A New Congregational Candidate

  • Axel Bello for U.S. Congress

  • “Own By No One”

“People’s Lobbyist an Independent Voice in the Congress”

I am running for Congress because I believe that now is the time to send people’s candidate with common sense to Washington who have the courage to fight against an ever-growing federal government. With determination and a desire to make a difference in our state and the residents of Phoenix Dist 9 and the rest of the state. A US ARMY disabled Veteran. We are about to hit $20 trillion in debt and the government keeps spending—anchoring future generations with more debt. Our economy has not been allowed to recover because of over over spending.

My opponent claims that regulations and a complex tax structure encumbers business. I have the courage to say, “No.” I am confident that my background in business and foreign relations proven as a consultant.  That    I am the most qualified person to represent Arizona’s Ninth Congressional District. My opponent speaks about bring high paying Jobs to Arizona but she does not support the $15.00 per hour.

I will continue speaking about good paying jobs for our residents and their families. We have the power to create that world it is not just in our dreams, but across the district and our state. We must support companies that create not just good-paying jobs but, jobs that pay a living wage of $15.00 per hour for our residents with health care and vacation time together with equal pay for equal work. I have been active member of many local organization in the Metro Area;

“OUR STATE of THE UNION”

Support Team Member at Missing in Action

Veteran at Disable American Veterans

Suporting member at American Legion

Member at American Civil Liberties Union

Member at American Center for Law and Justice

Former Support Team Member at We Want Bernie

 

Went to Union Hill High School

Arizona’s stubbornly high poverty levels help explain why the state has seen little drop among those who receive food stamp assistance.

The U.S. Census Bureau recently updated its poverty estimates and, as usual, the numbers for Arizona don’t look good.

Starting from the top, an estimated 21.2 percent of all Arizonans in 2014 were at or below the federal poverty line. Nationally, it was 14.8 percent.

That was bad enough to rank third-worst in the nation. Only Louisiana and Mississippi had higher rates.

Perhaps more worrisome, Arizona’s poverty rate went up in 2014 while the nation stayed the same.

The last time Arizona’s rate looked like the nation as a whole currently does was 2007, when Arizona ranked 10th-worst in the nation with 14.3 percent of its residents in poverty.

“RANK AMONG THE TOP 4th IN THE NATION”

The share of people with no more than half the income of the poverty line last year was also high in Arizona, 9.2 percent. That’s about one in every 11 people.

For the nation as a whole, it was 6.6 percent, or one of every 15 people. Arizona ranked fourth among states by this measure.

Among working-age adults, those between 18 and 64 years old, Arizona was fourth-worst. Among seniors, those 65 and older, the state was fifth. (Alaska and Wyoming were not included.) For children, those 17 and younger, Arizona came in fifth.

With determination and desire to make a difference in our state and the residents of the district and the state.  I will work to make sure that all workers have a living wage in order to move our state to a higher level than the two worse in the nation. if a young man homeless man sleep in the cold in Chicago a homeless sleeps on a hot pavement in Phoenix, Meaning that even though we sleep in comfortable homes others share the cold or the hot pavement at the same time while others don’t have the same privilege. Our state is a small piece of the world which we live in among other nations with people in need.

I agree that economists concede that globalization has played a major role in the loss of American manufacturing jobs and, more broadly, the stagnation of U.S. wages and incomes. Former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alan Blinder has calculated that 22 percent to 29 percent of all U.S. jobs could potentially be off-shored. That’s a lot of jobs: 25 percent would translate into 36 million workers whose wages are in competition with those in largely lower-income nations. Of the 11 nations with which the United States is negotiating the TPP, nine have wage levels significantly lower than ours. It is time to STOP the TTP on its track. We in the congress have the responsibility in maintaining the Jobs in the country for our middle class.

My opponent  speaks about deregulation of the industry and every sector in America what she failed spoke a bout the end results of not having it.

THE TERRIBLE EFFECTS OF BUSINESS DEREGULATION

The Terrible Effects of Business Deregulation

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

By Martin McLaughlin
1 November 1999

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others’ industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journal wrote, “With the stroke of the president’s pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions.” The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

Kenneth Guenther, executive vice president of Independent Community Bankers of America, an association of small rural banks which opposed the bill, warned, “This is going to begin a wave of major mergers and acquisitions in the financial-services industry. We’re moving to an oligopolistic situation.”

One such merger was already carried out well before the passage of the legislation, the $72 billion deal which brought together Citibank, the biggest New York bank, and Travelers Group Inc., the huge insurance and financial services conglomerate, which owns Salomon Smith Barney, a major brokerage. That merger was negotiated despite the fact that the merged company, Citigroup, was in violation of the Glass-Steagall Act, because billionaire Travelers boss Sanford Weill and Citibank CEO John Reed were confident of bipartisan support for repeal of the 60-year-old law.

The Enron scandal is blamed, in some part, on the deregulation of business practices, and in particular energy commerce, which was Enron’s stock in trade. When the California energy markets were deregulated in 2000-2001, Enron began using very questionable policies and poor business ethics in order to take advantage of that deregulation, performing such practices as buying energy in California and selling it back to California from across state lines for more money. These practices allowed Enron to continue to make tremendous profits while in the midst of the collapse that would lead into the full Enron scandal and Enron bankruptcy.
The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which the deregulation bill would repeal, was not adopted to protect consumers, although one of its most celebrated provisions was the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees bank deposits of up to $100,000. The law was enacted during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration to rescue a banking system which had collapsed, wiping out the life savings of millions of working people, and threatening to bring the profit system to a complete standstill.

As a recent history of that era notes: “The more than five thousand bank failures between the Crash and the New Deal’s rescue operation in March 1933 wiped out some $7 billion in depositors’ money. Accelerating foreclosures on defaulted home mortgage’s “150,000 homeowners lost their property in 1930, 200,000 in 1931, 250,000 in 1932€” stripped millions of people of both shelter and life savings at a single stroke and menaced the balance sheets of thousands of surviving banks” (David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 162-63).

The separation of banking and the stock exchange was ordered in response to revelations of the gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses, above all the House of Morgan, which organized huge corporate mergers for its own profit and awarded preferential access to share issues to favored politicians and businessmen. Such insider trading played a major role in the speculative boom which preceded the 1929 crash.

Over the past 20 years the restrictions imposed by Glass-Steagall have been gradually relaxed under pressure from the banks, which sought more profitable outlets for their capital, especially in the booming stock market, and which complained that foreign competitors suffered no such limitations to their financial operations. In 1990 the Federal Reserve Board first permitted a bank (J.P. Morgan) to sell stock through a subsidiary, although stock market operations were limited to 10 percent of the company’s total revenue. In 1996 this ceiling was lifted to 25 percent. Now it will be abolished.

The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, “Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade.”

This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.

And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980’s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.