Archive for February, 2010
Don’t Overlook These Important Headlines
His position was revealed in an advance copy of his speech to the Bretton Woods council in Washington acquired by Le Monde.
If our understanding is correct, Strauss-Kahn wants the IMF to be a systemic regulator, working to find the issues which could bring down the system, before they do so.
International Monetary Fund managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn notified the fund’s executive board on Wednesday of his intention to appoint the deputy Chinese central bank governor, Zhu Min, as his special advisor.
It is the highest-level staff position attained by a Chinese citizen and follows appeals by China and other emerging nations for a bigger say in the running of the IMF and World Bank, the twin Bretton Woods institutions.
Zhu, who joined the Chinese central bank in 2009 after more than a decade as a senior executive of the Bank of China, is expected to assume his position on May 3, the Washington-based IMF said in a statement.
China hailed the move, saying it would pave the way for better cooperation between the IMF and emerging economies, which have long fought for a bigger say at the multilateral table to better reflect their growing clout.
And in a copywrited story ABC News reported Friday, a story which basically said:
International Monetary Fund head from France, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, intimated the IMF one day could be called on to provide countries with a global reserve currency which would be an alternative to the U.S. dollar.
“That day has not yet come, but I think it is intellectually healthy to explore these kinds of ideas now,” he was quoted as saying, and said such an asset could be similar to but distinctly different from the IMF’s special drawing rights, or SDRs, the accounting unit that countries use to hold funds within the IMF. It is based on a basket of major currencies. He went on to say having alternatives to the US dollar “would limit the extent to which the international monetary system as a whole depends on the policies and conditions of a single, albeit dominant, country.” and during the worldwide financial crisis the US dollar “played its role as a safe haven” asset, and the current international monetary system demonstrated resilience. “The challenge ahead is to find ways to limit the tension arising from the high demand for precautionary reserves on the one hand and the narrow supply of reserves on the other,” he said.
Keep in mind that China, Russia, and other countries have called to replace the dollar as the reserve currency and have suggested using IMF internal accounting unit in it’s place.
At the same time, UK Daily Mail reported:
The man who broke the Bank of England in 1992 is said to be at the centre of a plot to cash in on the demise of the euro.
George Soros’s investment business Soros Fund Management is among a group of heavyweight Wall Street hedge funds which have launched a series of massive bets against the euro.
The bets came after an all-star ‘ideas dinner’ in New York where some of the world’s most powerful currency speculators argued that the euro will plunge to parity with the U.S. dollar.
The single currency has been under enormous pressure because of Greece’s debt crisis, plus financial worries in Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland.
The euro traded at $1.51 in December, but has since fallen to $1.34.
Traders are borrowing 20 times the size of their bet, boosting their potential gains and losses so that a euro move to parity with the U.S. dollar could represent a ‘career’ trade.
If investors put up $5million to make a $100million trade, a five per cent price move in the right direction doubles their initial investment.
Details of the secretive dinner emerged in the Wall Street Journal just days after Mr Soros warned in a newspaper article that the euro could ‘fall apart’ even if the European Union can agree a deal to shore up support for stricken Greece.
He said: ‘Makeshift assistance should be enough for Greece, but that leaves Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland. Together they constitute too large a portion of euroland to be helped in this way.’
Mr Soros, who made more than $1billion when the pound was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992, believes the structure of the single currency is ‘patently flawed’.
Could he be using his influence to do the same here??????
That my friend is the million, no, multi-trillion dollar question.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Summit Highlights
“I was discouraged,” McConnell told reporters shortly after the daylong meeting. “I think it is pretty clear” that President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats want to continue to pursue their own sweeping measure. “What we think he ought to do is start over,” McConnell said.
I could not agree more.
Official time clock showed, by the way, the President did not do a good job of listening to Republicans. Per Fox News, the President spoke for an hour and thirty minutes, the Democrats THREE hours and fifty three minutes, and the Republicans got a mere one hour and fifty minutes.
Of course, that was evident by listening to the conversation as even though the Republicans spoke for an hour and fifty minutes, the Democrats could only repeat talking points and posture for reconciliation in my view.
Time will tell, but I would have to say this was a collasial waste of time. I do think, however, it was educational to citizen observers, many whom I know spent the day listening and watching. Hopefully the phone lines will be burning in DC tomorrow.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Harry Reid Got One Thing Right
Harry Reid said Wednesday Republicans should stop “whinning” about reconciliation as they have used the ploy more than the Democrats. While I am happy the Republicans are trying to stop Congress from ramming a bill we don’t want down our throats, I feel compelled to point out Harry Reid was right. I believe this way to circumvent the rules should be stopped. Period. No matter which party is doing it. Here is the record :
Democrats
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub.L. 96-499 (1980)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub.L. 100-203 (1987)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub.L. 101-239 (1989)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-508 (1990)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66 (1990)
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), Pub.L. 107-16 (2001)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Pub.L. 108-27 (2003)
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Pub.L. 110-84 (2007)
Republicans
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. 97-35 (1981)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, Pub.L. 97-253 (1982)
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub.L. 97-248 (1982)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1983, Pub.L. 98-270 (1984)
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA), Pub.L. 98-369 (1984)
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Pub.L. 99-272 (1986)
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub.L. 99-509 (1986) Balanced Budget Act of 1995, H.R. 2491 (vetoed December 6, 1995)
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 104-193 (1996)
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-33 (1997)
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub.L. 105-34 (1997)
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, H.R. 2488 (vetoed September 23, 1999)
Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, H.R. 4810 (vetoed August 5, 2000)
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-171 (2006)
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (TIPRA), Pub.L. 109-222 (2006)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )UN and US using Public Private Partnerships to Restructure Government
These are very important videos, each about 7 1/2 minutes. This will explain how Government is getting around typical channels to restructure, redistribute our “wealth”.
Some, you know of – The Federal Reserve, Fannie-Freddie. You can see these are not working out very well. However, they are escalating the pace at which these vehicles are being utilized at breakneck speed. Please educate yourself so that we can stop it here and see how the UN is gaining One World Order.
http://www.un.org/partnerships/YUNSystemPartners.htm
UN System Partners
- Department of Economic and Social Affairs
- Department for Disarmament Affairs
- Department of Political Affairs
- Department of Peacekeeping Operations
- Economic Commission for Africa
- Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
- Economic Commission for Europe
- Executive Office of the Secretary General
- Food and Agricultural Organization
- Global Compact Office
- International Atomic Energy Agency
- International Labour Organization
- Office for the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs
- Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
- Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict
- UN Centre for Human Settlements
- UN Programme on HIV/AIDS
- UN Development Programme
- UN Conference on Trade and Development
- UN Industrial Development Organization
- UN Institute for Disarmament Research
- UN Development Fund for Women
- UN Population Fund
- UN Environment Programme
- UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- UN Children’s Fund
- UN Institute for Training and Research
- UN Office on Drug and Crime
- World Food Programme
- World Health Organization
- World Bank
Foundations
- ABS-CBN foundation
- Aga Khan Foundation
- BBC World Service Trust
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Biovision
- Blue Moon Fund
- Charles Darwin Foundation
- Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund
- Fiorello La Guardia Foundation
- Ford Foundation
- Global Fund for HIV/AIDS
- Google.org
- Green Family Foundation
- Grameen Foundation
- Healing the Divide
- Hewlett Foundation
- Hilton Foundation
- King Baudouin Foundation
- Knowledge Channel Foundation
- LTB Foundation
- Mc Arthur Foundation
- Nike Foundation
- Nuffield Trust
- The Pew Charitable Trusts
- Philantropy Australia
- Public Benefit Foundation
- Qatar Foundation
- Rockefeller Brothers Fund
- Rockefeller Foundation
- Shell foundation
- Soros Foundation
- Starr Foundation
- Tarek Ahmed Juffali Foundation
- UN Association of the USA
- UN Foundation
- Universal Education Foundation
- World Childhood Foundation
Corporations and Companies
- Africa Practice
- American Electrical Power
- Aveda Corporation
- Bank of America
- British Petroleum
- CISCO Systems
- Citigroup
- Clorox
- Coca-Cola
- De Beers
- Domini Investment Fund
- Dow
- Ericsson
- Expedia
- G-Star Raw
- Geneva Group International
- Globalegacy International
- Hewlett Packard
- Johnson & Johnson
- Marvel
- Merck & Co
- Microsoft
- MTV
- National Basketball Association
- Nestlé
- Nike
- Nokia
- Pfizer
- Ruder Finn
- Standard Chartered Bank
- Sumitomo
- Unisys
- United Airlines
- VH1
- Vodafone
- Walmart
Government/Aid Agencies
International NGOs
Umbrella Organizations
Has the Government Perpetrated Another Fraud? The GOLD Hoax
Our Government is Complicit in a vast gold hoax? India was sold Gold by the IMF which was found to be gold coated Tungsten. Media remains silent??? Wow!
You must then follow through with logic. First the values of our investments were driven down twice, and the values of our homes have been marginalized, now the gold? If this is true, there is no way to deny the purposeful theft of our property, our wealth, by our own government. The implications of this story are mind blowing and will change history. Yet, most have not heard it. Why?
Thanks to Jean Stoner for a head’s up on this video.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )political implications of large-scale immigration
From The Center for Immigration Studies
Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects
This Backgrounder examines the political implications of large-scale immigration. Between 1980 and 2008, 25.2 million people were granted permanent residency (green cards) by the United States. A comparison of voting patterns in presidential elections across counties over the last three decades shows that large-scale immigration has caused a steady drop in presidential Republican vote shares throughout the country. Once politically marginal counties are now safely Democratic due to the propensity of immigrants, especially Latinos, to identify and vote Democratic. The partisan impact of immigration is relatively uniform throughout the country, even though local Republican parties have taken different positions on illegal immigration. Although high immigration may work against Democratic policy goals, such as raising wages for the poor and protecting the environment, it does improve Democratic electoral prospects. In contrast, immigration may help Republican business interests hold down wages, but it also undermines the party’s political fortunes. Future levels of immigration are likely to be a key determinant of Republicans’ political prospects moving forward.
The electoral impact of immigration has been greatest in counties with large populations, where most immigrants settle. In these locations, Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population. On average the immigrant share has increased 9.5 percent in these counties.
In counties of at least 50,000, where the immigrant share increased by at least two percentage points from 1980 to 2008, 62 percent saw a decline in the Republican percentage. In counties with at least a four percentage-point increase, 74 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote. In counties with at least a six percentage-point gain in the immigrant share, 83 percent saw a decline in the GOP vote share.
Republicans have remained competitive in presidential elections because losses in high-immigration counties have been offset by steady gains in low-immigration counties.
Even in Texas and Florida, often thought to be an exception, the rising immigrant population across counties is associated with sharply diminished support for Republican candidates.
In Texas, for example, the estimate shows that for every one percentage-point increase in the immigrant population in a county, the Republican vote share dropped by 0.67 percentage points, which is more than the decline nationally association with immigration.
The decline does not seem to be associated with the local Republican Party’s position on illegal immigration.
You can download a copy of the full report here:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/republican-demise.pdf
Conclusions
Using standard statistical methods, this research has directly estimated the impact of the rising percentage of immigrants across U.S. counties on Republican presidential voting in the eight presidential elections from 1980 to 2008. The conclusion is inescapable and uncomplicated. As the immigrant population has grown, Republican electoral prospects have dimmed, even after controlling for alternative explanations of GOP performance. A typical drop in Republican support in a large metro area county is about six percentage points. In other words, an urban county that cast 49 percent of its vote for the Republican candidate in 1980 could be expected to drop to 43 percent by 2008.
Across all U.S. counties, including many rural counties, the estimated effect of immigration is to drop Republican vote share 1.7 to two percentage points. Even in seemingly remote locations with negligible immigrant populations, the effect is sufficient to move a 51 percent county to a 49 percent county. Aggregated over the large number of counties and viewed through the template of the Electoral College’s winner-take-all system of elections, the impact of immigration is easily sufficient, by itself, to decide many current and future presidential elections.
If we take two roughly comparable elections, 1988 and 2004, as bookends and examine the counties with more than 50,000 people (2004)7 that experienced just a two percentage-point gain or more in the share of the population that is foreign-born, 62 percent of those locations also saw a drop in their Republican vote share between those two contests. Inspecting figures for those counties experiencing a 4 percent or greater gain in the percentage of the population that is foreign-born, 74 percent of those counties witnessed a drop in Republican vote share. Given a 6 percent gain or more in the immigrant share of the population from 1988 to 2004, 83 percent of those counties lost GOP vote share. These comparisons plainly amplify the point that growing immigrant populations have eroded Republican electoral prospects in the vast majority of cities and towns of substantial size.
Ironically, past Republican votes in Congress in favor of a more generous immigration policy have unquestionably bolstered local Democratic majorities, and succeeded in stamping out Republican prospects in once politically competitive locales. This is because Republicans have not converted the legions of Democratic-leaning Latinos who constitute the lion’s share of the immigrant population. Nor can they be expected to win over many Latinos given their weak institutional presence in the locations where new arrivals typically settle. The hope for Republican success with immigrant voters lies mainly with the upward mobility and prosperity of Latinos, Asians, and others, something that will occur only with great difficulty given current levels of low-skill, wage-corrosive immigration.
Republicans are right to want to attract Latino voters. They are indisputably a growing share of the population and the electorate. But expanding the future flow of low-skilled immigrants into an economy ill-suited to promote their upward mobility will clearly be counterproductive given the evidence presented here. At the same time, Republican opposition to higher immigration levels can be too easily typecast as racist and xenophobic. This is because the party’s elites have failed to deliver a clear message that they want a pro-immigrant policy of reduced immigration and that these two goals are complementary. Such a policy would also prove to be the best means for moving immigrants toward the middle and upper income status that will promote their geographic and political mobility.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )How the Democrats Roll
I had shown you parts of this previously, but want you to see this whole document. This just makes me first, realize how clueless these people are, and second, angry and third, sad to see what this country has become.
MEMORANDUM
TO: 2010 Senate Campaign Managers
FR: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
DT: January 26, 2009
RE: Time-sensitive tracking goals to get Republicans on record
I INTRODUCTION AND GOALS
Public opinion polls show that voters continue to hold negative views of the Republican Party, and strongly disapprove of the approach that the Republicans in Congress are taking on issues. Republicans want to run away from their records and their positions, but the key to Democratic success in 2010 is not to let them do so, and to make sure that voters understand that this election is a choice between two alternatives.
In nearly every Senate race, deep divisions within the Republican Party have materialized as Republican primary challenges and energetic third party groups. Together, these pressures are driving Republican candidates to the right and out of the mainstream of your state’s electorate. We believe pinning down all Republican candidates on their positions on a spectrum of issues will be critical in framing the general election campaign.
Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive –- opportunity for Democratic candidates. We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.
Voters are understandably angry and frustrated with the pace of change in Washington – but the last place they want to go is a return to the policies that got us here in the first place. To that end, it is incumbent upon your campaign to build the case that electing your opponent will mean a return to economic approach that nearly drove us off a cliff.
This is not about blaming the Republicans. This is about making sure voters understand the differences between the two parties. There are three goals for this project:
A. Trap your likely opponent(s) into supporting the very policies that created this economic recession. You are accumulating the evidence to later assert they want to turn back to the economic policies that created this recession.
B. Create sufficient pressure for your moderate opponents to be forced to weigh in on the positions of your far right opponents. For example, Rand Paul denies that the president is a United States citizen. Trey Grayson should be pressured into stating whether or not he believes the same.
C. Equally important as holding them accountable for positions outside the mainstream is holding them accountable for standing on the side of the special interests in Washington and corporate interests. This election will likely turn into a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies – or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.
II POLICIES THAT CAN DEFINE YOUR OPPONENT IN THE MINDS OF VOTERS
Economic Policies Bush tax cuts: Did you support the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003? Do you support extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest that received them, which are currently set to expire after 2010? Flat Tax: Do you support a national flat tax, or the fair tax? Corporate Taxes: Do you support closing corporate tax loopholes such as tax benefits for corporations that send U.S. jobs overseas?
Labor Minimum Wage Increase: Do you support an increase in the minimum wage? Wages: Did you support passage of the Fair Pay Act of 2009?
Health Care Health Care: Do you believe that health care reform should be repealed? Which parts of the bill would you throw out?
The closing of the donut hole in Medicare part D
The elimination of preexisting conditions
Minimum coverage standards
Subsidies for families to buy insurance
Tax credits for small businesses
Education Department of Education: Do you believe the U.S. Department of Education should be eliminated?
National Security Iran: Do you support a military invasion of Iran? Torture: Do you believe that the U.S. military and intelligence agencies should employ torture tactics during interrogations?
Seniors Social Security: Do you believe social security should be privatized?
Extremism
Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?
Do you think the Tenth Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum healthcare coverage standards?
Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism, and should never have been created in the first place?
Do you think President Obama is a socialist?
Do you think America should return to a gold standard?
Corporate and Special Interests
Do you support the recent Supreme Court decision affirming runaway corporate spending in elections?
Do you support the President’s proposal to tax Wall Street banks to recoup taxpayer funds?
Do you support the Democratic congressional proposals to hold financial institutions accountable with meaningful financial regulatory reform?
III TACTICS CAMPAIGNS CAN EMPLOY TO GET OPPONENTS ON THE RECORD
The first step is to identify what issues your opponent has taken a stance on in the past. Your research director should be able to definitively answer whether or not your opponent has taken a stance on any or all of the above issues and what his or her position was on each issue.
Depending on your opponent’s record there are a number of different options to choose from. If your opponent has taken a moderate position in the past, you should be sure to make sure their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip flop as it already has several times over with Mark Kirk in Illinois.
If your opponent has never taken a stance on the issue then you are going to need to draw them out on the issues. Your campaign or the state party should relentlessly urge reporters to seek answers and positions from your opponents.
During this process you should be tracking your opponent in order to document the issue positions he or she takes while they are locked in primaries or while they are traveling the state meeting with conservative activists. These video clips will give you insight into your opponent’s policy positions while they attempt to navigate their primary and if they decide to lurch to the right, we will have video proof of it for use later.
To see the rest of their skewed “rants” check out this link .
Please pay attention to races and comments made during campaigning in your area. Tell people what you are seeing. You can post to www.watchdogcentral.org in the forum. From home page click Forum, then under American Politics near the bottom of the folder lists. Watch carefully and tell us what you see. If you are on Twitter or Facebook, point people to the information you posted. Thanks.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Generation WE or Generation I for indoctrinated?
WE also has a new website that they say “is the beginning of a community to enable the Millennial Generation to mobilize and continue their important political engagement: www.gen-we.org.“
“(Millennials) have emerged as a powerful political and social force. As the largest generation in history, they are independent – politically, socially, and philosophically – and are spearheading a period of sweeping change in America and around the world. One only has to look as far as the Obama phenomena to understand that. In the latest quarter of fundraising alone, a staggering 128,000 students donated to his campaign.
We are happy to announce that we have released Generation We: How American Youth Are Taking Over America and the World Forever and all of the research that went into it FREE as open source at www.gen-we.com. It’s the open-source publishing model that makes Generation We a landmark for the information industry. Physical copies are available through bookstores and online. It’s a unique approach that sacrifices profit to make the ideas as accessible as quickly and broadly as possible.
Fences Are For Honest People
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was quoted recently as saying, “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”
Administration officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency. Are they kidding? This is the same mentality that says the agenda is not popular with the American people because Obama has not made enough speeches.
“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Circumventing the wishes of the citizens as a whole has become business as usual in Washington. While executive orders are not new, the number of EOs written by Obama is already astronomical at 40+ in his first year in office. Apparently, that was just a warm up. The President has made the decision to create a budget commission although Congress refused and made this statement boldly at his State of the Union address. He has threatened to circumvent Congress regarding approval of his cabinet members. The EPA is following suit by instituting portions of cap and trade without the bill being passed. Last week the administration announced a nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants.
Michelle Malkin pointed out:
The Daily Caller reported last week that senior administration officials are considering a series of proposals known as “High Road Contracting Policy” that would give preference to companies bidding on federal contracts that pay hourly workers a “living wage” (typically a mandated, above-market wage) and provide additional benefits above and beyond existing labor laws.Critics say the proposals would heavily favor unionized companies and significantly increase the cost and amount of time needed to award contracts. Estimates have the potential cost increase at 20 percent, adding about $100 billion a year to the federal budget. “Making contracting decisions based on political or ideological litmus tests will waste taxpayer dollars and limit economic growth at a time when we can least afford to do so. The administration’s new rules amount to a backdoor attempt at card check. The last thing our small businesses need is to be saddled with new rules that effectively say ‘unionize or die,’” said John Hart, communications director for Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. Coburn and four other Senate Republicans sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag last week asking for a briefing on the proposals; they have yet to receive a response.
So, don’t get complacent thinking the health care bill, cap and trade, and other issues such as card check are dead. Watch the other hand. Just remember what Pelosi said about getting their agenda passed:
“You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in.”
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )New Report Out on the IPCC Is A Must See
I have discovered a website I think you should bookmark for reference going forward. This is a science website dedicated to truth regarding “climate change” and other scientific lies being hoisted upon us by our government and the green agenda pushers. The website, called SPPI or Science and Public Policy Institute is a very thorough, very informative site that will keep you armed with actual facts to combat your representatives in government.
I would especially like to bring to your attention a report released this week called IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks. The introduction reads as follows with the full report in pdf by clicking the title:
Unquestionably the world’s final authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings and recommendations have formed the bedrock of literally every climate-related initiative worldwide for more than a decade. Likewise, virtually all such future endeavors — be they Kyoto II, domestic cap-and-tax, or EPA carbon regulation, would inexorably be built upon the credibility of the same U.N. panel’s “expert” counsel. But a glut of ongoing recent discoveries of systemic fraud has rocked that foundation, and the entire man-made global warming house of cards is now teetering on the verge of complete collapse.
Additional valuable information can be found in a report previously released by SPPI. The introduction and summary conclusion are found in the full report in pdf below (click on title for full report):
Fallacies about GlobalWarmingIt is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.
This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
Conclusions
The hypothesis of dangerous human caused warming caused by CO2 emission is embroiled in uncertainties of the fundamental science and its interpretation, and by fallacious public discussion. It is utterly bizarre that, in face of this reality, public funding of many billions of dollars is still being provided for climate change research. It is even more bizarre that most governments, urged on by environmental NGSs and other self-interested parties, have either already introduced carbon taxation or trading systems (Europe; some groups of US States), or have indicated a firm intention to do so (Australia).
At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emissions. Even more alarming still is the self-sustaining nature of the IPCC and its alarmist claims. The IPCC reports determine the direction of climate research and its funding, which ultimately leads to the number of scientific papers which take a particular line, and the dominance of that line of thinking is expressed in the subsequent IPCC report. The process is one of strong positive feedback for alarmist science advice. Advice which now permeates bureaucracies and governments throughout the world, and which is driving swingeingly expensive, unnecessary and ineffective national and international carbon policies.
Please bookmark Web: http://sppinstitute.org and follow them on Twitter at twitter.com/SPPInstitute
Let me remind you our current administration is not waiting for cap and trade to be passed, they are implementing it piece by piece through EPA and other government agencies. Always, always.. watch the other hand. Get on the phone to your Reps and Senators, as well as the White House itself with the FACTS. Let them know you KNOW the truth.
$1.4Billion To Americorps in Proposed Budget
From THE WASHINGTON TIMES last week came this editorial.
Among the most wasteful of the spending increases hidden in President Obama’s 2011 budget proposal is his plan to create an army of government-funded community organizers at the shocking price of $1.4 billion. While the economy reels and many taxpayers are looking for ways to trim their personal spending, the president is demanding a whopping 59 percent boost for the Corporation for National and Community Service and its best-known program, AmeriCorps. It’s time to pull the plug on both.
The spirit of volunteerism has never been in short supply in America, and there is no need for a federal community service agency to steer efforts better handled in the private sector. Youth who enlist in AmeriCorps receive education grants, living allowances, student-loan repayment, child care and other financial benefits. The average annual cost to taxpayers is $10,752 for each of these so-called volunteers. Doling out more than a billion dollars in taxpayer funds to pay “volunteers” is contrary to the very meaning of the word.
The long list of benefits succeeded in attracting 20,000 recruits after President Clinton created AmeriCorps in 1993. Mr. Obama’s stated goal is to raise that number to a quarter-million by 2017. It’s clear why the president wants to give a boost to this outfit, and the reasons are political – not charitable.
Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Republican, attempted last year to prohibit groups “engaged in political or legislative advocacy” from receiving taxpayer dollars through AmeriCorps. The left saw this as a direct attack on what has become a prime source of income and blocked the effort. As a result, the state of Oregon hosts on its official Web site a job listing for an AmeriCorps “volunteer” to accept an $11,100 living allowance and a $4,725 education award to work full time for a local Planned Parenthood office. The position requires a “commitment to the mission of Planned Parenthood,” which – among other things – is to maximize the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood….”
We have covered other stories about Americorps and of the firing of their Inspector General, Gerald Walpin after he found cronyism involving a friend of the President and taxpayer funding of personal items for the friend. We have shown the mannerisms and details of the indoctrination of our youth. One of divisions, “City Year”, has this for a slogan: “Together we’re building a citizen service movement that is larger than our organization, our lifetime, and ourselves.” The organization partners with corporate America in order to facilitate their agenda.
Americorps released this statement:
“On February 1, President Obama released his Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Corporation for National and Community Service. The request will strengthen our nation’s volunteer sector, foster innovation and civic engagement, and mobilize more than six million Americans to solve critical problems through national service. The budget proposes to expand AmeriCorps to a record-level 105,000 members, who in turn will leverage an additional three million community volunteers for the organizations they serve.”
Listed on their site, I also found the following information:
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request
On February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama released his Fiscal Year 2011 budget request, including proposed funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service and its programs. The Corporation’s FY 2011 budget request of $1.416 billion will strengthen our nation’s volunteer sector, foster innovation and civic engagement, and mobilize more than six million Americans to solve critical problems through national service.
- Corporation Budget Chart for FY 2011 (2/1/2010, PDF)
- CEO Message on the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request (2/1/2010)
- FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification (3.94 MB PDF)
Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010
On December 16, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010, which includes $200 million for the Corporation for National and Community Service to support up to 25,000 AmeriCorps member positions and corresponding Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards.
- National Service Budget Update (12/17/2009)
- Bill Text: Jobs For Main Street Act Of 2010, Excerpt of National Service Provisions (12/16/2009, PDF)
- Managers Statement: Jobs For Main Street Act Of 2010, Excerpt of National Service Provisions (12/16/2009, PDF)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
For information on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and how the Corporation for National and Community Service is implementing this legislation, please visit our Recovery page at www.nationalservice.gov/recovery.
Additional Information
Opportunities to Enrich Lives, Improve Communities, and Build a Stronger America: Pick a Way That Will Work for You.
The Corporation for National and Community Service was formed to engage Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service to meet community needs. Each year, more than 1.5 million individuals of all ages and backgrounds help meet local needs through a wide array of service opportunities. These include projects in education, the environment, public safety, homeland security and other critical areas through the Corporation’s three major programs: Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America.
“It’s easy to make a buck. It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.”
—Tom Brokaw
Learn more about the programs:
Senior Corps: Senior Corps offers a network of programs that tap the rich experience, skills and talents of older citizens to meet community challenges.
AmeriCorps: Through its programs, AmeriCorps provides opportunities for Americans to make an ongoing, intensive commitment to service.
- AmeriCorps State and National: AmeriCorps*State and National offers grants that support a broad range of local service programs that engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs. AmeriCorps*State and National also administers grants for Indian tribes and U.S. territories, who are eligible for funding that is set aside to address critical needs within their communities.
- AmeriCorps VISTA: AmeriCorps*VISTA provides full-time members to community organizations and public agencies to create and expand programs that build capacity and ultimately bring low-income individuals and communities out of poverty.
- AmeriCorps NCCC: The AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps is a full-time residential program for men and women aged 18-24 that strengthens communities while developing leaders through direct, team-based national and community service.
Learn and Serve America: Learn and Serve America provides grants to schools, higher education institutions and community-based organizations that engage students, their teachers and others in service to meet community needs.
Special Initiatives: The Corporation supports a variety of special initiatives and innovation grants.
- United We Serve / Serve.gov
- Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service
- President’s Volunteer Service Award
- Other Special Initiatives
AmeriCorps NCCC—A Full-time, Team-based Opportunity to Serve
AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps) is a full-time, team-based, residential program for men and women ages 18–24. Members live on one of five campuses, located in Denver, ; ColoradoSacramento, ; CaliforniaPerry , PointMaryland; Vicksburg, ; and MississippiVinton, .Iowa
The mission of AmeriCorps NCCC is to strengthen communities and develop leaders through direct team-based national and community service. In partnership with nonprofit organizations, state and local agencies, and faith-based and other community groups, members complete service projects in all 50 states and some U.S. territories.
Modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s and the U.S. military, AmeriCorps NCCC is built on the belief that civic responsibility is an inherent duty of all citizens and that national service programs work effectively with local communities to address pressing needs.
How AmeriCorps NCCC Works
AmeriCorps NCCC requires an intensive, 10-month commitment. Members serve in teams of eight to twelve and are assigned to projects throughout the region served by their campus. They are trained in CPR, first aid, public safety, and other skills before beginning their first service project.
AmeriCorps NCCC serves communities in every state. Members are based at one of five regional campuses and travel to complete service projects throughout those regions. Sponsoring organizations request the assistance of AmeriCorps NCCC teams by submitting a project application to the regional campus that covers that organization’s state. The campuses provide assistance in completing the application, developing a work plan, and preparing the project sponsor for the arrival of the AmeriCorps NCCC team.
Benefits of Serving with AmeriCorps NCCC
AmeriCorps NCCC members receive a living allowance of approximately $4,000 for the 10 months of service (about $200 every two weeks before taxes), housing, meals, limited medical benefits, up to $400 a month for childcare, if necessary, member uniforms, and a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award upon successful completion of the program.
Who Can Apply to Host an AmeriCorps NCCC Team?
- Non-profits—secular and faith based
- Local municipalities
- State governments
- Federal government
- National or state parks
- Indian Tribes
- Schools
Each year, AmeriCorps NCCC engages teams of members in meaningful projects in communities across the United States. Service projects, which typically last from six to eight weeks, address critical needs related to natural and other disasters, infrastructure improvement, environmental stewardship and conservation, energy conservation, and urban and rural development. Members construct and rehabilitate low-income housing, respond to natural disasters, clean up streams, help communities develop emergency plans, and address countless other local needs.
Public Allies
One of the outfits well funded through Americorps is Public Allies which both the President and First Lady were very involved in, even serving on the board, while in Chicago. The following statement comes from their website:
President-elect Obama was a member of the founding advisory board of Public Allies. Michelle was the founding Executive Director of Public Allies Chicago from Spring, 1993 until Fall, 1996, and served on our national board of directors from 1997 until 2001. President-elect Obama was no longer on the board of Public Allies when Michelle was hired. Before joining Public Allies, she was an attorney at the law firm of Sidley & Austin and Deputy Director of Community Development for the City of Chicago.
· Under Michelle’s leadership, Public Allies Chicago pioneered many elements of Public Allies’ program model. To identify and develop the next generation of leaders, she recruited young people from housing projects and youth centers as well colleges and universities. Her emphasis on indigenous leadership and belief that all people have potential to lead became a core value of our leadership philosophy. When she left, Public Allies Chicago had a cash reserve, a committed board, a talented young staff, and a network of diverse, talented young leaders in who continue to serve the community today. Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – leaders who create new approaches and organizations to provide new solutions to social problems.ChicagoChicago
· At her subsequent jobs at the of ChicagoUniversity and University of Chicago Medical Center, Michelle hired more than a dozen Public Allies to work with her. In addition, she has continued to advise, coach, donate to, and champion Public Allies. President-elect Obama has also been an active volunteer and supporter. President-elect Obama has trained several classes of Allies in community organizing, spoken at Public Allies Chicago events, and helped Senator Durbin secure an appropriation from the Department of Justice that successfully helped us better recruit and retain young men of color for our Chicago program and learn practices we are applying nationally.
· Michelle Obama and Public Allies CEO Paul Schmitz were also original faculty members of the Asset-Based Community Development Institute at UniversityNorthwestern, led by John McKnight and Jody Kretzmann. John McKnight worked with Barack Obama as an organizer and wrote his SchoolLawHarvard recommendation (see Audacity of Hope, page 360). The Institute has a strategic alliance with Public Allies’ consulting group, The Leadership Practice, through which we provide training and consulting services on how to better identify and mobilize local community assets and participation to strengthen communities….”
You can view a presentation of the organization here.
Oh, and yes, as you can see by the list below, George Soros (Open Society), Fannie Mae and those receiving TARP money are among those that donate to this organization:
|
During the past 15 years, our mission and successful programs have inspired more than $25 million in private donations, $25 million in public support, and $25 million from our community partners. Our unique public-private-partner funding structure allows us to leverage our private donations with funding from AmeriCorps and Partner Organizations to generate a huge social return on investment.
Click here to review the Public Allies Gift Acceptance Policy. Click here to review the Audits for 2006 and 2007. Public Allies Investors Since 1992 Champions Atlantic Philanthropies Top Allies ABC/Capital Cities ABN/Amro (LaSalle Bank) Advanta Foundation Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Brico Fund Castellini Family Foundation Community Foundation of Greater New Haven Daniels Fund Deutsche Bank Richard H. Driehaus Foundation Echoing Green Fund for the City of New YorkDavid Geffen Foundation The Gill Foundation Luke B. Hancock Foundation William Randolph Hearst Foundation Richard & Ethel Herzfeld Foundation Honkamp Family Foundation IBM Henry Jackson Foundation Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Knight Foundation Laffey-McHugh Foundation Levi Strauss & Co. Henry Luce Foundation MBNA AmericaFaye McBeath Foundation New York Community Trust David & Lucile Packard Foundation Ralph M. Parsons Foundation Pinkerton Foundation Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation Jack & Lucile Rosenberg Smart Family Foundation A.O. Smith Foundation Sobrato Family Foundation Sidney Stern Memorial Trust D. Michael Warner Foundation Government Sources Corporation for National and Community Service (AmeriCorps) City of Cincinnati, Dept. of Neighborhood Services |
Who Actually Holds Our Debt
This information taken from the Treasury Dept Website. Thanks to JoAnne Moretti for pointing out the information to S4L.
These estimates of monthly holdings of Treasury securities by country are derived from a combination of monthly data on foreign holdings of short-term Treasury bills and certificates and periodic surveys of holdings of long-term Treasury bonds and notes that are updated using monthly data on foreign net purchases of long-term Treasury securities. An additional adjustment is made to include monthly holdings of non-marketable Treasury securities.
Valuation of securities. Users should also be aware that the securities estimates in the Major Foreign Holders tables are a hybrid of market and face values. Foreign holdings of short-term Treasury bills are reported on the TIC form BL-2 at face value. Holdings of and transactions in long-term Treasury securities are collected at market value. However, no attempt is made in the estimation process to adjust the long-term data to account for price changes occurring subsequent to the survey or transactions dates. Holdings of non-marketable securities are included at current value.
The graph hangs over the margins on the website but was included here in it’s entirety for your convenience. To get a better look, simply click the title which is linked to the government website.
MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES (in billions of dollars) HOLDINGS 1/ AT END OF PERIOD Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Country 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2008 2008 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ China, Mainland 789.6 798.9 798.9 797.1 800.5 776.4 801.5 763.5 767.9 744.2 739.6 727.4 713.2 Japan 757.3 745.9 751.0 730.6 723.9 711.2 677.2 685.9 686.7 661.9 634.8 626.0 625.2 United Kingdom 2/ 277.5 230.1 248.8 226.4 219.4 213.4 163.7 152.7 128.1 129.0 123.9 130.9 132.4 Oil Exporters 3/ 187.7 188.4 185.3 189.2 189.3 191.2 192.9 189.6 192.0 181.8 186.6 186.2 187.2 Carib Bnkng Ctrs 4/ 179.8 170.6 173.0 181.3 194.5 191.0 195.2 205.1 214.0 189.5 176.9 197.5 205.0 Brazil 157.1 156.2 144.9 137.3 138.1 139.8 127.1 126.0 126.6 130.8 133.5 127.0 136.1 Hong Kong 146.2 142.0 132.2 124.7 115.3 99.8 93.2 80.9 78.9 76.3 71.7 77.2 70.6 Russia 128.1 122.5 121.8 121.6 118.0 119.9 124.5 137.0 138.4 130.1 119.6 116.4 108.0 Luxembourg 91.7 91.0 99.0 94.4 92.2 104.3 96.2 97.4 106.0 92.1 87.0 97.3 94.2 Taiwan 78.4 78.7 78.1 75.9 77.4 77.0 75.7 78.3 74.8 72.6 73.3 71.8 70.2 Switzerland 75.8 71.5 68.9 68.2 68.1 71.5 63.7 64.2 67.7 68.2 62.1 62.3 63.8 Germany 53.6 52.9 53.7 55.0 56.1 53.8 55.1 54.4 54.9 56.5 56.2 56.0 53.8 France 47.5 36.2 32.0 35.0 24.6 26.0 25.9 30.6 27.1 16.8 17.9 16.8 18.4 Canada 46.6 40.3 37.7 25.7 19.6 18.4 11.0 12.5 11.3 10.3 8.4 7.8 12.7 Korea, South 39.1 42.2 38.8 38.7 37.6 36.3 37.4 35.4 33.1 33.3 31.3 31.3 32.7 Ireland 38.8 38.3 32.7 36.6 38.7 46.3 50.6 49.7 54.7 54.5 50.0 54.3 41.3 Singapore 36.4 35.2 38.3 42.0 42.3 40.8 39.6 39.7 39.1 39.3 38.3 40.8 38.7 Thailand 31.7 30.1 30.1 33.5 31.4 29.7 26.8 28.5 26.0 39.7 37.2 32.4 33.9 India 31.6 32.9 35.9 38.5 38.9 39.3 38.8 38.5 38.2 34.6 32.5 29.2 22.3 Turkey 29.6 30.4 28.2 28.7 27.3 27.5 28.8 27.2 30.2 32.4 31.3 30.8 29.0 Norway 26.2 24.9 25.2 24.7 28.9 28.7 28.3 27.5 26.2 21.1 21.9 23.1 20.2 Mexico 26.2 20.7 22.1 27.5 27.7 29.5 31.5 35.3 36.2 37.8 34.8 34.8 33.8 Egypt 25.3 20.2 20.8 20.4 18.6 17.3 18.6 18.5 18.5 19.1 16.9 17.2 16.8 Netherlands 20.3 19.8 21.3 21.4 21.5 18.9 16.4 16.5 17.6 16.1 16.8 15.4 15.6 Sweden 19.4 19.2 18.3 16.7 16.5 16.4 13.0 12.7 12.5 12.6 12.4 12.7 13.1 Italy 19.1 19.1 17.6 16.9 17.3 16.7 16.7 16.1 16.6 16.4 15.6 16.0 15.9 Israel 16.6 16.0 18.3 17.7 17.0 18.1 19.0 19.1 19.4 17.4 16.9 18.8 13.8 Colombia 15.6 16.8 16.8 16.4 14.9 11.8 12.0 11.5 11.3 11.5 11.4 11.1 11.5 Belgium 15.3 14.7 15.0 15.6 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.8 15.4 14.5 15.5 15.9 15.3 Chile 12.2 12.5 12.9 13.0 13.5 14.3 14.7 15.1 15.5 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.1 Philippines 12.2 11.9 11.8 12.4 11.4 11.6 11.8 12.0 12.4 12.6 11.6 11.7 11.5 Australia 11.5 10.5 10.1 10.2 9.8 9.9 9.0 8.4 5.8 8.1 7.8 9.3 8.7 Malaysia 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.2 11.9 11.7 12.3 11.6 10.6 8.4 8.0 8.4 8.8 All Other 142.3 146.4 146.7 148.5 149.7 147.5 148.6 145.0 150.7 156.7 154.5 147.0 147.4 Grand Total 3597.5 3498.1 3497.4 3453.1 3427.5 3382.1 3292.6 3262.1 3264.6 3161.5 3071.5 3075.9 3036.0 Of which: For. Official 2404.6 2384.8 2369.4 2360.0 2346.1 2295.7 2287.5 2253.6 2248.6 2198.1 2165.8 2138.7 2104.1 Treasury Bills 586.6 598.0 597.7 607.3 606.6 571.9 586.2 530.6 542.7 521.2 486.9 457.9 427.2 T-Bonds & Notes 1818.0 1786.8 1771.7 1752.7 1739.5 1723.8 1701.3 1723.1 1705.9 1676.9 1678.9 1680.8 1676.9 Department of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Board January 19, 2010 1/ Estimated foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury marketable and non-marketable bills, bonds, and notes reported under the Treasury International Capital (TIC) reporting system are based on annual Surveys of Foreign Holdings of U.S.Securities and on monthly data. 2/ United Kingdom includes Channel Islands and Isle of Man. 3/ Oil exporters include Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq,Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon,Libya, and Nigeria. 4/ Caribbean Banking Centers include Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands,Netherlands Antilles and Panama.Beginning with new series for June 2006, also includes British Virgin Islands.
How are TIC data used by BEA and the Federal Reserve? Where else are TIC data reported or used?
Besides being reported on the TIC website, detailed data from the monthly and quarterly TIC forms are combined and presented in several tables in the Capital Movements section of the quarterly Treasury Bulletin, available at: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html
TIC data, including the data from the periodic surveys of holdings of securities, are also a primary input to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ International Transactions Accounts and for the International Investment Position of the United States. Links to the BEA’s international transactions data releases and to a description of how BEA aligns and augments data from the TIC system for inclusion in the International Transactions Accounts are available under the Bureau of Economic Analysis section of the TIC website’s “Articles of Interest” at: www.treas.gov/tic/articles.html#BEAarticles
The TIC monthly and quarterly data are also published in several tables on International Statistics in the Statistical Supplement to the Federal Reserve Bulletin. The Statistical Supplement is available at: www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/supplement/default.htm
The TIC data are indirectly the basis of the Federal Reserve Board’s Flow of Funds accounts for financial positions and flows of the Rest of the World sector. The Flow of Funds accounts use as their primary input the data as published by BEA in its international transactions accounts, which as noted above are based on the TIC data. The Flow of Funds Accounts are available from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ website at this link: www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/
TIC data are also used to compute the U.S. Gross External Debt position, which is published as part of the International Monetary Fund’s Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS). At present, 64 countries provide data on their gross external debt position as part of the SDDS. The U.S. Gross External Debt data are available on the TIC webpage at: www.treas.gov/tic/external-debt.html. The data published by each country are available from the IMF’s SDDS webpage: External Debt (EXD) data for SDDS Subscribers. The data in spreadsheet format, including cross-country comparisions, are available from the webpage: World Bank Quarterly External Debt Statistics.
The surveys of U.S. holdings of foreign securities are also the basis of the U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund’s Coordinated Portfolio Investment Surveys, available on the IMF’s CPIS website at this link: www.imf.org/external/np/sta/pi/cpis.htm
Where can I find comparable data for other countries?
As noted in FAQ number 5, the TIC surveys of U.S. holdings of foreign securities are the basis of the U.S. contributions to the International Monetary Fund’s annual Coordinated Portfolio Investment Surveys. Since 2001, many countries have participated in the Coordinated Portfolio Investment Surveys: as of 2005, 73 countries are participants. The IMF consolidates the data from these surveys and posts the results, along with analytical tables, on the IMF’s CPIS website, available at: www.imf.org/external/np/sta/pi/cpis.htm
In addition, the IMF’s Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS) website provides links to other participating country’s External Debt calculations and estimates of their International Investment Position. The SDDS website is available at: http://dsbb.imf.org/Applications/web/sddshome/
Find Out More about Treasury International Capital System at http://www.treas.gov/tic/Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Announcing Watchdog Central Theater
Help Kill the Patriot Act
The Truth About Measuring Job Numbers
There was a really informative editorial in the Washington Times Tuesday regarding job numbers:
Economists measure the number of jobs two different ways: the establishment survey that asks about 370,000 employers how many people they are employing and the household survey that asks about 110,000 people each month whether they are working. The establishment survey is often given more weight because about 40 million Americans work for the companies surveyed, a lot more than the 110,000 people interviewed in the other survey. But 110,000 people still make up a huge sample (a large survey for a presidential election might involve 2,000 to 3,000 people), and it is hard to ignore the results. The household survey is also what is used to calculate the unemployment rate.
The problem is that the two surveys have reached different estimates, with the household survey showing a significantly greater drop in the number of jobs than the establishment survey. It turns out that there might be a simple reason for that. For the survey of firms, the list of firms surveyed doesn’t change very often. Thus, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which puts these numbers together, can only guess at the number of jobs created by new firms because it doesn’t even know how many new firms have been created each month. To get around this gap in the data, the bureau makes an assumption that the jobs created at new companies are about equal to the jobs lost at companies that go out of business.
That assumption hasn’t come close to being right during the current recession. The error in estimating the number of jobs from April 2008 to March 2009 was 10 times greater than the average error over the preceding eight years. Typically, the government error would underestimate the number of new jobs by 80,000, but this time, it overestimated the number of jobs by more than 800,000.
No one will know what the error rate has been with the establishment survey from April to December 2009 until the numbers are revised again in February 2011, three months after the 2010 midterm elections. But a great deal of skepticism seems warranted. The establishment survey assumes that new firms generated almost a million new jobs over those nine months. At the same time, the household survey just happens to show that about a million more jobs were lost than the survey of firms indicates.
Remember also, in a column last week, I shared a heads up provided by my Congressman Dave Camp regarding the actual number of new jobs per state as evidenced by state rolls versus the number the Obama Administration claimed they had produced. The numbers were ASTONISHINGLY different, with only two areas producing jobs – a limited number of new jobs in North Dakota and, of course, a much,much larger number of new jobs in Washington DC.
Remember too, for every trillion dollars our government wastes that equates to over $3000 for every man, woman and child in America… for each and every trillion dollars they spend. They just raised the debt ceiling to over $14,000,000,000,000 or $42,000 for every man, woman and child in America. That does not account for health care, cap and trade, the next stimulus (aka jobs bill) or any other theft of our money going forward.
The so called jobs bill, which is actually just another worthless “stimulus” bill, contains much that won’t take effect for the next several years. Congress is not allowed to call it a stimulus bill, by the way. That is forbidden by the administration. If it’s not going to put America to work NOW in non-governmental jobs, then WHAT IN THE HECK ARE THEY DOING?
Glenn Beck had said late last year to NOT let anything pass, nothing, in Washington, DC. He could not have been more right.
Nothing is truthful. Nothing is sincere. Nothing is worthwhile. Nothing is worthy of the American people.
Until such time as we can get honesty out of our government (don’t hold your breathe), NOTHING CAN BE ALLOWED TO PASS.
Let’s have some common sense solutions of a non-political nature. Our government has shown it is NOT capable of doing that. Everything boils down to foolery, trickery, and pocket stuffing by our politicians in both parties.
CUT TAXES. STOP SPENDING. It’s not hard to figure out, but it’s seems it’s difficult for them to comprehend.
We need REAL JOBS, NON-GOVERNMENT JOBS, RIGHT NOW. We also need to increase the unemployment rate by a whole lot in our nations capital.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )Follow-up On Council of Governors Nominees
Over the weekend we discussed the Council of Governors Execuitive Order and the list of nominees presented by the Obama Administration, with a promise to highlight salient points found regarding these nominees.
Governor James H. Douglas, Appointee for Co-Chair, Council of Governors
State of the State Address 01/07/2010
My take on Gov. Douglas, a Republican, is that he walks the line of the fiscal conservative, failing to commit to these principles whole heartedly. While he condemns recent tax hikes passed by his legislature, he calls for a partial rollback but also calls for ways to siphon some of the money into his ideas for the state. He seems to support many of the left leaning goals such as climate change, health care reforms, government mandates and collectivism. It is odd to me no position papers were issued by the candidate or the governor, and no issue data could be found. That automatically raises suspicions for me, especially since he is a 59 year old career politician. Mmmm. There were things I agreed with in his speech, but here are the things that sounded alarm bells in my head:
Today, that work is far from done. In these uncertain times, we must transform our public and economic framework by redesigning how we deliver state services and refocusing efforts to create jobs and ensure economic security for Vermonters. Out of necessity and because it is the right thing to do, we must act now to write the next chapter in the proud history of Vermont.
…I’ve seen, time and again, the will of Vermonters to change, reform and make better this great state. I’ve seen what can be accomplished when we work together, putting the public good before self interest. Indeed, the last decade has been full of such accomplishments.
…Vermont’s commitment to our natural resources is unwavering. The Clean and Clear Action Plan is a model for how government, citizen groups, farmers and others can work together to reduce pollution in our waterways. We’ve led on climate change by partnering with other northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And we were the first state to join California in adopting more stringent standards for automobile emissions, ultimately forcing the federal government to follow our lead. Our environmental leadership is a source of pride that sets us apart and gives us a leg-up in the green economy.
…Thanks to our head start, Vermont has been well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — ARRA. While other states asked for planning funds, Vermont sought and won major federal grants for technology implementation. With nearly $70 million in ARRA funds, plus an additional $120 million in investment by Vermont utilities, we are building a high-capacity, fiber-optic backbone that enables next generation innovations to take root and grow in our state.
…Part of this backbone is our Smart Grid — a breakthrough in energy conservation. The Smart Grid will help families save on electric bills by knowing the best time to use appliances. Businesses will cut costs by choosing to operate equipment when it is least expensive. And Vermonters will be prepared to take advantage of new technologies — such as electric cars — to cut emissions and clean our air.
Governor Chris Gregoire, Appointee for Co-Chair, Council of Governors
Ms. Gregoire is a Democrat. Based on her position papers, the governor appears to follow the philosophy of the left in many aspects. To her credit, she appears to be strong on security, however.
Governor Luis G. Fortuño, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
A former Republican turned member of the New Progressive Party, he was educated in Virginia and Washington DC. To his credit, he has fully supported ACT for America agenda to strengthen American ideals, Not a lot of information was available for Gov. Fortuno.
Governor Brad Henry, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Gov. Henry is a pro-gun rights Democrat. Political courage test results indicate his views are limited pro-choice, for increased spending in education and health care, for government social engineering through tax structure (extra taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, etc). He also appears to be fairly tough on crime, although he does advocate for increased training for inmates. In my opinion, available political courage test results appear to show he is a strong believer in government spending as a way to address problems.
Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
A Republican and former military man, Gov. McDonnell is strongly pro-gun, pro-life, pro-Christian and pro-business. Gov. McDonnell is for government spending scrutiny, cutting tax burdens, anti-death tax, and tough on crime.
Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
A Pro-ACORN, Pro-UN, pro-tax Democrat, his noted positions appear fairly weak on defense. To his credit, he appears tough on crime. Other positions appear to indicate he is a believer in the green agenda, social engineering (particularly affirmative action programs), appears to favor government intervention over personal liberties (especially regulation of nicotine as a drug and mandates on gun ownership), pro-rights for illegals.
Governor Martin O’Malley, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Limited information appears to show O’Malley as a pro-government, pro-green Democrat. Governor O’Malley, for Mayor of (notoriously corrupt) Baltimore, has severely limited information donation to VoteSmart. He does serve the National Governors Association Special Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety and is big into cyber-security issues.
Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
A supposed moderate, and pro-ACLU Democrat, Gov. Perdue is also limited pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-government, but does appear to be tough on crime. On most issues she seems to tow the liberal line, however, she does appear to favor most gun rights and she does espouse cutting capital gains, property and grocery taxes. Lawyers appear to favor her, contributing large amounts to her campaign.
Governor M. Michael Rounds, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
A pro-gun, pro-business Republican, he has a very limited pro-choice stance on abortion, and tows the Republican agenda line fairy consistently. He is in favor of cutting both capital gains and income taxes.
Overall, based on the limited amount of information readily available, it would appear the Council of Governors veers somewhat left, not surprising as they are appointed by the Obama administration. I do find hope in the inclusion of Governor McDonnell of VA, however.
None the less, the Council must be watched closely, especially contributions made to recommendations for changes to public safety and homeland security laws. As with the current House and Senate, the majority are left leaning, pro-government liberals, which may not bode well for our personal liberties.
Also troublesome to me is that these nominees did not feel compelled to share positions with the voters through disclosure of their personal views. I realize that’s American Politics today, which is why websites like this and WatchdogCentral.org are necessary.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
…Part of this backbone is our Smart Grid — a breakthrough in energy conservation. The Smart Grid will help families save on electric bills by knowing the best time to use appliances. Businesses will cut costs by choosing to operate equipment when it is least expensive. And Vermonters will be prepared to take advantage of new technologies — such as electric cars — to cut emissions and clean our air.
Gov. Henry is a pro-gun rights Democrat. Political courage test results indicate his views are limited pro-choice, for increased spending in education and health care, for government social engineering through tax structure (extra taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, etc). He also appears to be fairly tough on crime, although he does advocate for increased training for inmates. In my opinion, available political courage test results appear to show he is a strong believer in government spending as a way to address problems.
Council of Governors Nominees Named
Thank you to Whenifhow on freerepublic for bringing this to my attention:
On January 11th, President Obama created his 40th executive order with the decree a Council of Governors be formed to oversee and coordinate the “partnership” between Washington and the states regarding security.
Thursday, he nominated the chosen few for positions on that council. I have included the executive order, the press release naming the nominees and have also added a link to votesmart for each nominee. At the link, you can scroll through recent news stories for each nominee and are encouraged to click tabs for their voting records, stand on issues, campaign contributors, etc. How these choices stack up will illuminate any behind the scenes manuvering by the administration. States, under the constitution, are soveriegn and the “council of governors” edges very close to the line, and most likely crossing it, as to what would be considered constitutional.
I will take the weekend, like you, to look at this information and will report back with findings Sunday night.
Executive Order 13528 of January 11, 2010
Establishment of the Council of Governors
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–181), and in order
to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and
State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it
is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council). The Council
shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members),
of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term
of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be
2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members
of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of
Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information,
or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security;
the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism;
the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement;
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command;
the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast
Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive
departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such views, information,
or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities
in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland
defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to
coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the
Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary
of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability
of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support, assignment
or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the
performance of the Council’s functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees
shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any
designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s
behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under
this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms
of this order to refine further its purpose, scope, and objectives and to
allocate duties, as appropriate, among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section
2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and
(b) the term ‘‘Governor’’ has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of
section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head
thereof; or
(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party
against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers,
employees, or agents, or any other person.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 04, 2010
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 2/4/10
WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to the Council of Governors. The Council, created January 11 of this year by Executive Order, will work closely with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other defense and national security advisors to exchange views, information and advice on matters of mutual interest pertaining to the National Guard, homeland defense, synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States, and civil support activities.
- Governor James H. Douglas, Co-Chair, Council of Governors
- Governor Chris Gregoire, Co-Chair, Council of Governors
- Governor Janice K. Brewer, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor Luis G. Fortuño, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor Brad Henry, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor Martin O’Malley, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, Member, Council of Governors
- Governor M. Michael Rounds, Member, Council of Governors
President Obama said, “I am pleased that these Governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors. This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our State Governments and the Federal Government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense. I look forward to working with them in the years ahead.”
President Obama announced today his intent to appoint the following individuals:
Governor James H. Douglas, Appointee for Co-Chair, Council of Governors
James H. Douglas was first elected Governor of Vermont in 2002 and is now in his fourth term. He serves as Chair of the National Governors Association and is past president of the Council of State Governments. As Governor of Vermont, Governor Douglas established Vermont’s Homeland Security Advisory Council to assess Vermont’s overall homeland security preparedness, policies, and communications and to advise the governor on strategies to improve the current system. Prior to being elected governor, he was elected State Treasurer and served as president of the National Association of State Treasurers. Governor Douglas has also served as a state legislator and Secretary of State. He graduated from Middlebury College.
Governor Chris Gregoire, Appointee for Co-Chair, Council of Governors
Chris Gregoire is the Governor of the State of Washington. She was first elected in 2005 and re-elected in 2009. She sits on the National Governors Association Executive Committee, Economic Development and Commerce Committee, as well as the Special Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety. From 1993 – 2005, Governor Gregoire was a three-term Washington State Attorney General. She graduated from the University of Washington with a Bachelor of Arts degree in speech and sociology, and received her law degree from Gonzaga University.
Governor Janice K. Brewer, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Janice K. Brewer became the 22nd Governor of Arizona taking the oath of office on January 21, 2009. She serves on the National Governors Association Health and Human Services Committee. Governor Brewer was first elected as the Secretary of State in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. She served as an appointee on the Governor’s Military Task Force dealing with base closure issues. Prior to becoming Secreatry of State she served as Maricopa County Supervisor, and as a member of both houses of the Arizona Legislature.
Governor Luis G. Fortuño, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Luis G. Fortuño is the current governor of Puerto Rico. He was elected in 2008. He sits on the National Governors Association Economic Development and Commerce Committee. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004. In 1994, he became Puerto Rico’s first secretary of the Department of Economic Development and Commerce. Governor Fortuño earned a bachelor’s degree from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School.
Governor Brad Henry, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Brad Henry is currently serving his second term as governor of Oklahoma. Governor Henry is a member of the National Governors Association Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee. Originally elected in 2002, Governor Henry was re-elected in 2006. Before his election as governor, he served ten years in the Oklahoma State Senate. Governor Henry attended the University of Oklahoma as a President’s Leadership Scholar and earned a bachelor’s degree in economics He was awarded his law degree from the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Robert F. McDonnell was elected in 2009, and is the 71st Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Governor McDonnell serves on the National Governors Association Health and Human Services Committee. He began his career in public service as a prosecutor in the Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. In November 1991, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. He served 14 years in the Virginia House of Delegates from Virginia Beach. Previously, he served as Attorney General of Virginia. Governor McDonnell served as a medical supply officer in the United States Army for four years and in the U.S. Army Reserve for 16 years, retiring with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. McDonnell attended the University of Notre Dame on a ROTC scholarship, graduating with a BBA in Management. McDonnell received a MSBA from Boston University and a MA/JD from the Regent University School of Law.
Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Jeremiah W. Nixon was elected as Missouri’s 55th governor in 2008. Governor Nixon serves on the National Governors Association Health and Human Services Committee. He is responsible for operating Missouri’s innovative fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center. Governor Nixon has also served four terms as the state attorney general and was first elected Missouri Attorney General in 1992. Governor Nixon received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Missouri and after practicing law for several years, he was elected to the Missouri State Senate in 1986.
Governor Martin O’Malley, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Martin O’Malley is the Governor of Maryland. He was first elected in 2006. Governor O’Malley sits on the National Governors Association Committee on Education, Early Childhood, and Workforce and co-chairs the National Governors Association Special Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety. He has been a leader in the area of national security, releasing the first comprehensive inventory of any state’s cyber security assets. Before being elected governor, he served as the Mayor of Baltimore City for seven years. He has also served on the Baltimore City Council. Governor O’Malley graduated from Catholic University and received a law degree from the University of Maryland.
Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
Beverly Eaves Perdue was elected Governor of North Carolina in 2008. She sits on the National Governors Association Committee on Economic Development and Commerce and Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety, and is a Lead Governor on the National Guard. Governor Perdue has a long history of public service, including her tenure as Lt. Governor from 2000 -2008 as well three years in the North Carolina House of Representatives and nine years in the State Senate. As Lt. Governor she led North Carolina’s response during the 2005 round of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Prior to running for office she worked as a public school teacher and as director of geriatric services at a community hospital. Perdue holds a Ph.D. in Education Administration.
Governor M. Michael Rounds, Appointee for Member, Council of Governors
M. Michael Rounds was sworn-in as South Dakota’s 31st governor in 2003, and re-elected in 2006. Governor Rounds is Chair of the National Governors Association Health and Human Services Committee. He formerly chaired the Western Governors Association. From 1991 to 2000, he served five terms in the South Dakota State Senate. In 1995, he was chosen by his peers to serve as senate majority leader, a post he held for six years. Governor Rounds graduated from South Dakota State University with a degree in political science.
« Previous Entries
Soldier For Liberty 