Death of Eleven Burundian Soldiers in Mogadishu. By Robert Wood, Acting Department Spokesman, Office of the Spokesman, US State Dept, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC, February 24, 2009
The United States strongly condemns the February 22 attack on African Union peacekeepers by a violent extremist fringe in Somalia. We offer our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the eleven Burundian victims. Our thoughts are also with the fifteen individuals who were wounded. We commend the governments of Burundi and Uganda as well as the African Union for their courage and continued efforts to support the restoration of stability and effective governance in Somalia.
Such acts of terror are the refuge of desperate extremists who aim to strip from the Somali people an opportunity to determine their own future and achieve lasting peace and stability. These acts are also hindering the delivery of critical humanitarian assistance.
We call on all Somalis to support the new unity government led by President Sheikh Sharif and Prime Minister Omar Sharmarke and to reject the violence and extremism intended to prevent Somalia from regaining political and economic stability.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Conservative views on nominee for OLC Dawn Johnsen
Lawyer’s Lawyer, Radical’s Radical. By Andrew McCarthy
Meet Obama DOJ nominee Dawn Johnsen
NRO, Mar 3, 2009
Pregnancy provokes a welter of feelings, physical and emotional. But does anyone really think of pregnancy as slavery? Apparently so: Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, Pres. Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Yale-educated and ACLU-trained, Johnsen already has done one tour of duty at OLC. She spent nearly six years there during the Clinton administration (1993–98), the last two as acting chief. OLC, a critically important agency, is the administration’s lawyers’ lawyer. Staffed by graduates of top law schools who are then polished by elite judicial clerkships, it authoritatively interprets the law for the attorney general and, in doing so, drives administration legal policy. OLC’s credibility is derived from its reputation for apolitical, academic discipline — its commitment to informing policymakers of what the law is, rather than what staffers believe the law should be. Johnsen is, for that reason, a poor fit: She is an ideologue, and an unabashed one.
Her bizarre equation of pregnancy and slavery was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was her considered position in a 1989 brief filed in the Supreme Court. At the time, she was legal director of NARAL (then the National Abortion Rights Action League, since renamed NARAL Pro-Choice America). The case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, involved a Missouri law that did not ban abortion but restricted the use of state funds and resources for abortions. It’s an obvious distinction, but one without a difference — at least according to Johnsen. Any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is, in her view, tantamount to “involuntary servitude” because it “requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn].” In effect, a woman “is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.” Such “forced pregnancy,” she contends, violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery.
The Court rejected this farcical theory, just as it has rejected other instantiations of Johnsen’s extremism. On abortion and other issues dear to the Left, she is nothing short of a zealot. She insisted that, without government-provided abortion counseling, a large number of women would be left without “proper information about contraception.” This, she claimed, would mean they “cannot be said to have a meaningful opportunity to avoid pregnancy.” The usual rejoinder to such reasoning is that nobody is forcing these women to have sex. Johnsen sees it differently, writing that these “losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.”
In reputable private law offices and U.S. attorney’s offices throughout the country, adult supervision would prevent such a lunatic analogy from finding its way into a letter to a lower-court judge, much less into a Supreme Court brief. Obama, however, is proposing that Johnsen be the adult supervision at Justice. He would fill a position calling for dispassionate rigor with a crusader for whom strident excess is habitual.
For Johnsen, no impediment to abortion-on-demand passes muster: She opposes 24-hour waiting periods, parental-consent requirements for minors, and laws against partial-birth abortion. In 2007, when it upheld the partial-birth ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court clinically described the standard abortion procedure (i.e., the dismemberment and evacuation of the unborn child) to contrast it with the more barbaric partial-birth method. Johnsen’s reaction — voiced while proposing “A Progressive Agenda for Women’s Reproductive Health and Liberty” for the left-leaning American Constitution Society — was to complain that “every first-year law student’s constitutional law casebook” now contains “gruesome descriptions designed to make abortions sound like infanticide.” Moreover, as she declaimed in a 2006 op-ed opposing Samuel Alito’s confirmation, opposition to all restrictions on abortion — not just acceptance of Roe v. Wade — should be a litmus test for judicial nominees. “The notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable ‘compromise’ — perhaps to help make abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare,’” she wrote, “proves nonsensical.”
Johnsen’s other bête noire is national security — at least to the extent it involves detaining terrorists and enemy combatants as military opponents rather trying them as civilian criminal defendants. Her 2008 academic article “What’s a President to Do? Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of Bush Administration Abuses” gathers the Left’s full array of anti-war tropes and disguises them as legal analysis. There is the determination to ignore the terrorist attacks of the 1990s, such that the War on Terror is presented as something President Bush started after 9/11 rather than a years-long jihadist provocation to which the United States finally responded after 9/11. This framework would make it impossible to prosecute as war crimes such pre-9/11 atrocities as the bombings of the USS Cole and the embassies in East Africa. Johnsen further denigrates as an “extreme and implausible Commander-in-Chief theory” Bush’s rationale for warrantless surveillance of suspected al-Qaeda communications into and out of the United States. In fact, the practice was strongly supported by federal court precedent and has since been reaffirmed by the appellate court Congress created specifically to consider such issues. And Johnsen has recently written that the new administration “should order an immediate review to determine which detainees should be released and which transferred to secure facilities in the United States” for civilian trials.
It is especially galling to consider Johnsen’s smearing of John Yoo, the Cal-Berkeley law professor who, as a Bush OLC staffer, principally authored DOJ’s so-called torture memo. In contrast to Johnsen’s perversion of anti-slavery law to suit her abortion agenda, Yoo was not twisting the law to advocate torture. He was soberly attempting to construe a legal term, “severe . . . pain or suffering,” part of the statutory definition of torture that had not yet been interpreted by the courts. This is what OLC does: It struggles to understand the state of the law, irrespective of staffers’ predilections, so that policymakers can act in full awareness of their options. For this, Johnsen impugns not merely Yoo’s scholarship (“irresponsibly and dangerously false”) but also his good faith. She upbraids the Bush administration for its use of waterboarding to interrogate top al-Qaeda detainees, blithely presuming its illegality despite the complex questions surrounding that claim (including the fact that that Congress has declined to make waterboarding a war crime). Indifferent to the fact that our enemies train to resist known interrogation methods, Johnsen wants all tactics spelled out explicitly in advance.
Particularly rich is Johnsen’s diatribe against Bush’s purportedly outlandish claim of power to ignore statutes that encroach on executive authority. When Johnsen served in the Clinton administration (which invented extraordinary rendition, detained Cuban refugees without trial at Guantanamo Bay, conducted warrantless national-security searches, and attacked a foreign country without congressional authorization), OLC’s official position was that “the President has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency.” The office opined that several statutes (including privacy provisions in the federal wiretap law) could not bind the president, and Johnsen herself authored a 1997 OLC opinion concluding that presidents were above consumer-credit-disclosure laws. In that case, she broadly asserted that “statutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to him if such application would involve a possible conflict with his constitutional prerogatives.”
A parallel hypocrisy is illustrated by Johnsen’s rants about how the Bush administration “politicized” the Justice Department. Her solution to this problem: Politicize the Justice Department. She argues that job applicants who may have been passed over by the Bush administration for holding leftist political views should get “special consideration” in DOJ hiring but, at the same time, maintains that nominees for the federal judiciary should be rejected out of hand if they embrace constitutional originalism or are members of the judicially conservative Federalist Society. Johnsen would also press the DOJ to advance the leftist agenda by having its Environment and Natural Resource Division “pursue innovative litigation and policy initiatives, such as the pressing issue of climate change.”
Johnsen’s attraction for Obama is obvious. The principal target of her Webster brief was the settled principle that the Constitution’s recognition of various fundamental rights (and the judicial invention of such “rights” as abortion) does not confer an entitlement to governmental aid to exercise those rights. For Johnsen, this is anathema, the denial of “economic justice” and thus of equal protection. “Economic justice,” a favorite Obama phrase, is the Left’s euphemism for the “redistributive change” Obama criticized the radical Warren Court for failing to embrace. Rather than the hoary construction of the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” one that says only what government “can’t do to you,” Obama urges a new bill of rights defining what government “must do on your behalf.”
In Dawn Johnsen’s dizzying jurisprudence, government has no business invading individual privacy and regulating abortion but is obliged to coerce taxpayers into underwriting abortions as a first step in what she unapologetically calls “the progressive agenda” of “universal health care, public funding for childcare, paid family leave, and . . . the full range of economic justice issues, from the minimum wage to taxation policy to financial support for struggling families.”
If Johnsen is confirmed, OLC will be transformed from a source of non-ideological legal analysis to a culture-war agitator. And its value to the Department of Justice may be lost.
Meet Obama DOJ nominee Dawn Johnsen
NRO, Mar 3, 2009
Pregnancy provokes a welter of feelings, physical and emotional. But does anyone really think of pregnancy as slavery? Apparently so: Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, Pres. Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Yale-educated and ACLU-trained, Johnsen already has done one tour of duty at OLC. She spent nearly six years there during the Clinton administration (1993–98), the last two as acting chief. OLC, a critically important agency, is the administration’s lawyers’ lawyer. Staffed by graduates of top law schools who are then polished by elite judicial clerkships, it authoritatively interprets the law for the attorney general and, in doing so, drives administration legal policy. OLC’s credibility is derived from its reputation for apolitical, academic discipline — its commitment to informing policymakers of what the law is, rather than what staffers believe the law should be. Johnsen is, for that reason, a poor fit: She is an ideologue, and an unabashed one.
Her bizarre equation of pregnancy and slavery was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was her considered position in a 1989 brief filed in the Supreme Court. At the time, she was legal director of NARAL (then the National Abortion Rights Action League, since renamed NARAL Pro-Choice America). The case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, involved a Missouri law that did not ban abortion but restricted the use of state funds and resources for abortions. It’s an obvious distinction, but one without a difference — at least according to Johnsen. Any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is, in her view, tantamount to “involuntary servitude” because it “requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn].” In effect, a woman “is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.” Such “forced pregnancy,” she contends, violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery.
The Court rejected this farcical theory, just as it has rejected other instantiations of Johnsen’s extremism. On abortion and other issues dear to the Left, she is nothing short of a zealot. She insisted that, without government-provided abortion counseling, a large number of women would be left without “proper information about contraception.” This, she claimed, would mean they “cannot be said to have a meaningful opportunity to avoid pregnancy.” The usual rejoinder to such reasoning is that nobody is forcing these women to have sex. Johnsen sees it differently, writing that these “losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.”
In reputable private law offices and U.S. attorney’s offices throughout the country, adult supervision would prevent such a lunatic analogy from finding its way into a letter to a lower-court judge, much less into a Supreme Court brief. Obama, however, is proposing that Johnsen be the adult supervision at Justice. He would fill a position calling for dispassionate rigor with a crusader for whom strident excess is habitual.
For Johnsen, no impediment to abortion-on-demand passes muster: She opposes 24-hour waiting periods, parental-consent requirements for minors, and laws against partial-birth abortion. In 2007, when it upheld the partial-birth ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court clinically described the standard abortion procedure (i.e., the dismemberment and evacuation of the unborn child) to contrast it with the more barbaric partial-birth method. Johnsen’s reaction — voiced while proposing “A Progressive Agenda for Women’s Reproductive Health and Liberty” for the left-leaning American Constitution Society — was to complain that “every first-year law student’s constitutional law casebook” now contains “gruesome descriptions designed to make abortions sound like infanticide.” Moreover, as she declaimed in a 2006 op-ed opposing Samuel Alito’s confirmation, opposition to all restrictions on abortion — not just acceptance of Roe v. Wade — should be a litmus test for judicial nominees. “The notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable ‘compromise’ — perhaps to help make abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare,’” she wrote, “proves nonsensical.”
Johnsen’s other bête noire is national security — at least to the extent it involves detaining terrorists and enemy combatants as military opponents rather trying them as civilian criminal defendants. Her 2008 academic article “What’s a President to Do? Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of Bush Administration Abuses” gathers the Left’s full array of anti-war tropes and disguises them as legal analysis. There is the determination to ignore the terrorist attacks of the 1990s, such that the War on Terror is presented as something President Bush started after 9/11 rather than a years-long jihadist provocation to which the United States finally responded after 9/11. This framework would make it impossible to prosecute as war crimes such pre-9/11 atrocities as the bombings of the USS Cole and the embassies in East Africa. Johnsen further denigrates as an “extreme and implausible Commander-in-Chief theory” Bush’s rationale for warrantless surveillance of suspected al-Qaeda communications into and out of the United States. In fact, the practice was strongly supported by federal court precedent and has since been reaffirmed by the appellate court Congress created specifically to consider such issues. And Johnsen has recently written that the new administration “should order an immediate review to determine which detainees should be released and which transferred to secure facilities in the United States” for civilian trials.
It is especially galling to consider Johnsen’s smearing of John Yoo, the Cal-Berkeley law professor who, as a Bush OLC staffer, principally authored DOJ’s so-called torture memo. In contrast to Johnsen’s perversion of anti-slavery law to suit her abortion agenda, Yoo was not twisting the law to advocate torture. He was soberly attempting to construe a legal term, “severe . . . pain or suffering,” part of the statutory definition of torture that had not yet been interpreted by the courts. This is what OLC does: It struggles to understand the state of the law, irrespective of staffers’ predilections, so that policymakers can act in full awareness of their options. For this, Johnsen impugns not merely Yoo’s scholarship (“irresponsibly and dangerously false”) but also his good faith. She upbraids the Bush administration for its use of waterboarding to interrogate top al-Qaeda detainees, blithely presuming its illegality despite the complex questions surrounding that claim (including the fact that that Congress has declined to make waterboarding a war crime). Indifferent to the fact that our enemies train to resist known interrogation methods, Johnsen wants all tactics spelled out explicitly in advance.
Particularly rich is Johnsen’s diatribe against Bush’s purportedly outlandish claim of power to ignore statutes that encroach on executive authority. When Johnsen served in the Clinton administration (which invented extraordinary rendition, detained Cuban refugees without trial at Guantanamo Bay, conducted warrantless national-security searches, and attacked a foreign country without congressional authorization), OLC’s official position was that “the President has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency.” The office opined that several statutes (including privacy provisions in the federal wiretap law) could not bind the president, and Johnsen herself authored a 1997 OLC opinion concluding that presidents were above consumer-credit-disclosure laws. In that case, she broadly asserted that “statutes that do not expressly apply to the President must be construed as not applying to him if such application would involve a possible conflict with his constitutional prerogatives.”
A parallel hypocrisy is illustrated by Johnsen’s rants about how the Bush administration “politicized” the Justice Department. Her solution to this problem: Politicize the Justice Department. She argues that job applicants who may have been passed over by the Bush administration for holding leftist political views should get “special consideration” in DOJ hiring but, at the same time, maintains that nominees for the federal judiciary should be rejected out of hand if they embrace constitutional originalism or are members of the judicially conservative Federalist Society. Johnsen would also press the DOJ to advance the leftist agenda by having its Environment and Natural Resource Division “pursue innovative litigation and policy initiatives, such as the pressing issue of climate change.”
Johnsen’s attraction for Obama is obvious. The principal target of her Webster brief was the settled principle that the Constitution’s recognition of various fundamental rights (and the judicial invention of such “rights” as abortion) does not confer an entitlement to governmental aid to exercise those rights. For Johnsen, this is anathema, the denial of “economic justice” and thus of equal protection. “Economic justice,” a favorite Obama phrase, is the Left’s euphemism for the “redistributive change” Obama criticized the radical Warren Court for failing to embrace. Rather than the hoary construction of the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” one that says only what government “can’t do to you,” Obama urges a new bill of rights defining what government “must do on your behalf.”
In Dawn Johnsen’s dizzying jurisprudence, government has no business invading individual privacy and regulating abortion but is obliged to coerce taxpayers into underwriting abortions as a first step in what she unapologetically calls “the progressive agenda” of “universal health care, public funding for childcare, paid family leave, and . . . the full range of economic justice issues, from the minimum wage to taxation policy to financial support for struggling families.”
If Johnsen is confirmed, OLC will be transformed from a source of non-ideological legal analysis to a culture-war agitator. And its value to the Department of Justice may be lost.
Glover: The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand
Manchester Calling, by Chris Horner
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Here's Julian Glover in yesterday's Guardian on cap-and-trade:
The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand. The obvious way would be to cut the number of permits in circulation, but in a recession no government will be brave enough to do that. . . .
Like medieval pardoners handing out unlimited indulgences, governments have created a glut. Reformation must follow. Wanted — a modern Martin Luther to nail a shaming truth to industry's door: Europe's whizz-bang carbon market is turning sub-prime.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Here's Julian Glover in yesterday's Guardian on cap-and-trade:
The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand. The obvious way would be to cut the number of permits in circulation, but in a recession no government will be brave enough to do that. . . .
Like medieval pardoners handing out unlimited indulgences, governments have created a glut. Reformation must follow. Wanted — a modern Martin Luther to nail a shaming truth to industry's door: Europe's whizz-bang carbon market is turning sub-prime.
Center for Biological Diversity Declares Legal War on [Global Warming] U.S. Economy, Self-Governance
Center for Biological Diversity Declares Legal War on [Global Warming] U.S. Economy, Self-Governance, by Marlo Lewis
Planet Gore/NRO, Feb 24, 2009
The CBD, the folks who successfully petitioned and sued the Fish & Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), announced last week the opening of a new Climate Law Institute (CLI) that will “use existing laws and work to establish new state and federal laws that will eliminate energy generation by the burning of fossil fuels — particularly coal and oil shale.” CBD says it has dedicated an “initial $17 million” to the project.
As I noted in a previous post, Kassie Siegel (who will direct the CLI) made clear two years ago that she viewed the polar bear listing as a regulatory stepping stone to “halting” greenhouse-gas emissions. Specifically, she argued that Section 7 of the ESA should require federal agencies to reject applications for “new coal-fired power plants, oil shale leasing programs, limestone mines for cement manufacturing, and dozens perhaps hundreds of other projects [that] are individually and cumulatively having an appreciable effect on the atmosphere.” She also hinted that Section 9 of the ESA could prohibit private entities from combusting fossil fuels.
Last November, the CBD filed a notice of intent to sue EPA to set tougher pH standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to combat ocean acidification due to industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The accompanying press release makes no bones about the organization’s broader agenda: “stronger pH standards could translate into measures that regulate pollutants such as carbon dioxide.” Although the ESA and CWA may become significant fronts in the carbon litigation wars, the Clean Air Act (CAA) is currently the central battleground. Climate Czarina Carol Browner announced yesterday that EPA will soon issue an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases — the prerequisite to regulating greehouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles and stationary sources under various CAA provisions.
As explained here, here, and here, an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases would open a regulatory Pandora’s box. An estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and facilities would be vulnerable to new controls, paperwork, and penalties under the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Millions would be vulnerable to new paperwork and emissions fees under the Act’s Title V operating permits program. The endangerment finding could also set a precedent compelling EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases — standards America would likely fail to meet even if we shut down all U.S. factories, power plants, and automobiles. Through litigation under the CAA and other statutes, we could end up with Kyoto-on-Steroids without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it — and with nobody accountable to the electorate for the compliance burdens and economic fallout.
As you’d expect, EPA, in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), outlines several administrative remedies to limit the number of entities subject to regulation under PSD and Title V, and to avoid a NAAQS rulemaking for greenhouse gases. However, as explained in my ANPR comment, each of these devices involves a more or less brazen attempt by EPA to assume legislative power and amend the statute.
However you slice it, litigation-driven global-warming regulation threatens to short-circuit self-government and subvert the separation of powers. It is a constitutional crisis in the making.
Planet Gore/NRO, Feb 24, 2009
The CBD, the folks who successfully petitioned and sued the Fish & Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), announced last week the opening of a new Climate Law Institute (CLI) that will “use existing laws and work to establish new state and federal laws that will eliminate energy generation by the burning of fossil fuels — particularly coal and oil shale.” CBD says it has dedicated an “initial $17 million” to the project.
As I noted in a previous post, Kassie Siegel (who will direct the CLI) made clear two years ago that she viewed the polar bear listing as a regulatory stepping stone to “halting” greenhouse-gas emissions. Specifically, she argued that Section 7 of the ESA should require federal agencies to reject applications for “new coal-fired power plants, oil shale leasing programs, limestone mines for cement manufacturing, and dozens perhaps hundreds of other projects [that] are individually and cumulatively having an appreciable effect on the atmosphere.” She also hinted that Section 9 of the ESA could prohibit private entities from combusting fossil fuels.
Last November, the CBD filed a notice of intent to sue EPA to set tougher pH standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to combat ocean acidification due to industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The accompanying press release makes no bones about the organization’s broader agenda: “stronger pH standards could translate into measures that regulate pollutants such as carbon dioxide.” Although the ESA and CWA may become significant fronts in the carbon litigation wars, the Clean Air Act (CAA) is currently the central battleground. Climate Czarina Carol Browner announced yesterday that EPA will soon issue an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases — the prerequisite to regulating greehouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles and stationary sources under various CAA provisions.
As explained here, here, and here, an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases would open a regulatory Pandora’s box. An estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and facilities would be vulnerable to new controls, paperwork, and penalties under the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Millions would be vulnerable to new paperwork and emissions fees under the Act’s Title V operating permits program. The endangerment finding could also set a precedent compelling EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases — standards America would likely fail to meet even if we shut down all U.S. factories, power plants, and automobiles. Through litigation under the CAA and other statutes, we could end up with Kyoto-on-Steroids without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it — and with nobody accountable to the electorate for the compliance burdens and economic fallout.
As you’d expect, EPA, in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), outlines several administrative remedies to limit the number of entities subject to regulation under PSD and Title V, and to avoid a NAAQS rulemaking for greenhouse gases. However, as explained in my ANPR comment, each of these devices involves a more or less brazen attempt by EPA to assume legislative power and amend the statute.
However you slice it, litigation-driven global-warming regulation threatens to short-circuit self-government and subvert the separation of powers. It is a constitutional crisis in the making.
Industry Views: Energy development is the “ultimate shovel-ready project”
Industry views: Access to Affordable Energy Essential to Any Successful Economic Recovery Plan
IER reminds President, Congress that American energy development is the “ultimate shovel-ready project”
Institute for Energy Research, February 18, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Institute for Energy Research (IER) president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement this afternoon in advance of President Obama’s primetime address to Congress:
“President Obama’s plans to reboot our economy must include the responsible development of our massive and homegrown energy resource base. If we allow the private sector to explore for and produce American energy for American consumers, we open the door to millions of new jobs, billions in new revenue for the taxpayer, and the very real prospect of breaking our dangerous dependence on Middle East oil—all things we desperately need right now.
“American energy resource development is the ultimate shovel-ready project. The energy far off our coasts and deep underneath our feet not only can fuel our cars and heat our homes, it can also help power the engine of our economic recovery—without writing more checks that the Treasury can’t cash. If the President wants to create a responsible plan to recapture American prosperity, he will recognize the importance of American energy production.”
IER reminds President, Congress that American energy development is the “ultimate shovel-ready project”
Institute for Energy Research, February 18, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Institute for Energy Research (IER) president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement this afternoon in advance of President Obama’s primetime address to Congress:
“President Obama’s plans to reboot our economy must include the responsible development of our massive and homegrown energy resource base. If we allow the private sector to explore for and produce American energy for American consumers, we open the door to millions of new jobs, billions in new revenue for the taxpayer, and the very real prospect of breaking our dangerous dependence on Middle East oil—all things we desperately need right now.
“American energy resource development is the ultimate shovel-ready project. The energy far off our coasts and deep underneath our feet not only can fuel our cars and heat our homes, it can also help power the engine of our economic recovery—without writing more checks that the Treasury can’t cash. If the President wants to create a responsible plan to recapture American prosperity, he will recognize the importance of American energy production.”
James Q. Wilson reviews The Art Instinct, by Denis Dutton
The Evolution of Art. By James Q. Wilson
James Q. Wilson reviews The Art Instinct, by Denis Dutton.
AEI, Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Art suffuses our lives. Whether it's bluegrass, heavy metal, Frank Sinatra or Mozart, music moves us all. On a trip to a foreign city, visiting an art museum is a mandatory exercise. Imaginative writing affects many of us, though--alas--with decreasing frequency.
Why should art be important? Being seen as an "art lover" may increase our status, but otherwise art is not useful. Yet art has been part of the human experience since Paleolithic man painted on the walls of caves in Lascaux, France, and Altamira, Spain, more than 30,000 years ago. Art preceded cities, agriculture and writing.
Denis Dutton, an art professor in New Zealand, has proposed a bold new explanation. He argues that humankind's universal interest in art is the result of human evolution. We enjoy sex, grasp facial expressions, understand logic and spontaneously acquire language--all of which make it easier for us to survive and produce children. In "The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution," Dutton contends that an interest in art belongs on this list of evolutionary adaptations.
In making his case, Dutton has to refute the late Stephen Jay Gould's argument that human culture is a socially formed byproduct of our large brains. Dutton easily overcomes this argument by pointing out how many "byproducts"--such as a spoken language--have given humans a huge evolutionary gain. But he must still explain why an interest in art gives us an edge. This is no easy task. Just because many people have a trait does not mean that it confers an evolutionary advantage. I like the Boston Red Sox, but I doubt that preference was genetically passed on to my children. (Happily, they became Sox fans anyway.)
Drawing on Charles Darwin's second great book, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Dutton argues that art, like broad shoulders in a man and a narrow waist in a woman, facilitates seduction. We tell stories, sing songs, invent tales, recount jokes and draw pictures in order to find a mate and, having found one, produce children. We value art because, Dutton claims, it may be made of rare and valuable materials and require much skill to produce. People value wealth and skill in choosing a mate. We can add to Dutton's argument the fact that when 3-month-old infants are shown pictures of women who had been rated by adults as either attractive or unattractive, the babies looked much longer at the attractive ones.
This is a stimulating but not entirely satisfactory argument. Some forms of art may have evolutionary explanations that do not involve sexual selection, and some forms of beauty may not be linked to art at all. Take music: we can imagine men and women singing to one another for sexual reasons, but we can also imagine music being used to induce sleep, energize an army, or identify friends and enemies.
Or painting: zoologist Desmond Morris and others have encouraged chimpanzees to paint. Some of their works were hung in museums, without being labeled as the work of chimps, and they received much acclaim. Did these animals paint to lure sexual partners? It seems unlikely. Likewise, the cave paintings done 30 millennia ago probably had no connection with romance (many were done in remote parts of caves in which no one lived) and may have been produced by shamans for religious purposes.
And we may value beauty even when no human has produced it. Anthropologists have shown that people in many cultures value views of the seashore, a sunset or a mountain peak much more than they like flat ground or hot sun. We have been born with a love for certain kinds of beauty that in turn influences how we react to music, painting and literature.
Dutton recognizes these limitations to his explanation of why art has persisted. His love of music, he notes, cannot be confined to its role in sexual communication; as a child he was entranced (as was I) with Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, long before he had the faintest interest in girls. Moreover, art, especially music and poetry, helps us see into the human personality. When I dated the girl who later became my wife, we went off to dance to Tommy Dorsey. That certainly involved sexual selection. But that cannot explain why every year we attend a Mozart opera. As with everyone else, we value beauty even though we define it differently from people who enjoy the Sex Pistols.
Evolution has, without any doubt, left people with an appreciation for both natural and man-made beauty, but sexual selection explains, I think, only a small part of the reason. But read Dutton's book: his masterful knowledge of art and his compelling prose make it a thing of beauty.
James Q. Wilson is chairman of the Council of Academic Advisers at AEI.
James Q. Wilson reviews The Art Instinct, by Denis Dutton.
AEI, Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Art suffuses our lives. Whether it's bluegrass, heavy metal, Frank Sinatra or Mozart, music moves us all. On a trip to a foreign city, visiting an art museum is a mandatory exercise. Imaginative writing affects many of us, though--alas--with decreasing frequency.
Why should art be important? Being seen as an "art lover" may increase our status, but otherwise art is not useful. Yet art has been part of the human experience since Paleolithic man painted on the walls of caves in Lascaux, France, and Altamira, Spain, more than 30,000 years ago. Art preceded cities, agriculture and writing.
Denis Dutton, an art professor in New Zealand, has proposed a bold new explanation. He argues that humankind's universal interest in art is the result of human evolution. We enjoy sex, grasp facial expressions, understand logic and spontaneously acquire language--all of which make it easier for us to survive and produce children. In "The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution," Dutton contends that an interest in art belongs on this list of evolutionary adaptations.
In making his case, Dutton has to refute the late Stephen Jay Gould's argument that human culture is a socially formed byproduct of our large brains. Dutton easily overcomes this argument by pointing out how many "byproducts"--such as a spoken language--have given humans a huge evolutionary gain. But he must still explain why an interest in art gives us an edge. This is no easy task. Just because many people have a trait does not mean that it confers an evolutionary advantage. I like the Boston Red Sox, but I doubt that preference was genetically passed on to my children. (Happily, they became Sox fans anyway.)
Drawing on Charles Darwin's second great book, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Dutton argues that art, like broad shoulders in a man and a narrow waist in a woman, facilitates seduction. We tell stories, sing songs, invent tales, recount jokes and draw pictures in order to find a mate and, having found one, produce children. We value art because, Dutton claims, it may be made of rare and valuable materials and require much skill to produce. People value wealth and skill in choosing a mate. We can add to Dutton's argument the fact that when 3-month-old infants are shown pictures of women who had been rated by adults as either attractive or unattractive, the babies looked much longer at the attractive ones.
This is a stimulating but not entirely satisfactory argument. Some forms of art may have evolutionary explanations that do not involve sexual selection, and some forms of beauty may not be linked to art at all. Take music: we can imagine men and women singing to one another for sexual reasons, but we can also imagine music being used to induce sleep, energize an army, or identify friends and enemies.
Or painting: zoologist Desmond Morris and others have encouraged chimpanzees to paint. Some of their works were hung in museums, without being labeled as the work of chimps, and they received much acclaim. Did these animals paint to lure sexual partners? It seems unlikely. Likewise, the cave paintings done 30 millennia ago probably had no connection with romance (many were done in remote parts of caves in which no one lived) and may have been produced by shamans for religious purposes.
And we may value beauty even when no human has produced it. Anthropologists have shown that people in many cultures value views of the seashore, a sunset or a mountain peak much more than they like flat ground or hot sun. We have been born with a love for certain kinds of beauty that in turn influences how we react to music, painting and literature.
Dutton recognizes these limitations to his explanation of why art has persisted. His love of music, he notes, cannot be confined to its role in sexual communication; as a child he was entranced (as was I) with Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, long before he had the faintest interest in girls. Moreover, art, especially music and poetry, helps us see into the human personality. When I dated the girl who later became my wife, we went off to dance to Tommy Dorsey. That certainly involved sexual selection. But that cannot explain why every year we attend a Mozart opera. As with everyone else, we value beauty even though we define it differently from people who enjoy the Sex Pistols.
Evolution has, without any doubt, left people with an appreciation for both natural and man-made beauty, but sexual selection explains, I think, only a small part of the reason. But read Dutton's book: his masterful knowledge of art and his compelling prose make it a thing of beauty.
James Q. Wilson is chairman of the Council of Academic Advisers at AEI.
A.Q. Khan’s Acquittal
A.Q. Khan’s Acquittal. By A. Vinod Kumar
IDSA, February 20, 2009
Though anticipated, the timing of the Islamabad High Court’s verdict to release disgraced nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest has surprised many, since it came days before the first ever visit by Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Zardari government has tried to play safe by citing this as a decision taken by an ‘independent’ judiciary. Such arguments are, however, unlikely to find many takers. To mollify international opinion, which surprisingly has not been as forceful as expected, Islamabad has indicated the option of appealing against the verdict. However, a government which has dilly-dallied on fixing responsibility over the Mumbai attack despite evidence of involvement of Pakistan-based groups, is unlikely to seriously attempt to block Khan's release.
However, Khan’s release itself could have been masterminded by the Zardari government. There are many reasons to support this postulation. First, it could be a direct message to Holbrooke, and to Obama, that Pakistan would be assertive in its policies despite US pressure. Besides sustaining the defiance by General Musharraf on Washington’s demand to hand over Khan for interrogation, President Zardari could have wanted to project his authority and political independence through Khan’s release.
The presumptive spin-offs are many. It could be a message to the Pakistan Army on the gradual assertion of civilian (read PPP) power. Khan, a revered man in Pakistan, had been critical of General Musharraf and the Army for incarcerating him after a forced confession. Though Musharraf had pardoned Khan for his deeds, the disgraced scientist had responded to the court verdict by saying that “god had already punished Musharraf as he can’t now freely come out”. By blaming Musharraf and the Army authorities for his forced confession, Khan had struck a chord with major political parties, which had demanded his release in the run up to the general elections. The day might not be far when Khan makes a foray into politics, aspiring to assume a political or constitutional position. As for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government, Khan’s acquittal meant correcting a wrong done by Musharraf, and thus implicitly the Army. Once US pressure eases, the PPP could try to gain political mileage for ‘freeing’ Khan from prolonged incarceration. It would also be an opportunity for the Party to remove the slur of September 2007, when the late Benazir Bhutto declared in Washington that she would hand over Khan to the IAEA if returned to power.
Such domestic dimensions notwithstanding, the actual motive behind Khan’s acquittal could be political posturing towards Washington. Islamabad has consistently invoked red herrings when pressure is mounted by the US on taking action against extremist elements within Pakistan. As a special envoy on Pakistan-Afghanistan, Holbrooke had the specific task of extracting Pakistan’s commitment in dealing with the Taliban both inside Afghanistan as well as against those groups that are controlling major parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Regions (FATA).
Far from supporting US operations in the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands, Islamabad has resisted efforts by American forces to launch frontal attacks against militant groups in FATA, which has become a launch pad for the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan. With Obama’s assertion that Pakistan has to be accountable for its actions against such groups, Holbrooke had the clear task of pushing Islamabad to the wall. By releasing Khan a few days before his visit with little heed for international retribution, Islamabad has signalled to Washington its determination to take decisions according to its choice. Islamabad might have felt that such assertiveness could impart it with greater leverage during negotiations with the special envoy. That Washington was floored by the Khan coup was manifested in the anti-climactic conclusion to the much-hyped first visit by Holbrooke. But for a visit to the tribal areas and reported assurances by the Pakistan government on monitoring Khan’s movements, there was little that Holbrooke could achieve in his first outing. Rather, within hours of his return to Washington, Islamabad had agreed on a truce with pro-Taliban elements in the Swat Valley. This is not just a setback to the Obama administration, but actually an affront to Holbrooke.
Earlier, on the sidelines of the Munich Conference, US Deputy Secretary James Steinberg was given a verbal assurance by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi that Khan’s release would not pose a proliferation risk. Incidentally, President Obama has also maintained a discreet silence while allowing his junior officials to communicate with Pakistan on the implications of Khan’s release. Even in his phone conversation with President Zardari on February 12, Obama was not reported to have referred to Khan’s acquittal. While not wanting to let the Khan episode dilute the pressure on Pakistan’s commitment to the war on terror and anti-Taliban campaigns, an obvious reason for de-emphasising Khan’s release would be the strongly held belief that Khan no longer has the wherewithal to run a proliferation network. Further, heightened monitoring of his activities after his release could restrict him from reviving his old proliferation links.
However, not many are ready to buy such assurances as it is felt in some quarters that Khan’s network functioned with the full backing of the Pakistan Army, which can continue to use Khan through other avenues. Also, the fact that Khan’s accomplices had earlier established contact with al Qaeda is a cause for worry. Further, Khan’s potential metamorphosis into a political leader would have ominous consequences, especially if he favours an extreme right orientation. Another puzzling factor to be discerned is whether the Army had any role at all in Khan’s acquittal, despite his pronouncements against the Army.
Nevertheless, Khan’s release could come with high costs. With the infamy of being a dangerous state which hosts both terror groups as well as nuclear proliferators, Pakistan could come under immense international pressure and monitoring as more countries begin to express apprehensions on Khan’s release. Obama could be forced by the powerful US non-proliferation lobby to tighten the tab on Pakistan’s nuclear assets. For that matter, concerns over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets have dominated the non-proliferation discourse in the US, especially in the Congress, where it is strongly felt that the Zardari government is a lame duck when it comes to handling nuclear weapons. Consequently, Khan in a political garb would be a bigger nightmare for Western capitals than his modest life as an extraordinary ex-scientist in pursuit of ‘altruist’ evangelism.
A Vinod Kumar is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
IDSA, February 20, 2009
Though anticipated, the timing of the Islamabad High Court’s verdict to release disgraced nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest has surprised many, since it came days before the first ever visit by Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Zardari government has tried to play safe by citing this as a decision taken by an ‘independent’ judiciary. Such arguments are, however, unlikely to find many takers. To mollify international opinion, which surprisingly has not been as forceful as expected, Islamabad has indicated the option of appealing against the verdict. However, a government which has dilly-dallied on fixing responsibility over the Mumbai attack despite evidence of involvement of Pakistan-based groups, is unlikely to seriously attempt to block Khan's release.
However, Khan’s release itself could have been masterminded by the Zardari government. There are many reasons to support this postulation. First, it could be a direct message to Holbrooke, and to Obama, that Pakistan would be assertive in its policies despite US pressure. Besides sustaining the defiance by General Musharraf on Washington’s demand to hand over Khan for interrogation, President Zardari could have wanted to project his authority and political independence through Khan’s release.
The presumptive spin-offs are many. It could be a message to the Pakistan Army on the gradual assertion of civilian (read PPP) power. Khan, a revered man in Pakistan, had been critical of General Musharraf and the Army for incarcerating him after a forced confession. Though Musharraf had pardoned Khan for his deeds, the disgraced scientist had responded to the court verdict by saying that “god had already punished Musharraf as he can’t now freely come out”. By blaming Musharraf and the Army authorities for his forced confession, Khan had struck a chord with major political parties, which had demanded his release in the run up to the general elections. The day might not be far when Khan makes a foray into politics, aspiring to assume a political or constitutional position. As for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government, Khan’s acquittal meant correcting a wrong done by Musharraf, and thus implicitly the Army. Once US pressure eases, the PPP could try to gain political mileage for ‘freeing’ Khan from prolonged incarceration. It would also be an opportunity for the Party to remove the slur of September 2007, when the late Benazir Bhutto declared in Washington that she would hand over Khan to the IAEA if returned to power.
Such domestic dimensions notwithstanding, the actual motive behind Khan’s acquittal could be political posturing towards Washington. Islamabad has consistently invoked red herrings when pressure is mounted by the US on taking action against extremist elements within Pakistan. As a special envoy on Pakistan-Afghanistan, Holbrooke had the specific task of extracting Pakistan’s commitment in dealing with the Taliban both inside Afghanistan as well as against those groups that are controlling major parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Regions (FATA).
Far from supporting US operations in the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands, Islamabad has resisted efforts by American forces to launch frontal attacks against militant groups in FATA, which has become a launch pad for the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan. With Obama’s assertion that Pakistan has to be accountable for its actions against such groups, Holbrooke had the clear task of pushing Islamabad to the wall. By releasing Khan a few days before his visit with little heed for international retribution, Islamabad has signalled to Washington its determination to take decisions according to its choice. Islamabad might have felt that such assertiveness could impart it with greater leverage during negotiations with the special envoy. That Washington was floored by the Khan coup was manifested in the anti-climactic conclusion to the much-hyped first visit by Holbrooke. But for a visit to the tribal areas and reported assurances by the Pakistan government on monitoring Khan’s movements, there was little that Holbrooke could achieve in his first outing. Rather, within hours of his return to Washington, Islamabad had agreed on a truce with pro-Taliban elements in the Swat Valley. This is not just a setback to the Obama administration, but actually an affront to Holbrooke.
Earlier, on the sidelines of the Munich Conference, US Deputy Secretary James Steinberg was given a verbal assurance by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi that Khan’s release would not pose a proliferation risk. Incidentally, President Obama has also maintained a discreet silence while allowing his junior officials to communicate with Pakistan on the implications of Khan’s release. Even in his phone conversation with President Zardari on February 12, Obama was not reported to have referred to Khan’s acquittal. While not wanting to let the Khan episode dilute the pressure on Pakistan’s commitment to the war on terror and anti-Taliban campaigns, an obvious reason for de-emphasising Khan’s release would be the strongly held belief that Khan no longer has the wherewithal to run a proliferation network. Further, heightened monitoring of his activities after his release could restrict him from reviving his old proliferation links.
However, not many are ready to buy such assurances as it is felt in some quarters that Khan’s network functioned with the full backing of the Pakistan Army, which can continue to use Khan through other avenues. Also, the fact that Khan’s accomplices had earlier established contact with al Qaeda is a cause for worry. Further, Khan’s potential metamorphosis into a political leader would have ominous consequences, especially if he favours an extreme right orientation. Another puzzling factor to be discerned is whether the Army had any role at all in Khan’s acquittal, despite his pronouncements against the Army.
Nevertheless, Khan’s release could come with high costs. With the infamy of being a dangerous state which hosts both terror groups as well as nuclear proliferators, Pakistan could come under immense international pressure and monitoring as more countries begin to express apprehensions on Khan’s release. Obama could be forced by the powerful US non-proliferation lobby to tighten the tab on Pakistan’s nuclear assets. For that matter, concerns over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets have dominated the non-proliferation discourse in the US, especially in the Congress, where it is strongly felt that the Zardari government is a lame duck when it comes to handling nuclear weapons. Consequently, Khan in a political garb would be a bigger nightmare for Western capitals than his modest life as an extraordinary ex-scientist in pursuit of ‘altruist’ evangelism.
A Vinod Kumar is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
Obama Should Reconsider Militaristic Approach in Afghanistan
Obama Should Reconsider Militaristic Approach in Afghanistan. By Amitabh Pal
The Progressive, February 19, 2009
President Obama seems to have opted for a military strategy to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. He needs to reconsider.
With his announcement this week that he is sending 17,000 more U.S. troops to that country, he seems for the moment to have committed himself to a force-based approach, notwithstanding his disclaimer that he’s “absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means.” The Obama Administration has apparently given up on bringing about development and democracy in Afghanistan, as evidenced by two recent pronouncements. Defense Secretary Bob Gates told Congress, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose,” while Obama himself opined that, “We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy.”
But the United States hasn’t even truly tried. As the New Internationalist points out, Afghanistan has received just a fraction of the aid per capita that countries like Bosnia and East Timor obtained in the aftermath of their destruction, and military spending in the country is many times the amount disbursed as developmental assistance.
By opting for a military-first approach, Obama has troubled many of his allies and indeed some within his own party. Among them is a person who previously held Obama’s job, and another who narrowly missed in his bid to be Obama’s predecessor.
“I would disagree with Obama as far as a surge that would lead to a more intense bombing of Afghan villages and centers and a heavy dependence on military,” Jimmy Carter told Amy Goodman. “I would like to see us reach out more, to be accommodating, and negotiate with all of the factions in Afghanistan.”
“Our military commitment must be matched with realistic goals, beginning with a comprehensive new bottom-up strategy acknowledging Afghanistan's history of decentralized governance and recognizing the capabilities of our NATO and Afghan allies,” writes John Kerry in the Washington Post.
A number of progressive organizations are also disagreeing with Obama, and not just in the United States. When Professor Lisa Schirch of Eastern Mennonite University contacted Afghan civil society leaders, they told her that “a troop surge alone will result in more civilian casualties, more village raids, further alienation of the local population and growing local resistance to foreign troops,” and that “the Taliban could use a troop surge as an opportunity to recruit local people to their cause.”
The dangers of an approach dependent so heavily on the military are very readily apparent. A U.N. report released earlier this week provides solid evidence. Last year set a record for civilian deaths in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. While the Taliban were responsible for more than half of the casualties, pro-government forces (U.S., NATO and Afghan troops) were responsible for two-fifths. The most infamous incident was last August, when an American air attack killed perhaps 90 civilians, leading to a harsh denunciation by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a supposed American ally.
“Civilian deaths have become a political flash point in Afghanistan, eroding public support for the war and inflaming tensions with President Hamid Karzai, who has bitterly condemned the American-led coalition for the rising toll,” a New York Times piece reports. “President Obama’s decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan raises the prospect of even more casualties.”
The funny thing is that a man as smart as Obama should know that the Taliban resurgence is in good part due to two reasons that no amount of additional troops can solve: the malfeasance of the Karzai government, and the shelter given to the Taliban leadership by the Pakistani security apparatus.
U.S. officials have apparently linked Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali, to the drug trade. And U.S. exasperation at the corruption in the Afghan government is so intense that Senator Joe Biden last February walked out of a dinner with Karzai when the latter kept professing innocence.
Besides, much of the Taliban leadership is out of reach of U.S. forces, safely holed up as it is in Quetta, the capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. You see, many in the Pakistani intelligence network still regard the Taliban as a bulwark against Indian influence, since Karzai is friendly with India. Among the Taliban menagerie ensconced in the provincial capital is reportedly the organization’s dreaded leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
“Taliban leader Mullah Omar is living in Pakistan under the protection of its ISI intelligence agency, a captured Taliban spokesman has said,” the BBC reported in January of 2007.
A much better strategy for Afghanistan, it seems, would be for Obama to heavily lean on his buddies in Kabul and Islamabad, plus to apply a heavy dollop of nation-building to the country. But for now, alas, Obama seems to be going in a different direction.
The Progressive, February 19, 2009
President Obama seems to have opted for a military strategy to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. He needs to reconsider.
With his announcement this week that he is sending 17,000 more U.S. troops to that country, he seems for the moment to have committed himself to a force-based approach, notwithstanding his disclaimer that he’s “absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means.” The Obama Administration has apparently given up on bringing about development and democracy in Afghanistan, as evidenced by two recent pronouncements. Defense Secretary Bob Gates told Congress, “If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose,” while Obama himself opined that, “We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy.”
But the United States hasn’t even truly tried. As the New Internationalist points out, Afghanistan has received just a fraction of the aid per capita that countries like Bosnia and East Timor obtained in the aftermath of their destruction, and military spending in the country is many times the amount disbursed as developmental assistance.
By opting for a military-first approach, Obama has troubled many of his allies and indeed some within his own party. Among them is a person who previously held Obama’s job, and another who narrowly missed in his bid to be Obama’s predecessor.
“I would disagree with Obama as far as a surge that would lead to a more intense bombing of Afghan villages and centers and a heavy dependence on military,” Jimmy Carter told Amy Goodman. “I would like to see us reach out more, to be accommodating, and negotiate with all of the factions in Afghanistan.”
“Our military commitment must be matched with realistic goals, beginning with a comprehensive new bottom-up strategy acknowledging Afghanistan's history of decentralized governance and recognizing the capabilities of our NATO and Afghan allies,” writes John Kerry in the Washington Post.
A number of progressive organizations are also disagreeing with Obama, and not just in the United States. When Professor Lisa Schirch of Eastern Mennonite University contacted Afghan civil society leaders, they told her that “a troop surge alone will result in more civilian casualties, more village raids, further alienation of the local population and growing local resistance to foreign troops,” and that “the Taliban could use a troop surge as an opportunity to recruit local people to their cause.”
The dangers of an approach dependent so heavily on the military are very readily apparent. A U.N. report released earlier this week provides solid evidence. Last year set a record for civilian deaths in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. While the Taliban were responsible for more than half of the casualties, pro-government forces (U.S., NATO and Afghan troops) were responsible for two-fifths. The most infamous incident was last August, when an American air attack killed perhaps 90 civilians, leading to a harsh denunciation by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a supposed American ally.
“Civilian deaths have become a political flash point in Afghanistan, eroding public support for the war and inflaming tensions with President Hamid Karzai, who has bitterly condemned the American-led coalition for the rising toll,” a New York Times piece reports. “President Obama’s decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan raises the prospect of even more casualties.”
The funny thing is that a man as smart as Obama should know that the Taliban resurgence is in good part due to two reasons that no amount of additional troops can solve: the malfeasance of the Karzai government, and the shelter given to the Taliban leadership by the Pakistani security apparatus.
U.S. officials have apparently linked Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali, to the drug trade. And U.S. exasperation at the corruption in the Afghan government is so intense that Senator Joe Biden last February walked out of a dinner with Karzai when the latter kept professing innocence.
Besides, much of the Taliban leadership is out of reach of U.S. forces, safely holed up as it is in Quetta, the capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. You see, many in the Pakistani intelligence network still regard the Taliban as a bulwark against Indian influence, since Karzai is friendly with India. Among the Taliban menagerie ensconced in the provincial capital is reportedly the organization’s dreaded leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
“Taliban leader Mullah Omar is living in Pakistan under the protection of its ISI intelligence agency, a captured Taliban spokesman has said,” the BBC reported in January of 2007.
A much better strategy for Afghanistan, it seems, would be for Obama to heavily lean on his buddies in Kabul and Islamabad, plus to apply a heavy dollop of nation-building to the country. But for now, alas, Obama seems to be going in a different direction.
Social networks and the military
. . . and Connections, by Fred Schwarz
The Tank/NRO, Friday, February 20, 2009
In the Digital Age, military forces are struggling, as they have since the Bronze Age, to circulate information efficiently among themselves without cluing the enemy in as well. Strategy Page reports that, ostensibly for security reasons, the British Army recently tried to bar its soldiers from blogging, posting comments on websites, using social-networking sites, and playing on-line games. The Brit brass quickly learned that this particular horse left the barn long ago, as a virtual mutiny among the troops led to a quick withdrawal of the order.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is finding ways to take advantage of modern information technology while addressing legitimate secrecy concerns:
The military got into the act by establishing official message boards, for military personnel only, where useful information could be discussed and exchanged. All this rapid information sharing has had an enormous impact on the effectiveness of the troops, something that has largely gone unnoticed by the mass media.
. . . Most junior officers grew up with the Internet, and many of the older ones were using the Internet before it became popularized in the 1990s. Even the generals of today, have experience with PCs when they were young, so have no trouble getting into this new form of communication. The military is eagerly building a "battlefield Internet" for use during combat, and parts of this are up and running and heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So information technology, properly used, can promote intra-military communication and keep it from going extra-military. At Counterterrorism Blog, Roderick Jones discusses another part of the communications revolution: Twitter, and how it promotes communication between the military and the public, with benefits for both.
Twitter emerged as a powerful networked communications platform during the Mumbai terrorist attacks, when a stream of tweets marked #Mumbai (# being the global tagging system Twitter employs) gave a seemingly real-time commentary on events as they unfolded in Mumbai. Similarly, Twitter has been used to communicate the message and activity surrounding the riots in Greece using the #Griot tag. These are examples of the network effect working with a rapid communications platform and developing a powerful narrative from many different observation points. The style is anarchic but increasingly compelling. . . . Twitter in conjunction with other tools, continues the trend of making ordinary citizens active producers of potentially actionable intelligence.
While the potential remains for accidental disclosures of sensitive information, on the whole, Jones writes, Twitter has already shown itself to be a valuable tool “in the National Security space.”
02/20 05:13 PM
The Tank/NRO, Friday, February 20, 2009
In the Digital Age, military forces are struggling, as they have since the Bronze Age, to circulate information efficiently among themselves without cluing the enemy in as well. Strategy Page reports that, ostensibly for security reasons, the British Army recently tried to bar its soldiers from blogging, posting comments on websites, using social-networking sites, and playing on-line games. The Brit brass quickly learned that this particular horse left the barn long ago, as a virtual mutiny among the troops led to a quick withdrawal of the order.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is finding ways to take advantage of modern information technology while addressing legitimate secrecy concerns:
The military got into the act by establishing official message boards, for military personnel only, where useful information could be discussed and exchanged. All this rapid information sharing has had an enormous impact on the effectiveness of the troops, something that has largely gone unnoticed by the mass media.
. . . Most junior officers grew up with the Internet, and many of the older ones were using the Internet before it became popularized in the 1990s. Even the generals of today, have experience with PCs when they were young, so have no trouble getting into this new form of communication. The military is eagerly building a "battlefield Internet" for use during combat, and parts of this are up and running and heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So information technology, properly used, can promote intra-military communication and keep it from going extra-military. At Counterterrorism Blog, Roderick Jones discusses another part of the communications revolution: Twitter, and how it promotes communication between the military and the public, with benefits for both.
Twitter emerged as a powerful networked communications platform during the Mumbai terrorist attacks, when a stream of tweets marked #Mumbai (# being the global tagging system Twitter employs) gave a seemingly real-time commentary on events as they unfolded in Mumbai. Similarly, Twitter has been used to communicate the message and activity surrounding the riots in Greece using the #Griot tag. These are examples of the network effect working with a rapid communications platform and developing a powerful narrative from many different observation points. The style is anarchic but increasingly compelling. . . . Twitter in conjunction with other tools, continues the trend of making ordinary citizens active producers of potentially actionable intelligence.
While the potential remains for accidental disclosures of sensitive information, on the whole, Jones writes, Twitter has already shown itself to be a valuable tool “in the National Security space.”
02/20 05:13 PM
Report: Italy's crime is the nation’s No. 1 business
Italian Mob Revenue Surges to $167 Billion From 2007. By Flavia Krause-Jackson
Bloomberg, Jan. 30, 2009
Revenue raked in by Italy’s mob surged 40 percent last year, turning crime into the nation’s No. 1 business, Eurispes said in its annual report.
Income increased to 130 billion euros ($167 billion), up from about 90 billion euros in 2007, according to figures supplied by Eurispes and SOS Impresa, an association of businessmen to protest against extortion. Drug trafficking remains the primary source of revenue, bringing in about 59 billion euros, and the mob earned 5.8 billion euros from selling arms, the Rome-based Eurispes research group said today.
“During a crisis, people lower their guard,” Roberto Saviano, who wrote the bestseller “Gomorrah” about the Camorra crime bosses, said in an interview. “Studies show the criminal market never suffers during a crisis. I’m convinced that this crisis is bringing huge advantages to criminal syndicates.”
Organized crime groups siphon 92 billion euros, about 6 percent of Italy’s gross domestic product, from Italian businesses a year through protection payments, usurious interest rates on loans and other forms of extortion, Eurispes estimates. That works out to 250 million euros a day and 10 million euros an hour, Eurispes said. Italians are struggling to make mortgage payments and support their families as the worst recession since 1975 threatens jobs and makes banks more reluctant lenders.
“With people more desperate, loan sharks thrive,” Amedeo Vitagliano, an Italian crime expert at Eurispses, said in a telephone interview. “While the country is on its knees, the mob rejoices.”
Tide Turning?
There are signs that the tide could turn against the mob. Italy’s biggest employers’ group, Confindustria, a year ago took its strongest stance against organized crime in its 98-year history, announcing that any members found to have paid the Sicilian Cosa Nostra an extortion payment, known as the “pizzo,” would be expelled. Still, when the new rule was announced, only five members of the association admitted having received mob threats.
The country’s main criminal syndicates are the Mafia in Sicily, the Camorra based around Naples and the ‘Ndrangheta that operates from Calabria, the region located at Italy’s southern toe.
Eurispes estimates that the Italian authorities confiscated 5.2 billion euros in assets from the mob last year. The Camorra had 2.9 billion euros seized, the report says. The Sicilian Mafia had 1.4 billion euros sequestered and ‘Ndrangheta, 231 million euros, Eurispes said.
Bloomberg, Jan. 30, 2009
Revenue raked in by Italy’s mob surged 40 percent last year, turning crime into the nation’s No. 1 business, Eurispes said in its annual report.
Income increased to 130 billion euros ($167 billion), up from about 90 billion euros in 2007, according to figures supplied by Eurispes and SOS Impresa, an association of businessmen to protest against extortion. Drug trafficking remains the primary source of revenue, bringing in about 59 billion euros, and the mob earned 5.8 billion euros from selling arms, the Rome-based Eurispes research group said today.
“During a crisis, people lower their guard,” Roberto Saviano, who wrote the bestseller “Gomorrah” about the Camorra crime bosses, said in an interview. “Studies show the criminal market never suffers during a crisis. I’m convinced that this crisis is bringing huge advantages to criminal syndicates.”
Organized crime groups siphon 92 billion euros, about 6 percent of Italy’s gross domestic product, from Italian businesses a year through protection payments, usurious interest rates on loans and other forms of extortion, Eurispes estimates. That works out to 250 million euros a day and 10 million euros an hour, Eurispes said. Italians are struggling to make mortgage payments and support their families as the worst recession since 1975 threatens jobs and makes banks more reluctant lenders.
“With people more desperate, loan sharks thrive,” Amedeo Vitagliano, an Italian crime expert at Eurispses, said in a telephone interview. “While the country is on its knees, the mob rejoices.”
Tide Turning?
There are signs that the tide could turn against the mob. Italy’s biggest employers’ group, Confindustria, a year ago took its strongest stance against organized crime in its 98-year history, announcing that any members found to have paid the Sicilian Cosa Nostra an extortion payment, known as the “pizzo,” would be expelled. Still, when the new rule was announced, only five members of the association admitted having received mob threats.
The country’s main criminal syndicates are the Mafia in Sicily, the Camorra based around Naples and the ‘Ndrangheta that operates from Calabria, the region located at Italy’s southern toe.
Eurispes estimates that the Italian authorities confiscated 5.2 billion euros in assets from the mob last year. The Camorra had 2.9 billion euros seized, the report says. The Sicilian Mafia had 1.4 billion euros sequestered and ‘Ndrangheta, 231 million euros, Eurispes said.
Monday, February 23, 2009
U.S. Welcomes Mauritanian President's Proposed Dialogue
U.S. Welcomes Mauritanian President's Proposed Dialogue. By Robert Wood
Acting Department Spokesman, US State Dept, Washington, DC, February 23, 2009
The United States welcomes the proposal made by President Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheick Abdallahi to the International Contact Group that met in Paris on February 20, 2009 to discuss Mauritania. President Abdallahi proposed a dialogue that will develop a consensual and lasting solution predicated on restoring the President's constitutional functions, an honorable exit for the members of the junta, and early and transparent presidential and legislative elections. President Abdallahi's initiative conforms fully with the demands of the international community and offers an inclusive and democratic basis for a durable resolution of the current crisis. We call upon the people of Mauritania, as well as their international partners, to seize this opportunity to restore constitutional order and to end political paralysis and international estrangement.
PRN: 2009/142
Acting Department Spokesman, US State Dept, Washington, DC, February 23, 2009
The United States welcomes the proposal made by President Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheick Abdallahi to the International Contact Group that met in Paris on February 20, 2009 to discuss Mauritania. President Abdallahi proposed a dialogue that will develop a consensual and lasting solution predicated on restoring the President's constitutional functions, an honorable exit for the members of the junta, and early and transparent presidential and legislative elections. President Abdallahi's initiative conforms fully with the demands of the international community and offers an inclusive and democratic basis for a durable resolution of the current crisis. We call upon the people of Mauritania, as well as their international partners, to seize this opportunity to restore constitutional order and to end political paralysis and international estrangement.
PRN: 2009/142
Al Gore, CRED, disaster data
Al Gore’s Evolving Message, by Edward John Craig
Planet Gore/NRO, Feb 23, 2009
Via Marc Morano: Andy Revkin at Dot Earth notes that Roger Pielke Jr. has scientific cred. Pielke has shamed the Goracle into pulling the anthropogenic-natural-disasters slide from his global-warming climate-change presentation.
Planet Gore/NRO, Feb 23, 2009
Via Marc Morano: Andy Revkin at Dot Earth notes that Roger Pielke Jr. has scientific cred. Pielke has shamed the Goracle into pulling the anthropogenic-natural-disasters slide from his global-warming climate-change presentation.
Former Vice President Al Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation. When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years. The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels.
The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a
manifestation of human-driven climate change. “This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented,” he said. (The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.)
Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why.
Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that [CRED] stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters (details below).
"Unions are part of the problem, not part of the solution"
Summers Knows Best, by Fred Barnes
Unions are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The Weekly Standard, Mar 02, 2009, Volume 014, Issue 23
Unions spur unemployment, and "there is no question" about it. "High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy." That is the unvarnished conclusion of one of the country's most admired economists. From 1970 to 1985, a state with average unionization had a rate of unemployment 1.2 percentage points higher than a state with no unions. This represented "about 60 percent of the increase in normal unemployment" in that period.
Okay, a finding from several decades ago may be a bit dated. But the phenomenon of how unionization affects unemployment isn't. Nor is the economist--Lawrence Summers, formerly president of Harvard and now President Obama's chief economic adviser. In this week's Fortune, Nina Easton calls him "the mastermind" of Obama's economic policy. His influence has limits, however, for Obama is aggressively promoting unionization at the worst possible time, smack in the teeth of a deepening recession with soaring unemployment.
Media attention has focused on the hot button issue of "card check." It would jettison labor's biggest impediment to signing up workers, the secret ballot. Naturally, it's labor's top priority in 2009. And though Obama and the vast majority of Democrats in Congress favor card check, its fate is unclear.
But Obama has already taken significant steps to aid unions. Steps that underscore his support for a surge in unionization. "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem," he told union leaders at a White House event last month.
"To me, it's part of the solution." Summers must have winced when he heard that.
Obama has issued four executive orders to benefit unions, nominated a union pawn as labor secretary, and picked a union lawyer to head the National Labor Relations Board. Aside from ramming card check through Congress, there's not much more he could have done in his first month in office to please labor leaders.
One executive order says private contractors on federal construction projects should hire union workers. This puts non-union contractors, especially small minority companies who compete by making lower bids than contractors with unionized workers, at a distinct disadvantage. Another order bars federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses incurred in trying to persuade employees not to form a union. A third would force contractors to retain workers when taking over a project from another contractor.
These orders will have an immediate impact. Most (if not all) of the infrastructure projects funded in Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan will have union workers. Given the higher labor costs, this means fewer of the estimated 1 million construction workers currently unemployed will find work.
To make matters worse, the "prevailing wage" required on federal projects by the Davis-Bacon law will apply to all projects. This is supposed to be the average wage for construction workers in a region, but it usually turns out to be the higher union wage. So fewer workers will be employed even on non-union projects.
There's a double whammy here. Despite rising unemployment, a sharp limit is being imposed on hiring. And taxpayers will be required to pay considerably more for construction projects than necessary. This should be unacceptable in good times. In a recession, it's worse. This is flagrantly counterproductive.
Take one example. A non-union employer with the low bid wins the contract on a partially completed construction project. If the prior contractor had union workers, the new boss would have to retain them, their union wages, and possibly even their union.
As a devotee of the New Deal, Obama ought to have learned the lesson of increased unionization. After the Wagner Act of 1935 empowered labor organizers, unionization flourished and wages rose for those who had jobs. At the same time, unemployment went up.
If card check passes, this trend--more unions, fewer jobs--will shift into high gear. But the measure suffered a slight setback last week. Blue dog Democrats got House speaker Nancy Pelosi to postpone a vote until the Senate acts. The queasy moderates fear voting for an unpopular bill that could fail in the Senate. Labor leaders had hoped House approval would give card check a big boost in the Senate, where a handful of Democrats have voiced misgivings.
At the White House, organized labor's clout is still palpable. The president is indebted to union leaders for their lavish support for his campaign with money (hundreds of millions) and personnel (tens of thousands). And labor trumps Larry Summers. Too bad. On unions and unemployment, Summers knows best.
Unions are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The Weekly Standard, Mar 02, 2009, Volume 014, Issue 23
Unions spur unemployment, and "there is no question" about it. "High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy." That is the unvarnished conclusion of one of the country's most admired economists. From 1970 to 1985, a state with average unionization had a rate of unemployment 1.2 percentage points higher than a state with no unions. This represented "about 60 percent of the increase in normal unemployment" in that period.
Okay, a finding from several decades ago may be a bit dated. But the phenomenon of how unionization affects unemployment isn't. Nor is the economist--Lawrence Summers, formerly president of Harvard and now President Obama's chief economic adviser. In this week's Fortune, Nina Easton calls him "the mastermind" of Obama's economic policy. His influence has limits, however, for Obama is aggressively promoting unionization at the worst possible time, smack in the teeth of a deepening recession with soaring unemployment.
Media attention has focused on the hot button issue of "card check." It would jettison labor's biggest impediment to signing up workers, the secret ballot. Naturally, it's labor's top priority in 2009. And though Obama and the vast majority of Democrats in Congress favor card check, its fate is unclear.
But Obama has already taken significant steps to aid unions. Steps that underscore his support for a surge in unionization. "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem," he told union leaders at a White House event last month.
"To me, it's part of the solution." Summers must have winced when he heard that.
Obama has issued four executive orders to benefit unions, nominated a union pawn as labor secretary, and picked a union lawyer to head the National Labor Relations Board. Aside from ramming card check through Congress, there's not much more he could have done in his first month in office to please labor leaders.
One executive order says private contractors on federal construction projects should hire union workers. This puts non-union contractors, especially small minority companies who compete by making lower bids than contractors with unionized workers, at a distinct disadvantage. Another order bars federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses incurred in trying to persuade employees not to form a union. A third would force contractors to retain workers when taking over a project from another contractor.
These orders will have an immediate impact. Most (if not all) of the infrastructure projects funded in Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan will have union workers. Given the higher labor costs, this means fewer of the estimated 1 million construction workers currently unemployed will find work.
To make matters worse, the "prevailing wage" required on federal projects by the Davis-Bacon law will apply to all projects. This is supposed to be the average wage for construction workers in a region, but it usually turns out to be the higher union wage. So fewer workers will be employed even on non-union projects.
There's a double whammy here. Despite rising unemployment, a sharp limit is being imposed on hiring. And taxpayers will be required to pay considerably more for construction projects than necessary. This should be unacceptable in good times. In a recession, it's worse. This is flagrantly counterproductive.
Take one example. A non-union employer with the low bid wins the contract on a partially completed construction project. If the prior contractor had union workers, the new boss would have to retain them, their union wages, and possibly even their union.
As a devotee of the New Deal, Obama ought to have learned the lesson of increased unionization. After the Wagner Act of 1935 empowered labor organizers, unionization flourished and wages rose for those who had jobs. At the same time, unemployment went up.
If card check passes, this trend--more unions, fewer jobs--will shift into high gear. But the measure suffered a slight setback last week. Blue dog Democrats got House speaker Nancy Pelosi to postpone a vote until the Senate acts. The queasy moderates fear voting for an unpopular bill that could fail in the Senate. Labor leaders had hoped House approval would give card check a big boost in the Senate, where a handful of Democrats have voiced misgivings.
At the White House, organized labor's clout is still palpable. The president is indebted to union leaders for their lavish support for his campaign with money (hundreds of millions) and personnel (tens of thousands). And labor trumps Larry Summers. Too bad. On unions and unemployment, Summers knows best.
The U.S. Didn’t Cause the World Recession
The U.S. Didn’t Cause the World Recession, by Alan Reynolds
Cato, Feb 22, 2009
In the Washington Post, Ricardo Caballero of MIT has a novel and promising idea about “How to Lift a Falling Economy.” Unfortunately, he echoes the mantra that all the world’s economic problems can be traced to the U.S. in general, and to big U.S. banks in particular. “Already,” he says, “this illness has spread to the global economy.”
Already? Industrial production in Japan began collapsing in November 2007, two months ahead of the U.S., and the Japanese industrial decline has been twice as fast.
Unlike the U.S., real GDP began falling in the second quarter of 2008 in Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. By no coincidence, that was when the price of oil rose as high as $145 a barrel. Soaring oil prices raise the cost of production and distribution for many industries, and reduce real household incomes and therefore consumption. Nine of the ten postwar U.S. recessions were preceded by a major spike in the price of oil.
In a piece for the Claremont Review of Books (written last November), I conclude , “This recession is not just a U.S. problem, not just about housing, and not just financial.”
Compare the decline in real GDP over the past 4 quarters (from The Economist):
If the explanation is supposed to be falling U.S. imports, then the worst decline by far would have been in Canada and Mexico (where real GDP was rising even in the third quarter). If the alleged causality is supposed to be because of some undefined links between financial centers, then Italy would not be among the hardest hit.
When it comes to trade, in fact, the shoe is mainly on the other foot: Collapsing foreign economies crushed U.S. exports.
In the second quarter of 2008, U.S. exports accounted for 1.54 percentage points of the 2.83% annualized rise in real GDP. But falling exports subtracted 2.84 percentage points from fourth quarter GDP. Falling exports, not falling consumption, were the biggest single contributor to the overall drop of 3.8%.
After looking at which economies fell first and fastest, it might be more accurate to say that some foreign illness has spread to the U.S. economy than to assert or assume the causality ran only in the opposite direction.
Cato, Feb 22, 2009
In the Washington Post, Ricardo Caballero of MIT has a novel and promising idea about “How to Lift a Falling Economy.” Unfortunately, he echoes the mantra that all the world’s economic problems can be traced to the U.S. in general, and to big U.S. banks in particular. “Already,” he says, “this illness has spread to the global economy.”
Already? Industrial production in Japan began collapsing in November 2007, two months ahead of the U.S., and the Japanese industrial decline has been twice as fast.
Unlike the U.S., real GDP began falling in the second quarter of 2008 in Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. By no coincidence, that was when the price of oil rose as high as $145 a barrel. Soaring oil prices raise the cost of production and distribution for many industries, and reduce real household incomes and therefore consumption. Nine of the ten postwar U.S. recessions were preceded by a major spike in the price of oil.
In a piece for the Claremont Review of Books (written last November), I conclude , “This recession is not just a U.S. problem, not just about housing, and not just financial.”
Compare the decline in real GDP over the past 4 quarters (from The Economist):
U.S. -0.2%Does it make sense to blame the largest declines in GDP on one country with the smallest decline? If so, then we need some explanation of how some uniquely American “illness has spread” to so many innocent victims.
France -1.0
Germany -1.6
Britain -1.8
Italy -2.6
Japan -4.6
If the explanation is supposed to be falling U.S. imports, then the worst decline by far would have been in Canada and Mexico (where real GDP was rising even in the third quarter). If the alleged causality is supposed to be because of some undefined links between financial centers, then Italy would not be among the hardest hit.
When it comes to trade, in fact, the shoe is mainly on the other foot: Collapsing foreign economies crushed U.S. exports.
In the second quarter of 2008, U.S. exports accounted for 1.54 percentage points of the 2.83% annualized rise in real GDP. But falling exports subtracted 2.84 percentage points from fourth quarter GDP. Falling exports, not falling consumption, were the biggest single contributor to the overall drop of 3.8%.
After looking at which economies fell first and fastest, it might be more accurate to say that some foreign illness has spread to the U.S. economy than to assert or assume the causality ran only in the opposite direction.
Joint Statement by the Treasury, FDIC, OCC, OTS and the Federal Reserve - February 23, 2009
Joint Statement by the Treasury, FDIC, OCC, OTS and the Federal Reserve February 23, 2009
tg37
Washington, DC – The U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve Board today issued the following joint statement:
"A strong, resilient financial system is necessary to facilitate a broad and sustainable economic recovery. The U.S. government stands firmly behind the banking system during this period of financial strain to ensure it will be able to perform its key function of providing credit to households and businesses. The government will ensure that banks have the capital and liquidity they need to provide the credit necessary to restore economic growth. Moreover, we reiterate our determination to preserve the viability of systemically important financial institutions so that they are able to meet their commitments.
"We announced on February 10, 2009, a Capital Assistance Program to ensure that our banking institutions are appropriately capitalized, with high-quality capital. Under this program, which will be initiated on February 25, the capital needs of the major U.S. banking institutions will be evaluated under a more challenging economic environment. Should that assessment indicate that an additional capital buffer is warranted, institutions will have an opportunity to turn first to private sources of capital. Otherwise, the temporary capital buffer will be made available from the government. This additional capital does not imply a new capital standard and it is not expected to be maintained on an ongoing basis. Instead, it is available to provide a cushion against larger than expected future losses, should they occur due to a more severe economic environment, and to support lending to creditworthy borrowers. Any government capital will be in the form of mandatory convertible preferred shares, which would be converted into common equity shares only as needed over time to keep banks in a well-capitalized position and can be retired under improved financial conditions before the conversion becomes mandatory. Previous capital injections under the Troubled Asset Relief Program will also be eligible to be exchanged for the mandatory convertible preferred shares. The conversion feature will enable institutions to maintain or enhance the quality of their capital.
"Currently, the major U.S. banking institutions have capital in excess of the amounts required to be considered well capitalized. This program is designed to ensure that these major banking institutions have sufficient capital to perform their critical role in our financial system on an ongoing basis and can support economic recovery, even under an economic environment that is more challenging than is currently anticipated. The customers and the providers of capital and funding can be assured that as a result of this program participating banks will be able to move forward to provide the credit necessary for the stabilization and recovery of the U.S. economy. Because our economy functions better when financial institutions are well managed in the private sector, the strong presumption of the Capital Assistance Program is that banks should remain in private hands."
tg37
Washington, DC – The U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve Board today issued the following joint statement:
"A strong, resilient financial system is necessary to facilitate a broad and sustainable economic recovery. The U.S. government stands firmly behind the banking system during this period of financial strain to ensure it will be able to perform its key function of providing credit to households and businesses. The government will ensure that banks have the capital and liquidity they need to provide the credit necessary to restore economic growth. Moreover, we reiterate our determination to preserve the viability of systemically important financial institutions so that they are able to meet their commitments.
"We announced on February 10, 2009, a Capital Assistance Program to ensure that our banking institutions are appropriately capitalized, with high-quality capital. Under this program, which will be initiated on February 25, the capital needs of the major U.S. banking institutions will be evaluated under a more challenging economic environment. Should that assessment indicate that an additional capital buffer is warranted, institutions will have an opportunity to turn first to private sources of capital. Otherwise, the temporary capital buffer will be made available from the government. This additional capital does not imply a new capital standard and it is not expected to be maintained on an ongoing basis. Instead, it is available to provide a cushion against larger than expected future losses, should they occur due to a more severe economic environment, and to support lending to creditworthy borrowers. Any government capital will be in the form of mandatory convertible preferred shares, which would be converted into common equity shares only as needed over time to keep banks in a well-capitalized position and can be retired under improved financial conditions before the conversion becomes mandatory. Previous capital injections under the Troubled Asset Relief Program will also be eligible to be exchanged for the mandatory convertible preferred shares. The conversion feature will enable institutions to maintain or enhance the quality of their capital.
"Currently, the major U.S. banking institutions have capital in excess of the amounts required to be considered well capitalized. This program is designed to ensure that these major banking institutions have sufficient capital to perform their critical role in our financial system on an ongoing basis and can support economic recovery, even under an economic environment that is more challenging than is currently anticipated. The customers and the providers of capital and funding can be assured that as a result of this program participating banks will be able to move forward to provide the credit necessary for the stabilization and recovery of the U.S. economy. Because our economy functions better when financial institutions are well managed in the private sector, the strong presumption of the Capital Assistance Program is that banks should remain in private hands."
WaPo: Mileage Tax, LaHood's Good Idea
Mr. LaHood's Good Idea. WaPo Editorial
The transportation chief's mileage tax shouldn't be a nonstarter.
The Washington Post, Monday, February 23, 2009; Page A18
TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY Ray LaHood told a reporter Friday that he was considering a tax on vehicle miles traveled as an alternative to the gas tax. Faster than you could say "smack-down," press secretary Robert Gibbs unleashed a White House scolding. Mr. Gibbs said, "I can weigh in on it and say that it is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration."
Too bad. You'd think this young administration would be encouraging an open exchange of innovative ideas.
As automobiles become more efficient and make use of new fuels, the gas tax -- which, we note here for the umpteenth time, should be raised -- will be less effective in capturing revenue. Mr. LaHood's comments reflected what many transportation experts and economists are coming to believe: A tax on vehicle miles traveled, or VMTs, is the most promising, fairest, most environmentally responsible replacement for the gas tax.
There are, of course, serious kinks to work out. Charging drivers for the miles they travel isn't as easy as tacking a few pennies onto your bill at the gas station. But a pilot program in Oregon proved the feasibility of the idea. Twenty-two percent of 300 participants drove less during peak hours. Most drivers said they thought the rates were reasonable; nine out of 10 said they preferred a mileage tax to a gas tax.
Most proposals require a GPS-like "mileage-counter" to be installed in vehicles. When drivers stop to fill up, a tax based on the miles they've driven would be added to their bill in place of a gas tax. The tax rate could be adjusted based on whether someone was driving in rush hour or off-peak times, on clogged freeways or less busy roads.
What, then, prevents the proposal from being taken more seriously? Some opponents fear that the government could use the mileage counters to monitor drivers. There's also criticism that the tax would unfairly burden less affluent motorists.
These obstacles are significant, but they are not impossible to overcome. Already, there is evidence that time is running out for the gas tax. Last year, the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for roads, flirted with insolvency until Congress shoveled $8 billion into it. The next time the fund runs short -- which could happen as early as this fall -- we hope the mere suggestion of a VMT tax doesn't earn an automatic rebuke from Mr. Gibbs.
The transportation chief's mileage tax shouldn't be a nonstarter.
The Washington Post, Monday, February 23, 2009; Page A18
TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY Ray LaHood told a reporter Friday that he was considering a tax on vehicle miles traveled as an alternative to the gas tax. Faster than you could say "smack-down," press secretary Robert Gibbs unleashed a White House scolding. Mr. Gibbs said, "I can weigh in on it and say that it is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration."
Too bad. You'd think this young administration would be encouraging an open exchange of innovative ideas.
As automobiles become more efficient and make use of new fuels, the gas tax -- which, we note here for the umpteenth time, should be raised -- will be less effective in capturing revenue. Mr. LaHood's comments reflected what many transportation experts and economists are coming to believe: A tax on vehicle miles traveled, or VMTs, is the most promising, fairest, most environmentally responsible replacement for the gas tax.
There are, of course, serious kinks to work out. Charging drivers for the miles they travel isn't as easy as tacking a few pennies onto your bill at the gas station. But a pilot program in Oregon proved the feasibility of the idea. Twenty-two percent of 300 participants drove less during peak hours. Most drivers said they thought the rates were reasonable; nine out of 10 said they preferred a mileage tax to a gas tax.
Most proposals require a GPS-like "mileage-counter" to be installed in vehicles. When drivers stop to fill up, a tax based on the miles they've driven would be added to their bill in place of a gas tax. The tax rate could be adjusted based on whether someone was driving in rush hour or off-peak times, on clogged freeways or less busy roads.
What, then, prevents the proposal from being taken more seriously? Some opponents fear that the government could use the mileage counters to monitor drivers. There's also criticism that the tax would unfairly burden less affluent motorists.
These obstacles are significant, but they are not impossible to overcome. Already, there is evidence that time is running out for the gas tax. Last year, the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for roads, flirted with insolvency until Congress shoveled $8 billion into it. The next time the fund runs short -- which could happen as early as this fall -- we hope the mere suggestion of a VMT tax doesn't earn an automatic rebuke from Mr. Gibbs.
WaPo: A special election to replace Sen. Roland Burris -- if he resigns. Which he should.
The Right Call. WaPo Editorial
A special election to replace Sen. Roland Burris -- if he resigns. Which he should.
The Washington Post, Monday, February 23, 2009; Page A18
GOV. PAT Quinn (D-Ill.) added his name Friday to the growing list of people who have joined our call for Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) to resign. But he went a step further. If Mr. Burris does give up the Senate seat, Mr. Quinn would fill it with a temporary appointment until the state legislature passed a special elections law. That's the right call.
Mr. Quinn's predecessor, Rod Blagojevich (D), was removed from office in January after he was arrested in December for, among other things, allegedly trying to auction the Senate seat. Mr. Blagojevich used his power of appointment to install Mr. Burris. And now Mr. Burris's hold on the seat once occupied by Barack Obama is increasingly tenuous after he acknowledged that he tried to raise money for Mr. Blagojevich while vying for the appointment. That revelation contradicted the senator's earlier statements. In fact, with each successive utterance, Mr. Burris further undermines his insistence that he was forthcoming from the start.
Gubernatorial appointments to fill U.S. Senate seats are undemocratic and, in extreme cases -- i.e., in Illinois -- ripe for corruption. A special election would give the power to fill a vacant Senate seat to the voters. But this will require a change in state law, something the Democratic-controlled legislature shied away from last year for fear of losing the seat to a Republican. Mr. Quinn's support of special elections should bolster lawmakers' courage to get it done when the time arises.
A special election to replace Sen. Roland Burris -- if he resigns. Which he should.
The Washington Post, Monday, February 23, 2009; Page A18
GOV. PAT Quinn (D-Ill.) added his name Friday to the growing list of people who have joined our call for Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) to resign. But he went a step further. If Mr. Burris does give up the Senate seat, Mr. Quinn would fill it with a temporary appointment until the state legislature passed a special elections law. That's the right call.
Mr. Quinn's predecessor, Rod Blagojevich (D), was removed from office in January after he was arrested in December for, among other things, allegedly trying to auction the Senate seat. Mr. Blagojevich used his power of appointment to install Mr. Burris. And now Mr. Burris's hold on the seat once occupied by Barack Obama is increasingly tenuous after he acknowledged that he tried to raise money for Mr. Blagojevich while vying for the appointment. That revelation contradicted the senator's earlier statements. In fact, with each successive utterance, Mr. Burris further undermines his insistence that he was forthcoming from the start.
Gubernatorial appointments to fill U.S. Senate seats are undemocratic and, in extreme cases -- i.e., in Illinois -- ripe for corruption. A special election would give the power to fill a vacant Senate seat to the voters. But this will require a change in state law, something the Democratic-controlled legislature shied away from last year for fear of losing the seat to a Republican. Mr. Quinn's support of special elections should bolster lawmakers' courage to get it done when the time arises.
WaPo: Why stock investments and Supreme Court service don't mix
Justice Roberts's Portfolio. WaPo Editorial
Why stock investments and Supreme Court service don't mix
The Washington Post, Monday, February 23, 2009; Page A18
THE PLANNED merger of pharmaceutical firms Pfizer Inc. and Wyeth has created a complication in one of the most important business cases before the Supreme Court this term.
The case of Wyeth v. Levine was heard by the justices in November; no decision has yet been rendered. The case, which involves the obscure but important concept of federal preemption, has potential ramifications not just for Wyeth and the pharmaceutical industry, but for a host of other regulated entities looking to shield themselves from state court lawsuits.
According to his financial disclosure form, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. owns stock in Pfizer. Now that Pfizer plans to merge with Wyeth, the chief justice's investment will be directly affected by the court's decision.
Even though the deal has not closed, probably will not be finalized before the end of the term and could fall apart, Chief Justice Roberts should divest himself of the Pfizer stock.
Chief Justice Roberts and others on the court, particularly relative newcomer Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have gradually been selling individual stock holdings that most often trigger conflicts. Avoiding such conflicts, which can require justices to recuse themselves, is particularly important at the Supreme Court because no other jurist can substitute for an absent justice. And when the court is evenly split -- and this happens almost exclusively when the court is short-handed -- the lower court's judgment is automatically upheld and the results are not applicable nationwide. An opportunity to clarify murky law or conflicting lower-court decisions is squandered.
A special law allows judges to avoid capital gains taxes if they are forced to sell holdings to eliminate a conflict of interest. This provision may offer little solace, given the recent losses in the stock market. Still, the chief justice should move quickly to clear up the potential conflict.
Why stock investments and Supreme Court service don't mix
The Washington Post, Monday, February 23, 2009; Page A18
THE PLANNED merger of pharmaceutical firms Pfizer Inc. and Wyeth has created a complication in one of the most important business cases before the Supreme Court this term.
The case of Wyeth v. Levine was heard by the justices in November; no decision has yet been rendered. The case, which involves the obscure but important concept of federal preemption, has potential ramifications not just for Wyeth and the pharmaceutical industry, but for a host of other regulated entities looking to shield themselves from state court lawsuits.
According to his financial disclosure form, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. owns stock in Pfizer. Now that Pfizer plans to merge with Wyeth, the chief justice's investment will be directly affected by the court's decision.
Even though the deal has not closed, probably will not be finalized before the end of the term and could fall apart, Chief Justice Roberts should divest himself of the Pfizer stock.
Chief Justice Roberts and others on the court, particularly relative newcomer Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have gradually been selling individual stock holdings that most often trigger conflicts. Avoiding such conflicts, which can require justices to recuse themselves, is particularly important at the Supreme Court because no other jurist can substitute for an absent justice. And when the court is evenly split -- and this happens almost exclusively when the court is short-handed -- the lower court's judgment is automatically upheld and the results are not applicable nationwide. An opportunity to clarify murky law or conflicting lower-court decisions is squandered.
A special law allows judges to avoid capital gains taxes if they are forced to sell holdings to eliminate a conflict of interest. This provision may offer little solace, given the recent losses in the stock market. Still, the chief justice should move quickly to clear up the potential conflict.
Libertarian on "Wind jobs outstrip the coal industry"
The Pitfalls in Job Counting (”Green” jobs versus economic jobs), by Robert Murphy
Master Resource, February 22, 2009
It’s understandable that this happens during a recession, but nonetheless a very bad trend in policy analysis is the narrowminded focus on jobs per se. Thus the ~$800 billion spending package is evaluated according to how many jobs it will create or save, rather than according to its promotion of efficient resource allocation.
This focus on employment for its own sake is most evident in the “green jobs” rhetoric. There are two major problems with the typical claims in this area. First, advocates will offer statistics showing that a tax on fossil fuels coupled with, say, subsidies to wind power will create jobs on net, because it takes more people to produce a given amount of electricity through wind than through coal.
But far from being an advantage, this is prima facie evidence against the use of wind power. (The correct criterion, of course, is total cost, including capital and labor.) We want to get as many kilowatt-hours as possible from a given amount of resources. The goal of the electricity sector isn’t to employ workers, it’s to power homes and businesses. If Martians showed up and offered to beam unlimited amounts of electricity to every building on the planet as a token of goodwill, that would be fantastic. But I suspect some energy “experts” would warn that this would throw the world into a catastrophic depression because of all the unemployed workers.
Besides its misguided elevation of workers over consumers, the typical rhetoric on green jobs often uses very expansive definitions to generate optimistic projections. For example, Roger Pielke links to a Christian Science Monitor analysis of such chicanery:
Earlier this week, Fortune’s eco-blog, Green Wombat, ran a story under the headline, “Wind jobs outstrip the coal industry.”
Blogger Todd Woody cites [a] new report from the American Wind Energy Association that about 85,000 people are now employed by the wind power industry, up from 50,000 a year ago. Mr. Woody then says that “the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers,” citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy.
…But it’s a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as “varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.” The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants.
To be fair, Woody…does say that “[t]he wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States.” But his story then immediately abandons this distinction, and then goes on to characterize those 81,000 jobs as comprising the total employment of the coal industry.
These are just two of the problems with the “green jobs” rhetoric. Another flaw is that such analyses often assume that unemployed workers will stay idle indefinitely, if not for government spending programs. For a full critique of the most popular green jobs studies, see my paper with Robert Michaels.
Master Resource, February 22, 2009
It’s understandable that this happens during a recession, but nonetheless a very bad trend in policy analysis is the narrowminded focus on jobs per se. Thus the ~$800 billion spending package is evaluated according to how many jobs it will create or save, rather than according to its promotion of efficient resource allocation.
This focus on employment for its own sake is most evident in the “green jobs” rhetoric. There are two major problems with the typical claims in this area. First, advocates will offer statistics showing that a tax on fossil fuels coupled with, say, subsidies to wind power will create jobs on net, because it takes more people to produce a given amount of electricity through wind than through coal.
But far from being an advantage, this is prima facie evidence against the use of wind power. (The correct criterion, of course, is total cost, including capital and labor.) We want to get as many kilowatt-hours as possible from a given amount of resources. The goal of the electricity sector isn’t to employ workers, it’s to power homes and businesses. If Martians showed up and offered to beam unlimited amounts of electricity to every building on the planet as a token of goodwill, that would be fantastic. But I suspect some energy “experts” would warn that this would throw the world into a catastrophic depression because of all the unemployed workers.
Besides its misguided elevation of workers over consumers, the typical rhetoric on green jobs often uses very expansive definitions to generate optimistic projections. For example, Roger Pielke links to a Christian Science Monitor analysis of such chicanery:
Earlier this week, Fortune’s eco-blog, Green Wombat, ran a story under the headline, “Wind jobs outstrip the coal industry.”
Blogger Todd Woody cites [a] new report from the American Wind Energy Association that about 85,000 people are now employed by the wind power industry, up from 50,000 a year ago. Mr. Woody then says that “the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers,” citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy.
…But it’s a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as “varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.” The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants.
To be fair, Woody…does say that “[t]he wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States.” But his story then immediately abandons this distinction, and then goes on to characterize those 81,000 jobs as comprising the total employment of the coal industry.
These are just two of the problems with the “green jobs” rhetoric. Another flaw is that such analyses often assume that unemployed workers will stay idle indefinitely, if not for government spending programs. For a full critique of the most popular green jobs studies, see my paper with Robert Michaels.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Obama Destroying the USA to rebuild it in his own image?
Obama Destroying the USA to rebuild it in his own image? By Sher Zieve
Canada Free Press, Saturday, February 21, 2009
It’s amazing to me that so many talking heads who seem befuddled as to what Obama is actually attempting to accomplish with his bound-to-fail stimulus bill cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. To put it another way, they cannot grasp what’s actually happening to We-the-People at the hands of the developing ‘Obama Emperium’. Shall we take a look at the events leading up to today? By the way, I mean the actual events—not the lies manufactured by the mainstream media and other of his sycophants to make the secular messiah Obama ‘look good’. I say let’s do!
In September 2003, then President Bush proposed that oversight of Fannie Mae be tightened. Congressional Democrats balked at the idea and vigorously opposed and blocked it. Then, in a 2006 bill, Senate Republicans created a bill calling for oversight of the Democrat-run corrupt Fannie Mae (and its partner organization Freddie Mac) US mortgage giant. At that time, those who ran Fannie Mae (again—ALL Democrats) had already been caught in an $11 billion accounting scandal. Tragically—for all of us—this bill was shelved. Wimpy Republicans actually wanted bi-partisanship and Democrats refused. Despite their protestations to the contrary, Democrats do not want bi-partisanship. This is an historical message that the now-liberal Republican Party leadership refuses to learn from or even acknowledge. Note: At this time the Democrat/Leftist-created financial catastrophe of 2008-2009 could have been brought to light and prevented. However, it appears that dark forces were at work to purposefully bring forth said disaster.
In September 2007, Fannie Mae began (the truly intelligent said inevitable) its two month downward spiral that would culminate in its November crash. Then, in September (September again—weird) 2008 a strange one to two hour electronic run on US banks to the tune of $550 billion was affected before authorities were able to put a stop to it. One Democrat—Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5 ½ TRILLION would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US and within 24 hours the collapse of the world’s economic system. There are certainly those within our own government who know who and what were the perpetrators. But, no one is talking.
All of these deliberate actions brought forth the ammunition that the Left needed to make its contrived fake case that Communists and/or Fascists (they’re now called Democrats) needed to be placed in charge and the US (if not the world) and that freedom—including any and all free market capitalism—had to be dumped in favor of implementing dictatorial controls. The creation of the fake “stimulus package” is the seizing of control of the country’s financial resources and their redistribution to the power elite—not to you and me. The nationalization of banks is the seizure of the financial houses—for use by and of the governmental power elite—not for you and me. The “stimulus package”—which will result in the TOTAL theft of the country’s resources—was never meant to stimulate anything save the Democrat power brokers and their friends. A dumbed-down population—aided by the election fraud group ACORN—assisted in “electing” GL (‘great leader’) Obama to the office of the US presidency (an individual whose US citizenship is still highly suspect). And within less than a month, Obama has succeeded in pushing the USA (using the largely Democrat-created economic crisis) toward Socialism. By the way, we who have been paying our mortgages are now expected to subsidize those who have not. The “flakes” are being rewarded for their failure and the able are being punished. What a way to destroy a country!
I predict that any real socialistic endeavors will be bypassed in favor of pure Marxism-Stalin style. Obama has already begun his plan to clamp down on free-speech with his adherents’ resurrection of the inaptly named “Fairness Doctrine,” which is meant to shut down conservative and Christian speech. Only Obama-speak is now acceptable. Obama’s National Security Force—AKA Gestapo or Secret Police—is already being formed with his Defense Department Directive 1404.10 and according to Worldview Times “H.R. 645 that calls for no less than six federal camps to be built to house U.S. Citizens.”
This is only the tip of the iceberg, folks. Obama and his minions have accomplished these in only one month after seizing office. Can those of you who still have a working mind see where this is leading? Are there still people out there who do NOT want to live in a totalitarian state? I further predict that within the next 2 months, Obama’s Congressional adherents will arrange yet another “stimulus bill” in an attempt to confiscate the US’ remaining wealth. The stock market continues to tank while Obama continues to tell us this is his country and his victory. The rest of us are only the worker-serfs who are expected to produce for the powerful in D.C. and shut up while we’re doing it. Are any of you who were blind to Obama’s real plan beginning to see again?
Canada Free Press, Saturday, February 21, 2009
It’s amazing to me that so many talking heads who seem befuddled as to what Obama is actually attempting to accomplish with his bound-to-fail stimulus bill cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. To put it another way, they cannot grasp what’s actually happening to We-the-People at the hands of the developing ‘Obama Emperium’. Shall we take a look at the events leading up to today? By the way, I mean the actual events—not the lies manufactured by the mainstream media and other of his sycophants to make the secular messiah Obama ‘look good’. I say let’s do!
In September 2003, then President Bush proposed that oversight of Fannie Mae be tightened. Congressional Democrats balked at the idea and vigorously opposed and blocked it. Then, in a 2006 bill, Senate Republicans created a bill calling for oversight of the Democrat-run corrupt Fannie Mae (and its partner organization Freddie Mac) US mortgage giant. At that time, those who ran Fannie Mae (again—ALL Democrats) had already been caught in an $11 billion accounting scandal. Tragically—for all of us—this bill was shelved. Wimpy Republicans actually wanted bi-partisanship and Democrats refused. Despite their protestations to the contrary, Democrats do not want bi-partisanship. This is an historical message that the now-liberal Republican Party leadership refuses to learn from or even acknowledge. Note: At this time the Democrat/Leftist-created financial catastrophe of 2008-2009 could have been brought to light and prevented. However, it appears that dark forces were at work to purposefully bring forth said disaster.
In September 2007, Fannie Mae began (the truly intelligent said inevitable) its two month downward spiral that would culminate in its November crash. Then, in September (September again—weird) 2008 a strange one to two hour electronic run on US banks to the tune of $550 billion was affected before authorities were able to put a stop to it. One Democrat—Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5 ½ TRILLION would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US and within 24 hours the collapse of the world’s economic system. There are certainly those within our own government who know who and what were the perpetrators. But, no one is talking.
All of these deliberate actions brought forth the ammunition that the Left needed to make its contrived fake case that Communists and/or Fascists (they’re now called Democrats) needed to be placed in charge and the US (if not the world) and that freedom—including any and all free market capitalism—had to be dumped in favor of implementing dictatorial controls. The creation of the fake “stimulus package” is the seizing of control of the country’s financial resources and their redistribution to the power elite—not to you and me. The nationalization of banks is the seizure of the financial houses—for use by and of the governmental power elite—not for you and me. The “stimulus package”—which will result in the TOTAL theft of the country’s resources—was never meant to stimulate anything save the Democrat power brokers and their friends. A dumbed-down population—aided by the election fraud group ACORN—assisted in “electing” GL (‘great leader’) Obama to the office of the US presidency (an individual whose US citizenship is still highly suspect). And within less than a month, Obama has succeeded in pushing the USA (using the largely Democrat-created economic crisis) toward Socialism. By the way, we who have been paying our mortgages are now expected to subsidize those who have not. The “flakes” are being rewarded for their failure and the able are being punished. What a way to destroy a country!
I predict that any real socialistic endeavors will be bypassed in favor of pure Marxism-Stalin style. Obama has already begun his plan to clamp down on free-speech with his adherents’ resurrection of the inaptly named “Fairness Doctrine,” which is meant to shut down conservative and Christian speech. Only Obama-speak is now acceptable. Obama’s National Security Force—AKA Gestapo or Secret Police—is already being formed with his Defense Department Directive 1404.10 and according to Worldview Times “H.R. 645 that calls for no less than six federal camps to be built to house U.S. Citizens.”
This is only the tip of the iceberg, folks. Obama and his minions have accomplished these in only one month after seizing office. Can those of you who still have a working mind see where this is leading? Are there still people out there who do NOT want to live in a totalitarian state? I further predict that within the next 2 months, Obama’s Congressional adherents will arrange yet another “stimulus bill” in an attempt to confiscate the US’ remaining wealth. The stock market continues to tank while Obama continues to tell us this is his country and his victory. The rest of us are only the worker-serfs who are expected to produce for the powerful in D.C. and shut up while we’re doing it. Are any of you who were blind to Obama’s real plan beginning to see again?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
USAID Opens Shawakeh Fish Market to Attract Businesses, Restore Stability
USAID Opens Shawakeh Fish Market to Attract Businesses, Restore Stability
USAID, February 20, 2009
BAGHDAD, IRAQ - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in partnership with the Karkh District Council, neighborhood councils, and the U.S. military, opened the Al Shawakeh Fish Market today to stimulate employment and business opportunities in the community. In his remarks at the opening, USAID Deputy Mission Director Thomas R. Delaney said, "The revival of this market shows how committed the Iraqis are in seeing their economy-and people-recover and grow." He also said he hoped that the market will be seen as a center of community pride and prosperity.
USAID began rebuilding the fish market in early 2008 through the Community Stabilization Program (CSP) after repeated insurgent-lead attacks. The goal of CSP is to help create an environment for stability and establish the necessary conditions for long-term development to take hold in violence-affected areas. USAID's market revitalization efforts include rebuilding damaged shops and surrounding streets and sidewalks. The project created immediate short-term jobs for unemployed laborers.
USAID's partner, International Relief and Development (IRD), met with vendors, the local community and the district and neighborhood councilmen to seek their input on the layout and design of the market. Iraqi representatives of IRD worked closely with the embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team, the U.S. Military, and the Karkh community to complete the $227,489 USAID-funded project.
Twelve local construction workers fixed the inner-yard of the market, constructed new stalls, and upgraded the water, sewer and electrical networks. The new market has a cold-storage facility, trash dumpsters, and more space for loading and unloading of produce, fish, and meats. The market comprises 40 small, family-owned restaurants, fish and vegetable markets, book kiosks and shops.Since 2003, USAID has invested more than $6 billion on programs designed to stabilize communities; foster economic and agricultural growth; and build the capacity of the national, local, and provincial governments to respond to the needs of the Iraqi people.
USAID, February 20, 2009
BAGHDAD, IRAQ - The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in partnership with the Karkh District Council, neighborhood councils, and the U.S. military, opened the Al Shawakeh Fish Market today to stimulate employment and business opportunities in the community. In his remarks at the opening, USAID Deputy Mission Director Thomas R. Delaney said, "The revival of this market shows how committed the Iraqis are in seeing their economy-and people-recover and grow." He also said he hoped that the market will be seen as a center of community pride and prosperity.
USAID began rebuilding the fish market in early 2008 through the Community Stabilization Program (CSP) after repeated insurgent-lead attacks. The goal of CSP is to help create an environment for stability and establish the necessary conditions for long-term development to take hold in violence-affected areas. USAID's market revitalization efforts include rebuilding damaged shops and surrounding streets and sidewalks. The project created immediate short-term jobs for unemployed laborers.
USAID's partner, International Relief and Development (IRD), met with vendors, the local community and the district and neighborhood councilmen to seek their input on the layout and design of the market. Iraqi representatives of IRD worked closely with the embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team, the U.S. Military, and the Karkh community to complete the $227,489 USAID-funded project.
Twelve local construction workers fixed the inner-yard of the market, constructed new stalls, and upgraded the water, sewer and electrical networks. The new market has a cold-storage facility, trash dumpsters, and more space for loading and unloading of produce, fish, and meats. The market comprises 40 small, family-owned restaurants, fish and vegetable markets, book kiosks and shops.Since 2003, USAID has invested more than $6 billion on programs designed to stabilize communities; foster economic and agricultural growth; and build the capacity of the national, local, and provincial governments to respond to the needs of the Iraqi people.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Conservative View On Obama’s Judicial Nominees
Obama’s Judicial Nominees, by Ed Whelan
Bench Memos/NRO, Friday, February 20, 2009
In this essay, Princeton professor (and—disclosure—Ethics and Public Policy Center board member) Robert P. George argues that the real-world constraints in the fields of national security and economics make it all the more certain that President Obama will deliver to “the left, fully and without dilution, victory on the moral and cultural issues”, especially through the courts:
Alas, that sounds accurate to me.
Bench Memos/NRO, Friday, February 20, 2009
In this essay, Princeton professor (and—disclosure—Ethics and Public Policy Center board member) Robert P. George argues that the real-world constraints in the fields of national security and economics make it all the more certain that President Obama will deliver to “the left, fully and without dilution, victory on the moral and cultural issues”, especially through the courts:
What Obama’s judicial nominees will have in common is a belief that
judicial power may legitimately be used, and should be used to achieve
left-liberal moral and political goals. Their belief lacks any basis in the text
of the Constitution, the logic of its provisions, or its structure and original
understanding, but never mind. Some will propose moving quickly, others more
cautiously and gradually, but all will subscribe to one version or another of
the idea that the “majestic generalities” of the Constitution (free speech, due
process, equal protection) need to be given content by judges reading into them
ideas such as abolishing the legal definition of marriage as the conjugal union
of husband and wife, extending legal abortion, requiring the public funding of
abortion, and invalidating parental notification and informed consent laws and
laws affording conscience and religious liberty protection to pro-life
physicians, healthcare workers, and pharmacists.
The Obama judges are likely to revive the idea (championed by influential
liberal legal scholar Ronald Dworkin but rejected in the mid-90s by the Supreme
Court) that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide, and expand
constitutional protection of pornography, including “virtual” child pornography
that is manufactured without the use of actual children. They will defend
preference-based affirmative action policies in hiring and employment as
constitutionally warranted efforts to achieve an allegedly compelling state
interest in racial, ethnic, and sexual “diversity.” They will likely place
further restrictions on religious activities and expression in public schools
and other governmental institutions by adopting a broad reading of the
“establishment clause” and a narrow reading of the “free exercise” clause of the
First Amendment.
Alas, that sounds accurate to me.
Libertarian: Assessing the President's Mortgage Plan
Assessing the President's Mortgage Plan, by Alan Reynolds
The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2009
The president's new mortgage-relief plan contains clever elements that might indeed help homeowners. However, the superfluous threat of inviting judges to rewrite contracts must dilute the collateral behind troubled mortgage-backed securities. That, in turn, would jeopardize the endangered capital of banks, pension funds and other holders of such securities, including the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The simplest yet arguably most potent part of the strategy is the plan to allow Fannie and Freddie to refinance conforming loans (up to $729,750) without the quaint requirement that the refinanced loan be no larger than 80% of the value of the house. This change provides access to today's low mortgage rates even to "underwater" borrowers — those who owe more that their houses are worth. Although such borrowers have no skin in the game, President Obama assumes or hopes that their reduced payments will result in fewer defaults.
A second part of the plan provides standardized rules for modifying mortgages (obligatory for banks that accepted Troubled Asset Relief Program money). Participating lenders would first have to cut interest rates sufficiently to limit mortgage payments to 38% of gross income — something more likely for those now paying 39%-40% than for those paying much more. The government would then match further interest-rate reductions to push mortgage payments all the way down to 31% of pretax income. In order to cut mortgage payments to 31% from 38%, $75 billion in taxpayer subsidies will be available to lenders to cover half the cost. Some will pay more in taxes so that others can pay less for housing. This is redistribution based on debt rather than income.
The plan also provides small bribes to mortgage servicers and borrowers for every assisted borrower who does not end up defaulting again (a big problem with past loan modification schemes). Treasury would also establish an insurance fund to protect participating lenders if house prices fell further.
Subsidizing select mortgages poses a fundamental rationing problem: Demand for subsidies rises to meet the available supply. If Joe and Sally get federal subsidies to cut their mortgage payments to 31% of their income, their neighbors will want subsidies too. To keep the expenses from ballooning well beyond $75 billion, there may have to be stern but arbitrary "means testing" to decide who is most deserving of a taxpayer-supported mortgage. And that will likely provoke resentment about how winners and losers are picked.
The third part of the plan is to get Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgages with the hope of keeping mortgage rates down. Never mind that both organizations were considered insolvent last fall, when they held far fewer dubious IOUs than they do now. The plan instructs the Treasury — which is also getting skeptical reviews from Moody's — to invest another $200 billion in Fannie and Freddie preferred shares.
Last and least helpful, the president's proposed "cramdown" would "allow judicial modification of home mortgages for borrowers who have run out of options." That would require federal legislation, and Congress would be well advised to put that plan aside in order to give the president's new options a fair chance.
Any plan that compels mortgage holders to reduce the amount of money they are owed must in turn reduce the value of mortgage-backed securities held by banks, insurance companies, pension funds, Fannie and Freddie, and the Fed. By injuring the balance sheets of potential lenders, a cramdown would also injure potential borrowers.
The needless threat of inviting judges to rewrite mortgage contracts at whim helps explain why bank stocks generally fell on the plan's announcement, while financial shorts rose.
In sum, allowing conforming loans to be refinanced without a big equity position seems promising. Trying to bribe lenders to trim monthly mortgage bills to 31% of income would help those lucky enough to get in on the deal before the money runs out. But all of this potential good could be undone by the systemic risks to mortgage-backed securities caused by the unpredictable legal risks of a judicial cramdown.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of Income and Wealth.
The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2009
The president's new mortgage-relief plan contains clever elements that might indeed help homeowners. However, the superfluous threat of inviting judges to rewrite contracts must dilute the collateral behind troubled mortgage-backed securities. That, in turn, would jeopardize the endangered capital of banks, pension funds and other holders of such securities, including the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The simplest yet arguably most potent part of the strategy is the plan to allow Fannie and Freddie to refinance conforming loans (up to $729,750) without the quaint requirement that the refinanced loan be no larger than 80% of the value of the house. This change provides access to today's low mortgage rates even to "underwater" borrowers — those who owe more that their houses are worth. Although such borrowers have no skin in the game, President Obama assumes or hopes that their reduced payments will result in fewer defaults.
A second part of the plan provides standardized rules for modifying mortgages (obligatory for banks that accepted Troubled Asset Relief Program money). Participating lenders would first have to cut interest rates sufficiently to limit mortgage payments to 38% of gross income — something more likely for those now paying 39%-40% than for those paying much more. The government would then match further interest-rate reductions to push mortgage payments all the way down to 31% of pretax income. In order to cut mortgage payments to 31% from 38%, $75 billion in taxpayer subsidies will be available to lenders to cover half the cost. Some will pay more in taxes so that others can pay less for housing. This is redistribution based on debt rather than income.
The plan also provides small bribes to mortgage servicers and borrowers for every assisted borrower who does not end up defaulting again (a big problem with past loan modification schemes). Treasury would also establish an insurance fund to protect participating lenders if house prices fell further.
Subsidizing select mortgages poses a fundamental rationing problem: Demand for subsidies rises to meet the available supply. If Joe and Sally get federal subsidies to cut their mortgage payments to 31% of their income, their neighbors will want subsidies too. To keep the expenses from ballooning well beyond $75 billion, there may have to be stern but arbitrary "means testing" to decide who is most deserving of a taxpayer-supported mortgage. And that will likely provoke resentment about how winners and losers are picked.
The third part of the plan is to get Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgages with the hope of keeping mortgage rates down. Never mind that both organizations were considered insolvent last fall, when they held far fewer dubious IOUs than they do now. The plan instructs the Treasury — which is also getting skeptical reviews from Moody's — to invest another $200 billion in Fannie and Freddie preferred shares.
Last and least helpful, the president's proposed "cramdown" would "allow judicial modification of home mortgages for borrowers who have run out of options." That would require federal legislation, and Congress would be well advised to put that plan aside in order to give the president's new options a fair chance.
Any plan that compels mortgage holders to reduce the amount of money they are owed must in turn reduce the value of mortgage-backed securities held by banks, insurance companies, pension funds, Fannie and Freddie, and the Fed. By injuring the balance sheets of potential lenders, a cramdown would also injure potential borrowers.
The needless threat of inviting judges to rewrite mortgage contracts at whim helps explain why bank stocks generally fell on the plan's announcement, while financial shorts rose.
In sum, allowing conforming loans to be refinanced without a big equity position seems promising. Trying to bribe lenders to trim monthly mortgage bills to 31% of income would help those lucky enough to get in on the deal before the money runs out. But all of this potential good could be undone by the systemic risks to mortgage-backed securities caused by the unpredictable legal risks of a judicial cramdown.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of Income and Wealth.
Persistance of Somali Piracy, U.S. Navy and other Responses
Persistance of Somali Piracy, U.S. Navy and other Responses. By J. Peter Pham
The Tank/NRO, Thursday, February 19, 2009
This week my “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review provides an updated analysis of the piracy phenomenon off the coast of Somalia and international responses to it, warning that the challenge “is not just ongoing, but incidents of attempted hijackings may actually increase” despite the efforts to counter them.
After reviewing the unprecedented level of international political and security cooperation—including United Nations resolutions and other efforts, multilateral and bilateral agreements, the stand-up United States-led Combined Task Force 151, the extension of the U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Naval Forces Africa “Africa Partnership Station” to Africa’s eastern littoral, and the deployment of other naval forces to the region—my article turns its attention to the “less promising indicators” among the Somali, including the internal contradictions within the ineffectual “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) of Somalia, the rise of nefarious influence of piracy in the institutions of the semi-autonomous Puntland region, the continuing resurgence of the Islamist extremism spearheaded by al-Shabaab, and the pressure that Somaliland is increasingly under. Thus I conclude:
The Tank/NRO, Thursday, February 19, 2009
This week my “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review provides an updated analysis of the piracy phenomenon off the coast of Somalia and international responses to it, warning that the challenge “is not just ongoing, but incidents of attempted hijackings may actually increase” despite the efforts to counter them.
After reviewing the unprecedented level of international political and security cooperation—including United Nations resolutions and other efforts, multilateral and bilateral agreements, the stand-up United States-led Combined Task Force 151, the extension of the U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Naval Forces Africa “Africa Partnership Station” to Africa’s eastern littoral, and the deployment of other naval forces to the region—my article turns its attention to the “less promising indicators” among the Somali, including the internal contradictions within the ineffectual “Transitional Federal Government” (TFG) of Somalia, the rise of nefarious influence of piracy in the institutions of the semi-autonomous Puntland region, the continuing resurgence of the Islamist extremism spearheaded by al-Shabaab, and the pressure that Somaliland is increasingly under. Thus I conclude:
No doubt considerable progress has been made in recent months in the
international community’s appreciation of the challenge represented by the
Somali pirates. However, much more remains to be done before the threat can be
diminished. Ultimately . . . the problem of Somali lawlessness at sea
will only be definitively resolved when the international community summons up
the political will to adequately address the underlying pathology of Somali
statelessness onshore. Absent a minimal framework of legitimate and effective
governance in what was formerly the territory of the unitary Somali state—and I
would include as an essential attribute of such governance some sort of coast
guard capability, probably externally supported, perhaps with its resources
divided between Somaliland (assuming the upcoming elections are held, their
conduct legitimate, and the aftermath stable) and Somalia proper (under United
Nations, African Union, or subregional tutelage until the TFG or whatever
alternative interim arrangement might emerge in its stead proves itself
effective and capable of handling such responsibilities)—the specter of piracy
will always be looming just over the horizon.
Deregulation and the Financial Panic - Loose money and politicized mortgages are the real villains
Deregulation and the Financial Panic, by Phil Gramm
Loose money and politicized mortgages are the real villains.
WSJ, Feb 20, 2009
The debate about the cause of the current crisis in our financial markets is important because the reforms implemented by Congress will be profoundly affected by what people believe caused the crisis.
If the cause was an unsustainable boom in house prices and irresponsible mortgage lending that corrupted the balance sheets of the world's financial institutions, reforming the housing credit system and correcting attendant problems in the financial system are called for. But if the fundamental structure of the financial system is flawed, a more profound restructuring is required.
I believe that a strong case can be made that the financial crisis stemmed from a confluence of two factors. The first was the unintended consequences of a monetary policy, developed to combat inventory cycle recessions in the last half of the 20th century, that was not well suited to the speculative bubble recession of 2001. The second was the politicization of mortgage lending.
The 2001 recession was brought on when a speculative bubble in the equity market burst, causing investment to collapse. But unlike previous postwar recessions, consumption and the housing industry remained strong at the trough of the recession. Critics of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan say he held interest rates too low for too long, and in the process overstimulated the economy. That criticism does not capture what went wrong, however. The consequences of the Fed's monetary policy lay elsewhere.
In the inventory-cycle recessions experienced in the last half of the 20th century, involuntary build up of inventories produced retrenchment in the production chain. Workers were laid off and investment and consumption, including the housing sector, slumped.
In the 2001 recession, however, consumption and home building remained strong as investment collapsed. The Fed's sharp, prolonged reduction in interest rates stimulated a housing market that was already booming -- triggering six years of double-digit increases in housing prices during a period when the general inflation rate was low.
Buyers bought houses they couldn't afford, believing they could refinance in the future and benefit from the ongoing appreciation. Lenders assumed that even if everything else went wrong, properties could still be sold for more than they cost and the loan could be repaid. This mentality permeated the market from the originator to the holder of securitized mortgages, from the rating agency to the financial regulator.
Meanwhile, mortgage lending was becoming increasingly politicized. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements led regulators to foster looser underwriting and encouraged the making of more and more marginal loans. Looser underwriting standards spread beyond subprime to the whole housing market.
As Mr. Greenspan testified last October at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of CRA." It was not just that CRA and federal housing policy pressured lenders to make risky loans -- but that they gave lenders the excuse and the regulatory cover.
Countrywide Financial Corp. cloaked itself in righteousness and silenced any troubled regulator by being the first mortgage lender to sign a HUD "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices." Given privileged status by Fannie Mae as a reward for "the most flexible underwriting criteria," it became the world's largest mortgage lender -- until it became the first major casualty of the financial crisis.
The 1992 Housing Bill set quotas or "targets" that Fannie and Freddie were to achieve in meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. In 1995 HUD raised the primary quota for low- and moderate-income housing loans from the 30% set by Congress in 1992 to 40% in 1996 and to 42% in 1997.
By the time the housing market collapsed, Fannie and Freddie faced three quotas. The first was for mortgages to individuals with below-average income, set at 56% of their overall mortgage holdings. The second targeted families with incomes at or below 60% of area median income, set at 27% of their holdings. The third targeted geographic areas deemed to be underserved, set at 35%.
The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that GSE losses will cost $240 billion in fiscal year 2009. If this crisis proves nothing else, it proves you cannot help people by lending them more money than they can pay back.
Blinded by the experience of the postwar period, where aggregate housing prices had never declined on an annual basis, and using the last 20 years as a measure of the norm, rating agencies and regulators viewed securitized mortgages, even subprime and undocumented Alt-A mortgages, as embodying little risk. It was not that regulators were not empowered; it was that they were not alarmed.
With near universal approval of regulators world-wide, these securities were injected into the arteries of the world's financial system. When the bubble burst, the financial system lost the indispensable ingredients of confidence and trust. We all know the rest of the story.
The principal alternative to the politicization of mortgage lending and bad monetary policy as causes of the financial crisis is deregulation. How deregulation caused the crisis has never been specifically explained. Nevertheless, two laws are most often blamed: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
GLB repealed part of the Great Depression era Glass-Steagall Act, and allowed banks, securities companies and insurance companies to affiliate under a Financial Services Holding Company. It seems clear that if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified.
Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.
When no evidence was ever presented to link GLB to the financial crisis -- and when former President Bill Clinton gave a spirited defense of this law, which he signed -- proponents of the deregulation thesis turned to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), and specifically to credit default swaps.
Yet it is amazing how well the market for credit default swaps has functioned during the financial crisis. That market has never lost liquidity and the default rate has been low, given the general state of the underlying assets. In any case, the CFMA did not deregulate credit default swaps. All swaps were given legal certainty by clarifying that swaps were not futures, but remained subject to regulation just as before based on who issued the swap and the nature of the underlying contracts.
In reality the financial "deregulation" of the last two decades has been greatly exaggerated. As the housing crisis mounted, financial regulators had more power, larger budgets and more personnel than ever. And yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Greenspan's warning about the risk posed by the massive mortgage holdings of Fannie and Freddie, regulators seemed unalarmed as the crisis grew. There is absolutely no evidence that if financial regulators had had more resources or more authority that anything would have been different.
Since politicization of the mortgage market was a primary cause of this crisis, we should be especially careful to prevent the politicization of the banks that have been given taxpayer assistance. Did Citi really change its view on mortgage cram-downs or was it pressured? How much pressure was really applied to force Bank of America to go through with the Merrill acquisition?
Restrictions on executive compensation are good fun for politicians, but they are just one step removed from politicians telling banks who to lend to and for what. We have been down that road before, and we know where it leads.
Finally, it should give us pause in responding to the financial crisis of today to realize that this crisis itself was in part an unintended consequence of the monetary policy we employed to deal with the previous recession. Surely, unintended consequences are a real danger when the monetary base has been bloated by a doubling of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the federal deficit seems destined to exceed $1.7 trillion.
Mr. Gramm, a former U.S. Senator from Texas, is vice chairman of UBS Investment Bank. UBS. This op-ed is adapted from a recent paper he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute.
Loose money and politicized mortgages are the real villains.
WSJ, Feb 20, 2009
The debate about the cause of the current crisis in our financial markets is important because the reforms implemented by Congress will be profoundly affected by what people believe caused the crisis.
If the cause was an unsustainable boom in house prices and irresponsible mortgage lending that corrupted the balance sheets of the world's financial institutions, reforming the housing credit system and correcting attendant problems in the financial system are called for. But if the fundamental structure of the financial system is flawed, a more profound restructuring is required.
I believe that a strong case can be made that the financial crisis stemmed from a confluence of two factors. The first was the unintended consequences of a monetary policy, developed to combat inventory cycle recessions in the last half of the 20th century, that was not well suited to the speculative bubble recession of 2001. The second was the politicization of mortgage lending.
The 2001 recession was brought on when a speculative bubble in the equity market burst, causing investment to collapse. But unlike previous postwar recessions, consumption and the housing industry remained strong at the trough of the recession. Critics of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan say he held interest rates too low for too long, and in the process overstimulated the economy. That criticism does not capture what went wrong, however. The consequences of the Fed's monetary policy lay elsewhere.
In the inventory-cycle recessions experienced in the last half of the 20th century, involuntary build up of inventories produced retrenchment in the production chain. Workers were laid off and investment and consumption, including the housing sector, slumped.
In the 2001 recession, however, consumption and home building remained strong as investment collapsed. The Fed's sharp, prolonged reduction in interest rates stimulated a housing market that was already booming -- triggering six years of double-digit increases in housing prices during a period when the general inflation rate was low.
Buyers bought houses they couldn't afford, believing they could refinance in the future and benefit from the ongoing appreciation. Lenders assumed that even if everything else went wrong, properties could still be sold for more than they cost and the loan could be repaid. This mentality permeated the market from the originator to the holder of securitized mortgages, from the rating agency to the financial regulator.
Meanwhile, mortgage lending was becoming increasingly politicized. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requirements led regulators to foster looser underwriting and encouraged the making of more and more marginal loans. Looser underwriting standards spread beyond subprime to the whole housing market.
As Mr. Greenspan testified last October at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of CRA." It was not just that CRA and federal housing policy pressured lenders to make risky loans -- but that they gave lenders the excuse and the regulatory cover.
Countrywide Financial Corp. cloaked itself in righteousness and silenced any troubled regulator by being the first mortgage lender to sign a HUD "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices." Given privileged status by Fannie Mae as a reward for "the most flexible underwriting criteria," it became the world's largest mortgage lender -- until it became the first major casualty of the financial crisis.
The 1992 Housing Bill set quotas or "targets" that Fannie and Freddie were to achieve in meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. In 1995 HUD raised the primary quota for low- and moderate-income housing loans from the 30% set by Congress in 1992 to 40% in 1996 and to 42% in 1997.
By the time the housing market collapsed, Fannie and Freddie faced three quotas. The first was for mortgages to individuals with below-average income, set at 56% of their overall mortgage holdings. The second targeted families with incomes at or below 60% of area median income, set at 27% of their holdings. The third targeted geographic areas deemed to be underserved, set at 35%.
The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that GSE losses will cost $240 billion in fiscal year 2009. If this crisis proves nothing else, it proves you cannot help people by lending them more money than they can pay back.
Blinded by the experience of the postwar period, where aggregate housing prices had never declined on an annual basis, and using the last 20 years as a measure of the norm, rating agencies and regulators viewed securitized mortgages, even subprime and undocumented Alt-A mortgages, as embodying little risk. It was not that regulators were not empowered; it was that they were not alarmed.
With near universal approval of regulators world-wide, these securities were injected into the arteries of the world's financial system. When the bubble burst, the financial system lost the indispensable ingredients of confidence and trust. We all know the rest of the story.
The principal alternative to the politicization of mortgage lending and bad monetary policy as causes of the financial crisis is deregulation. How deregulation caused the crisis has never been specifically explained. Nevertheless, two laws are most often blamed: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
GLB repealed part of the Great Depression era Glass-Steagall Act, and allowed banks, securities companies and insurance companies to affiliate under a Financial Services Holding Company. It seems clear that if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified.
Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.
When no evidence was ever presented to link GLB to the financial crisis -- and when former President Bill Clinton gave a spirited defense of this law, which he signed -- proponents of the deregulation thesis turned to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), and specifically to credit default swaps.
Yet it is amazing how well the market for credit default swaps has functioned during the financial crisis. That market has never lost liquidity and the default rate has been low, given the general state of the underlying assets. In any case, the CFMA did not deregulate credit default swaps. All swaps were given legal certainty by clarifying that swaps were not futures, but remained subject to regulation just as before based on who issued the swap and the nature of the underlying contracts.
In reality the financial "deregulation" of the last two decades has been greatly exaggerated. As the housing crisis mounted, financial regulators had more power, larger budgets and more personnel than ever. And yet, with the notable exception of Mr. Greenspan's warning about the risk posed by the massive mortgage holdings of Fannie and Freddie, regulators seemed unalarmed as the crisis grew. There is absolutely no evidence that if financial regulators had had more resources or more authority that anything would have been different.
Since politicization of the mortgage market was a primary cause of this crisis, we should be especially careful to prevent the politicization of the banks that have been given taxpayer assistance. Did Citi really change its view on mortgage cram-downs or was it pressured? How much pressure was really applied to force Bank of America to go through with the Merrill acquisition?
Restrictions on executive compensation are good fun for politicians, but they are just one step removed from politicians telling banks who to lend to and for what. We have been down that road before, and we know where it leads.
Finally, it should give us pause in responding to the financial crisis of today to realize that this crisis itself was in part an unintended consequence of the monetary policy we employed to deal with the previous recession. Surely, unintended consequences are a real danger when the monetary base has been bloated by a doubling of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the federal deficit seems destined to exceed $1.7 trillion.
Mr. Gramm, a former U.S. Senator from Texas, is vice chairman of UBS Investment Bank. UBS. This op-ed is adapted from a recent paper he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute.
Memo to Bandwagon Obama Fans: Get Tough!
Memo to Bandwagon Obama Fans: Get Tough! By Maegan Carberry
Huffington Post, February 20, 2009 02:10 AM (EST)
If I hear one more person declare that Obama's "honeymoon is over" or that the Republican response to the stimulus proves that his quest for a bipartisan America was naïve and ineffectual, I will surely scream. What I'd really like to know is: Where were these wise naysayers circa summer of 2007? Toting Hillary signs? Blathering about Barack's enormous potential, but (voice lowers, candidly) proclaiming the nation just wasn't ready for a black president?
See, a couple years ago, some of us were hard at work executing the inklings of an ambitious vision that the majority said was impossible. It's a good thing my friends who spent A YEAR knocking on the doors of every home in Council Bluffs, Iowa, connecting on a person-to-person level and exchanging new ideas that inspired a community, then a state, then a party, then a nation to adopt a new mindset and make history didn't listen to contrarians who could only echo simple-minded soundbites. They understood, like most forward-thinking leaders, that real, lasting problem solving happens at the root cause and is built by meticulously gaining the trust and support of invested parties. (Including, dare we acknowledge it!, the Republican party.) Any other approach is subject to the whimsical ebb and flow of partisan politics, resulting in hard-fought legislation undone each election cycle. Who wants to bleed and sweat for change that isn't going to endure?
The limited vision some of my close pals, favorite pundits and fellow Obamamaniacs have displayed post-inauguration is beyond disappointing. It's as though, in our collective gloom about the economy and the dilapidated state of our nation's affairs, we've forgotten that the prize we sought during the election was always going to be another staggering, indefinite uphill battle. How many times did you say in conversation during the campaign, "Do you think whoever wins this thing is really going to want the job when he finally gets it?"
For the last couple weeks I have wanted to shake some people and remind them of the early days, when we were the only ones who believed in the senator from Illinois. I can remember recruiting people to attend events in LA in the spring of 2007 and being blown off and told I was a dreamer. I wore my campaign buttons religiously to spark conversations, most of which centered around Obama's supposedly far-fetched viability as a presidential contender. I recall being advised by mentors to jump off the hope train and position myself more strategically in alliances with Clinton staffers.
We had to have those conversations defending Barack every day. It was a year before SuperTuesday, when we rounded a corner and people started to open their minds and hear the message. Eventually, those conversations turned even Ohio and Florida from red to blue.
Of course I'm pissed that the Republicans, desperately in need of displaying a united front after getting their asses kicked, decided to err on the side of belligerence. It wasn't a particularly bold way to lead. In fact, their lackluster stimulus performance is reminiscent of a lil vote in 2002, in which no Democrats could be found to prevent the obviously ill-advised invasion of Iraq. I'd love to call them cowards and tell them there are now plenty of vacancies at the Hotel Guantanamo Bay if they'd like to secede from the union and start their own backwards society. That would not be helpful.
I will never forget how disempowering it was in 2000, when George Bush took office and started systematically slashing the accomplishments of the Clinton administration and undercutting the hard work that a generation of progressives put into the comparably glorious 1990s era. I was appalled that a leader could be so divisive, and I was amazed at the fleeting nature of political power.
I chose to support Barack Obama because he built his coalition for America's future from the bottom up. He focused not on party politics, but encouraged us to find common interests and work together whenever it was possible. He addressed the root cause of apathy in our disengaged collective citizenship, convincing individuals through the most successful grassroots viral marketing campaign in American history that they could be leaders in their own communities. The combined choices of anyone who, as a result of his leadership, has decided to be a solution-oriented person who will act on his beliefs is the real power of this administration. I did not traipse around Des Moines, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago and Los Angeles with "Change We Can Believe In" signs just to throw my hands in the air, exasperated by a media-infused political squabble a month into this thing, and give up on the mission we signed up to execute. We have not even scratched the surface of what we can do yet.
The MSM continues to cover what politicians and other pundits are saying and doing. That's why the early days of Obama's presidency are being told in a narrative framed by a politics-as-usual perspective. Just like they missed the stories of what was really happening on the ground as the Obama campaign's dynamic field teams enlisted supporter after supporter, they're getting this story wrong too.
What's really happening is that the hype and bandwagon support that characterized the home stretch of the Obama campaign is scaling back to its dedicated core. The people who bought into the mania were destined to crash as abruptly as they clung to us when it was the hip thing to do. Secondly, the core is tired. We worked our asses off just to realize we have to do it again. Some dove into the new administration with as much energy as could be mustered, and others of us have just needed to mentally check out for a couple months and regroup. You know, think about our own long-neglected lives for a change instead of phone banking and knocking on doors every weekend.
If you fall in the latter half of the burned-out Barackers (and I certainly do), it's probably time to crawl out of hiding and come back to work. We were always the stewards of this undertaking, and our fearless leader needs us out in the field. As exhausting as it is watching this circus of cynics try to take him down after building him up, we can't possibly be as tired as he is.
Huffington Post, February 20, 2009 02:10 AM (EST)
If I hear one more person declare that Obama's "honeymoon is over" or that the Republican response to the stimulus proves that his quest for a bipartisan America was naïve and ineffectual, I will surely scream. What I'd really like to know is: Where were these wise naysayers circa summer of 2007? Toting Hillary signs? Blathering about Barack's enormous potential, but (voice lowers, candidly) proclaiming the nation just wasn't ready for a black president?
See, a couple years ago, some of us were hard at work executing the inklings of an ambitious vision that the majority said was impossible. It's a good thing my friends who spent A YEAR knocking on the doors of every home in Council Bluffs, Iowa, connecting on a person-to-person level and exchanging new ideas that inspired a community, then a state, then a party, then a nation to adopt a new mindset and make history didn't listen to contrarians who could only echo simple-minded soundbites. They understood, like most forward-thinking leaders, that real, lasting problem solving happens at the root cause and is built by meticulously gaining the trust and support of invested parties. (Including, dare we acknowledge it!, the Republican party.) Any other approach is subject to the whimsical ebb and flow of partisan politics, resulting in hard-fought legislation undone each election cycle. Who wants to bleed and sweat for change that isn't going to endure?
The limited vision some of my close pals, favorite pundits and fellow Obamamaniacs have displayed post-inauguration is beyond disappointing. It's as though, in our collective gloom about the economy and the dilapidated state of our nation's affairs, we've forgotten that the prize we sought during the election was always going to be another staggering, indefinite uphill battle. How many times did you say in conversation during the campaign, "Do you think whoever wins this thing is really going to want the job when he finally gets it?"
For the last couple weeks I have wanted to shake some people and remind them of the early days, when we were the only ones who believed in the senator from Illinois. I can remember recruiting people to attend events in LA in the spring of 2007 and being blown off and told I was a dreamer. I wore my campaign buttons religiously to spark conversations, most of which centered around Obama's supposedly far-fetched viability as a presidential contender. I recall being advised by mentors to jump off the hope train and position myself more strategically in alliances with Clinton staffers.
We had to have those conversations defending Barack every day. It was a year before SuperTuesday, when we rounded a corner and people started to open their minds and hear the message. Eventually, those conversations turned even Ohio and Florida from red to blue.
Of course I'm pissed that the Republicans, desperately in need of displaying a united front after getting their asses kicked, decided to err on the side of belligerence. It wasn't a particularly bold way to lead. In fact, their lackluster stimulus performance is reminiscent of a lil vote in 2002, in which no Democrats could be found to prevent the obviously ill-advised invasion of Iraq. I'd love to call them cowards and tell them there are now plenty of vacancies at the Hotel Guantanamo Bay if they'd like to secede from the union and start their own backwards society. That would not be helpful.
I will never forget how disempowering it was in 2000, when George Bush took office and started systematically slashing the accomplishments of the Clinton administration and undercutting the hard work that a generation of progressives put into the comparably glorious 1990s era. I was appalled that a leader could be so divisive, and I was amazed at the fleeting nature of political power.
I chose to support Barack Obama because he built his coalition for America's future from the bottom up. He focused not on party politics, but encouraged us to find common interests and work together whenever it was possible. He addressed the root cause of apathy in our disengaged collective citizenship, convincing individuals through the most successful grassroots viral marketing campaign in American history that they could be leaders in their own communities. The combined choices of anyone who, as a result of his leadership, has decided to be a solution-oriented person who will act on his beliefs is the real power of this administration. I did not traipse around Des Moines, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago and Los Angeles with "Change We Can Believe In" signs just to throw my hands in the air, exasperated by a media-infused political squabble a month into this thing, and give up on the mission we signed up to execute. We have not even scratched the surface of what we can do yet.
The MSM continues to cover what politicians and other pundits are saying and doing. That's why the early days of Obama's presidency are being told in a narrative framed by a politics-as-usual perspective. Just like they missed the stories of what was really happening on the ground as the Obama campaign's dynamic field teams enlisted supporter after supporter, they're getting this story wrong too.
What's really happening is that the hype and bandwagon support that characterized the home stretch of the Obama campaign is scaling back to its dedicated core. The people who bought into the mania were destined to crash as abruptly as they clung to us when it was the hip thing to do. Secondly, the core is tired. We worked our asses off just to realize we have to do it again. Some dove into the new administration with as much energy as could be mustered, and others of us have just needed to mentally check out for a couple months and regroup. You know, think about our own long-neglected lives for a change instead of phone banking and knocking on doors every weekend.
If you fall in the latter half of the burned-out Barackers (and I certainly do), it's probably time to crawl out of hiding and come back to work. We were always the stewards of this undertaking, and our fearless leader needs us out in the field. As exhausting as it is watching this circus of cynics try to take him down after building him up, we can't possibly be as tired as he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
