More bad news from south of the boarder - this is just one more case where all we have to do is sit on our collective thumbs and let the hordes stream across the boarder to bring our national security status to critical -
What will we do, why, of course, nothing - just think of all the new Democrat voters.
U.S. Military: Mexico Could Collapse Under Drug Violence
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:56 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Mexico is in danger of a “rapid and sudden collapse” due to criminal gangs and drug cartels, according to a troubling new report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.
The report also cites Pakistan as a nation facing possible collapse.
“In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Forces and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico,” the report states.
“The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels.”
The outcome of that internal conflict in America’s southern neighbor will have a “major impact on the stability of the Mexican state” over the next several years, according to the Joint Forces Command, a Defense Department combat command that includes different military service branches, active and reserves, according to the El Paso Times.
The report warns that “any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”
As Newsmax reported last week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the U.S. has developed plans for a “surge” in crime fighters if the drug wars in Mexico should spread across the border.
The plans call for aircraft, armored vehicles and special teams to converge on trouble spots along the border. Military forces would be used if civilian agencies like the Border Patrol and local law enforcement were unable to control the violence.
In the Joint Forces report, Marine Gen. J.N. Mattis said: “If we do not try to forecast the future, there is no doubt that we will be caught off guard as we strive to protect this experiment in democracy that we call America.”
Criminal activity in Mexico has killed more than 5,300 people in the past year, including members of warring drug cartels, law enforcement officials and bystanders, many of them slain close to the U.S. border.
[Editor’s Note: To read the report by U.S. Joint Forces Command on Mexico and other global hotspots - Go Here Now]
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
New Muslim Disciples Return to Blood Cults
Ralph Peters has an interesting take on what the new Muslim disciples have in mind for all of the middle east and the world. We saw the beginnings of this before and after 9/11. The problem we face now is there are too many people that don't believe Islamics terrorists are a force to be challenged and stopped.
Again, the Western world hasn't been hit for seven years and since we have a notoriously short memory for things that get in our way of success, we are turning our backs on the problem by thinking all it will take is good feelings and honest dialogue to change their behavior. This philosophy will get all killed or worse, enslaved.
Keep the faith and stay alert for changing conditions on the battle field.
BLOOD SACRIFICE
By RALPH PETERS
January 13, 2009
WELL-MEANING Western commentators make a grave error when they insist that Islamist terrorists want to drag the Muslim world back to the seventh century. It's much worse than that.
Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and related fanatics really want to take their homelands (and the rest of the world) back beyond the era of Mohammed - to the grisly ancient days of human sacrifice. The Prophet sought to purify the idolatrous devotions of his people, to do away with heartless desert cults. He felt the fervor of one living god and shared his illumination. The faith that arose in his wake had epochs of glory and eras of infamy, but it endured.
Now Islam is under assault from within, under attack from nominal Muslims who believe their vision supersedes that of Mohammed. They invoke the name of Allah but behave in the manner of ancient priests whose robes were drenched in blood. What's the meaning of those beheading videos and suicide bombings, the slaughter of fellow Muslims and the exploitation by pagan cults, such as Hamas, of masses of the faithful as human shields? Why stone 13-year-old girls to death? What's this celebration of blood lust all about?
It's about the threatened collapse of the Middle East back into an age of human sacrifice - the precise sort of gruesome travesty the Prophet inveighed against. Today's "Muslim" terrorists have /nothing/ to do with Islam's golden ages. They belong to the days of winged devil-gods and stone altars stinking of clotted human blood.
The true enemies of Islam aren't Americans or Europeans or even Israelis, all of whom could not care less what backwater Middle Easterners call their god. The worst enemies of the Muslim faith are the butchers convinced that Allah demands that rivers of blood be shed to praise his name.
The reluctance of many Muslims to speak out against this travesty - this perversion - of their faith has various causes. In North America, it's largely the age-old fear of the new arrival, unsure of his place in a foreign society and wary of alienating members of his immigrant community. In the greater Middle East, however, the compulsion to remain silent in the face of faith-fueled atrocities is a product of fatalism, of centuries of self-wrought failure and humiliation, and of self-loathing.
In its desert heartlands, Islam became a religion in which outward conformity was more important than inner faith. The obsession with behavioral norms has threatened all major religions from time to time, but Islam (the faith of "submission") became so prescriptive that it blocked the Middle East from joining the modern world. Westerners care about how things work. Middle Easterners care about how things /look/.
One profound contrast has to do with dishonor. The archetypal Westerner feels dishonored when he shames his conscience, even if no one else learns of his misdeed. In the Middle East, shame is all about the public space - if no one knows what you did, there's no dishonor. Western literature is rich with figures torn by a crisis of conscience, but there is no Muslim Hamlet or Lord Jim.
Apologists for Islam Gone Wild love to cite the moral and intellectual grandeur of Muslim Cordoba and Granada. But the lasting legacy of Islam on the Mediterranean's shores was an obsession with public honor, with female chastity and macho pride. The /inner/ spiritual life thrived north of the Alps. In the south, you just had to look good.
The outward forms prescribed by centuries of Islamic judges and scholars have become a paralyzing burden. Unable to adapt to the modern world, Middle Eastern Islam's a museum-piece faith. Muslims feel trapped, and they dare not explore why. This feeling of being cornered, of being humiliated by competitor faiths that evolve and triumph, has led frustrated Muslims into an impulsive rejection of Mohammed's humane principles and purposes.
The blood-cult terrorists piling up corpses in tribute to their darkness-shrouded god have nothing - /nothing/ - to do with the Prophet Mohammed. Their roots go far, far deeper, reaching down into a hellish past of priests with knives and serpent-infested temples.
Track down the terrorist video that made the rounds a few years back in which an executioner licks the blood of his victim from his knife.That's not piety but cannibalism.
Ralph Peters keeps the Koran beside his reading chair, along with seven Bibles.
Again, the Western world hasn't been hit for seven years and since we have a notoriously short memory for things that get in our way of success, we are turning our backs on the problem by thinking all it will take is good feelings and honest dialogue to change their behavior. This philosophy will get all killed or worse, enslaved.
Keep the faith and stay alert for changing conditions on the battle field.
BLOOD SACRIFICE
By RALPH PETERS
WELL-MEANING Western commentators make a grave error when they insist that Islamist terrorists want to drag the Muslim world back to the seventh century. It's much worse than that.
Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and related fanatics really want to take their homelands (and the rest of the world) back beyond the era of Mohammed - to the grisly ancient days of human sacrifice. The Prophet sought to purify the idolatrous devotions of his people, to do away with heartless desert cults. He felt the fervor of one living god and shared his illumination. The faith that arose in his wake had epochs of glory and eras of infamy, but it endured.
Now Islam is under assault from within, under attack from nominal Muslims who believe their vision supersedes that of Mohammed. They invoke the name of Allah but behave in the manner of ancient priests whose robes were drenched in blood. What's the meaning of those beheading videos and suicide bombings, the slaughter of fellow Muslims and the exploitation by pagan cults, such as Hamas, of masses of the faithful as human shields? Why stone 13-year-old girls to death? What's this celebration of blood lust all about?
It's about the threatened collapse of the Middle East back into an age of human sacrifice - the precise sort of gruesome travesty the Prophet inveighed against. Today's "Muslim" terrorists have /nothing/ to do with Islam's golden ages. They belong to the days of winged devil-gods and stone altars stinking of clotted human blood.
The true enemies of Islam aren't Americans or Europeans or even Israelis, all of whom could not care less what backwater Middle Easterners call their god. The worst enemies of the Muslim faith are the butchers convinced that Allah demands that rivers of blood be shed to praise his name.
The reluctance of many Muslims to speak out against this travesty - this perversion - of their faith has various causes. In North America, it's largely the age-old fear of the new arrival, unsure of his place in a foreign society and wary of alienating members of his immigrant community. In the greater Middle East, however, the compulsion to remain silent in the face of faith-fueled atrocities is a product of fatalism, of centuries of self-wrought failure and humiliation, and of self-loathing.
In its desert heartlands, Islam became a religion in which outward conformity was more important than inner faith. The obsession with behavioral norms has threatened all major religions from time to time, but Islam (the faith of "submission") became so prescriptive that it blocked the Middle East from joining the modern world. Westerners care about how things work. Middle Easterners care about how things /look/.
One profound contrast has to do with dishonor. The archetypal Westerner feels dishonored when he shames his conscience, even if no one else learns of his misdeed. In the Middle East, shame is all about the public space - if no one knows what you did, there's no dishonor. Western literature is rich with figures torn by a crisis of conscience, but there is no Muslim Hamlet or Lord Jim.
Apologists for Islam Gone Wild love to cite the moral and intellectual grandeur of Muslim Cordoba and Granada. But the lasting legacy of Islam on the Mediterranean's shores was an obsession with public honor, with female chastity and macho pride. The /inner/ spiritual life thrived north of the Alps. In the south, you just had to look good.
The outward forms prescribed by centuries of Islamic judges and scholars have become a paralyzing burden. Unable to adapt to the modern world, Middle Eastern Islam's a museum-piece faith. Muslims feel trapped, and they dare not explore why. This feeling of being cornered, of being humiliated by competitor faiths that evolve and triumph, has led frustrated Muslims into an impulsive rejection of Mohammed's humane principles and purposes.
The blood-cult terrorists piling up corpses in tribute to their darkness-shrouded god have nothing - /nothing/ - to do with the Prophet Mohammed. Their roots go far, far deeper, reaching down into a hellish past of priests with knives and serpent-infested temples.
Track down the terrorist video that made the rounds a few years back in which an executioner licks the blood of his victim from his knife.That's not piety but cannibalism.
Ralph Peters keeps the Koran beside his reading chair, along with seven Bibles.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Irish Golfer Gets Three Wishs - Good Humor
Irish Golfer
A golfer playing in Ireland hooked his drive into the woods. Looking for his ball, he found a little Leprechaun flat on his back,a big bump on his head and the golfer's ball beside him.Horrified, the golfer got his water bottle from the cart and poured it over the little guy, reviving him.
'Arrgh! What happened?' the Leprechaun asked.'I'm afraid I hit you with my golf ball,' the golfer says.'Oh, I see. Well, ye got me fair and square. Ye get three wishes, so whaddya want? ''Thank God, you're all right!' the golfer answers in relief. 'I don't want anything, I'm just glad you're OK, and I apologize.'And the golfer walks off.'What a nice guy,'the Leprechaun says to himself.I have to do something for him. I'll give him the three things I would want... a great golf game, all the money he ever needs,and a fantastic sex life.'
A year goes by and the golfer is back.
On the same hole, he again hits a bad drive into the woods and the Leprechaun is there waiting for him.'Twas me that made ye hit the ball here,' the little guy says.'I just want to ask ye,how's yer golf game?''My game is fantastic!' the golfer answers. I'm an internationally famous golfer now.' He adds, 'By the way, it's good to see you're all right.''Oh, I'm fine now, thank ye. I did that fer yer golf game, you know.
And tell me, how's yer money situation?''Why, it's just wonderful!' the golfer states. 'When I need cash,I just reach in my pocket and pull out $100 bills. I didn't even know were there!''I did that fer ye also.'
And tell me, how's yer sex life?'The golfer blushes, turns his head away in embarrassment, and says shyly, 'It's OK.'C'mon, c'mon now,' urged the Leprechaun, 'I'm wanting to know if I did a good job.
How many times a week?' Blushing even more, the golfer looks around then whispers, 'Once, sometimes twice a week.''What??' responds the Leprechaun in shock. 'That's all? Only once or twice a week?''
Well,' says the golfer, 'I figure that's not bad for a Catholic priest in a small parish.'
A golfer playing in Ireland hooked his drive into the woods. Looking for his ball, he found a little Leprechaun flat on his back,a big bump on his head and the golfer's ball beside him.Horrified, the golfer got his water bottle from the cart and poured it over the little guy, reviving him.
'Arrgh! What happened?' the Leprechaun asked.'I'm afraid I hit you with my golf ball,' the golfer says.'Oh, I see. Well, ye got me fair and square. Ye get three wishes, so whaddya want? ''Thank God, you're all right!' the golfer answers in relief. 'I don't want anything, I'm just glad you're OK, and I apologize.'And the golfer walks off.'What a nice guy,'the Leprechaun says to himself.I have to do something for him. I'll give him the three things I would want... a great golf game, all the money he ever needs,and a fantastic sex life.'
A year goes by and the golfer is back.
On the same hole, he again hits a bad drive into the woods and the Leprechaun is there waiting for him.'Twas me that made ye hit the ball here,' the little guy says.'I just want to ask ye,how's yer golf game?''My game is fantastic!' the golfer answers. I'm an internationally famous golfer now.' He adds, 'By the way, it's good to see you're all right.''Oh, I'm fine now, thank ye. I did that fer yer golf game, you know.
And tell me, how's yer money situation?''Why, it's just wonderful!' the golfer states. 'When I need cash,I just reach in my pocket and pull out $100 bills. I didn't even know were there!''I did that fer ye also.'
And tell me, how's yer sex life?'The golfer blushes, turns his head away in embarrassment, and says shyly, 'It's OK.'C'mon, c'mon now,' urged the Leprechaun, 'I'm wanting to know if I did a good job.
How many times a week?' Blushing even more, the golfer looks around then whispers, 'Once, sometimes twice a week.''What??' responds the Leprechaun in shock. 'That's all? Only once or twice a week?''
Well,' says the golfer, 'I figure that's not bad for a Catholic priest in a small parish.'
FDR's New Deal : Mistake - Obama "Change" Bigger Mistake
This is a good article that I found most revealing about FDR failure to solve our finanical crisis, and how Obama is headed in the same direction. The difference is FDR probably didn't know what was happening where as Obama knows exactly what he is doing and what the consequences will be.
History, always a necessity for future decision making, is the best teacher we can have to guide us though this financial crisis. The problem that exist now, though, is apparently our new leaders don't care about what went on in the past. What they care about is what they can get from the present to solidify their personal power positions in the near future.
That the country will suffer the same problems that it did all through the 1930's isn't important. What is important is establishing the "change" from freedom of choice to big government making all of our personal decisions. And to do this, our new leaders intend to destroy the current system of self achievement and personal goal attainment and implement a new system forcing all citizens to become like all others under one set of laws enforced by an all powerful elite.
If this sounds like something we have seen in the resent past world history, you are correct. Never in the history of this country have so many people, willing, decided to allow others to dictate their personal future. How can these people be so willing to totally give up everything that this country was founded on, that hundreds of thousands died for, on the chance they will get something for nothing?
Are they ignorant or just plain stupid or, maybe worse yet, just mentally lazy from living the good life provided by all those that have come before them.
I believe it's mass hypnosis - like the global warming mind set - Why else would so many people suspend common sense? Some say it's "pop culture", that is, you have to be like everyone else least you are thought to be different, out of the loop or thought to be uninformed. Some might even have questions about your sanity if you have doubts concerning "change" or "the one". Worse, the crowd might even think you are a conservative. If that happens, you will experience total and complete denial of access to your pier group. Truly a certain social death.
Keep the faith - new recruits are joning the battle every day!
Leave the New Deal in the History Books
Cut corporate taxes to zero and create real jobs.
By MARK LEVEY
http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=MARK+LEVEY&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND
When Barack Obama takes office on Tuesday, his first order of business will be a stimulus package estimated to be close to $1 trillion, including $300 million in tax cuts and the largest new government spending program for infrastructure since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sages nod that replicating aspects of FDR's New Deal will help pull the country out of a recession. But the experience under FDR largely provides a cautionary tale.
Mr. Obama's policy plans are driven by the conventional economic wisdom that the New Deal economic programs ended the Great Depression. Not so. In fact, thanks to New Deal policies and programs, the U.S. economy faltered for years longer than it might otherwise have done.
President Roosevelt came to office much as Barack Obama will, shouldering an economic crisis that began under his predecessor. In 1933, Roosevelt's first year, unemployment hit nearly 25%, as people lost jobs and homes in towns across the country. Believing that government played a key role in restarting growth, FDR, within his first 100 days as president, created an alphabet soup of new agencies that mandated actions or controlled public spending and impacted private capital flow within the U.S. economy.
At first, it seemed to be working. After four years of FDR's policies, joblessness declined to 14.3% -- still very high but heading in the right direction. Then things turned for worse again:
By the fall of 1937, the U.S. entered a secondary depression and unemployment began to rise, reaching 19% in 1938. By 1939 Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, had realized that the New Deal economic policies had failed.
"We have tried spending money," Morgenthau wrote in his diary. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
The problem was that neither Roosevelt nor President Herbert Hoover before him grasped the essential nature of the crisis, which was not the stock-market crash, but global deflation. At the end of the roaring '20s, an overhang of intergovernmental war debt from World War I, coupled with falling commodity prices and a currency crisis, had started the decline. Weak credit structures and European banks hurt by wartime inflation worsened it. When the Austrian Creditanstalt Bank failed, it ignited a global banking crisis that slashed across the international financial system cutting down everything in its path.
Deflation went into full howl.The same perils are now confronting President-elect Barack Obama, as the risk of deflation casts a long shadow over the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have been correctly focused on shoring up financial institutions to prevent a collapse of the financial system, and stave off a severe decline in the general price level. If that were to occur, the unspoken fear has been that the U.S. and global economy could go into a deflationary death spiral that would cause the collapse of the international financial system.
As a short-term matter, the moves of the Fed and other central banks have been correct, but in the long term a return to growth will depend on dynamic job creation by American business -- not the U.S. government. Under a two-year plan designed to create three million to four million jobs, Mr. Obama's plan would have the federal government begin distributing funds for public-works projects carried out by the states. With government already spending 20% of GDP, federal government, not private enterprise, will become the growth industry.
The effect of these policies, like FDR's, will be to lengthen the pain.Early on, Roosevelt's economic thinking was that laissez-faire competition drove prices and wages down, resulting in unemployment, which in turn collapsed demand for goods and services. To remedy this, his administration passed laws such as the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) that encouraged business to collude and raise prices without fear of antitrust prosecution. The hope was that this would allow business to raise wages.
By the time NIRA was found unconstitutional a few years later, the damage had already been done. For example, the Department of the Interior complained that over two years it had received 260 bids from different steel companies that were identical to the penny and 50% higher than foreign bids. The policy had put chains on every normal free-market instinct and price feedback mechanism needed to restore economic growth. Roosevelt himself rued the decision in the late 1930s as a secondary depression was gripping the economy.
"The disappearance of price competition," he said, "is one of the primary causes of the difficulties."In addition to New Deal spending programs, a series of new taxes were introduced that crushed the innovation, risk taking, and growth plans of entrepreneurs, corporations and investors.
From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.As a result, the New Deal forced the allocation of money away from the private sector. As economist Henry Hazlitt wrote back in 1946, New Deal programs prevented the creation of the types of jobs which have the multiplier effect of successful businesses.
Creating "work" prevented innovation and new jobs that would create other jobs.The quickest way to strengthen the credit system and begin the end of this crisis is to get money into the economy for true job creation, and not into government work programs. The way to do this is to slash taxes.
The U.S. corporate tax rate, currently the highest in the world, should be cut to 0% (corporate income would still be taxed, of course, when distributed to shareholders as dividends). The capital-gains tax should be cut further.
The positive impact on corporate-credit markets, the stock market, the attractiveness of the U.S. to foreign investors, and the willingness to take business risk and create new jobs would be immediate. Capital-gains tax collections would rise. Capital flows would be in the hands of those who are driven to build businesses and permanent jobs efficiently instead of pushing that capital through a government pipeline with endless amounts of friction. If the U.S. is to lead the international economic community out of this crisis, this is the place to start.
Mr. Obama will come to office next week with plenty of political capital and the faith of a majority of Americans that he can help pull the country out of its economic woes. As he takes over the reins, his success will be judged not on rhetoric but on the numbers his policies can generate. The best thing he can do is leave the New Deal in the history books.
*Mr. Levey is senior managing director at Lotsoff Capital Management in Chicago.*
History, always a necessity for future decision making, is the best teacher we can have to guide us though this financial crisis. The problem that exist now, though, is apparently our new leaders don't care about what went on in the past. What they care about is what they can get from the present to solidify their personal power positions in the near future.
That the country will suffer the same problems that it did all through the 1930's isn't important. What is important is establishing the "change" from freedom of choice to big government making all of our personal decisions. And to do this, our new leaders intend to destroy the current system of self achievement and personal goal attainment and implement a new system forcing all citizens to become like all others under one set of laws enforced by an all powerful elite.
If this sounds like something we have seen in the resent past world history, you are correct. Never in the history of this country have so many people, willing, decided to allow others to dictate their personal future. How can these people be so willing to totally give up everything that this country was founded on, that hundreds of thousands died for, on the chance they will get something for nothing?
Are they ignorant or just plain stupid or, maybe worse yet, just mentally lazy from living the good life provided by all those that have come before them.
I believe it's mass hypnosis - like the global warming mind set - Why else would so many people suspend common sense? Some say it's "pop culture", that is, you have to be like everyone else least you are thought to be different, out of the loop or thought to be uninformed. Some might even have questions about your sanity if you have doubts concerning "change" or "the one". Worse, the crowd might even think you are a conservative. If that happens, you will experience total and complete denial of access to your pier group. Truly a certain social death.
Keep the faith - new recruits are joning the battle every day!
Leave the New Deal in the History Books
Cut corporate taxes to zero and create real jobs.
By MARK LEVEY
http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=MARK+LEVEY&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND
When Barack Obama takes office on Tuesday, his first order of business will be a stimulus package estimated to be close to $1 trillion, including $300 million in tax cuts and the largest new government spending program for infrastructure since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sages nod that replicating aspects of FDR's New Deal will help pull the country out of a recession. But the experience under FDR largely provides a cautionary tale.
Mr. Obama's policy plans are driven by the conventional economic wisdom that the New Deal economic programs ended the Great Depression. Not so. In fact, thanks to New Deal policies and programs, the U.S. economy faltered for years longer than it might otherwise have done.
President Roosevelt came to office much as Barack Obama will, shouldering an economic crisis that began under his predecessor. In 1933, Roosevelt's first year, unemployment hit nearly 25%, as people lost jobs and homes in towns across the country. Believing that government played a key role in restarting growth, FDR, within his first 100 days as president, created an alphabet soup of new agencies that mandated actions or controlled public spending and impacted private capital flow within the U.S. economy.
At first, it seemed to be working. After four years of FDR's policies, joblessness declined to 14.3% -- still very high but heading in the right direction. Then things turned for worse again:
By the fall of 1937, the U.S. entered a secondary depression and unemployment began to rise, reaching 19% in 1938. By 1939 Roosevelt's own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, had realized that the New Deal economic policies had failed.
"We have tried spending money," Morgenthau wrote in his diary. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
The problem was that neither Roosevelt nor President Herbert Hoover before him grasped the essential nature of the crisis, which was not the stock-market crash, but global deflation. At the end of the roaring '20s, an overhang of intergovernmental war debt from World War I, coupled with falling commodity prices and a currency crisis, had started the decline. Weak credit structures and European banks hurt by wartime inflation worsened it. When the Austrian Creditanstalt Bank failed, it ignited a global banking crisis that slashed across the international financial system cutting down everything in its path.
Deflation went into full howl.The same perils are now confronting President-elect Barack Obama, as the risk of deflation casts a long shadow over the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have been correctly focused on shoring up financial institutions to prevent a collapse of the financial system, and stave off a severe decline in the general price level. If that were to occur, the unspoken fear has been that the U.S. and global economy could go into a deflationary death spiral that would cause the collapse of the international financial system.
As a short-term matter, the moves of the Fed and other central banks have been correct, but in the long term a return to growth will depend on dynamic job creation by American business -- not the U.S. government. Under a two-year plan designed to create three million to four million jobs, Mr. Obama's plan would have the federal government begin distributing funds for public-works projects carried out by the states. With government already spending 20% of GDP, federal government, not private enterprise, will become the growth industry.
The effect of these policies, like FDR's, will be to lengthen the pain.Early on, Roosevelt's economic thinking was that laissez-faire competition drove prices and wages down, resulting in unemployment, which in turn collapsed demand for goods and services. To remedy this, his administration passed laws such as the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) that encouraged business to collude and raise prices without fear of antitrust prosecution. The hope was that this would allow business to raise wages.
By the time NIRA was found unconstitutional a few years later, the damage had already been done. For example, the Department of the Interior complained that over two years it had received 260 bids from different steel companies that were identical to the penny and 50% higher than foreign bids. The policy had put chains on every normal free-market instinct and price feedback mechanism needed to restore economic growth. Roosevelt himself rued the decision in the late 1930s as a secondary depression was gripping the economy.
"The disappearance of price competition," he said, "is one of the primary causes of the difficulties."In addition to New Deal spending programs, a series of new taxes were introduced that crushed the innovation, risk taking, and growth plans of entrepreneurs, corporations and investors.
From 1930 to 1940, the top marginal income-tax rate rose to 79% from 25% while the corporate income-tax rate doubled to 24% from 12%. In addition, Roosevelt tacked on an excess profits tax and undistributed profits tax. He imposed an excise tax on dividends. Even the new Social Security payroll tax added 2%.As a result, the New Deal forced the allocation of money away from the private sector. As economist Henry Hazlitt wrote back in 1946, New Deal programs prevented the creation of the types of jobs which have the multiplier effect of successful businesses.
Creating "work" prevented innovation and new jobs that would create other jobs.The quickest way to strengthen the credit system and begin the end of this crisis is to get money into the economy for true job creation, and not into government work programs. The way to do this is to slash taxes.
The U.S. corporate tax rate, currently the highest in the world, should be cut to 0% (corporate income would still be taxed, of course, when distributed to shareholders as dividends). The capital-gains tax should be cut further.
The positive impact on corporate-credit markets, the stock market, the attractiveness of the U.S. to foreign investors, and the willingness to take business risk and create new jobs would be immediate. Capital-gains tax collections would rise. Capital flows would be in the hands of those who are driven to build businesses and permanent jobs efficiently instead of pushing that capital through a government pipeline with endless amounts of friction. If the U.S. is to lead the international economic community out of this crisis, this is the place to start.
Mr. Obama will come to office next week with plenty of political capital and the faith of a majority of Americans that he can help pull the country out of its economic woes. As he takes over the reins, his success will be judged not on rhetoric but on the numbers his policies can generate. The best thing he can do is leave the New Deal in the history books.
*Mr. Levey is senior managing director at Lotsoff Capital Management in Chicago.*
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Economic Freedom is Key to Capital Formation
The Heritage Foundation is providing good leadership to this country with honest and common sensed based ideas that will work to free us from government domination. Even the most deranged among us on left, and some in the center and on the right politically, will notice the change in our country when we are completely under the thumb of a totalitarian government.
What this means is no matter what we do, or want to do, we can't without permission from some bureaucrat. If you think this isn't happening right now, take a close look at the EPA, the DNR and how they control just about everything in our lives. Energy generation - no new coal fired plants or nuclear powered plants. Wind and solar is better but won't provide enough electricity - Too bad! Land use - what we can and can not do with our own property - what's next - no private property - it's too important to be left in the hands of private citizens - others know better what's best for the planet.
Believe it - now with the threat of new taxes on corporations for carbon emissions, "cap and trade", arbitrary taxes on fuel for our cars and t0 heat and cool our homes, denial of common and plentiful energy resources because others have decided it is more important to use alternative sources of energy rather than keeping our homes heated or driving our cars.
Whats next? What is the future of big government run by ideologues. Permits will be required to travel from state to state - licenses issued for travel to only certain areas of the state - cars that must not weigh more than a certain amount, period - ration cards for fuel - present prices on all fuel based on how much money you make or are allowed to make. (The more you make the more you pay.)
There is more but what's the use - it can't happen here - this is America. Think so? Maybe not, but with so may people ready and willing to accept any form of control from others so they don't have to make any decision on their own - it doesn't bode well for us or future generaions.
It's the lotto/victim mantality - people want the quick fix to everything, and when it doesn't happen they become victims -
I fear for our county. But keep the faith and fight on - the battle rages.
America Less Free Than in 2008
By Nathaniel Ward January 15, 2009
The United States economy is less free than it was a year ago, according to the latest edition of the Index of Economic Freedom.
On Heritage's blog, The Foundry, Heritage expert and Index co-editor Terry Miller warns that America is in trouble. "The U.S. slipped one spot to sixth place this year because of increases in both tax revenue and government spending as a percentage of GDP."
"Hong Kong and Singapore are once again the freest economies in the world," he continues, "followed in the rankings by Australia, Ireland and New Zealand."
The Index, a joint project of The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, ranks 183 countries on a set of empirical criteria and confirms the link between freedom and prosperity.
America's latest economic policies are likely to worsen its score in the next Index, Heritage President Ed Feulner says. "Some of the policies undertaken or planned by governments to respond to the worldwide recession are likely to threaten long-term economic freedom, and thus endanger future economic growth. Certainly if the U.S. continues on its present course, all things being equal, its economic freedom score will decline next year."
Miller explains the core findings of the new Index in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal:
The positive correlation between economic freedom and national income is confirmed yet again by this year's data. The freest countries enjoy per capita incomes over 10 times higher than those in countries ranked as "repressed." This year, for the first time, the Index also correlates economic freedom with important societal values like poverty reduction, human development, political freedom and environmental protection. The linkages are robust, with economically freer countries performing significantly better on every indicator of well-being.
The 2009 Index has several key improvements, including a significant expansion of country coverage, new regional coverage and a fine-tuned labor freedom component.
This is the 15th edition of the Index, which is meant "to advance individual freedom, civil society, and prosperity around the world."
—David Talbot
What this means is no matter what we do, or want to do, we can't without permission from some bureaucrat. If you think this isn't happening right now, take a close look at the EPA, the DNR and how they control just about everything in our lives. Energy generation - no new coal fired plants or nuclear powered plants. Wind and solar is better but won't provide enough electricity - Too bad! Land use - what we can and can not do with our own property - what's next - no private property - it's too important to be left in the hands of private citizens - others know better what's best for the planet.
Believe it - now with the threat of new taxes on corporations for carbon emissions, "cap and trade", arbitrary taxes on fuel for our cars and t0 heat and cool our homes, denial of common and plentiful energy resources because others have decided it is more important to use alternative sources of energy rather than keeping our homes heated or driving our cars.
Whats next? What is the future of big government run by ideologues. Permits will be required to travel from state to state - licenses issued for travel to only certain areas of the state - cars that must not weigh more than a certain amount, period - ration cards for fuel - present prices on all fuel based on how much money you make or are allowed to make. (The more you make the more you pay.)
There is more but what's the use - it can't happen here - this is America. Think so? Maybe not, but with so may people ready and willing to accept any form of control from others so they don't have to make any decision on their own - it doesn't bode well for us or future generaions.
It's the lotto/victim mantality - people want the quick fix to everything, and when it doesn't happen they become victims -
I fear for our county. But keep the faith and fight on - the battle rages.
America Less Free Than in 2008
By Nathaniel Ward January 15, 2009
The United States economy is less free than it was a year ago, according to the latest edition of the Index of Economic Freedom.
On Heritage's blog, The Foundry, Heritage expert and Index co-editor Terry Miller warns that America is in trouble. "The U.S. slipped one spot to sixth place this year because of increases in both tax revenue and government spending as a percentage of GDP."
"Hong Kong and Singapore are once again the freest economies in the world," he continues, "followed in the rankings by Australia, Ireland and New Zealand."
The Index, a joint project of The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, ranks 183 countries on a set of empirical criteria and confirms the link between freedom and prosperity.
America's latest economic policies are likely to worsen its score in the next Index, Heritage President Ed Feulner says. "Some of the policies undertaken or planned by governments to respond to the worldwide recession are likely to threaten long-term economic freedom, and thus endanger future economic growth. Certainly if the U.S. continues on its present course, all things being equal, its economic freedom score will decline next year."
Miller explains the core findings of the new Index in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal:
The positive correlation between economic freedom and national income is confirmed yet again by this year's data. The freest countries enjoy per capita incomes over 10 times higher than those in countries ranked as "repressed." This year, for the first time, the Index also correlates economic freedom with important societal values like poverty reduction, human development, political freedom and environmental protection. The linkages are robust, with economically freer countries performing significantly better on every indicator of well-being.
The 2009 Index has several key improvements, including a significant expansion of country coverage, new regional coverage and a fine-tuned labor freedom component.
This is the 15th edition of the Index, which is meant "to advance individual freedom, civil society, and prosperity around the world."
—David Talbot
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Treasury Secretary Nominee Geithner Must Leave Town
Geithner should step aside? What for!! Being a criminal looks good on any liberal Democrats resume. They all have some sort of under-handed activity that they want to hide, but to say just be cause the nominee for United States Treasury Secretary is being pursued by authorities for tax evasion is no reason congress can't or won't confirm him. Come On!!! We're talking about Democrats here.
If Geithner were a Republican, then yeah, throw him under the bus, but not a Democrat. Were would you find another Democrat to take the job that doesn't have a criminal record?
Hold Chicago thugs, Batman - keep the Faith while we tug on Superman's cape.
Tax Experts: Geithner Should Withdraw
Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:15 PMBy: Kenneth R. Timmerman
President-elect Obama should withdraw the nomination of his Treasury secretary-designate, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer tells Newsmax.
The nomination of a man who has cheated on his taxes to become Treasury secretary “doesn’t pass the straight-face test,” Bauer said. “If this were a Republican Cabinet nominee, he would be in deep trouble, even in a Republican-controlled Senate.”
Time magazine and others have said that New York Federal Reserve President Timothy F. Geithner must be confirmed because he’s “the only one who understands the TARP,” the Troubled Asset Rescue Program the Bush administration crafted to bail out the financial services industry.
“It seems odd to me that he understands the TARP but doesn’t understand that you have to pay self-employment tax on self-employment income,” Bauer said.
The Treasury secretary oversees the Internal Revenue Service, among other agencies. This means that Geithner, whose tax cheating is described in detail in a 30-page memorandum released this week by the Senate Finance Committee, will become the nation’s top tax collector if confirmed.
“Geithner’s errors and/or misjudgments” on tax returns since 2001 “make him unfit to serve as secretary of the Treasury,” says John Berlau, a tax and financial affairs analyst at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.
“His nomination should be withdrawn, and, if this does not happen, he should be voted down by the Senate.” Berlau called Geithner’s nomination “a slap in the face” to millions of law-abiding taxpayers.”
The Senate Finance Committee investigation of Geithner’s tax returns found that he owed $42,702 in back taxes and interest for the years 2001 through 2004.
At the time Geithner worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, DC.
Because the IMF does not pay payroll taxes, it allows American employees to request a special “tax allowance” in addition to their salary to cover their U.S. tax obligations. The IMF sends instructions to its American employees on how to handle these payments, detailing what they owe the U.S. Treasury in quarterly and annual wage statements.
“Mr. Geithner acknowledged receiving all of these documents,” the Senate Finance Committee memorandum states.
He also filled out, signed, and submitted to the IMF a request for additional funds to pay his U.S. taxes that states, “I wish to apply for tax allowance of U.S. Federal and State income taxes and the difference between the 'self-employed' and 'employed' obligation of the U.S. Social Security tax which I will pay on my Fund income,” the form states.
And yet, despite receiving the extra payments from the IMF, Geithner never paid the self-employment taxes, apparently just pocketing the extra money.
“Obviously, he thought he could get away with it,” said Dee Hodges, president of the Maryland Taxpayers Association. “He didn’t even pay fines. You and I would be paying fines if we had done the same thing.”
Senators should “not give him a free pass” by saying he made an honest mistake, said Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“How can you be head of the Department of Treasury, which oversees the IRS, when you have tax problems? It just calls into question his qualifications,” Darling told Newsmax.
“Putting him in charge of the Treasury and the IRS sends a message to the American people that they really don’t need to be all that careful about filing their taxes. It sets a dangerous precedent.”
The Senate Finance Committee memo notes that Geithner “has experience with Social Security tax issues,” and so the likelihood of an honest mistake was low.
Furthermore, he prepared his own tax returns for four of the years where tax delinquencies were found, using commercial tax-preparation software.
“It's bad enough we have a Ways and Means chairman with a selective memory about his own tax returns — now we may have a Treasury secretary who either needs to upgrade his tax preparation software or listen a little more carefully to his accountant,” Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, told Newsmax on Thursday.
“If he is confirmed, we can only hope his public tax ordeal will convince him that the system needs simplification — not just for his sake, but for about 130 million taxpayers,” Sepp said.
Vincent R. Reinhart, a former monetary affairs director at the Federal Reserve who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said he believes that Geithner probably will win confirmation regardless of his tax problems because Democrats hold majorities in Congress.
Geithner’s problems “would be damaging if he were a Republican in a Democratic Senate, but it’s not going to derail his candidacy,” he told Newsmax.
If the Senators’ willingness to gloss over Geithner’s repeated failure to pay taxes sets a precedent that will “make it easier to join the government from here on out, then that’s good.
But I suspect the confirmation process will remain partisan,” Reinhart said.
After an IRS audit in 2006, Geithner paid $17,000 in back taxes and interest for 2003 and 2004, the Senate Finance Committee memorandum noted.
But Geithner didn’t pay an additional $26,000 in back taxes and interest he owed on IMF income for 2001 and 2002 until he was nominated for the Treasury job by Obama in December.
“He only fixed it after discovering he was going to be the nominee, so the timing is troubling,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
Brian Darling and other conservatives also worry about Geithner’s role in the federal bailout of the financial markets, known as TARP.
Darling called TARP “a pork barrel project for Wall Street,” that was “chipping away at the free market,” and called Geithner “a government interventionist.”
[Editor's Note: Watch U.S. Sen. James Inhofe discuss TARP - Go Here Now]
“Our government needs to get out of the business of managing industries,” he added. “We don’t reward failure in this country.”
Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst John Berlau agrees.
Geithner’s “only significant policy accomplishment has been his role in the Bush-Paulson bailouts,” he said.
Citing a Bloomberg wire service report, Berlau noted “Geithner pushed for Citigroup to take over the operations of Wachovia Corp. at taxpayer expense, even after Wells Fargo’s offer to purchase the firm without taxpayer backing.
“Had Geithner prevailed, who knows how much more trouble the financial system would be in given Citigroup’s current financial troubles,” Berlau said.
Peter J. Wallison, a former general counsel at the Treasury Department who is now a financial markets analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that once the U.S. public learns the details about Geithner’s tax situation, “there could be a backlash from the country.”
Nominating someone who failed to pay his taxes as the nation’s tax collector is “very worrisome, and demoralizing to all the people at Treasury,” he added.
“I don’t think this is a small mistake. It’s a serious thing and hard to square with a person who takes his tax obligations seriously, because it seems to involve deliberately ignoring the things he was required to do.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
If Geithner were a Republican, then yeah, throw him under the bus, but not a Democrat. Were would you find another Democrat to take the job that doesn't have a criminal record?
Hold Chicago thugs, Batman - keep the Faith while we tug on Superman's cape.
Tax Experts: Geithner Should Withdraw
Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:15 PMBy: Kenneth R. Timmerman
President-elect Obama should withdraw the nomination of his Treasury secretary-designate, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer tells Newsmax.
The nomination of a man who has cheated on his taxes to become Treasury secretary “doesn’t pass the straight-face test,” Bauer said. “If this were a Republican Cabinet nominee, he would be in deep trouble, even in a Republican-controlled Senate.”
Time magazine and others have said that New York Federal Reserve President Timothy F. Geithner must be confirmed because he’s “the only one who understands the TARP,” the Troubled Asset Rescue Program the Bush administration crafted to bail out the financial services industry.
“It seems odd to me that he understands the TARP but doesn’t understand that you have to pay self-employment tax on self-employment income,” Bauer said.
The Treasury secretary oversees the Internal Revenue Service, among other agencies. This means that Geithner, whose tax cheating is described in detail in a 30-page memorandum released this week by the Senate Finance Committee, will become the nation’s top tax collector if confirmed.
“Geithner’s errors and/or misjudgments” on tax returns since 2001 “make him unfit to serve as secretary of the Treasury,” says John Berlau, a tax and financial affairs analyst at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.
“His nomination should be withdrawn, and, if this does not happen, he should be voted down by the Senate.” Berlau called Geithner’s nomination “a slap in the face” to millions of law-abiding taxpayers.”
The Senate Finance Committee investigation of Geithner’s tax returns found that he owed $42,702 in back taxes and interest for the years 2001 through 2004.
At the time Geithner worked for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, DC.
Because the IMF does not pay payroll taxes, it allows American employees to request a special “tax allowance” in addition to their salary to cover their U.S. tax obligations. The IMF sends instructions to its American employees on how to handle these payments, detailing what they owe the U.S. Treasury in quarterly and annual wage statements.
“Mr. Geithner acknowledged receiving all of these documents,” the Senate Finance Committee memorandum states.
He also filled out, signed, and submitted to the IMF a request for additional funds to pay his U.S. taxes that states, “I wish to apply for tax allowance of U.S. Federal and State income taxes and the difference between the 'self-employed' and 'employed' obligation of the U.S. Social Security tax which I will pay on my Fund income,” the form states.
And yet, despite receiving the extra payments from the IMF, Geithner never paid the self-employment taxes, apparently just pocketing the extra money.
“Obviously, he thought he could get away with it,” said Dee Hodges, president of the Maryland Taxpayers Association. “He didn’t even pay fines. You and I would be paying fines if we had done the same thing.”
Senators should “not give him a free pass” by saying he made an honest mistake, said Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“How can you be head of the Department of Treasury, which oversees the IRS, when you have tax problems? It just calls into question his qualifications,” Darling told Newsmax.
“Putting him in charge of the Treasury and the IRS sends a message to the American people that they really don’t need to be all that careful about filing their taxes. It sets a dangerous precedent.”
The Senate Finance Committee memo notes that Geithner “has experience with Social Security tax issues,” and so the likelihood of an honest mistake was low.
Furthermore, he prepared his own tax returns for four of the years where tax delinquencies were found, using commercial tax-preparation software.
“It's bad enough we have a Ways and Means chairman with a selective memory about his own tax returns — now we may have a Treasury secretary who either needs to upgrade his tax preparation software or listen a little more carefully to his accountant,” Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, told Newsmax on Thursday.
“If he is confirmed, we can only hope his public tax ordeal will convince him that the system needs simplification — not just for his sake, but for about 130 million taxpayers,” Sepp said.
Vincent R. Reinhart, a former monetary affairs director at the Federal Reserve who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said he believes that Geithner probably will win confirmation regardless of his tax problems because Democrats hold majorities in Congress.
Geithner’s problems “would be damaging if he were a Republican in a Democratic Senate, but it’s not going to derail his candidacy,” he told Newsmax.
If the Senators’ willingness to gloss over Geithner’s repeated failure to pay taxes sets a precedent that will “make it easier to join the government from here on out, then that’s good.
But I suspect the confirmation process will remain partisan,” Reinhart said.
After an IRS audit in 2006, Geithner paid $17,000 in back taxes and interest for 2003 and 2004, the Senate Finance Committee memorandum noted.
But Geithner didn’t pay an additional $26,000 in back taxes and interest he owed on IMF income for 2001 and 2002 until he was nominated for the Treasury job by Obama in December.
“He only fixed it after discovering he was going to be the nominee, so the timing is troubling,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
Brian Darling and other conservatives also worry about Geithner’s role in the federal bailout of the financial markets, known as TARP.
Darling called TARP “a pork barrel project for Wall Street,” that was “chipping away at the free market,” and called Geithner “a government interventionist.”
[Editor's Note: Watch U.S. Sen. James Inhofe discuss TARP - Go Here Now]
“Our government needs to get out of the business of managing industries,” he added. “We don’t reward failure in this country.”
Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst John Berlau agrees.
Geithner’s “only significant policy accomplishment has been his role in the Bush-Paulson bailouts,” he said.
Citing a Bloomberg wire service report, Berlau noted “Geithner pushed for Citigroup to take over the operations of Wachovia Corp. at taxpayer expense, even after Wells Fargo’s offer to purchase the firm without taxpayer backing.
“Had Geithner prevailed, who knows how much more trouble the financial system would be in given Citigroup’s current financial troubles,” Berlau said.
Peter J. Wallison, a former general counsel at the Treasury Department who is now a financial markets analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, believes that once the U.S. public learns the details about Geithner’s tax situation, “there could be a backlash from the country.”
Nominating someone who failed to pay his taxes as the nation’s tax collector is “very worrisome, and demoralizing to all the people at Treasury,” he added.
“I don’t think this is a small mistake. It’s a serious thing and hard to square with a person who takes his tax obligations seriously, because it seems to involve deliberately ignoring the things he was required to do.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Can Detroit Auto Manufactures Survive the UAW
This article is a little long but gives good insight into the UAW and how they have to change the way they do things or go extinct.
Keep the faith -
Can the United Auto Workers Survive?
Richard Posner
One of the reasons for the insolvency of the Detroit automakers (General
Motors, Chrysler--and Ford, which appears to be insolvent too, despite
its denials) is that their workers are paid higher wages, and receive
much more generous benefits paid for by their employer, than the workers
employed at the automobile plants, mainly in the South, owned by Toyota,
Honda, and other foreign manufacturers. The total wage and benefit bill
for the Detroit automakers is about $55 per hour, compared to $45 for
workers in the foreign-owned plants, and the difference is plausibly
ascribed to the fact that the Detroit automakers are unionized and the
"foreign transplants" not. (The comparison excludes retiree benefits, a
very large cost of the Detroit companies, but not an hourly labor cost.)
This difference may seem small, considering that labor is only about 10
percent of the cost of making a car, but many of the workers at the
companies that supply parts to the automakers (and the parts represent
about 60 percent of the total cost of manufacturing the vehicle) are
also represented by the United Auto Workers. Anyway, since the foreign
transplants have other competitive advantages over the Detroit
automakers, the latter can hardly afford to have even slightly higher
labor costs.
When the auto bailout bill was being debated in Congress in November
(ultimately it was voted down), Senator Corker said that he would
support the bill if it conditioned the bailout on the Detroit
automakers' reducing their workers' wages and benefits (to which the
union would have to agree) to the level at the foreign-owned plants, as
well as conform work rules to the work rules in those plants. The
significance of the work rules must not be underestimated.
As is common
in unionized firms, the United Auto Workers has successfully negotiated
not only for wages and benefits for the workers they represent but also
for rules governing what tasks the workers can and cannot perform, how
many workers must be assigned to a particular task, the order in which
workers are to be laid off (usually it is in reverse order of seniority,
because older workers tend to be stronger supporters of unionization
than younger ones because the latter have better alternative employment
prospects and so don't worry as much about job security) in the event of
a reduction in demand for the firm's products, methods of discipline,
and so forth.
These work rules, collectively "featherbedding," make it
difficult for a firm to optimize its use of labor, and, like the higher
wages and benefits that unions obtain, add to the firm's labor costs
relative to those of its nonunion competitors. A December 16 blog by
Rand Simberg,
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/detroits-downturn-its-the-productivity-stupid/,
presents a shocking picture of how work rules impair productivity at
automobile plants at which the workers are represented by the United
Auto Workers.
The goal of unions is to redistribute wealth from the owners and
managers of firms, and from workers willing to work for very low wages,
to the unionized workers and the union's officers. Unions do this by
organizing (or threatening) strikes that impose costs on employers. For
employers are rationally willing to avoid those costs at a cost
(provided it is smaller) of higher wages and benefits and restrictive
work rules.
Because the added cost to the employer of a unionized work
force is a marginal cost (a cost that varies with the output of the
firm), unionization results in reduced output by the unionized firm and,
in consequence, benefits nonunionized competitors. Unless those
competitors are too few or too small to be able to expand output at a
cost no higher than the cost to the unionized firms, unionization will
gradually drive the unionized firms out of business.
Unions, in other words, are worker cartels. Workers threaten to withhold
their labor unless paid more than a competitive wage (including benefits
and work rules), but unless their union is able to organize all the
major competitors in a market, the cartel will be eroded by the entry of
nonunionized firms, which by virtue of not being unionized will have
lower labor costs. The parallel to producer cartels is exact--workers
/are /producers.
We are seeing this process of erosion of labor monopolies at work in the
automobile industry. The market share of the Detroit automakers has
shrunk steadily relative to that of the foreign "transplants" and with
it the number of unionized auto workers--they are fewer by a third or
more than they were in 1970. If the Detroit automakers will be forced to
liquidate unless they can bring their labor costs down to the level of
the foreign transplants, the UAW will be out of business either because
the Detroit automakers liquidate or because, as a result of union
concessions, the workers will no longer be getting anything in exchange
for the dues they pay the union.
I don't think there's much to be said on behalf of unions, at least
under current economic conditions. The redistribution of wealth that
they bring about is not only fragile, for the reason just suggested, but
also capricious, as it is an accident whether conditions in a particular
industry are favorable or unfavorable to unionization.
By driving up
employers' costs, unions cause prices to increase, which harms
consumers, who are not on average any better off than unionized workers
are. Unions push hard for minimum wage laws and for tariffs, both being
devices for reducing competition from workers, here or abroad, willing
to work for lower wages. Current union hostility to immigrant workers is
of a piece with the unions' former hostility to blacks and women--which
is to say, to workers willing to work for a wage below the union wage.
And by raising labor costs, unions accelerate the substitution of
capital for labor, further depressing the demand for labor and hence
average wages. Union workers, in effect, exploit nonunion workers, as
well as reducing the overall efficiency of the economy. The United Auto
Workers has done its part to place the Detroit auto industry on the road
to ruin.
There is also a long history of union corruption (though not in the
UAW). And some union activity (though again not that of the UAW) is
extortionate: the union and the employer tacitly agree that as long as
the employer gives the workers a wage increase slightly above the union
dues, the union will leave the employer alone.
There may be, I grant, cases in which unionization reduces an employer's
labor costs. If there is deep mutual antipathy between workers and
employers, perhaps breaking out in violence--with strikebreakers beating
up strikers and strikers beating up scabs and sit-down strikers
destroying company property--there may be benefits from interposing an
organization independent of the employer between employer and workers,
and from creating (as the National Labor Relations Act has done) a
civilized mode of resolving labor disputes.
But in cases in which union
organization is mutually beneficial, the employer will /invite /the
union to organize its workers. I am sure the Detroit automakers would
very much like to disinvite the United Auto Workers.
Unions do provide some services that are valuable to employers, such as
grievance procedures that check arbitrary actions by supervisory
employees; and union-negotiated protection of senior workers can benefit
their employer by encouraging them to share their know-how with new
workers, without having to fear that by doing so they will be sharing
themselves out of a job. But these are measures that an employer who
thinks they will reduce his labor costs can take without the presence of
a union.
Micky Kaus, another blogger who is an expert on the automobile industry,
attributes much of the problem with the UAW to the procedures that
govern labor relations in unionized plants. "The problem...is the
American adversarial labor-management negotiating system, in which
reasonable people doing what the system tells them they should do wind
up producing undesirable results.
Just as negotiating over work
assignments means factories adjust too slowly to generate continuous
efficiency improvements (which often involve constantly changing work
assignments) negotiating ponderous 3 year contracts (in which
Gettelfinger [the UAW's president] must extract every possible
concession to please the members who elected him) means contracts adjust
too slowly to save the companies from failure if market conditions
change...[T[he $14 wage scale for new hires [to which the UAW agreed
several years ago] hasn't had an impact because nobody new is being
hired by the UAW's employers, who are shrinking, not growing. The
obvious alternative to cutting the pay of nonexistent future workers
would be to cut the pay of existing current workers--but they are the
people the system tells Gettelfinger he needs to please."
www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/ (Dec. 26, 2008).
The unions strongly supported the Democrats in the last election and are
looking for payback. I do think that there are good economic reasons for
keeping the Detroit automakers out of bankruptcy until the current
depression hits bottom and a recovery begins--until then the shock to
the economy would be too great (see my post of November 16)--and that
will keep the UAW alive for a while. But if it resists making
substantial concessions to the automakers, hoping that the President and
Congress will force the automakers' bondholders to make the necessary
concessions or that the taxpayer will be forced to subsidize the
automakers indefinitely, the union will be playing a game of chicken
that may end in its destruction rather than merely in its continued
shrinkage as the industry shrinks.
The auto bailout is deeply unpopular
with the public and the UAW's stubbornness may reinforce the impression
that unions are dinosaurs slouching toward extinction.
Posted by Richard Posner at 4:26 PM
Keep the faith -
Can the United Auto Workers Survive?
Richard Posner
One of the reasons for the insolvency of the Detroit automakers (General
Motors, Chrysler--and Ford, which appears to be insolvent too, despite
its denials) is that their workers are paid higher wages, and receive
much more generous benefits paid for by their employer, than the workers
employed at the automobile plants, mainly in the South, owned by Toyota,
Honda, and other foreign manufacturers. The total wage and benefit bill
for the Detroit automakers is about $55 per hour, compared to $45 for
workers in the foreign-owned plants, and the difference is plausibly
ascribed to the fact that the Detroit automakers are unionized and the
"foreign transplants" not. (The comparison excludes retiree benefits, a
very large cost of the Detroit companies, but not an hourly labor cost.)
This difference may seem small, considering that labor is only about 10
percent of the cost of making a car, but many of the workers at the
companies that supply parts to the automakers (and the parts represent
about 60 percent of the total cost of manufacturing the vehicle) are
also represented by the United Auto Workers. Anyway, since the foreign
transplants have other competitive advantages over the Detroit
automakers, the latter can hardly afford to have even slightly higher
labor costs.
When the auto bailout bill was being debated in Congress in November
(ultimately it was voted down), Senator Corker said that he would
support the bill if it conditioned the bailout on the Detroit
automakers' reducing their workers' wages and benefits (to which the
union would have to agree) to the level at the foreign-owned plants, as
well as conform work rules to the work rules in those plants. The
significance of the work rules must not be underestimated.
As is common
in unionized firms, the United Auto Workers has successfully negotiated
not only for wages and benefits for the workers they represent but also
for rules governing what tasks the workers can and cannot perform, how
many workers must be assigned to a particular task, the order in which
workers are to be laid off (usually it is in reverse order of seniority,
because older workers tend to be stronger supporters of unionization
than younger ones because the latter have better alternative employment
prospects and so don't worry as much about job security) in the event of
a reduction in demand for the firm's products, methods of discipline,
and so forth.
These work rules, collectively "featherbedding," make it
difficult for a firm to optimize its use of labor, and, like the higher
wages and benefits that unions obtain, add to the firm's labor costs
relative to those of its nonunion competitors. A December 16 blog by
Rand Simberg,
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/detroits-downturn-its-the-productivity-stupid/,
presents a shocking picture of how work rules impair productivity at
automobile plants at which the workers are represented by the United
Auto Workers.
The goal of unions is to redistribute wealth from the owners and
managers of firms, and from workers willing to work for very low wages,
to the unionized workers and the union's officers. Unions do this by
organizing (or threatening) strikes that impose costs on employers. For
employers are rationally willing to avoid those costs at a cost
(provided it is smaller) of higher wages and benefits and restrictive
work rules.
Because the added cost to the employer of a unionized work
force is a marginal cost (a cost that varies with the output of the
firm), unionization results in reduced output by the unionized firm and,
in consequence, benefits nonunionized competitors. Unless those
competitors are too few or too small to be able to expand output at a
cost no higher than the cost to the unionized firms, unionization will
gradually drive the unionized firms out of business.
Unions, in other words, are worker cartels. Workers threaten to withhold
their labor unless paid more than a competitive wage (including benefits
and work rules), but unless their union is able to organize all the
major competitors in a market, the cartel will be eroded by the entry of
nonunionized firms, which by virtue of not being unionized will have
lower labor costs. The parallel to producer cartels is exact--workers
/are /producers.
We are seeing this process of erosion of labor monopolies at work in the
automobile industry. The market share of the Detroit automakers has
shrunk steadily relative to that of the foreign "transplants" and with
it the number of unionized auto workers--they are fewer by a third or
more than they were in 1970. If the Detroit automakers will be forced to
liquidate unless they can bring their labor costs down to the level of
the foreign transplants, the UAW will be out of business either because
the Detroit automakers liquidate or because, as a result of union
concessions, the workers will no longer be getting anything in exchange
for the dues they pay the union.
I don't think there's much to be said on behalf of unions, at least
under current economic conditions. The redistribution of wealth that
they bring about is not only fragile, for the reason just suggested, but
also capricious, as it is an accident whether conditions in a particular
industry are favorable or unfavorable to unionization.
By driving up
employers' costs, unions cause prices to increase, which harms
consumers, who are not on average any better off than unionized workers
are. Unions push hard for minimum wage laws and for tariffs, both being
devices for reducing competition from workers, here or abroad, willing
to work for lower wages. Current union hostility to immigrant workers is
of a piece with the unions' former hostility to blacks and women--which
is to say, to workers willing to work for a wage below the union wage.
And by raising labor costs, unions accelerate the substitution of
capital for labor, further depressing the demand for labor and hence
average wages. Union workers, in effect, exploit nonunion workers, as
well as reducing the overall efficiency of the economy. The United Auto
Workers has done its part to place the Detroit auto industry on the road
to ruin.
There is also a long history of union corruption (though not in the
UAW). And some union activity (though again not that of the UAW) is
extortionate: the union and the employer tacitly agree that as long as
the employer gives the workers a wage increase slightly above the union
dues, the union will leave the employer alone.
There may be, I grant, cases in which unionization reduces an employer's
labor costs. If there is deep mutual antipathy between workers and
employers, perhaps breaking out in violence--with strikebreakers beating
up strikers and strikers beating up scabs and sit-down strikers
destroying company property--there may be benefits from interposing an
organization independent of the employer between employer and workers,
and from creating (as the National Labor Relations Act has done) a
civilized mode of resolving labor disputes.
But in cases in which union
organization is mutually beneficial, the employer will /invite /the
union to organize its workers. I am sure the Detroit automakers would
very much like to disinvite the United Auto Workers.
Unions do provide some services that are valuable to employers, such as
grievance procedures that check arbitrary actions by supervisory
employees; and union-negotiated protection of senior workers can benefit
their employer by encouraging them to share their know-how with new
workers, without having to fear that by doing so they will be sharing
themselves out of a job. But these are measures that an employer who
thinks they will reduce his labor costs can take without the presence of
a union.
Micky Kaus, another blogger who is an expert on the automobile industry,
attributes much of the problem with the UAW to the procedures that
govern labor relations in unionized plants. "The problem...is the
American adversarial labor-management negotiating system, in which
reasonable people doing what the system tells them they should do wind
up producing undesirable results.
Just as negotiating over work
assignments means factories adjust too slowly to generate continuous
efficiency improvements (which often involve constantly changing work
assignments) negotiating ponderous 3 year contracts (in which
Gettelfinger [the UAW's president] must extract every possible
concession to please the members who elected him) means contracts adjust
too slowly to save the companies from failure if market conditions
change...[T[he $14 wage scale for new hires [to which the UAW agreed
several years ago] hasn't had an impact because nobody new is being
hired by the UAW's employers, who are shrinking, not growing. The
obvious alternative to cutting the pay of nonexistent future workers
would be to cut the pay of existing current workers--but they are the
people the system tells Gettelfinger he needs to please."
www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/ (Dec. 26, 2008).
The unions strongly supported the Democrats in the last election and are
looking for payback. I do think that there are good economic reasons for
keeping the Detroit automakers out of bankruptcy until the current
depression hits bottom and a recovery begins--until then the shock to
the economy would be too great (see my post of November 16)--and that
will keep the UAW alive for a while. But if it resists making
substantial concessions to the automakers, hoping that the President and
Congress will force the automakers' bondholders to make the necessary
concessions or that the taxpayer will be forced to subsidize the
automakers indefinitely, the union will be playing a game of chicken
that may end in its destruction rather than merely in its continued
shrinkage as the industry shrinks.
The auto bailout is deeply unpopular
with the public and the UAW's stubbornness may reinforce the impression
that unions are dinosaurs slouching toward extinction.
Posted by Richard Posner at 4:26 PM
Union Impact on American Economics
Here is another good article, actually part of a larger one, on how the unions effect the productivity and future of any unionized manufacturer. As we all know, unions and the liberals in government are dependent on one another.
It seems the liberal Democrats, including the new president, will stop at nothing to get more power. To support such an act as the " Free Choice Act" or the "Card Check" proposal, is not in the best interests of this worker or the country's economic health.
This article is very interesting in that it seems there is a large disconnect between those that are living in the past as against those that see the future without rose colored glasses. The world is much smaller now than it was back when unions had the country on it knees -
Keep the faith - the battle rages on for common sense.
Unions in the American Economy-
Gary Becker
Union members constitute a mere 7.5 percent of the private sector
American labor force, only one third of its share 25 years ago. This is
why the UAW is a dinosaur, a relic of times past when unions were much
more important.
The UAW 's membership has declined by more than one
third since 1970, and its membership is still declining at a fast clip.
GM had one quarter of a million UAW workers in 1994, but now has less
than 75,000 workers who are members. It is rather easy to explain why in
effect, the US has become a non-union private sector economy.
The rapid shift during the past several decades from manufacturing to
services has been a significant contributor since the generally smaller
service establishments have always been much less unionized than the
larger manufacturing establishments, like steel mills and auto plants.
Globalization has been crucially important in several dimensions.
Increased competition from imports have undercut the higher prices
charged by domestic competitors who are forced to pay large benefits to
their unionized workers. In addition, if a union tries to raise worker
benefits, and hence production costs, by a lot, companies often close
these plants, and set up production in other countries where costs are
lower.
Government provision of unemployment benefits and rules about
layoffs- including anti-discrimination legislation- and voluntary
provision by non-union companies of health and retirement benefits, and
codified rules about the treatment of employees in regards to hiring,
layoffs, and discipline have greatly reduced the advantages of unions in
providing such benefits.
Border and southern states discovered that they could be attractive to
companies if they had more hostile environments to unions than other
states. When companies like Toyota and Honda decided to set up auto
factories in the US, they generally avoided states where unions were
powerful, and instead mainly went to states where unions were not
important.
Now foreign companies produce more than one third of all cars
made in the US. Much of the decline in UAW membership has been offset by
the growth of non-union workers in plants owned by foreign companies. In
addition, cars made abroad have been out -competing cars made
domestically by GM, Ford, and Chrysler. As a result, cars made by
foreign companies, whether in the US or elsewhere, now account for more
than half the cars sold in this country.
These powerful forces aligned against unions imply that the UAW and
other large manufacturing unions are essentially finished, perhaps
unless they receive major financial and regulatory support from the
federal government.
This is why the AFL-CIO and Change to Win went all
out to get Senator Obama elected president. Unions are said to have
spent over $400 million during the presidential race, and had several
hundred thousand volunteers make phone calls and house visits. They
claim to have been pivotal in Obama's victories in closely contested
states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
According to one poll, about 2/3 of the members of the AFL-CIO unions voted for Obama, and only 1/3 for McCain.
Unions strongly supported Obama not only because Democrats have
traditionally been much more pro-union than Republicans, but also
because Obama had been explicitly supportive of unions. He and Joe Biden
as senators co-sponsored the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. This
Act failed to muster enough votes in the present Congress, but unions
have placed highest priority on its passing in the new Congress that has
a much bigger Democratic majority.
Such a bill would give workers the
right to join a union as soon as a majority of those employed at an
establishment signed cards saying they wanted a union. Under present
rules, there must be an election by workers to determine whether they
want a union, with votes of individual workers being secret rather than
publicly expressed on cards.
Any substantial shift of federal and state governments toward pro-union
regulations would harm the American economy and the position of the
typical employee. As Posner indicates, unions want greater monopoly
power so that they can raise the wages and other benefits of union
members above their competitive levels. Unfortunately, the effects of
this are to reduce earnings for non-union workers, shift production
outside the US, or toward states with less pro-union laws, and shift
production in unionized plants away from labor and toward capital. None
of these changes are beneficial to the efficiency and performance of the
American economy, especially in a global environment.
Although the union leadership believes the Employee Free Choice Act and
related legislation could add several million members, the good news is
that they are likely to be wrong. The forces I discussed earlier that
contributed to the decline of unions in the US are very powerful, they
will continue to operate, and they are extremely difficult to reverse.
So while pro-union federal legislation might well slow down the decline
of unions in the private sector of the economy, it is highly unlikely to
greatly affect the downward trend.
Posted by Gary Becker at 3:51 PM
It seems the liberal Democrats, including the new president, will stop at nothing to get more power. To support such an act as the " Free Choice Act" or the "Card Check" proposal, is not in the best interests of this worker or the country's economic health.
This article is very interesting in that it seems there is a large disconnect between those that are living in the past as against those that see the future without rose colored glasses. The world is much smaller now than it was back when unions had the country on it knees -
Keep the faith - the battle rages on for common sense.
Unions in the American Economy-
Gary Becker
Union members constitute a mere 7.5 percent of the private sector
American labor force, only one third of its share 25 years ago. This is
why the UAW is a dinosaur, a relic of times past when unions were much
more important.
The UAW 's membership has declined by more than one
third since 1970, and its membership is still declining at a fast clip.
GM had one quarter of a million UAW workers in 1994, but now has less
than 75,000 workers who are members. It is rather easy to explain why in
effect, the US has become a non-union private sector economy.
The rapid shift during the past several decades from manufacturing to
services has been a significant contributor since the generally smaller
service establishments have always been much less unionized than the
larger manufacturing establishments, like steel mills and auto plants.
Globalization has been crucially important in several dimensions.
Increased competition from imports have undercut the higher prices
charged by domestic competitors who are forced to pay large benefits to
their unionized workers. In addition, if a union tries to raise worker
benefits, and hence production costs, by a lot, companies often close
these plants, and set up production in other countries where costs are
lower.
Government provision of unemployment benefits and rules about
layoffs- including anti-discrimination legislation- and voluntary
provision by non-union companies of health and retirement benefits, and
codified rules about the treatment of employees in regards to hiring,
layoffs, and discipline have greatly reduced the advantages of unions in
providing such benefits.
Border and southern states discovered that they could be attractive to
companies if they had more hostile environments to unions than other
states. When companies like Toyota and Honda decided to set up auto
factories in the US, they generally avoided states where unions were
powerful, and instead mainly went to states where unions were not
important.
Now foreign companies produce more than one third of all cars
made in the US. Much of the decline in UAW membership has been offset by
the growth of non-union workers in plants owned by foreign companies. In
addition, cars made abroad have been out -competing cars made
domestically by GM, Ford, and Chrysler. As a result, cars made by
foreign companies, whether in the US or elsewhere, now account for more
than half the cars sold in this country.
These powerful forces aligned against unions imply that the UAW and
other large manufacturing unions are essentially finished, perhaps
unless they receive major financial and regulatory support from the
federal government.
This is why the AFL-CIO and Change to Win went all
out to get Senator Obama elected president. Unions are said to have
spent over $400 million during the presidential race, and had several
hundred thousand volunteers make phone calls and house visits. They
claim to have been pivotal in Obama's victories in closely contested
states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
According to one poll, about 2/3 of the members of the AFL-CIO unions voted for Obama, and only 1/3 for McCain.
Unions strongly supported Obama not only because Democrats have
traditionally been much more pro-union than Republicans, but also
because Obama had been explicitly supportive of unions. He and Joe Biden
as senators co-sponsored the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. This
Act failed to muster enough votes in the present Congress, but unions
have placed highest priority on its passing in the new Congress that has
a much bigger Democratic majority.
Such a bill would give workers the
right to join a union as soon as a majority of those employed at an
establishment signed cards saying they wanted a union. Under present
rules, there must be an election by workers to determine whether they
want a union, with votes of individual workers being secret rather than
publicly expressed on cards.
Any substantial shift of federal and state governments toward pro-union
regulations would harm the American economy and the position of the
typical employee. As Posner indicates, unions want greater monopoly
power so that they can raise the wages and other benefits of union
members above their competitive levels. Unfortunately, the effects of
this are to reduce earnings for non-union workers, shift production
outside the US, or toward states with less pro-union laws, and shift
production in unionized plants away from labor and toward capital. None
of these changes are beneficial to the efficiency and performance of the
American economy, especially in a global environment.
Although the union leadership believes the Employee Free Choice Act and
related legislation could add several million members, the good news is
that they are likely to be wrong. The forces I discussed earlier that
contributed to the decline of unions in the US are very powerful, they
will continue to operate, and they are extremely difficult to reverse.
So while pro-union federal legislation might well slow down the decline
of unions in the private sector of the economy, it is highly unlikely to
greatly affect the downward trend.
Posted by Gary Becker at 3:51 PM
Stove Top Oil Fire : A Rescue Video
Watch this video closely as it could save your life one day or, better yet, the lives of your loved ones.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Obama's choice of Browner for Climate Czar : An Admitted Socialist
Does having proof that an Obama appointee is a card carrying socialist mean anything to the general public? Does the general public know what a "socialist" is? Does the general public know how Browner can and will change America through collectivism and the surrendering of personal property rights?
I believe, as I have stated before, given how the tearful and sobbing hoard that seems to have risen Obama to some sort of deity status, will not know or probably care when their freedoms and rights, granted by the Constitution, have been systematic removed before their very eyes and they find them selves in chains, both mentally and physically. They will always find a "scape goat" to blame. It will never be their fault that they and their children will be in bondage to a socialist government. They voted to give up freedom of choice for a lotto ticket,
but will refuse to believe they had anything to do with it.
Over the top you say - maybe - but why take a chance because to get our freedoms back will be nearly impossible without the entire population of the United States coming together to demand it. Certainly won't happen in my life time or for several generations to come.
Keep the faith - we have to fight the good fight or the battle is lost! Never give up!
Carol Browner a Socialist?
Posted by Doug Bandow on 1.12.09
The American spectator
There's a tendency of conservatives to carelessly toss about the "S" word. Like John McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts while spouting left-wing rhetoric, then accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist because the latter proposed to increase taxes on the rich. It was bad liberal redistributionist policy, but McCain--for every bail-out as well as cap-and-trade--was in no position to call his opponent a socialist for advocating the same dumb liberal redistributionist policies.
However, as the /Washington Examiner/ pointed out last week (and the /Washington Times/ mentioned today), Carol Browner really is a socialist. Or at least, she belonged to the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which is part of the Socialist International.
Granted, these are pretty wimpy socialists, rather than serious guys with guns intent on seizing everyone's property. But still. Reports the /Examiner/: http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Browner_is_an_environmental_radical__and_a_socialist_seriously_010809.html
Conservatives are often accused of scaremongering when they claim left-wing environmentalists are actually socialists hiding behind green disguises. But with Carol Browner, incoming President Barack Obama's freshly appointed Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change - the so-called White House "Climate Czar" - there is no question about the socialism. Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International.
Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. The Socialist International is no group of woolly-headed idealists. It is an influential assembly of officials from across the international community whose official Statement of Principles describes an agenda of gaining and exercising government power based on socialist concepts.
Browner's CSWS is similarly open about the economic costs it is willing to impose, across national borders to achieve its environmental utopia. On Sept. 5-6, 2008, the commission noted that the costs of its proposals would "rang[e] in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades," and it called for a "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That is international bureaucratese for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries.
At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July2, the CSWS officially resolved that "market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development."
Again, that's bureaucratese. It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the "resources necessary" to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a ‘regime" against "global warming." By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.
The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren't really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.
The best part is that Browner obviously is embarrassed by the connection, since someone has engaged in a bit of Stalinist air-brushing of history by eliminating her picture and bio from the socialist website.
Alas, she's headed to the White House--ironically, to be "Czar" of the Climate. (Didn't socialists revolt against the last real Czar?). That means there will be no Senate confirmation process, with an opportunity ask appropriate questions.
I believe, as I have stated before, given how the tearful and sobbing hoard that seems to have risen Obama to some sort of deity status, will not know or probably care when their freedoms and rights, granted by the Constitution, have been systematic removed before their very eyes and they find them selves in chains, both mentally and physically. They will always find a "scape goat" to blame. It will never be their fault that they and their children will be in bondage to a socialist government. They voted to give up freedom of choice for a lotto ticket,
but will refuse to believe they had anything to do with it.
Over the top you say - maybe - but why take a chance because to get our freedoms back will be nearly impossible without the entire population of the United States coming together to demand it. Certainly won't happen in my life time or for several generations to come.
Keep the faith - we have to fight the good fight or the battle is lost! Never give up!
Carol Browner a Socialist?
The American spectator
There's a tendency of conservatives to carelessly toss about the "S" word. Like John McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts while spouting left-wing rhetoric, then accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist because the latter proposed to increase taxes on the rich. It was bad liberal redistributionist policy, but McCain--for every bail-out as well as cap-and-trade--was in no position to call his opponent a socialist for advocating the same dumb liberal redistributionist policies.
However, as the /Washington Examiner/ pointed out last week (and the /Washington Times/ mentioned today
Granted, these are pretty wimpy socialists, rather than serious guys with guns intent on seizing everyone's property. But still. Reports the /Examiner/: http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Browner_is_an_environmental_radical__and_a_socialist_seriously_010809.html
Conservatives are often accused of scaremongering when they claim left-wing environmentalists are actually socialists hiding behind green disguises. But with Carol Browner, incoming President Barack Obama's freshly appointed Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change - the so-called White House "Climate Czar" - there is no question about the socialism. Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International.
Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. The Socialist International is no group of woolly-headed idealists. It is an influential assembly of officials from across the international community whose official Statement of Principles describes an agenda of gaining and exercising government power based on socialist concepts.
Browner's CSWS is similarly open about the economic costs it is willing to impose, across national borders to achieve its environmental utopia. On Sept. 5-6, 2008, the commission noted that the costs of its proposals would "rang[e] in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades," and it called for a "redesign of the international rules on intellectual property." That is international bureaucratese for compelling an inventor to surrender property rights in order to "share" technologies with less-developed countries.
At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July2, the CSWS officially resolved that "market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development."
Again, that's bureaucratese. It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the "resources necessary" to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a ‘regime" against "global warming." By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.
The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren't really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.
The best part is that Browner obviously is embarrassed by the connection, since someone has engaged in a bit of Stalinist air-brushing of history by eliminating her picture and bio from the socialist website.
Alas, she's headed to the White House--ironically, to be "Czar" of the Climate. (Didn't socialists revolt against the last real Czar?). That means there will be no Senate confirmation process, with an opportunity ask appropriate questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
