thinking of Republican leaders. Among other things, the Journal urged Romney to separate himself from Bush's economic policies to try to inoculate himself from Obama's Bush-Romney linkage.

"Mr. Romney will have to make a case not merely against Mr. Obama's failings," the Journal editorial said, "but also for why he has the better plan to restore prosperity." For more stories on the campaign, click on

(Additional reporting by Sam Youngman; Editing by David Lindsey and Xavier Briand)]]> politics xml-rss2.php?itemid=33 Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:07:33 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=32

WASHINGTON

I t may not be the economy, stupid.

Then again, James Carville’s famous maxim about the 1992 presidential campaign might well be valid in 2012. But it’s quite possible that on Election Day, voters’ most urgent concerns will be driven by overseas events neither President Obama nor his Republican opponent can predict or control.


Analysts, commentators and, yes, columnists will fill the days between now and November with sage assessments of the campaigns. Does Obama have the right strategy? Does Mitt Romney have the right message? Which party has the better ground game?

But it might be more pertinent to ask, for example, what the North Korean news agency meant Monday with its threat to reduce parts of Seoul to ash with a military attack “by unprecedented peculiar means and methods of our own style.”

North Korea’s apocalyptic rhetoric can usually be written off as bluster. But the Stalinist dynasty in charge of the world’s most isolated country has an inexperienced young leader whose first attempt to cover himself in glory was a humiliating failure. Could Kim Jong Eun actually be thinking the unthinkable?

We have to assume the North Korean regime cares most about its survival and thus will not launch a suicidal war. But if Kim and the generals have decided to push the envelope, perhaps with a new nuclear weapons test, the possibility for miscalculation is greater than in the past.

As Obama has made clear, our nation’s geopolitical strategic focus is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific — where American interests run into those of the other emerging global superpower, China. This is why anyone trying to predict the course of the U.S. election campaign ought to pay attention to the scandal and turmoil that have gripped the Chinese government.

It’s a convoluted story involving money, sex, corruption, betrayal and an alleged homicide. The central fact is that one of China’s most charismatic and powerful politicians — Bo Xilai, until recently the Communist Party boss in Chongqing, an inland metropolis of nearly 30 million people — has been sacked. His wife is accused of murdering a shadowy British businessman who may have helped the couple transfer untold millions of ill-gotten dollars into illegal offshore accounts.

This matters to U.S. voters because the scandal exposes the most serious threat to the Chinese government’s legitimacy just as the hierarchy prepares to name a new president this fall.

As a way of shoring up patriotic support, officials may be tempted to be more aggressive in pushing China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. The United States might feel compelled to push back. Then what?

There are other, more obvious international situations that could have a big impact on the presidential race — beginning, of course, with the war in Afghanistan. Both Obama and Romney lag well behind the public mood, which is for bringing the troops home now.

Meanwhile, there will likely be mounting pressure to do something about the brutal war of repression being

waged by Bashar al-Assad in Syria. It is hard to imagine what that “something” might be; an intervention robust enough to make a difference would have more in common with the all-out Iraq invasion than with the more limited Libya campaign. But an atrocity can change attitudes overnight.

There’s also the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It may not happen — but if it does, there’s plenty of political danger here for both campaigns.

And if the Carville dictum turns out to be right? Well, stock markets around the world swooned Monday — not because of anything U.S. officials said or did but because events in Europe made investors nervous.

It may be that in 2012 it’s the eurozone crisis, stupid. And there’s nothing Obama or Romney can do about it.

Eugene Robinson writes for The Washington Post and is the 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary. His email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

Copyright 2012 The Post-Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in Eugene_robinson on Monday, April 23, 2012 10:46 pm

]]> politics xml-rss2.php?itemid=32 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:44:16 -0400 xml-rss2.php?itemid=31
Lochner. It's a name familiar to lawyers, but barely known to the general public. Referring to a 1905 Supreme Court case, Lochner v. New York, that struck down a state law capping bakers' weekly hours, the epithet harkens back to an era, stretching roughly from the 1890s through the 1930s, when a conservative Supreme Court struck down liberal economic regulations at the state and federal levels.

Invoking Lochner's specter of aggressive judicial activism has long been the legalese equivalent of brandishing a cross before a vampire. And President Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, knows full well that no justice, spare Clarence Thomas, wants to be grouped with discredited predecessors who read laissez-faire, Social Darwinist policy preferences into the Constitution to thwart the will of the people on issues ranging from minimum wages to child labor.

Perhaps that is why Chief Justice Roberts during last week's oral arguments sought to stamp out any suggestion of Lochner's relevance to the health care cases. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, defending the health care law's individual mandate under heavy fire from the Republican-appointed justices, had just used the L-word to characterize his opponents' argument.

"The key in Lochner is that we were talking about regulation of the states, right, and the states are not limited to enumerated powers," Roberts said. "The federal government is. And it seems to me it's an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits on the federal power, as opposed to limits on the states, which was the issue in Lochner."

In Roberts' framing, a decision to strike down the individual mandate would not be a step toward reviving an infamous era of constitutional history. Rather, it would be a routine policing of the outer bounds of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

Never mind that such policing, as Obama emphasized, has not been used to strike down a sitting president's signature legislative achievement in more than 75 years. Or that those earlier decisions flowed not from federalism concerns, but from a hostility -- sometimes openly stated -- to progressive presidents, Congresses and statehouses.

David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University, said that Obama and Roberts reflect the "very different perspectives that the left and the right have on Lochner." Bernstein, who wrote the book "Rehabilitating Lochner," is a libertarian sympathetic to the pre-New Deal Court's active enforcement of economic rights.

For the right, said Bernstein, the case stands for the Supreme Court's illegitimate imposition of its political beliefs -- whether against workers' protections a century ago or in favor of abortion and gay rights today -- upon the states.

"On the left, what was wrong with Lochner was not that the judiciary was being too aggressive," Bernstein said. "The problem was that the courts should stay out of the field of reviewing government's economic regulations."

Both sides can agree, then, that Romneycare, as a state regulation of its health care industry, will stand even if Obamacare falls.

But an unscathed Massachusetts mandate -- and any state laws that might follow in the federal mandate's demise -- would hardly subdue the sense among the Affordable Care Act's supporters that the Roberts Court, with its five Republican appointees, is the most radically conservative Supreme Court since the 1930s.

Obama's reference to Lochner served to limit the scope of his comments on Monday, when he expressed his confidence that "an unelected group of people" would not take the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." That statement still set off a firestorm over whether he was denying the Supreme Court's power, accepted since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, to do just that.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Texas, hearing argument over another provision of the Affordable Care Act, demanded from the Department of Justice a three-page, single-spaced letter "stating specifically and in detail in reference to [the president's Monday] statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review." Judge Jerry Smith, who issued the highly unusual order, is a Reagan appointee, as are the other two judges on the panel.

The Obama administration, for its part, doubled down on referencing Lochner to shape the constitutional and political narrative while the justices draft their opinions behind closed doors. At a briefing on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney used the term four times.

The Justice Department's letter, due on Thursday at noon to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, is expected to affirm that the Obama administration considers judicial review, in general, an uncontroversial fact of the American constitutional system. But Smith's order also presents the administration with another opportunity to impress upon the federal judiciary that a decision split sharply along partisan lines that rejected an economic regulation after three-quarters of a century of leaving Congress largely to its own devices would play poorly in the public arena.

Before last week's Supreme Court arguments, many expected that consideration would outweigh Chief Justice Roberts' gut distaste for the mandate. His Lochner comments, meant to neutralize the Obama administration's appeals to history and turn the radical into the routine, suggest otherwise.]]> politics xml-rss2.php?itemid=31 Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:56:00 -0400