Janet Adamy - New taxes on drug makers, lower prescription-drug costs for seniors and restrictions on tax-free medical spending accounts are among a slate of health-law provisions that kick in Saturday.
The changes show how the law will begin to reshape American health care, even as opponents try to overturn the measure in Congress and the courts.
Although House Republicans are threatening to starve the law of funding and stage a symbolic repeal vote, those actions aren't likely to block any significant pieces of the law aimed at consumers for 2011. That's because the changes generally involve new rules and don't require spending.
"The debate over defunding and repeal is going to be much more of a political story in 2011 than something that actually means something for consumers immediately," said Larry Levitt, vice president at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.
Over the longer term, however, Republicans could succeed in thwarting funding for staff and grants needed to put the law in place. The biggest changes, including new health-insurance exchanges and subsidies for lower earners, are set to happen in 2014.
Medicare recipients who fall into a prescription-drug coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole" may reap the biggest windfall of the law in 2011. Enrollees whose total drug costs for the year fall between $2,840 and $6,448 will get a 50% discount on branded prescriptions. That's compared with a $250 rebate the law gave them in 2010 to offset the cost of paying for those drugs entirely out of pocket. The seniors' group AARP estimates more than three million people fall into the doughnut hole each year.
The cost of drug coverage, however, will go up for some seniors. Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes above $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples will get a smaller government subsidy for Medicare Part D prescription-drug coverage.
In 2011, pharmaceutical manufacturers will see the first major industry tax of the law, a $2.5 billion levy that will be distributed across drug makers based on their sales volume for the year. The industry worries the tax will eat into companies' budgets for finding new drugs.
"It diminishes the amount of capital we have to invest in research and development," said John Castellani, president and chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry's main lobbying group. The industry spent $65.3 billion on research in 2009, according to the group.
Drug makers agreed to make concessions with the hope of getting millions of newly insured customers under the law.
Also under the law, about 20 preventive health services, including colorectal cancer screenings, mammograms and smoking cessation services, will be free for people on Medicare.
Seniors with privately administered Medicare Advantage plans may see fewer extra benefits, such as eyeglasses and free gym memberships, as insurers prepare for federal reimbursement cuts to those plans in 2012.
For those insured outside Medicare, 2011 starts a new requirement that insurers must spend 80% of revenue for small-group plans and 85% of revenue for large-group plans on medical care. The requirement is designed to rein in industry profit and administrative costs. Carriers that don't meet the requirement will have to issue rebates to consumers, though those won't go out until 2012.
Consumers will no longer be able to use their flexible spending accounts—tax-free funds set aside for medical costs—to pay for most over-the-counter items unless they are purchased with a prescription.
For many consumers, Jan. 1 will mark the first opportunity to tap into a slate of benefits that began taking effect Sept. 23. That's when the law called for insurers to allow parents to keep a child on their policy until their 26th birthday, among other things. Employers didn't need to make that batch of changes until they started a new plan year.
Nurse midwives also will see change in the new year. Until now, certified nurse midwives were paid 65% the rate of physicians for performing the same services by Medicare. Now they will be paid at the same rate.
Such practitioners provide senior women with basic medical services, such as Pap smears and cholesterol screenings, as well as providing gynecologic services to the three million women of child-bearing age who receive Medicare because they are disabled. The payment change was designed to bolster such care in rural areas, where physicians can be scarce, said Patrick Cooney, lobbyist for the American College of Nurse Midwives.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Entire American Middle Class Will Fall Under The Poverty Line In Five Years
Press TV - The entire middle class Americans will fall under the poverty line in five years, as the gap between the rich and the poor is widening in the United States, says an investigative journalist.
“The middle class, I am afraid, in the United States is not going to exist in another five years and everybody is going to be driven down to the lower poor class,” said Wayne Madsen in a Press TV interview.
“They are going to be working, as many people do, maybe two or three minimum-wage jobs just to feed their families,” he emphasized.
“I think it is all part of the steady drift of the United States into a corporate fascist type society. We have seen that through history before, when very small elite has most of the wealth,” Madsen added.
The journalist quoted a Democratic Party economic advisor as saying that the US commercial real estate will witness a huge collapse in the near future.
“When we see the commercial real estate market collapse, it is going to make the residential real estate market pale, in comparison with that collapse, and this promise is just going to keep compounding,” Madsen further explained.
A new report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has revealed that the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is stretching, standing at its largest level since the survey began in 1962.
The report shows that the richest one percent of US households are 225 times richer than the average household.
According to the survey, the figure has almost doubled since the 1960s. The last survey, conducted in 2007, had indicated that the richest one percent had 181 times more money than the average household, whereas in the 1960s the figure reflected a 125-fold wealth gap between the richest and average household.
The global economic recession has also hit the average US citizens much harder, with their assets declining 41 percent since 2007. The rich only lost 27 percent in the same time period.
In 2009, the richest one percent had an average of $14 million, while the average household had average assets of around $62,200.
In calculating household assets, the EPI includes house ownership. The average US citizen has suffered far more from the impact of falling property prices than the rich, the report said.
“The middle class, I am afraid, in the United States is not going to exist in another five years and everybody is going to be driven down to the lower poor class,” said Wayne Madsen in a Press TV interview.
“They are going to be working, as many people do, maybe two or three minimum-wage jobs just to feed their families,” he emphasized.
“I think it is all part of the steady drift of the United States into a corporate fascist type society. We have seen that through history before, when very small elite has most of the wealth,” Madsen added.
The journalist quoted a Democratic Party economic advisor as saying that the US commercial real estate will witness a huge collapse in the near future.
“When we see the commercial real estate market collapse, it is going to make the residential real estate market pale, in comparison with that collapse, and this promise is just going to keep compounding,” Madsen further explained.
A new report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has revealed that the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States is stretching, standing at its largest level since the survey began in 1962.
The report shows that the richest one percent of US households are 225 times richer than the average household.
According to the survey, the figure has almost doubled since the 1960s. The last survey, conducted in 2007, had indicated that the richest one percent had 181 times more money than the average household, whereas in the 1960s the figure reflected a 125-fold wealth gap between the richest and average household.
The global economic recession has also hit the average US citizens much harder, with their assets declining 41 percent since 2007. The rich only lost 27 percent in the same time period.
In 2009, the richest one percent had an average of $14 million, while the average household had average assets of around $62,200.
In calculating household assets, the EPI includes house ownership. The average US citizen has suffered far more from the impact of falling property prices than the rich, the report said.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
New York Sanitation Union Workers Admit Sabotage Snow Cleanup
In retaliation for budget cuts, sanitation workers deliberately slowed the snow cleanup efforts, raising their plows over snow-filled streets and skipping streets on their routes, according to three sanitation workers and two supervisors who visited City Councilman Dan Hollaran, R-Queens. The New York Post reported that the workers revealed the "variety of tactics to drag out the plowing process -- and pad overtime checks -- which included keeping plows slightly higher than the roadways and skipping over streets along their routes, the sources said":
The snow-removal snitches said they were told to keep their plows off most streets and to wait for orders before attacking the accumulating piles of snow.
They said crews normally would have been more aggressive in com bating a fierce, fast-moving blizzard like the one that barreled in on Sunday and blew out the next morning.
What could possibly motivate such a craven move on the part of supervisers, one that stymied emergency responders who couldn't reach those in need?
The workers said the work slowdown was the result of growing hostility between the mayor and the workers responsible for clearing the snow.
In the last two years, the agency's workforce has been slashed by 400 trash haulers and supervisors -- down from 6,300 -- because of the city's budget crisis. And, effective tomorrow, 100 department supervisors are to be demoted and their salaries slashed as an added cost-saving move.
The Post tells a different story than the one laid out implicating budget cuts as the reason this cleanup has gone so badly, one in which union thugs use intimidation and retaliatory tactics to fill their wallets and negotiate. These are the people Democrats trust to employ "card check" in a free and fair way.
I reported yesterday how well compensated these people are:
...[T]he top salary of $66,672 is only the tip of the iceberg for active sanitation worker compensation because it excludes other things like overtime and extra pay for certain assignments. For example, one worker in 2009 had a salary of $55,639 but actually earned $79,937 for the year.
Sanitation workers don't pay a dime for premiums on their cadillac health care plan, which includes prescription drug coverage along with dental and eye care for the whole family. Many continue to receive the full benefit upon retiring after only 10 years. And then there's the matter of their pension:
...Nearly 180 retired [sanitation workers] make over $66,000 year -- in other words, over and above the maximum salary of currently working employees. In fact, 20 retirees make upwards of $90,000 in retirement, up to $132,360.
Keep that in mind when reading lines like this:
...[M]ultiple Sanitation Department sources told The Post yesterday that angry plow drivers have only been clearing streets assigned to them even if that means they have to drive through snowed-in roads with their plows raised.
And they are keeping their plow blades unusually high, making it necessary for them to have to run extra passes, adding time and extra pay.
One mechanic said some drivers are purposely smashing plows and salt spreaders to further stall the cleanup effort.
Sure, Mayor Bloomberg planned poorly and should have announced a snow emergency. But this story makes it clear that even if he did, it wouldn't have made a difference. The question is whether Bloomberg will do anything about it.
The snow-removal snitches said they were told to keep their plows off most streets and to wait for orders before attacking the accumulating piles of snow.
They said crews normally would have been more aggressive in com bating a fierce, fast-moving blizzard like the one that barreled in on Sunday and blew out the next morning.
What could possibly motivate such a craven move on the part of supervisers, one that stymied emergency responders who couldn't reach those in need?
The workers said the work slowdown was the result of growing hostility between the mayor and the workers responsible for clearing the snow.
In the last two years, the agency's workforce has been slashed by 400 trash haulers and supervisors -- down from 6,300 -- because of the city's budget crisis. And, effective tomorrow, 100 department supervisors are to be demoted and their salaries slashed as an added cost-saving move.
The Post tells a different story than the one laid out implicating budget cuts as the reason this cleanup has gone so badly, one in which union thugs use intimidation and retaliatory tactics to fill their wallets and negotiate. These are the people Democrats trust to employ "card check" in a free and fair way.
I reported yesterday how well compensated these people are:
...[T]he top salary of $66,672 is only the tip of the iceberg for active sanitation worker compensation because it excludes other things like overtime and extra pay for certain assignments. For example, one worker in 2009 had a salary of $55,639 but actually earned $79,937 for the year.
Sanitation workers don't pay a dime for premiums on their cadillac health care plan, which includes prescription drug coverage along with dental and eye care for the whole family. Many continue to receive the full benefit upon retiring after only 10 years. And then there's the matter of their pension:
...Nearly 180 retired [sanitation workers] make over $66,000 year -- in other words, over and above the maximum salary of currently working employees. In fact, 20 retirees make upwards of $90,000 in retirement, up to $132,360.
Keep that in mind when reading lines like this:
...[M]ultiple Sanitation Department sources told The Post yesterday that angry plow drivers have only been clearing streets assigned to them even if that means they have to drive through snowed-in roads with their plows raised.
And they are keeping their plow blades unusually high, making it necessary for them to have to run extra passes, adding time and extra pay.
One mechanic said some drivers are purposely smashing plows and salt spreaders to further stall the cleanup effort.
Sure, Mayor Bloomberg planned poorly and should have announced a snow emergency. But this story makes it clear that even if he did, it wouldn't have made a difference. The question is whether Bloomberg will do anything about it.
Federal Reserve Can't Prop Up Stock Market Forever
USA Watchdog - From the very beginning of QE2, it was no secret the Federal Reserve wanted the stock market to rise. The Fed got its wish. Many people see the stock market increase of nearly 20% in a few short months as a sign things are turning around. The turnaround is really a mirage of the printing press. Even so, some pundits think the economy is on the mend. Maritime News reported last week, “It has been successful,” Peter Hooper, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York, said of Bernanke’s policy of pumping money into the financial system, dubbed QE2. “It’s contributed to the rally in the stock market” and has “been important in reducing substantially the downside risk of deflation.” (Click here for the complete story.) Pumping money into the stock market to get stocks to go up is not the same as hiring people and making products so share prices grow. With the stubbornly high unemployment rate of 9.8% (or more than 22% according to Shadowstats.com), this is just one of the dismal facts of this economy. Other gloomy indicators are the million plus foreclosures this year and next. The auto industry just had its fourth month of decline in new orders. The FDIC has shut down 157 banks so far this year, and all the banks look solvent only because of rule changes that amount to government sanctioned accounting fraud. You cannot have the banks, housing and auto sales all tanking at the same time and expect the party to last.
For the life of me, I cannot see how share prices going up are going to get businesses hiring again. This stock market rally is good for one group of people—insiders. They are selling at a rate of more than 80 to 1 over buyers. It is obvious this market is not growing organically but is simply being pumped. Now, people should look out for the dump. Will the market continue to rise? Will there be QE 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or to infinity? Is printing money the true road to wealth and prosperity? I think you know where I’m going.
A funny and clever way to illustrate what is going on has been put together by a group called Xtranormal. They have produced a series of financial cartoons that explain the economy. Below is one of their latest called “Suckers rally: Pimp Bernanke and the Psychopathic Super-Whores of CNBC.” (Yes, this the actual title.) Enjoy the cartoon below:
For the life of me, I cannot see how share prices going up are going to get businesses hiring again. This stock market rally is good for one group of people—insiders. They are selling at a rate of more than 80 to 1 over buyers. It is obvious this market is not growing organically but is simply being pumped. Now, people should look out for the dump. Will the market continue to rise? Will there be QE 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or to infinity? Is printing money the true road to wealth and prosperity? I think you know where I’m going.
A funny and clever way to illustrate what is going on has been put together by a group called Xtranormal. They have produced a series of financial cartoons that explain the economy. Below is one of their latest called “Suckers rally: Pimp Bernanke and the Psychopathic Super-Whores of CNBC.” (Yes, this the actual title.) Enjoy the cartoon below:
Poll Shows Americans Opposed To Government Takeover Of The Internet
Kurt Nimmo - According to a recent Rasmussen’s poll, most Americans understand the FCC’s internet regulations will be used by the government to push a political agenda.
54% of respondents oppose the FCC effort to regulate the internet while 21% support it. 25% are not sure. By a 52% to 27% margin, Rasmussen reported on December 28, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting internet users. Most Democrats see an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.
In April, a Rasmussen poll revealed that just 27% of Americans believed the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the internet like it does television and radio.
Internet regulation was the hallmark of Obama in 2008 as he ran for president. After installing Genachowski as FCC chairman, the Obama administration started to move on its promise to regulate the internet. The FCC began to act like a fiefdom and told a federal appeals court it had the power to impose regulation on broadband rates, even though Congress had not given the agency the power to do so.
In fact, 300 members of Congress, including a large number of Democrats, told the FCC in no uncertain terms to stop its attempt to grab power over the internet. The FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of internet regulation.
In August, the FCC worked with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules.
The FCC decided before Christmas to make its move. Obama said the new government regulation will “help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet.” In fact, it would do just the opposite.
Genachowski and the FCC naturally try to make this unwarranted move look like a white knight government protecting consumers against greedy telecommunications companies and ISPs. Beyond the rhetoric about “net neutrality,” however, lies the real purpose of the FCC regulations – government control and censorship.
“What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government secrets, and secrets are essential to any government that wants to remain in power,” writes Mike Adams of Natural News. “As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and radio.”
Adams argues that the FCC is attempting to assert its authority over the internet. “By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet,” he writes.
Obama’s FCC commissariat is not losing sleep over the First Amendment. It was the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd who said that “blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies,” namely converting the internet into the same government regulated medium as television and radio.
Prior to the FCC vote, the United Nations announced its plan to regulate the internet.
“The United Nations is also aiming to run the Internet for you,” warns Joseph A. Klein. “With the backing of governments around the world who don’t mind free-riding on American investment and know-how in the Internet while seeking as many ways as possible to usurp control over its governance, the UN establishment has been trying for years to move control of the Internet’s day-to-day management to some sort of global governance forum.”
Efforts by the FCC and the United Nations at the behest of the globalists are contrary to the model that has emerged since the technology was invented in 1973 and became public in the early 1990s.
“The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up – with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open – a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere – it’s also prevented vested interests from taking control,” wrote Vint Cerf, who is often called the father of the internet, in response to the UN proposal to regulate the internet.
A free and open internet is anathema to government as it moves to control nations, populations, and telecommunications. In order to succeed and build world government and its accompanying control grid, the internet must be tamed and folded into the established propaganda apparatus.
The machinations of the FCC and the United Nations reveal once again how worried the establishment is about a free and open internet. The internet cannot be allowed to be a primary and growing source of alternative information that challenges daily the corporate media propaganda system that acts like a megaphone for a control freak government.
The Rasmussen poll reveals that while many Americans may not fully understand the underlying reasons for government control of the internet – to stifle opposition to the government in the same way the Chinese have – they are steadfastly opposed to more regulation.
54% of respondents oppose the FCC effort to regulate the internet while 21% support it. 25% are not sure. By a 52% to 27% margin, Rasmussen reported on December 28, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting internet users. Most Democrats see an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.
In April, a Rasmussen poll revealed that just 27% of Americans believed the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the internet like it does television and radio.
Internet regulation was the hallmark of Obama in 2008 as he ran for president. After installing Genachowski as FCC chairman, the Obama administration started to move on its promise to regulate the internet. The FCC began to act like a fiefdom and told a federal appeals court it had the power to impose regulation on broadband rates, even though Congress had not given the agency the power to do so.
In fact, 300 members of Congress, including a large number of Democrats, told the FCC in no uncertain terms to stop its attempt to grab power over the internet. The FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of internet regulation.
In August, the FCC worked with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules.
The FCC decided before Christmas to make its move. Obama said the new government regulation will “help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet.” In fact, it would do just the opposite.
Genachowski and the FCC naturally try to make this unwarranted move look like a white knight government protecting consumers against greedy telecommunications companies and ISPs. Beyond the rhetoric about “net neutrality,” however, lies the real purpose of the FCC regulations – government control and censorship.
“What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government secrets, and secrets are essential to any government that wants to remain in power,” writes Mike Adams of Natural News. “As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and radio.”
Adams argues that the FCC is attempting to assert its authority over the internet. “By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet,” he writes.
Obama’s FCC commissariat is not losing sleep over the First Amendment. It was the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd who said that “blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies,” namely converting the internet into the same government regulated medium as television and radio.
Prior to the FCC vote, the United Nations announced its plan to regulate the internet.
“The United Nations is also aiming to run the Internet for you,” warns Joseph A. Klein. “With the backing of governments around the world who don’t mind free-riding on American investment and know-how in the Internet while seeking as many ways as possible to usurp control over its governance, the UN establishment has been trying for years to move control of the Internet’s day-to-day management to some sort of global governance forum.”
Efforts by the FCC and the United Nations at the behest of the globalists are contrary to the model that has emerged since the technology was invented in 1973 and became public in the early 1990s.
“The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up – with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open – a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere – it’s also prevented vested interests from taking control,” wrote Vint Cerf, who is often called the father of the internet, in response to the UN proposal to regulate the internet.
A free and open internet is anathema to government as it moves to control nations, populations, and telecommunications. In order to succeed and build world government and its accompanying control grid, the internet must be tamed and folded into the established propaganda apparatus.
The machinations of the FCC and the United Nations reveal once again how worried the establishment is about a free and open internet. The internet cannot be allowed to be a primary and growing source of alternative information that challenges daily the corporate media propaganda system that acts like a megaphone for a control freak government.
The Rasmussen poll reveals that while many Americans may not fully understand the underlying reasons for government control of the internet – to stifle opposition to the government in the same way the Chinese have – they are steadfastly opposed to more regulation.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Mike Bloomberg a Complete Failure In '10 Blizzard Cleanup
NY Post - Michael Bloomberg, who aspires to be known as the greatest mayor ever, was a tad testy yesterday.
Why? Because Mother Nature had snowed on his parade and -- as mayor -- he had to deal with it.
In the event, not very well.
Certainly, New Yorkers aren't terribly dazzled by the city's performance.
Indeed, Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty -- the man in operational charge of the snowplows -- admitted the storm "got ahead of us."
"I'm angry, too," Hizzoner snapped when asked about the many streets that remained unplowed yesterday -- and about his seemingly cavalier take on it all on Monday.
Asked if he had any regrets, Bloomberg went sarcastic: "You know, I regret everything in the world."
Maybe even running for a third term?
Bottom line: It's the mayor's job to run the city; the buck stops with him.
And yet, for the past 48 hours, New Yorkers have had to endure a brutal ordeal -- with emergency calls backed up, roads left unplowed, riders trapped on trains, buses stuck in snow . . .
A potentially iconic video bouncing around the Internet summed it all up: a city tow truck hauling a backhoe out of a snowdrift -- and smashing up a parked SUV in the process.
Says the mayor: "Yelling about it and complaining doesn't help."
On Monday, he actually said the situation created mere "inconveniences" -- and urged folks to "go out and shop or take in a Broadway show."
Maybe if he had done a little "yelling about it," the streets would have been plowed yesterday. Certainly it's hard to imagine Mayor Giuliani taking such a laid-back approach to the problem.
Never mind being the "greatest" mayor, Mike. How about being just mayor?
As we said yesterday, everyone understands that this week's blizzard was bad -- the sixth worst in city history, in terms of snowfall.
Everyone knows that the challenge for officials to keep the city running -- and its population and property safe -- in such a situation is daunting.
But then, no one said being mayor would be easy.
"By all accounts, the collective storm response was not anywhere near up to the standards New Yorkers are accustomed to," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said yesterday. "This is unacceptable." The Council, she said, will ask "serious questions" at hearings on the city's response next month.
Those are entirely appropriate -- and good for her.
New Yorkers are owed answers.
Maybe even an apology.
Meanwhile, let's hope the rest of the clean-up is smoother -- and speedier -- than it's been.
Why? Because Mother Nature had snowed on his parade and -- as mayor -- he had to deal with it.
In the event, not very well.
Certainly, New Yorkers aren't terribly dazzled by the city's performance.
Indeed, Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty -- the man in operational charge of the snowplows -- admitted the storm "got ahead of us."
"I'm angry, too," Hizzoner snapped when asked about the many streets that remained unplowed yesterday -- and about his seemingly cavalier take on it all on Monday.
Asked if he had any regrets, Bloomberg went sarcastic: "You know, I regret everything in the world."
Maybe even running for a third term?
Bottom line: It's the mayor's job to run the city; the buck stops with him.
And yet, for the past 48 hours, New Yorkers have had to endure a brutal ordeal -- with emergency calls backed up, roads left unplowed, riders trapped on trains, buses stuck in snow . . .
A potentially iconic video bouncing around the Internet summed it all up: a city tow truck hauling a backhoe out of a snowdrift -- and smashing up a parked SUV in the process.
Says the mayor: "Yelling about it and complaining doesn't help."
On Monday, he actually said the situation created mere "inconveniences" -- and urged folks to "go out and shop or take in a Broadway show."
Maybe if he had done a little "yelling about it," the streets would have been plowed yesterday. Certainly it's hard to imagine Mayor Giuliani taking such a laid-back approach to the problem.
Never mind being the "greatest" mayor, Mike. How about being just mayor?
As we said yesterday, everyone understands that this week's blizzard was bad -- the sixth worst in city history, in terms of snowfall.
Everyone knows that the challenge for officials to keep the city running -- and its population and property safe -- in such a situation is daunting.
But then, no one said being mayor would be easy.
"By all accounts, the collective storm response was not anywhere near up to the standards New Yorkers are accustomed to," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said yesterday. "This is unacceptable." The Council, she said, will ask "serious questions" at hearings on the city's response next month.
Those are entirely appropriate -- and good for her.
New Yorkers are owed answers.
Maybe even an apology.
Meanwhile, let's hope the rest of the clean-up is smoother -- and speedier -- than it's been.
Rove "Predicts' Obama Re-Election In 2012?
Jed Lewison - VAN SUSTEREN: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that she’s going to stay through I think this administration which is another two years and then leave. Um, she said she’s not going to run for President, she’s out. What are your thoughts? You think we’ll see her as a contender, and will she finish the last two years of this administration?
ROVE: Oh, I think she definitely will finish the last two years. I don’t think she’s going to run in 2012. That’s even duplicitous for a Clinton. I’m not certain that I agree, that I accept what she said about she’s not going to be a candidate in 2016. I think she will.
VAN SUSTEREN. I meant ‘16, I meant ‘16.
ROVE: Yeah, I suspect she will be a candidate. She’s going to think about being a candidate in 2016. And we’ll know by about 2014. If she leaves the administration in 2014 or 2015 in order to give herself a chance to write a book about her experiences and reconnect with the grassroots then she might entertain it. She’ll be younger in 2016 than John McCain was when he ran and she will, I suspect, be a big presence on the Democrat (sic) scene.
So Rove thinks Barack Obama will be President in 2014 and 2015? Whooooops. I’m sure that’ll disappoint his colleagues at Fox, half of whom seem to be candidates for President themselves.
ROVE: Oh, I think she definitely will finish the last two years. I don’t think she’s going to run in 2012. That’s even duplicitous for a Clinton. I’m not certain that I agree, that I accept what she said about she’s not going to be a candidate in 2016. I think she will.
VAN SUSTEREN. I meant ‘16, I meant ‘16.
ROVE: Yeah, I suspect she will be a candidate. She’s going to think about being a candidate in 2016. And we’ll know by about 2014. If she leaves the administration in 2014 or 2015 in order to give herself a chance to write a book about her experiences and reconnect with the grassroots then she might entertain it. She’ll be younger in 2016 than John McCain was when he ran and she will, I suspect, be a big presence on the Democrat (sic) scene.
So Rove thinks Barack Obama will be President in 2014 and 2015? Whooooops. I’m sure that’ll disappoint his colleagues at Fox, half of whom seem to be candidates for President themselves.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Ron Paul: Social Security Is Not "Real Insurance"
Ron Paul - Perhaps the biggest media story of 2010 was the influence of Tea Party voters on the congressional landscape. The new congress comes to Capitol Hill with a mandate to end profligate spending and restore fiscal sanity, we are told. But when the House and Senate convene in January, the newly elected members will face tremendous pressure to maintain spending levels for entitlement programs. Even the most modest proposals to trim Social Security or Medicare spending will be met with howls of indignation and threats of voter revolt. Legislators who propose any kind of means testing or increased retirement ages can expect angry visits from senior citizen lobbyists ready to fund a candidate back home who supports the status quo.
But millions of Americans now realize that the status quo is an illusion that will not last even another 10 or 20 years. The federal government cannot continue to spend a trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue each year, because we are running out of creditors. Fiscal reality is setting in, and the consequences may be grim even if Congress finds the courage to take decisive action now.
Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.
Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money is there earning interest, right? If your money is in your “account,” what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program? The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenue to fund the federal government. But no administration will admit that Social Security is nothing more than an accounting ledger with no money. You will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped; the money you paid into the system is long gone.
My hope is that at least some members of the new Congress will cut through the distortions and see Social Security as it really is. The best way to fix the impending Social Security crisis is also the simplest: allow younger individuals to opt out of the program and use their tax savings to invest privately as they see fit. This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be.
But millions of Americans now realize that the status quo is an illusion that will not last even another 10 or 20 years. The federal government cannot continue to spend a trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue each year, because we are running out of creditors. Fiscal reality is setting in, and the consequences may be grim even if Congress finds the courage to take decisive action now.
Courage begins with a commitment to see things as they are, rather than how we wish they were. When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits.
Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money is there earning interest, right? If your money is in your “account,” what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program? The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenue to fund the federal government. But no administration will admit that Social Security is nothing more than an accounting ledger with no money. You will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped; the money you paid into the system is long gone.
My hope is that at least some members of the new Congress will cut through the distortions and see Social Security as it really is. The best way to fix the impending Social Security crisis is also the simplest: allow younger individuals to opt out of the program and use their tax savings to invest privately as they see fit. This is the true private solution. Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be.
Monday, December 27, 2010
DHS Announces Expansion Of Gestpo Zones From Airports To Malls and Hotels
Kurt Nimmo - As we predicted, Homeland Security and national security state officialdom are in the process of expanding the police state and citizen humiliation grid from airports to hotels and shopping malls.
“The United States is stepping up security at ‘soft targets’ like hotels and shopping malls, as well as trains and ports, as it counters the evolving Al-Qaeda threat, a top official said Sunday,” reports AFP.
“We look at so-called soft targets — the hotels, shopping malls, for example — all of which we have reached out to in the past year and have done a fair amount of training for their own employees,” DHS boss Janet Napolitano said.
Big Sis Napolitano knows the government’s “See Something, Say Something” program to acclimate citizens to a police and surveillance state designed to rival anything established by East Germany’s Stasi is more Big Brotherism.
“It just sounds very Big Brother to me, turning in the next door neighbor.” CNN’s Candy Crowley said to Napolitano during an interview on “State of the Union.”
“It’s not,” Napolitano argued. “It depends on the common sense of the American people. I think they have common sense. And it depends on, again … getting through this notion that our safety, our security and the world we live in today is a shared responsibility.”
For bureaucrat Napolitano, the “common sense” of the American people means they will remain timid and apathetic. It means they will not protest and will tolerate going through porno-scanners and having goons stick their hands down their pants before they are allowed to shop at the local mall.
Napolitano defended the ambiguity of the snoop program. She said citizens can figure out for themselves who to snoop on and report to the authorities. Because there is no threat posed by al-Qaeda to the “homeland” – a word Big Sis used during the interview to refer to the United States – the government will receive thousands of calls from people turning in their neighbors for smoking marijuana, discipling their children, or possessing entirely legal firearms.
“The overall message is everything is objectively better than it was a year ago, particularly in the aviation environment. But we’re also looking at addressing other areas,” Napolitano said about the plan to turn malls and hotels into Gestapo zones where the Bill of Rights does not exist and citizen-subjects are obliged under threat of violence and $11,000 fines to allow minimum wage goons to stick their hands down their pants.
“And so we have enhanced measures going on at surface transportation, not because we have a specific or credible threat there, but because we know, looking at Madrid and London, that’s been another source of targets for terrorists.”
Evidence largely ignored by the corporate media reveals that the Madrid bombings were an inside job. Two patsies, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras and Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Trashorras had had the private telephone number of the head of Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad.
In 2005, John Loftus revealed on Fox News that the supposed mastermind of the London bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, worked for British intelligence. In 1999, the U.S. Justice Department told prosecutors in Seattle to leave Aswat alone because he was a British intelligence asset.
Napolitano and the government cite the absurd underwear non-bombing as the reason they are aggressively moving the police state from airports to malls and hotels.
“The Detroit Christmas bomber was deliberately and intentionally allowed to keep his US entry visa as the result of a national security override issued by an as yet unknown US intelligence or law-enforcement agency with the goal of blocking the State Department’s planned revocation of that visa,” Webster Griffin Tarpley wrote in February.
Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management, revealed this when he testified before the House Homeland Security Committee on January 27.
The underwear non-bomber “Mutallab was a protected patsy being used by rogue elements of the US intelligence community for the deliberate and intentional creation of a high profile incident with the goal of obtaining a large-scale political effect,” argues Tarpley.
The staged event is also providing a pretext to turn malls and hotels into Gestapo zones. It was used earlier this month to promote the government’s snitch program.
It should be obvious where all of this is headed. Following the next staged non-bombing by a clueless patsy, the government will move from malls and hotels into the streets and neighborhoods of America.
How long before you will be subjected to a virtual strip search before you can buy food or other necessities?
“The United States is stepping up security at ‘soft targets’ like hotels and shopping malls, as well as trains and ports, as it counters the evolving Al-Qaeda threat, a top official said Sunday,” reports AFP.
“We look at so-called soft targets — the hotels, shopping malls, for example — all of which we have reached out to in the past year and have done a fair amount of training for their own employees,” DHS boss Janet Napolitano said.
Big Sis Napolitano knows the government’s “See Something, Say Something” program to acclimate citizens to a police and surveillance state designed to rival anything established by East Germany’s Stasi is more Big Brotherism.
“It just sounds very Big Brother to me, turning in the next door neighbor.” CNN’s Candy Crowley said to Napolitano during an interview on “State of the Union.”
“It’s not,” Napolitano argued. “It depends on the common sense of the American people. I think they have common sense. And it depends on, again … getting through this notion that our safety, our security and the world we live in today is a shared responsibility.”
For bureaucrat Napolitano, the “common sense” of the American people means they will remain timid and apathetic. It means they will not protest and will tolerate going through porno-scanners and having goons stick their hands down their pants before they are allowed to shop at the local mall.
Napolitano defended the ambiguity of the snoop program. She said citizens can figure out for themselves who to snoop on and report to the authorities. Because there is no threat posed by al-Qaeda to the “homeland” – a word Big Sis used during the interview to refer to the United States – the government will receive thousands of calls from people turning in their neighbors for smoking marijuana, discipling their children, or possessing entirely legal firearms.
“The overall message is everything is objectively better than it was a year ago, particularly in the aviation environment. But we’re also looking at addressing other areas,” Napolitano said about the plan to turn malls and hotels into Gestapo zones where the Bill of Rights does not exist and citizen-subjects are obliged under threat of violence and $11,000 fines to allow minimum wage goons to stick their hands down their pants.
“And so we have enhanced measures going on at surface transportation, not because we have a specific or credible threat there, but because we know, looking at Madrid and London, that’s been another source of targets for terrorists.”
Evidence largely ignored by the corporate media reveals that the Madrid bombings were an inside job. Two patsies, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras and Antonio Toro, were government informants, a fact reported by the New York Times and the Times Online. Trashorras had had the private telephone number of the head of Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad.
In 2005, John Loftus revealed on Fox News that the supposed mastermind of the London bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, worked for British intelligence. In 1999, the U.S. Justice Department told prosecutors in Seattle to leave Aswat alone because he was a British intelligence asset.
Napolitano and the government cite the absurd underwear non-bombing as the reason they are aggressively moving the police state from airports to malls and hotels.
“The Detroit Christmas bomber was deliberately and intentionally allowed to keep his US entry visa as the result of a national security override issued by an as yet unknown US intelligence or law-enforcement agency with the goal of blocking the State Department’s planned revocation of that visa,” Webster Griffin Tarpley wrote in February.
Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management, revealed this when he testified before the House Homeland Security Committee on January 27.
The underwear non-bomber “Mutallab was a protected patsy being used by rogue elements of the US intelligence community for the deliberate and intentional creation of a high profile incident with the goal of obtaining a large-scale political effect,” argues Tarpley.
The staged event is also providing a pretext to turn malls and hotels into Gestapo zones. It was used earlier this month to promote the government’s snitch program.
It should be obvious where all of this is headed. Following the next staged non-bombing by a clueless patsy, the government will move from malls and hotels into the streets and neighborhoods of America.
How long before you will be subjected to a virtual strip search before you can buy food or other necessities?
Medicare Gives OK To "Death Panels"
Infowars - Reviving an extremely unpopular bit of legislation, Medicare is moving forward with what they deem ‘end-of-life planning’ even though it was struck from the final version of the ObamaCare bill that was pushed through congress earlier this year. Serious doubts arose after the public caught wind of the ‘death panels’ and raised suspicions about the real reasoning behind such an agenda.
The new provision calls for Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries make some of the complex decisions that arise when their loved one approaches death.
The unpopular portion of the bill has been rebranded and made to sound like a benefit instead of the invasive and immoral bureaucratic loophole, meant to cut corners by cutting service to patients, that it is. Despite the resounding cries against such ‘death panels’, the concept is still being reworked and shoved down our throats.
In an attempt to give the bill some resistance, many states have filed suit against the Federal government over what they feel is an unconstitutional Bill.
The wording of the new counseling strategy is nebulous but it would seem that doctors are paid to advise on patients on ‘end-of-life’ care.
“This regulation could be modified or reversed” warned Earl Blumenauer author of the original end-of-life proposal and major supporter of such legislation, “We are not out of the woods yet”.
‘End-of-life planning’ goes into effect January 1
The new provision calls for Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries make some of the complex decisions that arise when their loved one approaches death.
The unpopular portion of the bill has been rebranded and made to sound like a benefit instead of the invasive and immoral bureaucratic loophole, meant to cut corners by cutting service to patients, that it is. Despite the resounding cries against such ‘death panels’, the concept is still being reworked and shoved down our throats.
In an attempt to give the bill some resistance, many states have filed suit against the Federal government over what they feel is an unconstitutional Bill.
The wording of the new counseling strategy is nebulous but it would seem that doctors are paid to advise on patients on ‘end-of-life’ care.
“This regulation could be modified or reversed” warned Earl Blumenauer author of the original end-of-life proposal and major supporter of such legislation, “We are not out of the woods yet”.
‘End-of-life planning’ goes into effect January 1
Kuwait Says: World Economy Can Withstand $100 Barrel Oil Price
(Reuters) - The global economy can withstand an oil price of $100 a barrel, Kuwait's oil minister said on Saturday, as other exporters indicated OPEC may decide against increasing output through 2011 as the market was well supplied.
Analysts have said oil producing countries are likely to raise output after crude rallied more than 30 percent from a low in May because they fear prices could damage economic growth in fuel importing countries.
European benchmark ICE Brent crude for February closed at $93.46 on Friday after hitting $94.74 a barrel, its highest level since October 2008.
Arab oil exporters meeting in Cairo this weekend said they saw no need to supply more crude as stocks were high and prices had been inflated temporarily by cold weather in Europe.
Asked by Reuters if the world economy could stand a $100 oil price, Kuwaiti Oil Minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Abdullah al-Sabah said: "Yes it can."
Iraq's new oil minister and the head of Libya's National Oil Corporation both told Reuters that $100 was a fair price, while Qatar's Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said he did not expect OPEC to increase production in 2011.
"I do not expect an OPEC meeting before June because oil prices are stable," he said.
Some delegates even called for exporters to comply better with agreed production limits. OPEC members' compliance with promised cutbacks reached 56 percent in November, according to Reuters estimates.
When asked if output could be raised, Kuwait's Sheikh Ahmad said: "No. More compliance, more compliance."
MARKET "WELL SUPPLIED"
The Cairo meeting of the Organization of Arab Exporting Countries (OAPEC) brought together Arab members of OPEC including top exporter Saudi Arabia, which has traditionally been viewed as a price moderate, as well as non-OPEC countries Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Bahrain.
OPEC cut output drastically after the global financial crisis struck in 2008 to prop up collapsing oil prices.
As demand has risen steeply in 2010 and is expected to rise further in 2011, the market is watching closely whether OPEC can release at least some of its spare capacity to prevent prices from soaring to around $150 per barrel as they did before the crisis struck in summer 2008.
OPEC's most influential oil minister, Saudi Arabia's Ali al-Naimi, said on Friday he was still happy with an oil price of $70-80 a barrel and there was no need for an extra OPEC meeting before the next scheduled one in June.
Others in the group have been pressing for a higher price, arguing that quantitative easing and a weakened U.S. dollar that spurred gains across financial markets mean the oil price strength is partly nominal.
Egyptian Oil Minister Sameh Fahmy said the current increase in oil prices was the result of higher demand on heating fuel because of the cold weather in Europe.
United Arab Emirates Oil Minister Mohammed al-Hamli said crude oil inventories are "quite high. It's the highest over the five years average... The market is well supplied."
Analysts have said oil producing countries are likely to raise output after crude rallied more than 30 percent from a low in May because they fear prices could damage economic growth in fuel importing countries.
European benchmark ICE Brent crude for February closed at $93.46 on Friday after hitting $94.74 a barrel, its highest level since October 2008.
Arab oil exporters meeting in Cairo this weekend said they saw no need to supply more crude as stocks were high and prices had been inflated temporarily by cold weather in Europe.
Asked by Reuters if the world economy could stand a $100 oil price, Kuwaiti Oil Minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Abdullah al-Sabah said: "Yes it can."
Iraq's new oil minister and the head of Libya's National Oil Corporation both told Reuters that $100 was a fair price, while Qatar's Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said he did not expect OPEC to increase production in 2011.
"I do not expect an OPEC meeting before June because oil prices are stable," he said.
Some delegates even called for exporters to comply better with agreed production limits. OPEC members' compliance with promised cutbacks reached 56 percent in November, according to Reuters estimates.
When asked if output could be raised, Kuwait's Sheikh Ahmad said: "No. More compliance, more compliance."
MARKET "WELL SUPPLIED"
The Cairo meeting of the Organization of Arab Exporting Countries (OAPEC) brought together Arab members of OPEC including top exporter Saudi Arabia, which has traditionally been viewed as a price moderate, as well as non-OPEC countries Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Bahrain.
OPEC cut output drastically after the global financial crisis struck in 2008 to prop up collapsing oil prices.
As demand has risen steeply in 2010 and is expected to rise further in 2011, the market is watching closely whether OPEC can release at least some of its spare capacity to prevent prices from soaring to around $150 per barrel as they did before the crisis struck in summer 2008.
OPEC's most influential oil minister, Saudi Arabia's Ali al-Naimi, said on Friday he was still happy with an oil price of $70-80 a barrel and there was no need for an extra OPEC meeting before the next scheduled one in June.
Others in the group have been pressing for a higher price, arguing that quantitative easing and a weakened U.S. dollar that spurred gains across financial markets mean the oil price strength is partly nominal.
Egyptian Oil Minister Sameh Fahmy said the current increase in oil prices was the result of higher demand on heating fuel because of the cold weather in Europe.
United Arab Emirates Oil Minister Mohammed al-Hamli said crude oil inventories are "quite high. It's the highest over the five years average... The market is well supplied."
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Planned Parenthood's Federal Funding Rose 363 Million in FY 2008 - 2009, Aborted 324,008 Unborn Children
(CNSNews.com) –Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during its 2008-2009 fiscal year, according to the organization's annual report. That was up from $349.6 million in FY2007-08.
According to a fact sheet on Planne Parenthood's Web site, the organization performed 324,008 abortion in calender year 2008. That was up from 305,310 in 2007 and 289,750 in 2006.
The number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in 2006 and 2007 was reported in the group's 2007-2008 annual report, on page 9. The abortions for 2008 were reported in the fact sheet--"current as of September 2010." The number was not included in Planned Parenthood's latest annual report.
As for the latest annual report, it shows that the Planned Parenthood national organization and its affiliates in all 50 states and U.S. territories had a total in net assets for fiscal year 2008-2009 of $994.7 million, a decrease of $19.6 million from the previous year. (Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.)
Planned Parenthood receives federal tax dollars through Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970. The funding is for reproductive health care services, including family planning, and cannot be directly spent on actual abortion procedures except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother.
In addition to the number of abortions in 2008, the Planned Parenthood fact sheet, dated current as of September 2010, shows that the organization provided 1,436,808 emergency contraception kits to women in 2008.
In contrast, the fact sheet further reveals that Planned Parenthood made 2,405 adoption referrals to other agencies.
Planned Parenthood’s annual report for 2008-2009, entitled “The Promise of Change,” makes numerous references to President Barack Obama as a “pro-choice president” and includes a photo of Obama with Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
The introduction to the report refers to Planned Parenthood as “the nation’s largest sex educator,” and includes an “In Memoriam” for Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider who was shot and killed in 2009 by a man who is now serving a life sentence in prison.
“Recalling George Tiller challenges each of us to honor and emulate his commitment to serve and protect the dignity of all women, as well as the work of brave health professionals committed to women’s health,” the memoriam reads.
The last time the organization apparently posted its annual report online was in April of 2009, which was the fiscal year 2007-2008 annual report.
According to a fact sheet on Planne Parenthood's Web site, the organization performed 324,008 abortion in calender year 2008. That was up from 305,310 in 2007 and 289,750 in 2006.
The number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in 2006 and 2007 was reported in the group's 2007-2008 annual report, on page 9. The abortions for 2008 were reported in the fact sheet--"current as of September 2010." The number was not included in Planned Parenthood's latest annual report.
As for the latest annual report, it shows that the Planned Parenthood national organization and its affiliates in all 50 states and U.S. territories had a total in net assets for fiscal year 2008-2009 of $994.7 million, a decrease of $19.6 million from the previous year. (Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.)
Planned Parenthood receives federal tax dollars through Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970. The funding is for reproductive health care services, including family planning, and cannot be directly spent on actual abortion procedures except in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the mother.
In addition to the number of abortions in 2008, the Planned Parenthood fact sheet, dated current as of September 2010, shows that the organization provided 1,436,808 emergency contraception kits to women in 2008.
In contrast, the fact sheet further reveals that Planned Parenthood made 2,405 adoption referrals to other agencies.
Planned Parenthood’s annual report for 2008-2009, entitled “The Promise of Change,” makes numerous references to President Barack Obama as a “pro-choice president” and includes a photo of Obama with Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
The introduction to the report refers to Planned Parenthood as “the nation’s largest sex educator,” and includes an “In Memoriam” for Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider who was shot and killed in 2009 by a man who is now serving a life sentence in prison.
“Recalling George Tiller challenges each of us to honor and emulate his commitment to serve and protect the dignity of all women, as well as the work of brave health professionals committed to women’s health,” the memoriam reads.
The last time the organization apparently posted its annual report online was in April of 2009, which was the fiscal year 2007-2008 annual report.
Friday, December 24, 2010
China Says It Will Bailout Eurpoean Nations
MAIL ONLINE - China has said it is willing to bail out debt-ridden countries in the euro zone using its $2.7trillion overseas investment fund.
In a fresh humiliation for Europe, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said it was one of the most important areas for China's foreign exchange investments.
The country has already approached struggling European countries with financial aid, including offering to buy Greece's debt in October and promising to buy $4billion of Portuguese government debt.
Today Portugal had its credit rating downgraded by the Fitch Ratings agency amid mounting concerns over the country's ability to raise money in the markets to finance its hefty borrowings.
Fitch said it was reducing its rating on the country's debt by one notch to A+ from AA- and warned that further downgrades may be in the offing by maintaining its negative outlook.
'To have any discernible effect China will have to buy a lot more than 5billion euros if they expect to have any impact on the negative sentiment surrounding Europe,' said Michael Hewson, currency analyst at CMC Markets.
China's astonishing economic growth has put it on track to overtake America as the world's economic powerhouse within two years, a recent report claimed.
But experts believed still be some years before America's leadership role is really challenged - largely because Beijing has given no indication it is ready to take on the responsibility of shepherding the world' economy.
Protest: Strikers carrying placards demonstrate outside the Greek Parliament in Athens. Greece is among a number of EU countries struggling financially
This foray into the future of the euro could be a signal from Beijing that it is ready to change that perception.
The euro rose temporarily on the news of China's support - but was sinking again this morning to a three-week low against the dollar.
The single currency earlier fell to around $1.3050, below its 200-day moving average currently located at $1.3092 on trading platform EBS.
Investors have pushed the euro beneath this key support level for the past three sessions, only to see the currency bounce back later in the day.
THE LOCOMOTIVE DRIVING THE WORLD ECONOMY
China could overtake America as the world’s biggest economy within two years, according to a leading financial think tank.
As growth in the U.S. slows down to a virtual standstill, China’s economy is revving up into double digits, the Conference Board said in a report published today.
In purely dollar terms, it is going to take much longer than two years for China’s $5 trillion economy to match up to the $15 trillion output in the US.
Even if the Chinese can sustain their current growth, it would take another ten years.
But in terms of purchasing power, taking into account the goods and services a country actually buys at home, China is well on its way to outstripping its fading competitor.
Looking even further ahead, the Conference Board predicts China could account for almost one quarter of the global economy in 2020, compared to 15 per cent for the US and 13 per cent for Western Europe.
The board predicted China’s economy should grow 10 per cent this year and 9.6 per cent in 2011, while America’s 2.6 per cent growth in 2010 will sink to 1.2 per cent next year.
Analysts said the euro will likely hold above $1.30 in the coming days, with traders reluctant to place big bets before year-end.
The outlook for the single currency remains shaky, with fresh losses expected into 2011, they added.
The Financial Times reported yesterday that China had offered to take more 'concerted action' to support European financial stabilisation.
It cited unnamed senior European officials after talks with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan.
Portuguese officials have said the government is trying to diversify its debt investor base, with China as a priority.
Finance Minister Fernando Teixeira dos Santos met Chinese Finance Minister Xie Curen and the head of the People's Bank of China during a visit to the country last week.
But it is unclear whether Beijing would be prepared to take on so much fresh exposure to Portugal, after domestic political pressure to invest the country's foreign reserves more carefully.
Chinese investment funds suffered from large, high-profile losses during the global financial crisis.
In October, during a visit to Greece, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao offered to buy Greek bonds when Athens resumed issuing. A month later, President Hu Jintao visited Portugal and offered 'concrete measures' to help the weak economy, but stopped short of promising to buy Portuguese bonds.
It is still believed that it will be some years before China actually overtakes the U.S. to become the world's largest economy.
Politicians argue that technology is still behind and much of the country still lives in poverty.
And in another economic measure, output per person, China lags way behind the US.
Last year, the International Monetary Fund calculated gross domestic product per head in the US at $46,000. The GDP breakdown in China was just $4,000 per person.
In a fresh humiliation for Europe, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said it was one of the most important areas for China's foreign exchange investments.
The country has already approached struggling European countries with financial aid, including offering to buy Greece's debt in October and promising to buy $4billion of Portuguese government debt.
Today Portugal had its credit rating downgraded by the Fitch Ratings agency amid mounting concerns over the country's ability to raise money in the markets to finance its hefty borrowings.
Fitch said it was reducing its rating on the country's debt by one notch to A+ from AA- and warned that further downgrades may be in the offing by maintaining its negative outlook.
'To have any discernible effect China will have to buy a lot more than 5billion euros if they expect to have any impact on the negative sentiment surrounding Europe,' said Michael Hewson, currency analyst at CMC Markets.
China's astonishing economic growth has put it on track to overtake America as the world's economic powerhouse within two years, a recent report claimed.
But experts believed still be some years before America's leadership role is really challenged - largely because Beijing has given no indication it is ready to take on the responsibility of shepherding the world' economy.
Protest: Strikers carrying placards demonstrate outside the Greek Parliament in Athens. Greece is among a number of EU countries struggling financially
This foray into the future of the euro could be a signal from Beijing that it is ready to change that perception.
The euro rose temporarily on the news of China's support - but was sinking again this morning to a three-week low against the dollar.
The single currency earlier fell to around $1.3050, below its 200-day moving average currently located at $1.3092 on trading platform EBS.
Investors have pushed the euro beneath this key support level for the past three sessions, only to see the currency bounce back later in the day.
THE LOCOMOTIVE DRIVING THE WORLD ECONOMY
China could overtake America as the world’s biggest economy within two years, according to a leading financial think tank.
As growth in the U.S. slows down to a virtual standstill, China’s economy is revving up into double digits, the Conference Board said in a report published today.
In purely dollar terms, it is going to take much longer than two years for China’s $5 trillion economy to match up to the $15 trillion output in the US.
Even if the Chinese can sustain their current growth, it would take another ten years.
But in terms of purchasing power, taking into account the goods and services a country actually buys at home, China is well on its way to outstripping its fading competitor.
Looking even further ahead, the Conference Board predicts China could account for almost one quarter of the global economy in 2020, compared to 15 per cent for the US and 13 per cent for Western Europe.
The board predicted China’s economy should grow 10 per cent this year and 9.6 per cent in 2011, while America’s 2.6 per cent growth in 2010 will sink to 1.2 per cent next year.
Analysts said the euro will likely hold above $1.30 in the coming days, with traders reluctant to place big bets before year-end.
The outlook for the single currency remains shaky, with fresh losses expected into 2011, they added.
The Financial Times reported yesterday that China had offered to take more 'concerted action' to support European financial stabilisation.
It cited unnamed senior European officials after talks with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan.
Portuguese officials have said the government is trying to diversify its debt investor base, with China as a priority.
Finance Minister Fernando Teixeira dos Santos met Chinese Finance Minister Xie Curen and the head of the People's Bank of China during a visit to the country last week.
But it is unclear whether Beijing would be prepared to take on so much fresh exposure to Portugal, after domestic political pressure to invest the country's foreign reserves more carefully.
Chinese investment funds suffered from large, high-profile losses during the global financial crisis.
In October, during a visit to Greece, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao offered to buy Greek bonds when Athens resumed issuing. A month later, President Hu Jintao visited Portugal and offered 'concrete measures' to help the weak economy, but stopped short of promising to buy Portuguese bonds.
It is still believed that it will be some years before China actually overtakes the U.S. to become the world's largest economy.
Politicians argue that technology is still behind and much of the country still lives in poverty.
And in another economic measure, output per person, China lags way behind the US.
Last year, the International Monetary Fund calculated gross domestic product per head in the US at $46,000. The GDP breakdown in China was just $4,000 per person.
Officials: Cholera Epidemic Sparks 45 People Lynched In Haiti
Port Au Prince, Haiti (CNN) -- At least 45 people, most of them voodoo priests, have been lynched in Haiti since the beginning of the cholera epidemic by angry mobs blaming them for the spread of the disease, officials said.
"People who practice voodoo have nothing to do with the cholera epidemic," said Max Beauvoir, the head of a voodoo organization in the Caribbean country.
Beauvoir said Thursday that he has appealed to authorities to help before the situation gets worse.
Some of the victims were killed with machetes, others were burned alive by mobs that added tires and gasoline to stoke the fires. The cholera outbreak started in October.
Forty of the victims were found in a southwest area of Haiti called Grand Anse, said Moise Fritz Evens, a communications ministry official.
The victims have been targeted because of "misinformation" that had been circulating in the community that voodoo practitioners were spreading cholera by using witchcraft, according to communications Minister Marie-Laurence Lassegue.
"It was necessary to increase awareness of the disease and educate the population countrywide instead of getting into a religious war that has no ending," Lassegue said.
The killings add to ongoing woes that have hit the island after the devastating earthquake in January.
About 220,000 people were killed in the earthquake, and countless others left homeless. A cholera outbreak after the earthquake has killed more than 2,000 people, health officials said.
"People who practice voodoo have nothing to do with the cholera epidemic," said Max Beauvoir, the head of a voodoo organization in the Caribbean country.
Beauvoir said Thursday that he has appealed to authorities to help before the situation gets worse.
Some of the victims were killed with machetes, others were burned alive by mobs that added tires and gasoline to stoke the fires. The cholera outbreak started in October.
Forty of the victims were found in a southwest area of Haiti called Grand Anse, said Moise Fritz Evens, a communications ministry official.
The victims have been targeted because of "misinformation" that had been circulating in the community that voodoo practitioners were spreading cholera by using witchcraft, according to communications Minister Marie-Laurence Lassegue.
"It was necessary to increase awareness of the disease and educate the population countrywide instead of getting into a religious war that has no ending," Lassegue said.
The killings add to ongoing woes that have hit the island after the devastating earthquake in January.
About 220,000 people were killed in the earthquake, and countless others left homeless. A cholera outbreak after the earthquake has killed more than 2,000 people, health officials said.
Mayor Bloomberg In E-Mails, Pushes For Mosque At Gound Zero
NEW YORK -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office worked behind the scenes to help the organizers of a mosque and community center near ground zero, intervening with city administrators to get a temporary prayer service permit and having an official ghostwrite a letter to community leaders.
E-mails released by the city Thursday document the cooperation between Bloomberg's Community Affairs Unit and the Cordoba Initiative, even as a furor erupted this year over the center's proposed existence two blocks north of ground zero. The city released the documents in response to a public-records lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative group.
Bloomberg's spokesman said the city has extended similar help to other religious groups. But Judicial Watch says the e-mails show the city government went too far with its assistance.
Bloomberg has been one of the strongest supporters of the project
, which drew huge protests on both sides in the months before the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Opponents argued that locating a mosque so close to the attack site is insensitive to the victims' memories. Bloomberg and other supporters have said allowing the center to be built reflects American values of tolerance and religious freedom.
The city's help was no different from the assistance it gives other organizations, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said.
"It is nothing out of the ordinary. This is what the Community Affairs Unit does," he said, citing assistance the mayor's office gave Roman Catholic officials in composing a letter to community boards asking for their help with a papal visit and in rushing through a permit for a temporary hut erected for a Jewish holiday.
In May, Nazli Parvizi, the head of the city's community affairs unit, composed a 500-word letter to send to Community Board 1, an advisory council in lower Manhattan, about the mosque project. The draft of Parvizi's letter describes the center as a "wonderful expression of our religion" and laments "media distortion" of the project. The letter in e-mails was signed by Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the project.
In August, Bloomberg cited the community board's support in a speech endorsing the project.
In January the Cordoba Initiative asked Bloomberg's commissioner of immigrant affairs, Fatima Shama, for help getting a temporary permit to hold Friday worship services at the proposed site. The city had approved permits for previous weeks, and the group believed the omission was due to a clerical error.
Shama responded a few hours later, saying the problem had been fixed.
As public anger over the mosque began to spread in May, supporters turned to the city for advice.
"Is there a good time to chat tomorrow. We need some guidance on how to tackle the opposition," Khan wrote to Shama.
The e-mails also document donations of $300 from the Cordoba Initiative and $150 from the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a sister group, to help pay for an Aug. 24, 2009, dinner celebrating the holy Islamic month of Ramadan at the mayor's residence.
It was at that event that Rauf first told Bloomberg about his plans for the Islamic center, and the mayor responded that it sounded like a good idea, Loeser said.
Loeser said the donations did not influence the mayor's support of the project.
The center's developers envision a 13- to 15-story facility with a health club, a playground, a day care center, an auditorium, a Sept. 11 memorial and a prayer room for 2,000 worshippers. The developer of the site has said groundbreaking is about three years away.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents show the city was an active proponent of the project.
"The mayor's office was at the beck and call of the ground zero mosque folks," Fitton said. "He obviously feels strongly about it, but he shouldn't turn the taxpayers of New York into advocates for this group."
The American Center for Law and Justice, which has sued the city to try to stop the Islamic center, said Bloomberg continues "to promote and advance a project that offends most New Yorkers and most Americans." A CBS News poll in August said about 71 percent of Americans oppose the project.
On Thursday the Cordoba Initiative said the Islamic center would bring economic development
to lower Manhattan, and it thanked the Bloomberg administration for its help.
"I don't think they've acted improperly at all," said Leyla Turkkan, a spokeswoman for the project.
E-mails released by the city Thursday document the cooperation between Bloomberg's Community Affairs Unit and the Cordoba Initiative, even as a furor erupted this year over the center's proposed existence two blocks north of ground zero. The city released the documents in response to a public-records lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative group.
Bloomberg's spokesman said the city has extended similar help to other religious groups. But Judicial Watch says the e-mails show the city government went too far with its assistance.
Bloomberg has been one of the strongest supporters of the project
, which drew huge protests on both sides in the months before the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Opponents argued that locating a mosque so close to the attack site is insensitive to the victims' memories. Bloomberg and other supporters have said allowing the center to be built reflects American values of tolerance and religious freedom.
The city's help was no different from the assistance it gives other organizations, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said.
"It is nothing out of the ordinary. This is what the Community Affairs Unit does," he said, citing assistance the mayor's office gave Roman Catholic officials in composing a letter to community boards asking for their help with a papal visit and in rushing through a permit for a temporary hut erected for a Jewish holiday.
In May, Nazli Parvizi, the head of the city's community affairs unit, composed a 500-word letter to send to Community Board 1, an advisory council in lower Manhattan, about the mosque project. The draft of Parvizi's letter describes the center as a "wonderful expression of our religion" and laments "media distortion" of the project. The letter in e-mails was signed by Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the project.
In August, Bloomberg cited the community board's support in a speech endorsing the project.
In January the Cordoba Initiative asked Bloomberg's commissioner of immigrant affairs, Fatima Shama, for help getting a temporary permit to hold Friday worship services at the proposed site. The city had approved permits for previous weeks, and the group believed the omission was due to a clerical error.
Shama responded a few hours later, saying the problem had been fixed.
As public anger over the mosque began to spread in May, supporters turned to the city for advice.
"Is there a good time to chat tomorrow. We need some guidance on how to tackle the opposition," Khan wrote to Shama.
The e-mails also document donations of $300 from the Cordoba Initiative and $150 from the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a sister group, to help pay for an Aug. 24, 2009, dinner celebrating the holy Islamic month of Ramadan at the mayor's residence.
It was at that event that Rauf first told Bloomberg about his plans for the Islamic center, and the mayor responded that it sounded like a good idea, Loeser said.
Loeser said the donations did not influence the mayor's support of the project.
The center's developers envision a 13- to 15-story facility with a health club, a playground, a day care center, an auditorium, a Sept. 11 memorial and a prayer room for 2,000 worshippers. The developer of the site has said groundbreaking is about three years away.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents show the city was an active proponent of the project.
"The mayor's office was at the beck and call of the ground zero mosque folks," Fitton said. "He obviously feels strongly about it, but he shouldn't turn the taxpayers of New York into advocates for this group."
The American Center for Law and Justice, which has sued the city to try to stop the Islamic center, said Bloomberg continues "to promote and advance a project that offends most New Yorkers and most Americans." A CBS News poll in August said about 71 percent of Americans oppose the project.
On Thursday the Cordoba Initiative said the Islamic center would bring economic development
to lower Manhattan, and it thanked the Bloomberg administration for its help.
"I don't think they've acted improperly at all," said Leyla Turkkan, a spokeswoman for the project.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Has The Finanical Collapse Of Eurpoe Now Become a Matter Of Time
What in the world is happening over in Europe? Well, it is actually quite simple. We are witnessing the slow motion collapse of the euro and of the European financial system. At this point, many analysts are convinced that a full-blown financial implosion in Europe has become inevitable. Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Belgium are all drowning in an ocean of unsustainable debt. Meanwhile, Germany and the few other “healthy” members of the EU continue to try to keep all of the balls in the air by bailing everyone out. But can Germany keep bailing the rest of the EU out indefinitely? Are the German people going to continue to be willing to hand out gigantic sacks of cash to fix the problems of other EU nations? The Irish were just bailed out, but their problems are far from over. There are rumors that Greece will soon need another bailout. Spain, Portugal, Italy and France have all entered crisis territory. At the same time, there are a whole host of nations in eastern Europe that are also on the verge of financial collapse. So is there any hope that a major sovereign debt crisis can be averted at this point?
One would like to think that there is always hope, but each month things just seem to keep getting worse. Confidence in European government debt continues to plummet. The yield on 10-year Irish bonds is up to 8.97%. The yield on 10-year Greek bonds is up to an astounding 12.01%. The cost of insuring French debt hit a new record high on December 20th.
Bond ratings all over Europe are being slashed or are being threatened with being slashed. For example, Moody’s Investors Service recently cut Ireland’s bond rating by five levels. Now there is talk that Spain, Belgium and even France could soon all have their debt significantly downgraded as well.
But if the borrowing costs for these troubled nations keep going up, that is just going to add to their financial problems and swell their budget deficits. In turn, larger budget deficits will cause investors to lose even more confidence.
So how far are we away from a major crisis point?
Professor Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citibank, is warning that quite a few EU nations could financially collapse in the next few months if they are not quickly bailed out….
“The market is not going to wait until March for the EU authorities to get their act together. We could have several sovereign states and banks going under. They are being far too casual.”
Many analysts are even calling for some of these troubled nations to stop using the euro for a while so that they can recover. In fact, Andrew Bosomworth, the head of portfolio management for Pimco in Europe says that Greece, Ireland and Portugal must all quit the euro at least for a little while if they expect to survive….
“Greece, Ireland and Portugal cannot get back on their feet without either their own currency or large transfer payments.”
Sadly, most Americans don’t realize just how bad the situation in Europe is becoming. This is truly a historic crisis that is unfolding.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared earlier this year that this is the biggest financial crisis that the EU has ever faced….
“The current crisis facing the euro is the biggest test Europe has faced for decades, even since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.”
So what is the answer?
Well, many are speculating that the EU could actually break up over this whole thing, but another possibility is that we could eventually see much greater integration.
In fact, for the first time the idea that “euro bonds” could be issued is gaining some traction. This would spread the risk of European government debt throughout the European Union. At this point, Andrew Bosomworth says that things have gotten so bad that it now seems inevitable that we will soon see the creation of euro bonds….
“Whether now or later, there is no way around a euro bond.”
So just how bad are things going to get in Europe? Well, earlier this year Anthony Fry, the senior managing director at Evercore Partners had the following to say about the emerging bond crisis in Europe….
“I don’t want to scare anyone but I am considering investing in barbed wire and guns, things are not looking good and rates are heading higher.”
So why should Americans care about all this?
Well, what is happening to these troubled European states is eventually going to happen to us.
If rates on U.S. government debt eventually hit 8 or 12 percent it will literally be financial armageddon in this country. The U.S. government has piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world, and if we continue piling up debt at the pace that we are, then it will only be a matter of time before the IMF is demanding that we implement our own “austerity measures”.
As I have written about previously, there are already numerous indications that confidence in U.S. Treasuries is dying. If that happens, we could literally see interest costs on the national debt double or even triple.
But it is not just the U.S. government that is in trouble. A bloodbath in the municipal bond market has already started. Hundreds of state and local governments across the United States are on the verge of bankruptcy.
So don’t laugh at what is going on in Ireland or Greece. The next victims could be financially troubled states such as California and Illinois.
In the history of global finance, we have never faced a sovereign debt crisis like we are seeing now. All over the globe governments are being suffocated by absolutely crushing debt loads. Once a couple of dominoes fall, it is going to be really hard to keep the rest of the dominoes from falling.
This is the biggest crisis that the euro has ever faced. At some point Germany will either be unwilling or unable to continuing rescuing the rest of the EU countries from the unsustainable mountains of debt that they have accumulated. When that moment arrives, it is going to throw world financial markets into turmoil.
But this is what happens when we allow long-term debt bubbles to be created. Eventually they always burst.
So keep your eye on the euro, because if a financial collapse does happen in Europe it is going to have a dramatic impact on the United States as well
One would like to think that there is always hope, but each month things just seem to keep getting worse. Confidence in European government debt continues to plummet. The yield on 10-year Irish bonds is up to 8.97%. The yield on 10-year Greek bonds is up to an astounding 12.01%. The cost of insuring French debt hit a new record high on December 20th.
Bond ratings all over Europe are being slashed or are being threatened with being slashed. For example, Moody’s Investors Service recently cut Ireland’s bond rating by five levels. Now there is talk that Spain, Belgium and even France could soon all have their debt significantly downgraded as well.
But if the borrowing costs for these troubled nations keep going up, that is just going to add to their financial problems and swell their budget deficits. In turn, larger budget deficits will cause investors to lose even more confidence.
So how far are we away from a major crisis point?
Professor Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citibank, is warning that quite a few EU nations could financially collapse in the next few months if they are not quickly bailed out….
“The market is not going to wait until March for the EU authorities to get their act together. We could have several sovereign states and banks going under. They are being far too casual.”
Many analysts are even calling for some of these troubled nations to stop using the euro for a while so that they can recover. In fact, Andrew Bosomworth, the head of portfolio management for Pimco in Europe says that Greece, Ireland and Portugal must all quit the euro at least for a little while if they expect to survive….
“Greece, Ireland and Portugal cannot get back on their feet without either their own currency or large transfer payments.”
Sadly, most Americans don’t realize just how bad the situation in Europe is becoming. This is truly a historic crisis that is unfolding.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared earlier this year that this is the biggest financial crisis that the EU has ever faced….
“The current crisis facing the euro is the biggest test Europe has faced for decades, even since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.”
So what is the answer?
Well, many are speculating that the EU could actually break up over this whole thing, but another possibility is that we could eventually see much greater integration.
In fact, for the first time the idea that “euro bonds” could be issued is gaining some traction. This would spread the risk of European government debt throughout the European Union. At this point, Andrew Bosomworth says that things have gotten so bad that it now seems inevitable that we will soon see the creation of euro bonds….
“Whether now or later, there is no way around a euro bond.”
So just how bad are things going to get in Europe? Well, earlier this year Anthony Fry, the senior managing director at Evercore Partners had the following to say about the emerging bond crisis in Europe….
“I don’t want to scare anyone but I am considering investing in barbed wire and guns, things are not looking good and rates are heading higher.”
So why should Americans care about all this?
Well, what is happening to these troubled European states is eventually going to happen to us.
If rates on U.S. government debt eventually hit 8 or 12 percent it will literally be financial armageddon in this country. The U.S. government has piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world, and if we continue piling up debt at the pace that we are, then it will only be a matter of time before the IMF is demanding that we implement our own “austerity measures”.
As I have written about previously, there are already numerous indications that confidence in U.S. Treasuries is dying. If that happens, we could literally see interest costs on the national debt double or even triple.
But it is not just the U.S. government that is in trouble. A bloodbath in the municipal bond market has already started. Hundreds of state and local governments across the United States are on the verge of bankruptcy.
So don’t laugh at what is going on in Ireland or Greece. The next victims could be financially troubled states such as California and Illinois.
In the history of global finance, we have never faced a sovereign debt crisis like we are seeing now. All over the globe governments are being suffocated by absolutely crushing debt loads. Once a couple of dominoes fall, it is going to be really hard to keep the rest of the dominoes from falling.
This is the biggest crisis that the euro has ever faced. At some point Germany will either be unwilling or unable to continuing rescuing the rest of the EU countries from the unsustainable mountains of debt that they have accumulated. When that moment arrives, it is going to throw world financial markets into turmoil.
But this is what happens when we allow long-term debt bubbles to be created. Eventually they always burst.
So keep your eye on the euro, because if a financial collapse does happen in Europe it is going to have a dramatic impact on the United States as well
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
President Obama Starting To Govern As Bush 44
Debra J. Saunders - Once upon a time in America, when George W. Bush served as America's 43rd president, Democrats criticized the Bush tax cuts, especially for the wealthy. This month, President Obama called a measure extending all the Bush tax rates "a win for our economy" -- after excoriating liberal critics of his compromise tax package as "sanctimonious." Once upon a time, Democrats trashed Bush for pushing tax cuts during a time of war, and Democrats slammed Bush for not demanding that Americans sacrifice to win the war on terror. This month, while U.S. troops serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama added more tax cuts to the Bush mix.
Once upon a time, Democratic candidates promised that if they won the White House, they would shutter Guantanamo Bay, then referred to as a "recruiting tool for al-Qaida." In January 2009, Obama signed an executive order to close the detention center within a year. Today it's still open.
Once upon a time, Democrats argued that if they were in charge, Washington would pass "comprehensive immigration reform." Candidate Obama promised to make passage of an immigration bill a top priority during his first year in office.
For two years, the Dems ran the White House, the House and the Senate -- and a bill never passed because they never really pushed it. Clearly, the leadership figured out that immigration is an issue that works best for them if left hanging.
Once upon a time, Democrats used Bush's poor poll numbers as proof that he was a bumbling dolt who couldn't manage the economy. Now, they use Obama's poor poll numbers as proof that Bush was a bumbling dolt who couldn't manage the economy.
Forget the Gallup poll that shows Congress with its lowest approval rating ever -- 13 percent. Chalk that stat up to anti-incumbent fever.
Just two years ago, the Dems would boast that if they ran U.S. foreign policy, there'd be lots of smart dialogue and the world's tin-pot dictators would respect the U.S. president. How's that working in Iran and North Korea?
The Democrats used to say that universal health care would be cheaper. That was before SEIU 1199 announced it would drop dependents' health care coverage in part because of the "Obamacare" requirement that plans cover members' children up to age 26.
Once upon a time, Obama told America that if he were president, he would focus on winning in Afghanistan and thus prevail in the war on terrorism. Sunday on "Meet the Press," Vice President Joe Biden declared, "We're going to be totally out of there come hell or high water by 2014."
Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was forced to do a what-the-vice-president-meant-to-say clarification as he explained that 2014 would bring an end to the U.S. "combat commitment in Afghanistan."
Candidate Barack Obama had a grand time slamming the same Bush policies that he now maintains. And when the criticism gets too nasty, no worries: He always has golf.
Once upon a time, Democratic candidates promised that if they won the White House, they would shutter Guantanamo Bay, then referred to as a "recruiting tool for al-Qaida." In January 2009, Obama signed an executive order to close the detention center within a year. Today it's still open.
Once upon a time, Democrats argued that if they were in charge, Washington would pass "comprehensive immigration reform." Candidate Obama promised to make passage of an immigration bill a top priority during his first year in office.
For two years, the Dems ran the White House, the House and the Senate -- and a bill never passed because they never really pushed it. Clearly, the leadership figured out that immigration is an issue that works best for them if left hanging.
Once upon a time, Democrats used Bush's poor poll numbers as proof that he was a bumbling dolt who couldn't manage the economy. Now, they use Obama's poor poll numbers as proof that Bush was a bumbling dolt who couldn't manage the economy.
Forget the Gallup poll that shows Congress with its lowest approval rating ever -- 13 percent. Chalk that stat up to anti-incumbent fever.
Just two years ago, the Dems would boast that if they ran U.S. foreign policy, there'd be lots of smart dialogue and the world's tin-pot dictators would respect the U.S. president. How's that working in Iran and North Korea?
The Democrats used to say that universal health care would be cheaper. That was before SEIU 1199 announced it would drop dependents' health care coverage in part because of the "Obamacare" requirement that plans cover members' children up to age 26.
Once upon a time, Obama told America that if he were president, he would focus on winning in Afghanistan and thus prevail in the war on terrorism. Sunday on "Meet the Press," Vice President Joe Biden declared, "We're going to be totally out of there come hell or high water by 2014."
Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was forced to do a what-the-vice-president-meant-to-say clarification as he explained that 2014 would bring an end to the U.S. "combat commitment in Afghanistan."
Candidate Barack Obama had a grand time slamming the same Bush policies that he now maintains. And when the criticism gets too nasty, no worries: He always has golf.
$2 Trillion Municipal Bond Debt Crisis Could Destroy 100 American Cities
John Byrne - A new disaster is looming, according to a prominent market research analyst.
Meredith Whitney, a financial analyst who runs her own consulting firm and correctly predicted the major debt fallout of Citigroup, warned in a little-reported on interview Sunday that as many as 100 US cities face default on their municipal bonds.
Cities and states issue bonds to pay for public services. The trouble is that municipalities are no longer collecting enough in taxes to meet their budgetary needs. According to a 60 Minutes report Sunday -- which received almost no attention by the popular press -- US cities have spent nearly half a trillion more than they've collected in taxes, and face pension shortfalls of $1 trillion. Video of the CBS piece follows this article.
"Next to housing this is the single most important issue in the US and certainly the biggest threat to the US economy," Whitney told a CBS 60 Minutes' interviewer Sunday night.
"There's not a doubt on my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults. You can see fifty to a hundred sizeable defaults – more," Whitney added. "This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."
Whitney became a household name in the investment community after issuing a dire report on Citigroup in 2007, prior to the global credit crisis. She predicted the bank would face a whopping credit crunch -- which it did -- and cut its dividend -- which it also did. The bank was subsequently forced to accept a massive government bailout.
Citigroup holds the most municipal bond debt out of all the banks in the US.
"Detroit is cutting police, lighting, road repairs and cleaning services affecting as much as 20% of the population," the Guardian's Elena Moya noted late Monday, writing about the 60 Minutes piece. "The city, which has been on the skids for almost two decades with the decline of the US auto industry, does not generate enough wealth to maintain services for its 900,000 inhabitants."
"The nearby state of Illinois has spent twice as much money as it has collected and is about six months behind on creditor payments," Moya added. "The University of Illinois alone is owed $400m, the CBS program said. The state has a 21% chances of default, more than any other, according to CMA Datavision, a derivatives information provider.
She continued: "California has raised state university tuition fees by 32%. Arizona has sold its state capitol and supreme court buildings to investors, and leases them back."
Municipal bond traders dismissed Whitney's concerns Monday as overblown on CNBC Monday.
“She’s being alarmist,” an unnamed "one of the largest municipal bond portfolio managers in the country" told CNBC.
“I can’t make the numbers work,” Ben Thompson, an industry titan who manages billions in tax-exempt bonds, added. “You’ve got to basically have New York, Chicago, Phoenix, Los Angeles—these cities start to default…the numbers just don’t add up.”
Some investors believe the default of a major city is low, arguing that states would be likely to bail out their beleaguered metropolises. States are not legally permitted for file for bankruptcy (though municipalities are).
But the municipal and state debt crisis is real, and not even the richest counties are immune. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on the affluent New York county of Nassau, where a Republican county executive -- "who won one of the first upsets of the Tea Party era" -- came into office and promptly cut taxes without trimming public benefits or services.
The county’s deficit now approaches nearly $350 million.
That things could get so dire in this wealthy county, where property taxes are the second highest in the nation, offers a lesson in what happens when anti-tax fervor meets the realities of disappearing revenues and a punch-drunk economy. At heart, though, the situation — like state budget crises in New York, New Jersey and Illinois — illuminates the troubles long-prosperous governments, with established interest groups and residents accustomed to high levels of services, face in adapting to protracted lean times.
“It’s the crisis of affluence,” said E. J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York Policy. “It’s not just a problematic old inner city that can’t get out of its old way of doing things,” he said. “What makes Nassau a microcosm of New York State is its high spending, high taxes, intransigent unions, a pronounced taste for debt, and a sense that too many people in both parties have a stake in keeping it all that way.”
In June, New York state announced that they would borrow from the state's pension fund to make current payments to the fund, a maneuver that the New York Times described as a "sleight of hand."
"Pension costs for the state and municipalities are soaring, a result of enhanced retirement benefits for public employees and the decline in the stock market over the past two years," the Times Danny Hakim wrote in June. "And, given declines in tax revenue and larger budget shortfalls, the governments are struggling to come up with the money to make the contributions."
"Under the plan, the state and municipalities would borrow the money to reduce their pension contributions for the next three years, in exchange for higher payments over the following decade," Hakim continued. "They would begin repaying what they borrowed, with interest, in 2013.
"The maneuver would cost the state and local governments about $1.85 billion in interest payments, according to an estimate by the State Senate, though a number of factors could drive interest payments up or down," Hakim added.
In settling charges that they defrauded the municipal bond market in a bid-rigging scheme, Bank of America Corp. said earlier this month that it would pay over $137 million in restitution to schools, hospitals, counties, state attorneys and the Internal Revenue Service, among others.
Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, antitrust chief at the US Department of Justice, warned that Americans would see "a lot more activity in the coming weeks and months" on municipal bond enforcement.
In an email to Bloomberg, Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said that Bank of America's settlement was "likely the tip of the iceberg" and their conspirators were likely to face even larger fees.
Bank of America had been assisting the government's probe of the bond markets after self-reporting the alleged fraud. Varney said the probe was ongoing.
More than a dozen other firms including JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, and Societe Generale were also noted as unindicted co-conspirators.
Meredith Whitney, a financial analyst who runs her own consulting firm and correctly predicted the major debt fallout of Citigroup, warned in a little-reported on interview Sunday that as many as 100 US cities face default on their municipal bonds.
Cities and states issue bonds to pay for public services. The trouble is that municipalities are no longer collecting enough in taxes to meet their budgetary needs. According to a 60 Minutes report Sunday -- which received almost no attention by the popular press -- US cities have spent nearly half a trillion more than they've collected in taxes, and face pension shortfalls of $1 trillion. Video of the CBS piece follows this article.
"Next to housing this is the single most important issue in the US and certainly the biggest threat to the US economy," Whitney told a CBS 60 Minutes' interviewer Sunday night.
"There's not a doubt on my mind that you will see a spate of municipal bond defaults. You can see fifty to a hundred sizeable defaults – more," Whitney added. "This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of defaults."
Whitney became a household name in the investment community after issuing a dire report on Citigroup in 2007, prior to the global credit crisis. She predicted the bank would face a whopping credit crunch -- which it did -- and cut its dividend -- which it also did. The bank was subsequently forced to accept a massive government bailout.
Citigroup holds the most municipal bond debt out of all the banks in the US.
"Detroit is cutting police, lighting, road repairs and cleaning services affecting as much as 20% of the population," the Guardian's Elena Moya noted late Monday, writing about the 60 Minutes piece. "The city, which has been on the skids for almost two decades with the decline of the US auto industry, does not generate enough wealth to maintain services for its 900,000 inhabitants."
"The nearby state of Illinois has spent twice as much money as it has collected and is about six months behind on creditor payments," Moya added. "The University of Illinois alone is owed $400m, the CBS program said. The state has a 21% chances of default, more than any other, according to CMA Datavision, a derivatives information provider.
She continued: "California has raised state university tuition fees by 32%. Arizona has sold its state capitol and supreme court buildings to investors, and leases them back."
Municipal bond traders dismissed Whitney's concerns Monday as overblown on CNBC Monday.
“She’s being alarmist,” an unnamed "one of the largest municipal bond portfolio managers in the country" told CNBC.
“I can’t make the numbers work,” Ben Thompson, an industry titan who manages billions in tax-exempt bonds, added. “You’ve got to basically have New York, Chicago, Phoenix, Los Angeles—these cities start to default…the numbers just don’t add up.”
Some investors believe the default of a major city is low, arguing that states would be likely to bail out their beleaguered metropolises. States are not legally permitted for file for bankruptcy (though municipalities are).
But the municipal and state debt crisis is real, and not even the richest counties are immune. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported on the affluent New York county of Nassau, where a Republican county executive -- "who won one of the first upsets of the Tea Party era" -- came into office and promptly cut taxes without trimming public benefits or services.
The county’s deficit now approaches nearly $350 million.
That things could get so dire in this wealthy county, where property taxes are the second highest in the nation, offers a lesson in what happens when anti-tax fervor meets the realities of disappearing revenues and a punch-drunk economy. At heart, though, the situation — like state budget crises in New York, New Jersey and Illinois — illuminates the troubles long-prosperous governments, with established interest groups and residents accustomed to high levels of services, face in adapting to protracted lean times.
“It’s the crisis of affluence,” said E. J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York Policy. “It’s not just a problematic old inner city that can’t get out of its old way of doing things,” he said. “What makes Nassau a microcosm of New York State is its high spending, high taxes, intransigent unions, a pronounced taste for debt, and a sense that too many people in both parties have a stake in keeping it all that way.”
In June, New York state announced that they would borrow from the state's pension fund to make current payments to the fund, a maneuver that the New York Times described as a "sleight of hand."
"Pension costs for the state and municipalities are soaring, a result of enhanced retirement benefits for public employees and the decline in the stock market over the past two years," the Times Danny Hakim wrote in June. "And, given declines in tax revenue and larger budget shortfalls, the governments are struggling to come up with the money to make the contributions."
"Under the plan, the state and municipalities would borrow the money to reduce their pension contributions for the next three years, in exchange for higher payments over the following decade," Hakim continued. "They would begin repaying what they borrowed, with interest, in 2013.
"The maneuver would cost the state and local governments about $1.85 billion in interest payments, according to an estimate by the State Senate, though a number of factors could drive interest payments up or down," Hakim added.
In settling charges that they defrauded the municipal bond market in a bid-rigging scheme, Bank of America Corp. said earlier this month that it would pay over $137 million in restitution to schools, hospitals, counties, state attorneys and the Internal Revenue Service, among others.
Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, antitrust chief at the US Department of Justice, warned that Americans would see "a lot more activity in the coming weeks and months" on municipal bond enforcement.
In an email to Bloomberg, Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said that Bank of America's settlement was "likely the tip of the iceberg" and their conspirators were likely to face even larger fees.
Bank of America had been assisting the government's probe of the bond markets after self-reporting the alleged fraud. Varney said the probe was ongoing.
More than a dozen other firms including JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, and Societe Generale were also noted as unindicted co-conspirators.
Arlen Spector Hates American Democracy
Patterico's Pontifications - So on one hand we have “Allahpundit” over at Hot Air mocking Arlen Specter’s farewell speech where he whines about the primaries and Allah quoting a website that we are boycotting:
Referring to primary challenges as a form of “sophisticated cannibalism,” Specter called out to his moderate colleagues and would-be senators of this cycle: Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who lost his nomination at the party convention because activists thought he was too centrist, as well as Murkowski, who lost her primary earlier this year but will likely be certified the winner as a write-in candidate.
“Congressman Mike Castle was rejected in Delaware’s Republican primary in favor of a candidate who thought it necessary to defend herself as not being a witch,” said Specter. “The spectacular reelection of Sen. Lisa Murkowski on a write-in vote in the Alaska general election and the defeat of other tea party candidates may show the way to counter right-wing extremists.”
You can even watch video of him saying that, here. Get your hankies because it is a sad one.
And meanwhile Althouse tears him apart in a different section of the speech, first quoting him as saying:
“The Supreme Court has been eating Congress’ lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional fact finding and precedents…
“Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising — thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote… Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases.”
And Althouse appropriately responds:
Bleh. You just disagree with the call. I hate this sort of political posturing. It’s not the massiveness of the congressional record that makes a statute constitutional. It’s fitting within the Constitution.
Specter is acting as if the question at the confirmation hearing was: If we put a really, really huge number of words into the record, do you promise to let us do anything we want? And the answer was: Yes, of course. When I see a lot of pages, I always think, wow, that must be true.
Which is all a valid criticism of Specter, but notice of course the common thread between Specter’s two complaints. Specter is whining on one hand that the people have chosen to primary incumbents who are not following their will. And then he is bleating that certain speakers will be able to engage in speech he doesn’t like. I mean let’s remember what Citizens United was about, apart from his spin, because no one who attacks this decision wants to talk about the facts. A documentary film company wanted to make a movie against Hillary Clinton and to advertise for it, and the FEC shut it down. That is political speech at its purist and apparently Specter is sad that it wasn’t suppressed.
And that is a big deal. As I wrote a few months ago in the context of a politician saying he disagrees with the constitution:
Freedom of expression goes directly to the heart of whether this is a republic or not. A nation that has no freedom of expression is not a republic or a democracy, even if you have the right to vote. I mean the syllogism is pretty direct. The right to make a choice implies the right to make an informed choice. The right to make an informed choice requires me to hear lots of information regarding that choice. That means in terms of speech, that people and yes, even corporations, must feel free to express themselves so that you can get the maximum amount of information about that choice, so you can make an informed choice. Thus the right to choose between two candidates is meaningless without the right to speak freely about them.
So disagreeing with the constitution is not per se bad, but disagreeing with free expression is. Put simply, the right to debate should not be up for debate.
And that is what Specter is opposed to. So I suppose that Specter felt he should be Senator because, well… darnit, he should be! And if rejecting that kind of entitlement is “cannibalism” then I only have one thing to say: can we fit him into a turkey fryer?
Referring to primary challenges as a form of “sophisticated cannibalism,” Specter called out to his moderate colleagues and would-be senators of this cycle: Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who lost his nomination at the party convention because activists thought he was too centrist, as well as Murkowski, who lost her primary earlier this year but will likely be certified the winner as a write-in candidate.
“Congressman Mike Castle was rejected in Delaware’s Republican primary in favor of a candidate who thought it necessary to defend herself as not being a witch,” said Specter. “The spectacular reelection of Sen. Lisa Murkowski on a write-in vote in the Alaska general election and the defeat of other tea party candidates may show the way to counter right-wing extremists.”
You can even watch video of him saying that, here. Get your hankies because it is a sad one.
And meanwhile Althouse tears him apart in a different section of the speech, first quoting him as saying:
“The Supreme Court has been eating Congress’ lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional fact finding and precedents…
“Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising — thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote… Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases.”
And Althouse appropriately responds:
Bleh. You just disagree with the call. I hate this sort of political posturing. It’s not the massiveness of the congressional record that makes a statute constitutional. It’s fitting within the Constitution.
Specter is acting as if the question at the confirmation hearing was: If we put a really, really huge number of words into the record, do you promise to let us do anything we want? And the answer was: Yes, of course. When I see a lot of pages, I always think, wow, that must be true.
Which is all a valid criticism of Specter, but notice of course the common thread between Specter’s two complaints. Specter is whining on one hand that the people have chosen to primary incumbents who are not following their will. And then he is bleating that certain speakers will be able to engage in speech he doesn’t like. I mean let’s remember what Citizens United was about, apart from his spin, because no one who attacks this decision wants to talk about the facts. A documentary film company wanted to make a movie against Hillary Clinton and to advertise for it, and the FEC shut it down. That is political speech at its purist and apparently Specter is sad that it wasn’t suppressed.
And that is a big deal. As I wrote a few months ago in the context of a politician saying he disagrees with the constitution:
Freedom of expression goes directly to the heart of whether this is a republic or not. A nation that has no freedom of expression is not a republic or a democracy, even if you have the right to vote. I mean the syllogism is pretty direct. The right to make a choice implies the right to make an informed choice. The right to make an informed choice requires me to hear lots of information regarding that choice. That means in terms of speech, that people and yes, even corporations, must feel free to express themselves so that you can get the maximum amount of information about that choice, so you can make an informed choice. Thus the right to choose between two candidates is meaningless without the right to speak freely about them.
So disagreeing with the constitution is not per se bad, but disagreeing with free expression is. Put simply, the right to debate should not be up for debate.
And that is what Specter is opposed to. So I suppose that Specter felt he should be Senator because, well… darnit, he should be! And if rejecting that kind of entitlement is “cannibalism” then I only have one thing to say: can we fit him into a turkey fryer?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Real "Hidden" Purpose For Income Taxes
Bob Livingston - Before we get entangled in the doublespeak of the Internal Revenue Service Code and rulings, we need to consider that the whole Orwellian nightmare is a sham imposed by the police power of the State on a gullible people.
Actually the income tax has a dual purpose, and neither is to pay taxes to the government. Its first purpose is to control and redistribute the volume of money. James A. Garfield, the 20th President of the United States said, “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”
The second reason the income tax system exists is to keep a dossier on all citizens. The 1040 tax return is your personal profile.
So-called income taxes, as defined and used by the Socialist State, lead the people into a swamp of confusion as it is designed to do. Socialism attracts corruption and corruption attracts Socialism.
Income tax systems go hand-in-hand with fiat paper money systems. The money creators cannot create wealth but they can transfer wealth with depreciating (inflating) paper money.
Governments make war on their own citizens by depreciating the currency. As the currency is depreciated (inflated) the people are impoverished. There is no way to protect financial assets with a fiat paper money system except as paper money is converted to gold and silver.
Depreciating paper money is not a store of wealth. Gold and silver are. One can bury paper money and the money creators and tax collectors do not know where it is. Yet the State can steal the purchasing power of paper money by creating more paper money and diluting the buried paper money.
The transfer of wealth from the producers and savers to the government is a simple process of increasing the quantity of money. This fact eliminates the need for income taxes.
Using words spoken by Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve from 1941 to 1946, we can dispel the widely believed myth that income taxes are needed for government income. Income taxes have nothing to do with providing income to the government.
In a famous speech he read before the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II, titled Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete, Ruml said, “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.”
The speech was originally printed in American Affairs in the January, 1946 issue. The editor of American Affairs wrote: “His (Ruml’s) thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2)an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore,should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences.”
To read the entire speech, go here. It is very valuable information to reveal the fraud of income taxes as Americans understand it.
Actually the income tax has a dual purpose, and neither is to pay taxes to the government. Its first purpose is to control and redistribute the volume of money. James A. Garfield, the 20th President of the United States said, “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”
The second reason the income tax system exists is to keep a dossier on all citizens. The 1040 tax return is your personal profile.
So-called income taxes, as defined and used by the Socialist State, lead the people into a swamp of confusion as it is designed to do. Socialism attracts corruption and corruption attracts Socialism.
Income tax systems go hand-in-hand with fiat paper money systems. The money creators cannot create wealth but they can transfer wealth with depreciating (inflating) paper money.
Governments make war on their own citizens by depreciating the currency. As the currency is depreciated (inflated) the people are impoverished. There is no way to protect financial assets with a fiat paper money system except as paper money is converted to gold and silver.
Depreciating paper money is not a store of wealth. Gold and silver are. One can bury paper money and the money creators and tax collectors do not know where it is. Yet the State can steal the purchasing power of paper money by creating more paper money and diluting the buried paper money.
The transfer of wealth from the producers and savers to the government is a simple process of increasing the quantity of money. This fact eliminates the need for income taxes.
Using words spoken by Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve from 1941 to 1946, we can dispel the widely believed myth that income taxes are needed for government income. Income taxes have nothing to do with providing income to the government.
In a famous speech he read before the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II, titled Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete, Ruml said, “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.”
The speech was originally printed in American Affairs in the January, 1946 issue. The editor of American Affairs wrote: “His (Ruml’s) thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2)an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore,should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences.”
To read the entire speech, go here. It is very valuable information to reveal the fraud of income taxes as Americans understand it.
9 Reasons Why The Start Treaty Should Be Stopped By The Senate
American Dream - As the U.S. military continues to waste an enormous amount of energy and resources patrolling the streets of Iraqi cities and digging goat herders out of the caves of Afghanistan, a very real threat to the national security of the United States is developing and very few people even seem concerned about it. It is called the START Treaty, and Barack Obama is desperately trying to ramrod it through the lame duck session of Congress. Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to the terms of the treaty back in April, and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must vote for it in order for the treaty to become law. So what is so bad about the treaty? Well, for starters, it almost totally defangs the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal that has protected us for the past six decades, it puts serious restrictions on the ability of the United States to develop any kind of missile defense and it puts the U.S. military at a very significant strategic disadvantage.
But Barack Obama doesn’t care. Barack Obama believes that “the Cold War is over” and that we live in a post-nuclear world. Obama believes that we do not need nuclear weapons and that we don’t really need any kind of missile defense either.
In fact, when it comes to nuclear weapons Barack Obama’s primary motivation seems to be getting rid of as many of them as possible. As noble as that may sound, the truth is that the world is becoming a much more dangerous place and the threats that the U.S. is facing are only increasing.
Unfortunately, Obama does not see things that way. Shortly after he was elected, Barack Obama delivered a major foreign policy speech in Prague during which he called for a world that was free from nuclear weapons.
Apparently he was quite serious about this, and Obama has publicly stated time after time that he is convinced that America must lead the way when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
So exactly what would this START treaty do? Well, the following are 9 reasons why the START treaty must be stopped….
#1 The treaty restricts both the United States and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. For the U.S. military this would represent a decline of well over 90% from a peak of approximately 31,255 strategic nuclear warheads in 1967. The treaty would also limit the total number of deployed ballistic missiles or nuclear bombers to 700.
#2 As part of the treaty we would tell Russia exactly where our few remaining nuclear weapons are and allow the Russians to inspect those sites. So if the time ever came for the Russians to strike our emasculated nuclear arsenal, they would know exactly where to find our few remaining nuclear weapons.
#3 The treaty is so vague about some of the key issues that the two sides are already arguing about what it means. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that the restrictions on missile defense are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and that these restrictions are “legally binding”. But in a recent letter to U.S. Senators, Barack Obama stated that the treaty “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile-defense programs.”
#4 Nuclear weapons technology is rapidly spreading around the globe and the need for a missile defense system is greater than ever. If this treaty does restrict our ability to build a missile defense system (as the wording of the treaty clearly seems to indicate), that is a very serious threat to our national security. What is going to happen one day when a rogue nation or a rogue terror group launches a nuke at us? Excuses will not cut it at that point.
#5 The treaty completely ignores the very serious imbalance that exists between the U.S. and Russia when is comes to tactical nuclear weapons. Today it is estimated that the Russians have approximately 10,000 tactical nuclear warheads while the U.S. only has a few hundred. These tactical nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles, long-range artillery or aircraft. The treaty does nothing to change those numbers. This would put the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#6 The treaty does nothing to restrict the quality of long-range missiles. Currently, Russia is busy modernizing their strategic long-range missiles. The United States is not doing the same. Once again, this could leave the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#7 The Russian government has shown that they are not trustworthy. Of course, the same thing could be said about the Obama administration. Anyone who trusts anything that Barack Obama says at this point is an idiot.
#8 North Korea already has nukes, Iran is developing nuclear technology and a number of other important nations such as Venezuela are rumored to be interested in nukes. This is simply not a good time to be getting weaker.
#9 If World War III were to break out over the next decade, the United States would very likely find itself facing a Chinese/Russian alliance. The combined conventional military forces of China and Russia are far superior to those of the United States. The only major advantage that we had was our edge in strategic weaponry, and this treaty would greatly weaken that advantage.
Unfortunately, most of those that will read this article simply are not going to care. The vast majority of Americans believe that the Cold War is over and that war with either China or Russia is next to impossible.
But if this treaty is passed, and there is every indication that it will be, then it is going to make a nuclear first strike against the United States much, much more likely.
Previously, everyone knew that if they messed with America they could potentially face being nuked into oblivion. But if this treaty is passed, our nuclear arsenal would be slashed to the bone and our potential enemies would know precisely where to strike to take out most of our remaining nukes.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians do not even stop to think about such things. Let’s hope and pray that the foolishness of our leaders does not catch up with us any time soon.
But Barack Obama doesn’t care. Barack Obama believes that “the Cold War is over” and that we live in a post-nuclear world. Obama believes that we do not need nuclear weapons and that we don’t really need any kind of missile defense either.
In fact, when it comes to nuclear weapons Barack Obama’s primary motivation seems to be getting rid of as many of them as possible. As noble as that may sound, the truth is that the world is becoming a much more dangerous place and the threats that the U.S. is facing are only increasing.
Unfortunately, Obama does not see things that way. Shortly after he was elected, Barack Obama delivered a major foreign policy speech in Prague during which he called for a world that was free from nuclear weapons.
Apparently he was quite serious about this, and Obama has publicly stated time after time that he is convinced that America must lead the way when it comes to nuclear disarmament.
So exactly what would this START treaty do? Well, the following are 9 reasons why the START treaty must be stopped….
#1 The treaty restricts both the United States and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. For the U.S. military this would represent a decline of well over 90% from a peak of approximately 31,255 strategic nuclear warheads in 1967. The treaty would also limit the total number of deployed ballistic missiles or nuclear bombers to 700.
#2 As part of the treaty we would tell Russia exactly where our few remaining nuclear weapons are and allow the Russians to inspect those sites. So if the time ever came for the Russians to strike our emasculated nuclear arsenal, they would know exactly where to find our few remaining nuclear weapons.
#3 The treaty is so vague about some of the key issues that the two sides are already arguing about what it means. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that the restrictions on missile defense are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and that these restrictions are “legally binding”. But in a recent letter to U.S. Senators, Barack Obama stated that the treaty “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile-defense programs.”
#4 Nuclear weapons technology is rapidly spreading around the globe and the need for a missile defense system is greater than ever. If this treaty does restrict our ability to build a missile defense system (as the wording of the treaty clearly seems to indicate), that is a very serious threat to our national security. What is going to happen one day when a rogue nation or a rogue terror group launches a nuke at us? Excuses will not cut it at that point.
#5 The treaty completely ignores the very serious imbalance that exists between the U.S. and Russia when is comes to tactical nuclear weapons. Today it is estimated that the Russians have approximately 10,000 tactical nuclear warheads while the U.S. only has a few hundred. These tactical nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles, long-range artillery or aircraft. The treaty does nothing to change those numbers. This would put the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#6 The treaty does nothing to restrict the quality of long-range missiles. Currently, Russia is busy modernizing their strategic long-range missiles. The United States is not doing the same. Once again, this could leave the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.
#7 The Russian government has shown that they are not trustworthy. Of course, the same thing could be said about the Obama administration. Anyone who trusts anything that Barack Obama says at this point is an idiot.
#8 North Korea already has nukes, Iran is developing nuclear technology and a number of other important nations such as Venezuela are rumored to be interested in nukes. This is simply not a good time to be getting weaker.
#9 If World War III were to break out over the next decade, the United States would very likely find itself facing a Chinese/Russian alliance. The combined conventional military forces of China and Russia are far superior to those of the United States. The only major advantage that we had was our edge in strategic weaponry, and this treaty would greatly weaken that advantage.
Unfortunately, most of those that will read this article simply are not going to care. The vast majority of Americans believe that the Cold War is over and that war with either China or Russia is next to impossible.
But if this treaty is passed, and there is every indication that it will be, then it is going to make a nuclear first strike against the United States much, much more likely.
Previously, everyone knew that if they messed with America they could potentially face being nuked into oblivion. But if this treaty is passed, our nuclear arsenal would be slashed to the bone and our potential enemies would know precisely where to strike to take out most of our remaining nukes.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians do not even stop to think about such things. Let’s hope and pray that the foolishness of our leaders does not catch up with us any time soon.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Word Of The Year 2010: Austerity
Infowars - The noun was searched so many times on Merriam-Webster’s website, the dictionary decided to make it word of the year. According to John Morse, president and publisher, “austerity” saw more than 250,000 searches on the dictionary’s free online tool and came with more coverage of the engineered debt crisis.
“What we look for… what are the words that have had spikes that strike us very much as an anomaly for their regular behavior,” Morse said. “The word that really qualifies this year for that is ‘austerity,’” Morse told the Associated Press.
The words “pragmatic” and “socialism” were runner-ups.
Austerity is definately on the menu and that is why so many searched the word. It is not merely Greece and Ireland that will feel the pinch, but the United States as well. “Like it or not, what I call stealth austerity is already hitting America. Just look at individual state budgets that are covered in red ink,” writes Greg Hunter.
Look no further than the tidal wave of foreclosures and unemployment figures that grow every month. “This is what stealth austerity looks like. Pretty soon, it will be uncloaked and brought out into the light of day. When that happens, it will be like the economy taking a nose dive into the deep end of a swimming pool with no water to cushion the plunge,” writes Hunter.
Austerity is the word of the year. Next year we will get another word.
Let’s hope it is “revolution.
“What we look for… what are the words that have had spikes that strike us very much as an anomaly for their regular behavior,” Morse said. “The word that really qualifies this year for that is ‘austerity,’” Morse told the Associated Press.
The words “pragmatic” and “socialism” were runner-ups.
Austerity is definately on the menu and that is why so many searched the word. It is not merely Greece and Ireland that will feel the pinch, but the United States as well. “Like it or not, what I call stealth austerity is already hitting America. Just look at individual state budgets that are covered in red ink,” writes Greg Hunter.
Look no further than the tidal wave of foreclosures and unemployment figures that grow every month. “This is what stealth austerity looks like. Pretty soon, it will be uncloaked and brought out into the light of day. When that happens, it will be like the economy taking a nose dive into the deep end of a swimming pool with no water to cushion the plunge,” writes Hunter.
Austerity is the word of the year. Next year we will get another word.
Let’s hope it is “revolution.
Obama's Churchless Charity Contributions
Lurita Doan - President Obama is quick to visit churches, of any denomination, when he’s in search of political donations, in search of votes or in search of street creds with the Black community. Like so many others in the Democrat party, the President often seems indifferent to churches and the efforts of faith-based groups. He has skipped out on the National Day of Prayer, and after suffering through the scrutiny and criticisms from the Reverend Wright episode, Obama has avoided almost anything related to church and faith. Sadly, President Obama might be keenly aware of the political value (and risks) of churches and faith-based communities, but seems unaware of the incredible generosity of churches and faith-based organizations in the United States
What a pity. Mr. Obama clearly believes that the role of charity is best performed by the government, which alone should be responsible for helping the downtrodden and destitute. Churches and private philanthropy, which Americans support with a generosity that all other nations envy, are not seen as worthy of consideration.
In reality, churches and faith-based organizations are far more effective than government in providing and support to those in need. Government programs, orchestrated by distant bureaucrats become huge, slow, and indifferent. Rarely do government assistance programs meet the stated goals, and rarely is taxpayer money wisely allocated. Faith-based programs, using private money, by contrast, are targeted to specific, immediate, community problems.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, the brilliant, conservative historian, has written extensively, showing historically that charity that works best is charity which is targeted, local, accountable and appropriate to need—precisely the kind of support the federal government is ill-suited to administer.
Alexis de Tocqueville, almost two centuries earlier, also concluded that government assistance to the unemployed and to the poor is ineffective because, ultimately, when treated as an entitlement or “right”, the surety of support, over time, robs individuals of the incentive to work. The 800 pound gorilla in Obama’s Oval Office is the rising number of multi-generational Americans on welfare, incentivized by the federal government to continue their growing dependency on public assistance.
There used to be a time, my grandparents would tell me, during the Great Depression, when folks were ashamed of being “on the dole”. Americans, forced by tragic circumstance into poverty, viewed public assistance as a temporary solution to tide them over the rough spots. But now, that element of shame, at living solely through the largess of others, seems lost. And, sadly, the loss of shame seems to be accompanied by a loss of motivation to be self-supporting.
Now, of course, not all first-timers who are on public assistance, fit this model, but it is clearly applicable to many of the multi-generational, unwed “welfare moms” who have multiple children, often from multiple fathers, who do not, and cannot, by law, work if they wish to continue to receive welfare. Government programs are indifferent to these sorts of problems. Faith-based organizations, by contrast, are quick to focus precisely on the family dilemma.
Perhaps the saddest part is that Mr. Obama, and many of the other leading Democrats in Washington, are so very eager to chastise entrepreneurs and the wealthy in America, never missing an opportunity to complain about them for not “paying their fair share." And yet, not once, has President Obama mentioned the amazing philanthropy and generosity shown by these same, supposedly-awful, rich people in America. These “rich people” that Team Obama has vilified so frequently over the past two years are demonstrating philanthropic actions that underscore American generosity. Billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have put together the “billionaire challenge," pledging half of their entire net worth to charity. Nearly 50 billionaires have pledged almost $200 billion toward a variety of charities.
Curiously, Obama never speaks about American philanthropy and its transformative effect. Instead, Team Obama presses the failed notion that the aid to worthy causes and citizens in distress is best accomplished by government action. Mr. Obama seems to want the wealthy to fork over their money to the government and allow bureaucrats and politicians to disperse the largess to favorite Democrat causes and pet projects.
Christmas is coming (the Holiday Season for those who demand political correctness). There can be no better, more appropriate time, to tap into the generous, giving spirit of all Americans—not through taxes, regulations or Obama’s verbal, public floggings--but by accessing the charitable inclinations and aptitudes of non-profits and churches across America. Of course, that will require Mr Obama to rethink his class-warfare strategy and stop vilifying rich people for political gain.
Perhaps, Mr. Obama will come to the conclusion that his dismissal of American exceptionalism was in error. Americans truly are unique in the world and are especially generous to the needy.
Mr. Obama might even reconsider his position and admit that private American citizens, with generosity and honest concern for others in need, can and do provide more and better assistance than many of the government programs which he has historically championed. At the very least, Obama could recognize the millions of Americans who demonstrate profound generosity to churches and other non-profit organizations to help those less fortunate. ‘Tis the season.
What a pity. Mr. Obama clearly believes that the role of charity is best performed by the government, which alone should be responsible for helping the downtrodden and destitute. Churches and private philanthropy, which Americans support with a generosity that all other nations envy, are not seen as worthy of consideration.
In reality, churches and faith-based organizations are far more effective than government in providing and support to those in need. Government programs, orchestrated by distant bureaucrats become huge, slow, and indifferent. Rarely do government assistance programs meet the stated goals, and rarely is taxpayer money wisely allocated. Faith-based programs, using private money, by contrast, are targeted to specific, immediate, community problems.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, the brilliant, conservative historian, has written extensively, showing historically that charity that works best is charity which is targeted, local, accountable and appropriate to need—precisely the kind of support the federal government is ill-suited to administer.
Alexis de Tocqueville, almost two centuries earlier, also concluded that government assistance to the unemployed and to the poor is ineffective because, ultimately, when treated as an entitlement or “right”, the surety of support, over time, robs individuals of the incentive to work. The 800 pound gorilla in Obama’s Oval Office is the rising number of multi-generational Americans on welfare, incentivized by the federal government to continue their growing dependency on public assistance.
There used to be a time, my grandparents would tell me, during the Great Depression, when folks were ashamed of being “on the dole”. Americans, forced by tragic circumstance into poverty, viewed public assistance as a temporary solution to tide them over the rough spots. But now, that element of shame, at living solely through the largess of others, seems lost. And, sadly, the loss of shame seems to be accompanied by a loss of motivation to be self-supporting.
Now, of course, not all first-timers who are on public assistance, fit this model, but it is clearly applicable to many of the multi-generational, unwed “welfare moms” who have multiple children, often from multiple fathers, who do not, and cannot, by law, work if they wish to continue to receive welfare. Government programs are indifferent to these sorts of problems. Faith-based organizations, by contrast, are quick to focus precisely on the family dilemma.
Perhaps the saddest part is that Mr. Obama, and many of the other leading Democrats in Washington, are so very eager to chastise entrepreneurs and the wealthy in America, never missing an opportunity to complain about them for not “paying their fair share." And yet, not once, has President Obama mentioned the amazing philanthropy and generosity shown by these same, supposedly-awful, rich people in America. These “rich people” that Team Obama has vilified so frequently over the past two years are demonstrating philanthropic actions that underscore American generosity. Billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have put together the “billionaire challenge," pledging half of their entire net worth to charity. Nearly 50 billionaires have pledged almost $200 billion toward a variety of charities.
Curiously, Obama never speaks about American philanthropy and its transformative effect. Instead, Team Obama presses the failed notion that the aid to worthy causes and citizens in distress is best accomplished by government action. Mr. Obama seems to want the wealthy to fork over their money to the government and allow bureaucrats and politicians to disperse the largess to favorite Democrat causes and pet projects.
Christmas is coming (the Holiday Season for those who demand political correctness). There can be no better, more appropriate time, to tap into the generous, giving spirit of all Americans—not through taxes, regulations or Obama’s verbal, public floggings--but by accessing the charitable inclinations and aptitudes of non-profits and churches across America. Of course, that will require Mr Obama to rethink his class-warfare strategy and stop vilifying rich people for political gain.
Perhaps, Mr. Obama will come to the conclusion that his dismissal of American exceptionalism was in error. Americans truly are unique in the world and are especially generous to the needy.
Mr. Obama might even reconsider his position and admit that private American citizens, with generosity and honest concern for others in need, can and do provide more and better assistance than many of the government programs which he has historically championed. At the very least, Obama could recognize the millions of Americans who demonstrate profound generosity to churches and other non-profit organizations to help those less fortunate. ‘Tis the season.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Should Hank Paulson And Cronies Should be in Jail?
Leading bank analyst Chris Whalen has raised the question of whether criminal charges should be brought against former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
Any discussion of whether Paulson committed unlawful actions as Treasury Secretary needs to start with Tarp.
As the New York Times wrote last year:
In retrospect, Congress felt bullied by Mr. Paulson last year. Many of them fervently believed they should not prop up the banks that had led us to this crisis — yet they were pushed by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke into passing the $700 billion TARP, which was then used to bail out those very banks.
Indeed, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn’t passed:
That is especially interesting given that the financial crisis had actually been going on for a long time, but – instead of dealing with it – Paulson and the rest of the crew tried to cover it up and pretend it was “contained”, and that it was obvious to world leaders months earlier that it was not a liquidity crisis, but a solvency crisis (and see this).
Bait And Switch
The Tarp Inspector General has said that Paulson misrepresented the big banks’ health in the run-up to passage of TARP. This is no small matter, as the American public would have not been very excited about giving money to insolvent institutions.
And Paulson himself has said:
During the two weeks that Congress considered the [Tarp] legislation, market conditions worsened considerably. It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets–our initial focus–would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem. In consultation with the Federal Reserve, I determined that the most timely, effective step to improve credit market conditions was to strengthen bank balance sheets quickly through direct purchases of equity in banks.
So Paulson knew “by the time the bill was signed” that it wouldn’t be used for its advertised purpose – disposing of toxic assets – and would instead be used to give money directly to the big banks?Senator McCain also says that Paulson pulled a bait-and-switch:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona … says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.
“Obviously, that didn’t happen,” McCain said in a meeting Thursday with The Republic‘s Editorial Board, recounting his decision-making during the critical initial days of the fiscal crisis. “They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out (insurance giant) AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors. . . . What they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street – I guess it was trickle-down economics – that therefore Main Street would be fine.”
Even the New York Times called Paulson a liar in 2008:
“First [Paulson's Department of Treasury] says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities. Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions. Sneaking in the tax break isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, either.”
What tax breaks is the Times talking about? The article explains:
A new tax break [pushed by Treasury], worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”
Paulson insisted on a “get out of jail card” in the Tarp bill. Specifically, the bill includes the following provision:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Whether or not that would shield Paulson from the false statements he made before the bill was passed – e.g. why Tarp was needed, and what would happen if it didn’t pass – is a separate question.
Moreover, Tarp is just one of Paulson’s shenanigans as Treasury Secretary. And Paulson’s acts as head of Goldman Sachs are beyond the scope of this essay.
Any discussion of whether Paulson committed unlawful actions as Treasury Secretary needs to start with Tarp.
As the New York Times wrote last year:
In retrospect, Congress felt bullied by Mr. Paulson last year. Many of them fervently believed they should not prop up the banks that had led us to this crisis — yet they were pushed by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke into passing the $700 billion TARP, which was then used to bail out those very banks.
Indeed, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn’t passed:
That is especially interesting given that the financial crisis had actually been going on for a long time, but – instead of dealing with it – Paulson and the rest of the crew tried to cover it up and pretend it was “contained”, and that it was obvious to world leaders months earlier that it was not a liquidity crisis, but a solvency crisis (and see this).
Bait And Switch
The Tarp Inspector General has said that Paulson misrepresented the big banks’ health in the run-up to passage of TARP. This is no small matter, as the American public would have not been very excited about giving money to insolvent institutions.
And Paulson himself has said:
During the two weeks that Congress considered the [Tarp] legislation, market conditions worsened considerably. It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets–our initial focus–would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem. In consultation with the Federal Reserve, I determined that the most timely, effective step to improve credit market conditions was to strengthen bank balance sheets quickly through direct purchases of equity in banks.
So Paulson knew “by the time the bill was signed” that it wouldn’t be used for its advertised purpose – disposing of toxic assets – and would instead be used to give money directly to the big banks?Senator McCain also says that Paulson pulled a bait-and-switch:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona … says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.
“Obviously, that didn’t happen,” McCain said in a meeting Thursday with The Republic‘s Editorial Board, recounting his decision-making during the critical initial days of the fiscal crisis. “They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out (insurance giant) AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors. . . . What they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street – I guess it was trickle-down economics – that therefore Main Street would be fine.”
Even the New York Times called Paulson a liar in 2008:
“First [Paulson's Department of Treasury] says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities. Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions. Sneaking in the tax break isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, either.”
What tax breaks is the Times talking about? The article explains:
A new tax break [pushed by Treasury], worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”
Paulson insisted on a “get out of jail card” in the Tarp bill. Specifically, the bill includes the following provision:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Whether or not that would shield Paulson from the false statements he made before the bill was passed – e.g. why Tarp was needed, and what would happen if it didn’t pass – is a separate question.
Moreover, Tarp is just one of Paulson’s shenanigans as Treasury Secretary. And Paulson’s acts as head of Goldman Sachs are beyond the scope of this essay.
NYPD Implements New Eye Scan Technology
The Truth Squad - The NYPD has begun to implement iris scanners to create a bio-metric database of criminal suspects as they are processed through central booking. NYPD says this new identification program is a fail-safe measure to prevent escapes as suspects move through the court system and that this technology is in response to two suspects escaping police custody by impersonating lesser offenders.
Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers Inc. a leader in the biometrics field says, “In the future, whether it’s entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris. Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years.”
Global Rainmakers Inc. has partnered with the city of Leon, Mexico to build “the most secure city in the world.” by installing iris scanners. The eye scanners will be implemented in law enforcement facilities, security check-points, police stations, detention areas, jails and prisons, and will eventually make their way into mass transit, medical centers, banks and other public and private locations will also join the program.
Fast Company reports that the city is creating a database of irises. Criminals will automatically be enrolled, their irises scanned once convicted. Law-abiding citizens will have the option to opt-in. When these residents catch a train or bus, or take out money from an ATM, they will scan their irises, rather than swiping a metro or bank card. Police officers will monitor these scans and track the movements of watch-listed individuals.
Back in the U.S. at a Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas the Department of Homeland Security beta tested iris scanners and in one Missouri county, the sheriff’s office is using an Iris scanner purchased with U.S. Department of Justice funds. Unknown by most, the technology is reportedly already being used by law enforcement in 40 states throughout the country.
There is even an app for that. B12 Technologies has equipped police with iPhones armed with facial recognition software linked to fusion center databases.
Amusement parks like Disney World and Sesame place have implemented biometric ticketing as well. How long before under the auspice of anti-terror legislation the federal government requires these corporations to turn over their customers biometric data? Even the controversial “naked body scanners” store biometric data as has been revealed by Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act Requests, contrary to what the TSA has been telling the main stream media.
The iris scanners have also been used in airports. The TSA will allow you to skip to the head of the line if you submit to being included in a biometric database. It all comes in the name of convenience. Trade your privacy to save a few minutes on line at the airport amusement park.
The NYPD program is being paid for by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The NYPD already shares its database information with DHS through its NYPD Intelligence Division, which is actually a known “fusion center.” These fusion centers act as hubs of information, merging databases from the NYPD, DHS, Motor Vehicle and many other sources to create a searchable catalog of the entire population. There are over 70 fusion centers in the United States according to Catherine Bleish founder of Operation Defuse whose goal is to create a rapport between civil liberty groups and the fusion centers that will “defuse” the conflict of security and rights violations.
“A speaker at the 2010 National DHS fusion center conference indicated integration of iris scanning with red-light cameras, speed cameras and other automated revenue generating devices was in the near future. The FBI Next Generation Identification database expands their old fingerprint only database to palm, iris, facial, and scar/tattoo biometric data. We have begun to rapidly decline down a slippery slope. The war on terror has become a war on our freedom.” Said Bleish of the new “security technologies.”
“That’s not our intention here, but it has potential,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said in reference to using the iris scanners for counter terrorism purposes.
“The NYPD can now photograph the irises of suspects arrested for any reason and they implemented this without any legislative oversight or public discourse. There are also no reports on how authorities plan to protect this collected biometric data from misuse.” said David Perecman a civil liberties attorney in New York. That is probably because the NYPD Intelligence division has no plans to protect this information from being disseminated through the NY fusion centers allowing access to any law enforcement agency in the network.
“This type of data collecting is not authorized by any New York statute. Collecting fingerprints is specifically allowed. DNA evidence has had more legislative debate and its usage is only limited to certain types of cases.” said Perecman.
This information dovetails with another recent controversy over “stop and frisk” databases. Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg pushed to keep the recently banned NYPD policy to keep a database of New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked but not found guilty of any violation. You read that correctly. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to keep a list of innocent people who the NYPD stopped and frisked with no probable cause in a direct violation of their Constitutional rights. Incidentally only 6 percent of those random stop and frisks lead to an arrest, the conviction rates were not readily available. That means that more than 94% of people in that database are innocent.
The “250” List as it is referred to because of the UF-250 form that officers use to file stop-and-frisk reports has over 3 million names on it. Eighty seven percent of those stopped were black or Latino. Governor Paterson signed into law a ban on this policy, although that only stops the NYPD from keeping their names in an electronic database. The NYPD is still keeping a paper record of these stops even if no evidence of a crime has been found and no arrest made. The NYPD continues to violate the constitutional rights of New Yorkers randomly stopping people for reasons as innocuous as spitting on the ground or dropping a cigarette butt. It should also be noted that the Mayor Bloomberg has been lobbying for British style video surveillance in NYC. Britain has one CCTV camera for every 14 citizens.
So where do we see all of this going? If Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelley get there way Police officers will be stopping, frisking and taking retinal scans of millions of innocent New Yorkers then data sharing with the Federal government, Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers Inc. a leader in the biometrics field says, “In the future, whether it’s entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris. Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years.”
Global Rainmakers Inc. has partnered with the city of Leon, Mexico to build “the most secure city in the world.” by installing iris scanners. The eye scanners will be implemented in law enforcement facilities, security check-points, police stations, detention areas, jails and prisons, and will eventually make their way into mass transit, medical centers, banks and other public and private locations will also join the program.
Fast Company reports that the city is creating a database of irises. Criminals will automatically be enrolled, their irises scanned once convicted. Law-abiding citizens will have the option to opt-in. When these residents catch a train or bus, or take out money from an ATM, they will scan their irises, rather than swiping a metro or bank card. Police officers will monitor these scans and track the movements of watch-listed individuals.
Back in the U.S. at a Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas the Department of Homeland Security beta tested iris scanners and in one Missouri county, the sheriff’s office is using an Iris scanner purchased with U.S. Department of Justice funds. Unknown by most, the technology is reportedly already being used by law enforcement in 40 states throughout the country.
There is even an app for that. B12 Technologies has equipped police with iPhones armed with facial recognition software linked to fusion center databases.
Amusement parks like Disney World and Sesame place have implemented biometric ticketing as well. How long before under the auspice of anti-terror legislation the federal government requires these corporations to turn over their customers biometric data? Even the controversial “naked body scanners” store biometric data as has been revealed by Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act Requests, contrary to what the TSA has been telling the main stream media.
The iris scanners have also been used in airports. The TSA will allow you to skip to the head of the line if you submit to being included in a biometric database. It all comes in the name of convenience. Trade your privacy to save a few minutes on line at the airport amusement park.
The NYPD program is being paid for by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The NYPD already shares its database information with DHS through its NYPD Intelligence Division, which is actually a known “fusion center.” These fusion centers act as hubs of information, merging databases from the NYPD, DHS, Motor Vehicle and many other sources to create a searchable catalog of the entire population. There are over 70 fusion centers in the United States according to Catherine Bleish founder of Operation Defuse whose goal is to create a rapport between civil liberty groups and the fusion centers that will “defuse” the conflict of security and rights violations.
“A speaker at the 2010 National DHS fusion center conference indicated integration of iris scanning with red-light cameras, speed cameras and other automated revenue generating devices was in the near future. The FBI Next Generation Identification database expands their old fingerprint only database to palm, iris, facial, and scar/tattoo biometric data. We have begun to rapidly decline down a slippery slope. The war on terror has become a war on our freedom.” Said Bleish of the new “security technologies.”
“That’s not our intention here, but it has potential,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said in reference to using the iris scanners for counter terrorism purposes.
“The NYPD can now photograph the irises of suspects arrested for any reason and they implemented this without any legislative oversight or public discourse. There are also no reports on how authorities plan to protect this collected biometric data from misuse.” said David Perecman a civil liberties attorney in New York. That is probably because the NYPD Intelligence division has no plans to protect this information from being disseminated through the NY fusion centers allowing access to any law enforcement agency in the network.
“This type of data collecting is not authorized by any New York statute. Collecting fingerprints is specifically allowed. DNA evidence has had more legislative debate and its usage is only limited to certain types of cases.” said Perecman.
This information dovetails with another recent controversy over “stop and frisk” databases. Ray Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg pushed to keep the recently banned NYPD policy to keep a database of New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked but not found guilty of any violation. You read that correctly. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to keep a list of innocent people who the NYPD stopped and frisked with no probable cause in a direct violation of their Constitutional rights. Incidentally only 6 percent of those random stop and frisks lead to an arrest, the conviction rates were not readily available. That means that more than 94% of people in that database are innocent.
The “250” List as it is referred to because of the UF-250 form that officers use to file stop-and-frisk reports has over 3 million names on it. Eighty seven percent of those stopped were black or Latino. Governor Paterson signed into law a ban on this policy, although that only stops the NYPD from keeping their names in an electronic database. The NYPD is still keeping a paper record of these stops even if no evidence of a crime has been found and no arrest made. The NYPD continues to violate the constitutional rights of New Yorkers randomly stopping people for reasons as innocuous as spitting on the ground or dropping a cigarette butt. It should also be noted that the Mayor Bloomberg has been lobbying for British style video surveillance in NYC. Britain has one CCTV camera for every 14 citizens.
So where do we see all of this going? If Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelley get there way Police officers will be stopping, frisking and taking retinal scans of millions of innocent New Yorkers then data sharing with the Federal government, Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Google News - Top Stories
Jobs by SimplyHired