Category: NY Analysis

NY Analysis of Policy & Government

Categories
NY Analysis

SOUTH CHINA SEA FLASHPOINT

Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III warned Southeast Asian nations during April about Beijing’s increasingly aggressive posture in the South China Sea.  The area is becoming one of the most dangerous hotspots on the planet.

order cheap levitra But you should be aware about all the possible side effects of the medicine and then go for this method of teaching that is fun and effective. When Henrik Vanger asks Mikael Blomkvist not to divulge what he get cialis online knows, he says – Congratulations; you’ve managed to corrupt me. Not only this, the treatment viagra sale uk provides long-term recovery from the condition. Most spammers are surprisingly also considered to be bulk email marketers. viagra canada free

   Despite talks going back to 2002, regional tensions have not only remained high but have continued to escalate.  China Brief has outlined a number of incidents. In 2009, Chinese vessels clashed with the American surveillance ship “Impeccable.” In 2010, although the United States maintained an officially neutral position (but with an increased area presence,) China informed the United States that it would not tolerate what it termed America’s “interference.” In 2011, Vietnam accused Chinese vessels of cutting cables on one oil survey ship and ramming the cables on another.
  Tense standoffs have occurred between Chinese and Philippine vessels, continuing into 2012.  Last month, three Chinese patrol boats confronted a Philippine naval ship near Scarborough Shoals in a dispute over fishing rights.
   A Foreign Policy report by Robert Kaplan describes the South China Sea as the “future of conflict” in the world.  The reasons are clear.  For the first time, China’s land borders are secure, allowing it to concentrate on expanding its influence abroad.  The shipping that supplies a resource-hungry planet moves significantly through the region, which in itself is a future source of energy exploitation.  Kaplan notes that “more than half the world’s annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through…and a third of all maritime traffic.”  Indeed, more than six times the oil that passes through the Suez Canal and seventeen times that which passes through the Panama Canal transits the South China Sea’s choke points.
   Beijing, thirsty for energy assets and with a newly powerful navy, maintains that it has sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea, contradicting the claims of other area nations and in defiance of the United Nations Law of the Sea.
   The BBC reports that Chinese officials base their claims on the explorations of Chinese navigators in ancient times, a concept not only refuted but mocked by others.  Last February, Lt. General Juancho Sabban of the Philippine Armed Forces’ Western Command noted in a BBC interview, “By the same logic, Filipinos travelled to China centuries ago, so the Philippines should be able to claim some of China.”
  China’s claim is ironic, at best.  The last standing of the great Communist powers is using, essentially, a type of historical imperialist act that it has universally condemned in other nations to justify its own actions.
   Beijing has not been cooperative in attempts to negotiate the issue through regional talks, preferring to deal separately with each national claimant, a tactic that allows it to use armed intimidation as an effective tool. On April 28, China’s General Luo Yuan said his nation should be prepared for “war at all costs” to enforce its claims, according to a commentary posted onchina.org.cn. China has rejected attempts to litigate the matter before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.
  
  The problem can be seen most clearly in the heated territorial disputes between Manila and Beijing. While disagreements between the two nations have existed for some time, the rise of China’s armed forces and the sharp reduction of the American Navy have transformed the problem from a political argument between diplomats to a military flashpoint between warships. As 2011 drew to a close, The Jakarta Post reported  on an Indonesia Center of Democracy, Diplomacy and Defense study noting an escalated naval presence in the South China Sea that included 27 Chinese vessels, 26 from Taiwan, two from Malaysia and one from the Philippines.
   Two particular areas, the Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal, are the focus of an inflammatory disagreement between Manila and Beijing. They have, as noted by the CIA, no indigenous population, but rest in strategic waters relatively close to the Philippines.
  As noted in an April Congressional Research Service Report written by Thomas Lum, “In 2011, Chinese naval forces reportedly harassed Philippine fishing and oil exploration vessels and erected structures in disputed waters of the South China Sea near the Philippine island of Palawan…The Philippine government has demanded that Beijing negotiate a code of conduct and settlement of claims with the principal regional body, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN.)”  Philippine President Aquino increased his nations’ paltry defense budget (about 0.9% of GDP, according to CIAestimates,) and called for more U.S. assistance.
   The over 100 Spratly Islands are a resource-rich region claimed in whole or part by The Philippines, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Brunei also claims some portions of the abundant fishing grounds in the area.  Similarly, The Scarborough Shoal is also a resource prize.  The Georgetown Journalhas reported that estimates of at least 7 billion barrels of oil (at least 80% the capacity of Saudi Arabia) and up to 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lay in the region. The Congressional Research Service report notes that the oil and natural gas reserves lie within the Philippines’ 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone, although China has also laid claims to them.
   The Obama Administration has refused to officially back Manila’s rights to the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal, but has engaged in joint regional exercises with the Philippine armed forces (AFP) a position consistent with that of its predecessors.  At a joint meeting in Washington on April 30 that included U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Philippines Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, and Philippines Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, Clinton stated:
   “We both share deep concerns about…recent tensions in the South China Sea…In this context, the United States has been clear and consistent.  While we do not take sides on the competing sovereignty claims to land features in the South China Sea, as a Pacific power we have a national interest in freedom of navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law, and the unimpeded, lawful commerce across our sea lanes.  The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all those involved for resolving the various disputes that they encounter.  We oppose the threat of force or use of force by any party to advance its claims.  And we will remain in close contact with our ally, the Philippines.”
  Tensions sparked by China’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea have sparked a review of the inadequate strength of the Philippine Armed Forces (AFP.)   The AFP is among the weakest in the world for a nation of its size-ranked 140th in strength by the CIA. Manila’s Defense Secretary Gazmin believes China has singled out the Philippines for particularly harsh treatment because of its weak military, according to a report in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The military of its chief external opponent, China, (there are ongoing internal indigenous issues as well) is among the worlds’ most powerful. As recently analyzed in The NY Analysis of Policy & Government, Beijing’s maritime strength is rivaled only by the US Navy in power. China’s submarine force is nearly double that of America’s. By 2015, its total fleet will be larger than that of the U.S. Navy.
  In April, Manila appealed to Washington for help in improving the woefully inadequate condition of its armed forces. Foreign Secretary del Rosario was candid in his assessment of the Philippines’ inadequate military, and urged the United States to step up its military assistance.  Last month, as part of a regularly scheduled series of exercises, U.S. and Philippine forces engaged in a joint training maneuver entitled Balikatan 28.  Not unexpectedly, Beijing took offense.
  The South China Sea will remain a dangerous flashpoint, made more perilous by the reduced size of the U.S. Navy and the inability of regional nations to counter China’s military prowess.

Categories
NY Analysis

Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is one of the most complex problems facing Americans.  Since the onset of the current “Great Recession,” the financial impact of the issue on federal, state and local budgets, and the implications for the job market, have made the topic more crucial than ever.  

 

This chemical aides in expanding the level of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in the body. viagra samples uk This added cost of the advertisement buy generic levitra will be included to the MRP of the medicine. So you can rely upon this potent structure if you are looking forward to restrict your smoking desirability. browse this amerikabulteni.com 100mg viagra online How do you cure someone of an illness by giving them a tiny concentration of something that can destroy a person’s life entirely. tadalafil cialis

The Supreme Court
 
    As this report goes to press, The United States Supreme Court is preparing to hear the intense conflict between the Obama Administration and the State of Arizona over that state’s 2010 law intended to combat illegal immigration.  Governor Brewer has stated she will be in attendance at the proceeding.
    The statute in question requires police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped for other reasons.  It also makes it illegal for immigrants lacking a work permit to seek employment. Supporters of the legislation point to the tidal wave of unauthorized immigrants, the failure of the federal government to provide adequate oversight of the border, and the costs of providing services to illegal immigrants.  Opponents claim only the federal government has authority in this area, and that the measure may lead to profiling of Hispanics.
    A variety of states have enacted their own measures, mostly acting out of frustration with the federal government’s failure to adequately address the issue, as well as concerns over the cost of educating and providing medical care to illegals.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, thirty states have considered 53 omnibus bills.
   The Mexican government has filed an amicus brief, contending that the state measure constituted “an imminent threat to Mexico-U.S. bilateral relations.”  (In May of 2010, the Obama Administration and the Mexican government issued a joint declaration “Concerning 21st Century Border Management.”  The document, which is not legally binding, established a bilateral executive steering committee to further lawful trade, and curb the illegal flow of people and goods.)
    The Supreme Court’s ruling will probably be issued in June. Continuing its ongoing dispute with the Supreme Court, the Democrat Party is planning to contest the Court’s decision through new legislation if it rules against the White House position, according to the Washington Post. While the move is geared to shoring up support among some Latino voters, the move may backfire in the upcoming general election.  Rasmussen reports that 59% of the public supports automatic immigration checks during routine traffic stops, a type of enforcement that cannot be performed by federal authorities.
 Interestingly enough, the Obama administration hasn’t launched attacks on “sanctuary” jurisdictions that defy federal law by not reporting illegals that come to the attention of local officials.
Statistics
 
  The federal Office of Immigration Statistics reports that the number of illegal immigrants has grown by 27.5% since the year 2000, jumping from 8,460,000 to 11,200,000. The number is even more significant when compared to the mere 3.5 million present in 1990.   However, since 2005, the number of apprehensions by Department of Homeland Security’s Border Patrol has declined from 1,189,000 to only 340,000 in 2011.
    In fact, border apprehensions in 2011 were at their lowest level since 1972. 86% of those caught last year were male, up from 82% in 2005.   Despite the challenge represented by these statistics, the Obama administration has requested a decrease of 4% in the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).   The White House has also requested a reduction of $17 million in the Section 187(g) program, which allows Washington to authorize state and local law enforcement agencies to carry out immigration enforcement duties, as noted in testimony before Congress by ICE Director John Morton on March 8.
  According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year…At the federal level, about one third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens.  At the state and local level, an average of less than 5% of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.”
 The ongoing Great Recession has caused what will probably be a temporary suspension in the growth of the number of illegal aliens present in the U.S., as many frustrated over the lack of work opportunities have voluntarily left.
Crime and National Security Issues
 
 The Violent Crimes Institute calculates that 240,000 illegal immigrants are sex offenders.  Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has produced a study noting that twelve Americans are murdered each day by illegal aliens.  It has been contended that even those not personally inclined towards lawlessness are vulnerable to being forced into crime by criminals preying on their vulnerability.  Concern has been expressed that terrorists mingling in with illegals crossing the border for jobs present a significant national security threat.
  A Heritage Foundation study concluded that “The real problem with undocumented workers is that flouting the law has become the norm, which makes the job of terrorists and drug traffickers infinitely easier.”
Health Care
 
   The impact on health care is a crucial part of the illegal immigration debate.  In June of 2007, a number of Congressional Representatives, including several who are also physicians, wrote to the Department of Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to express their concern over the communicable diseases illegals may carry.  Unlike legal immigrants, illegals are not subject to a health examination as part of the process for obtaining a green card.
   “It is not a surprise,” the Representatives wrote, “that the rate of TB infections is highest in the states that attract the most illegal immigrants…In addition to TB, we should be concerned about the many other diseases thought to be nearly eradicated in the United States that could be brought back through unchecked immigrants, including hepatitis B, polio, and avian flu, just to name a few…illegal immigration is a serious health threat to American citizens.”
   In 2008, an analysis by the Republican Study Committee calculated that one sixth of the total number of those without medical insurance were illegal immigrants.
The Workforce
 
   Approximately 8 million illegals are in the nation’s workforce.  Philip Valentine cites a Maricopa County study performed by economist George Borjas that indicates wages for entry level workers are approximately 4.7% less due to the impact of those illegals.  Mark Kirkorian, writing in National Review, argues that there has been no proof that illegal immigrant labor has produced any net economic benefit to the nation.  He maintains that self-serving employers seeking access to labor at costs below what Americans would accept is the motive for many who continue to “turn a blind eye” to this issue.
   Others, however, believe that illegal immigrants produce unacknowledged benefits to the nation.  Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan’s 2009 testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, published on the Pro/Con site, outlines this perspective:
  “There is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy.  Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force…unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters.  Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.  However, the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs.”
  The Cato Institute also disputes concerns about the economic impact of illegal immigrants.  They argue that most jobs taken by illegals are unskilled, appealing only to the 7% of native-born Americans who lack a high school diploma. The organization has urged the federal government to refocus its border control efforts towards criminals and terrorists.
Politics
 
  Democrats seek to leave the enforcement task to the federal government, to the relative exclusion of the states. They emphasize tougher restrictions on employers who hire illegals, and are more inclined to consider amnesty for illegals who have been in the nation for a prolonged period of time.
  Republicans advocate far tighter border controls, and oppose amnesty. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has objected to the Obama Administration’s “backdoor amnesty” actions.
 Both sides have forwarded positions (for example, the various versions of the DREAM act) that attempt to address the needs of those who entered with their parents at an early age and have not known life in any nation but the USA.
Conclusion
 
   It is evident that the high rate of unemployment, budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels, and the threat of terrorism will continue to place America’s porous borders and the presence of a large illegal population at the forefront of public debate.

Categories
NY Analysis

America’s Crisis at Sea

The Obama Administration responded to critics of its downsized military budget (see NY Analysis, 2/23/12) with statements that it was maintaining resources on the most likely threats, especially in the Pacific region.  It pledged to provide adequate funding both to protect U.S. interests and reassure America’s allies.  To accomplish this, the White House emphasized that the Navy would be given preferential treatment.

But gradually the peak and successive movements in the developing field of medical science helped the entire world by introducing the anti-impotency pills like Generic mouthsofthesouth.com viagra uk. Another important advantage of taking this medication is that they help restore sexual drive, viagra cheap prices which isn’t actually true. Side effects of some of the medicines cialis 5mg sale and hormonal weakness could also cause early ejaculation. Worse, she could be on the verge of separation. viagra mastercard india

Concerns for maintaining the size of the fleet include not only the traditional challenges faced by America’s seagoing defense, but the highly worrisome naval power China has developed over the past decade.
Details indicate that the Navy was not spared, after all.  President Obama is calling for a 1.7% reduction from the Navy’s 2012 baseline appropriation, according to The Navy Times.  Starting with force numbers that are drastically reduced (down from 600 ships in the 1990’s to just 284 currently) the Navy will likely see further cuts in projected replacement and modernization programs. Additionally, accounting gimmicks are used that will provide “long term delays” rather than cancellation of new construction. This allows the Administration to respond to critics who say that the force has become too small by saying that replacement programs remain alive, even though they are extensively delayed. Despite assurances, the fleet size, under the current budget, could actually shrink to about 280 by 2017.
Despite widespread agreement that a 313 ship force is the bare minimum necessary for the Navy to protect the U.S., the current budget pegs the maritime force at only 280–285 vessels through the next five years.  Even that figure can’t be guaranteed, since age, accident, or hostile action could produce losses. 16 planned ships will be cut from the five year budget plan. According to a Navy League Report, a 20% cut in the number of warships scheduled to be built is planned. Further, according to the Department of Defense, procurement of the F-35 Fighter aircraft will be reduced by “nearly 50%,” in addition to the elimination of six Marine TACair squardrons. The need to replace the Navy’s aging fighter aircraft was recently emphasized by the crash of an F-18 F/A in Virginia, a disaster that early reports indicate may be due to the advances age of the aircraft.
To soften the public relations impact of cuts to a force that even the President emphasized needed to be protected from the budget crisis, each reduction is rationalized with accounting techniques that term the changes mere delays.  Examples from the Department of Defenses’ related budget proposal statement include:
·
           The ordering date of the planned aircraft carrier (CVN 79) hasn’t changed, but “The construction schedule will be moved back two years.”
·       Landing Craft Assault class vessels will (eventually) remain the same in number, but “procurement will be slowed.”
·       Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) construction will be moved from FY 2016 to 2017.
·       The guided missile cruiser force won’t be cut—but nine ships will be “retired early.”
·       The development program for OHIO class subs will continue, “but at reduced levels.”
An objective analysis of the threat level justifies a fully funded Navy.  The Congressional Research Services’(CRS) recent report, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities, stresses that Beijing’s maritime modernization effort “has emerged as a key issue in U.S. defense planning.  The question is of particular importance to the U.S. Navy, because many U.S. military programs for countering improved Chinese military forces would fall within the Navy’s budget.”
China’s submarine force is nearly double that of America’s. By 2015, its total fleet will be larger than that of the U.S. Navy.  Chinese naval units have already harassed US Navy vessels.  While Washington discusses how deep to cut the defense budget, China continues its pattern of increasing spending by an average of 16.2% annually, according to the Asian Defence publication. That figure may only be the tip of the iceberg. The Pentagon has charged Beijing with hiding its real military spending. The CRS noted that even “in the absence of …conflict, the U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries, including on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States.”
China began its ambitious naval modernization in the 1990s.  Sinodefence reports that the 225,000 man “People’s Liberation Army Navy” is organized into three fleets: North Sea, East Sea, and South Sea.  Each consists of surface and submarine forces, naval aviation, and coastal defense forces.
Beijing’s effort has been successful in every way.  Powerful and effective anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), submarines, and surface ships have been developed, along with well trained, highly professional and capable crews.
The high caliber and impressive size of Beijing’s naval force clearly indicates that its goals extend beyond mere self defense and the imposition of its claims against Taiwan.  They include  China’s expansive and controversial claims far beyond its legitimate borders, the expansion of its international influence, and the solidifying of its role as a global superpower, particularly in the Pacific, where, according to CRS, it seeks to displace U.S. influence.  The Department of Defense notes that “China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as the defining feature of the strategic landscape of the 21st Century.”  While serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen  noted in June of 2010 that he was “genuinely concerned” about Beijing’s military might.
China’s technologically advanced naval weaponry combined with its aggressive posture render  it a greater threat to the U.S. than that of the former Soviet navy.  Devices than can disable seaborne electronics from a significant distance, as well as its development of revolutionary “anti ship ballistic missiles,” combined with satellites that provide excellent targeting data, give Beijing the tools to win conflicts at sea, when combined with China’s growing conventional navy.
China has developed its naval power to achieve a number of goals.  In addition to supplanting U.S. influence at sea and intimidating Taiwan, it has committed incursions into Japanese waters, and laid claim to oceanic resources of several other nations such as Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea and India.  Recently, a worried South Korean military official was quoted in The Chosun Iibo, noting: “We need to establish a new security strategy by looking into a wide range of military partnerships with China as well as strengthening our alliance with the U.S.”  (The China Reform Monitor  reports that China will include Leo Island, controlled by South Korea, in its regular maritime patrols, and would deploy its first aircraft carrier there in August.)

Undisputedly, America’s maritime interests and those of its allies are clearly endangered by China’s dynamic new naval might.  The White House publicly recognizes the threat, but has failed to fulfill its commitment to counter it with adequate resources.

Categories
NY Analysis

State Budget Crisis

Much attention has recently been paid to the out-of-control federal deficit.  But there has been a relative lack of focus on the crisis facing individual states, whose current enacted budgets account for almost $667 billion in general fund expenditures, with a collective $95 billion shortfall in 2013, as reported by the National Governors Association.

Kamagra tablets are powerful following 1 hour of taking and impacts will be detectable following 45 minutes. india pharmacy viagra This is why a large number of men with ED cannot have medicine containing nitrate since it is very buy generic viagra dangerous for health. Gupta, who is a well-known Sexologist In Delhi.There are different causes of infertility in males, which includes: Heavy smoking & Tobacco Alcohol and drug use, tiredness and traumatic sexual experiences in the past can result in the lack of sex drive. cheapest cialis By practising non-anxious behaviour, you reverse the buy viagra 100mg anxious habit which has formed and replace it with normal skin.

   In 2012, According to the Center for Fiscal Accountability:

   “As of March 2011, state and local government had an outstanding debt of $2.447 trillion.  Furthermore, state and local governments are facing a $3.1 trillion shortfall in projected pension spending-a shortfall of $21,500 for every U.S. household.  These liabilities are government worker pension promises that outpace the size of financial assets held by state and local governments.  State and local governments’ unfunded liabilities comprise a massive 22 percent of GDP. However, the true $3.1 trillion cost of state and local government promises continues to be masked with accounting gimmicks.”
   The American Legislative Exchange Council reaches a similar conclusion, stating that “Bloated state spending levels and trillions of dollars in unfunded government employee pension liabilities pose huge financial obstacles to economic recovery in the 50 states today…a vast majority of states have set themselves up to fail by spending beyond their means…Rapid growth in per capita spending, a lack of economic freedom, and weak balanced budget rules caused the budget gaps.  The recession just exposed these underlying problems…from 1985 to 2005, most state budgets doubled, and some tripled, in size. In the past decade alone, state and local budgets grew 90 percent faster than the private sector’s Gross Domestic Product.”
   The future for state budgets appears to be challenging. According to theStatelines report, “State of the States 2012,” “As a result of last summer’s deal to raise the federal debt ceiling, and the consequent failure of the Congressional ‘super committee’ to decide on budget cuts, states are bracing for automatic across-the-board cuts in education, social welfare and other programs for the upcoming 2013 fiscal year…More than 150 grant programs that send money to states could get cut…if…’sequestration’ occurs…federal aid to states could drop by nearly $9 billion in fiscal 2013.’ The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is concerned that the conclusion of the federal stimulus program will place a heavy burden on state budgets.  A 2011 study entitled “Rich States, Poor States” stresses that “states that took federal stimulus money also agreed to ‘maintenance of effort’ provisions, which prohibit them from downsizing many programs going forward, compounding the problem.”
   Hovering all of the prospects for the future of state budgets is the specter of Obamacare.  The National Governor’s Association believes that related unfunded mandates will impose new costs of $118 billion through the next decade.
   There are some bright spots. The National Conference of State legislaturesreports that fiscal conditions are improving at a slow pace, although tax collections remain well behind pre-recession levels. Four states, California, Missouri, New York and Washington, have reported budget gaps since the start of the prior fiscal year, an improvement over the 15 states with a similar issue the previous period.  The Rockefeller Institute reports that 45 states saw their revenues increase over the prior year.
Case Study:  New York State’s 2012-2013 Budget
   In 2011, New York had the third highest cost of government per day in the nation, according to the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation.
   New York State’s 2012-2013 $132.6 billion state budget, at first glance, appears to be a more rational approach to the “Empire State’s” fiscal challenges than its predecessors.  It is, in fact, somewhat of an improvement, with a $135 million reduction from its immediate predecessor. A substantial part of that improvement results from the Governor’s signature accomplishment, the elimination of automatic spending hikes.  And, for the second time in a row, it was completed in time, after years of embarrassment in which legislators in Albany (the state capital) couldn’t come to terms until months after the legal deadline.
   But a closer examination reveals that although some progress was made, the basic problems remain unaddressed.
   On the surface, (and widely reported in the media) the budget cuts spending.  In reality, however, the portion of spending paid for totally from instate revenue (that’s state revenue minus federal aid) actually increased by 2%.
   All parties to the agreement (and again, widely reported in the media) proudly proclaim that no new taxes are in the budget.  Unfortunately, that’s inaccurate.
   Last December, taxes on upper income earners were increased by a whopping $1.5 billion.  Even before that, New York was the worst state in the whole nation in terms of individual tax rates, and was also one of the five worst states for tax increases in the 2003-2010 period.   (New York already had the highest top marginal personal income tax rate in the nation, at 12.62%, and the worst economic outlook in the nation, as reported by the American Legislative Exchange Council) Its’ major urban center, NYC, even has its own local personal income tax in addition to that imposed by the state.  There is, of course, a tendency to say that wealthier individuals can afford to pay the extra charge.  The problem is, they don’t have to.  Many will “vote with their feet” and simply move to a lower tax state. From 2000-2009, it was the biggest loser in migration of all 50 states. As a result, New York has been losing Congressional representation.
  The state’s onerous individual taxes are matched by the highest-in-the nation corporate tax rate of 15.95%, reports A.L.E.C.
  Political pandering is present in the budget.  One unacceptable gimmick relied on is the deferring of pension costs, in the indigestible amount of over $780 billion, for a decade.  This is an example of some Albany’s most irresponsible practices.  It does, however, allow legislators to keep public service employee unions at bay-and not coincidentally, prevents those unions from attacking incumbent legislators.
   To gain the support of New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been generous with contributions to both Democrats and Republicans, funds are dedicated to a so-called “Close to home” initiative that allows NYC to take control of at-risk youth; currently, these young people are housed at less expensive upstate sites.  There is no convincing explanation of what benefits this provides, other than appeasing the mayor and other local NYC politicians.
  Education spending is increased, despite the fact that New York already spends far more per-pupil than any other American state.  According to the latest available statistics, Albany and local budgets provide $18,126 per student, dwarfing the national average of $10,499. Unfortunately, for all that extra funding (even accounting for the state’s higher cost of living) there is no indication that New York students’ dismal performance has benefited. One unacceptable gimmick the budget relies on is the deferring of pension costs, in the indigestible amount of over $780 billion, for a decade.  This is a throwback to the some of the worst practices Albany has used.
   Despite New York’s precarious economic condition, Albany continues to use taxpayer dollars to fund “pork barrel” projects (as reported in The Wall street Journal) and legislators continue to use taxpayer dollars in “official” newsletters that amount to little more than thinly veiled campaign literature.
Remedies
   It is manifestly evident that states cannot continue on the path that led to their current precarious position.  The American Legislative Exchange Council notes that a number of states have “reset” their budgets to 2007 or 2008 levels to accommodate the new financial reality.  Both liberal and conservative legislators acknowledge that fiscal solvency cannot be achieved with business as usual spending, particularly in the area of state employee costs.
   The Heartland Institute is advocating a 10 point program to address fiscal problems in the states:
  1. 1.     Keep taxes low.  The evidence is clear and has been for many years: High taxes hinder economic growth and prosperity.
  2. 2.     Don’t penalize earnings and investment.  Taxes on earnings and investment income are particularly harmful to economic growth.
  3. 3.     Avoid ‘sin’ taxes.  Taxes on specific goods and services are often unfair, unreliable and regressive.
  4. 4.     Create a transparent and accountable budget.  Focus attention and resources on providing those services that are the core function of state government.
  5. 5.     Privatize public services.  Privatization is a proven way to reduce government spending while preserving or improving the quality of core public services.
  6. 6.     Avoid corporate subsidies.  Subsidies to corporations and selective tax abatement are questionable politics and bad economics.
  7. 7.     Cap taxes and expenditures.  A tax and expenditure limitation protects elected officials from public pressure to spend surplus tax revenues during good economic times.
  8. 8.     Fund students, not schools.  States and cities that have experimented with school choice have seen gains in academic achievement.
  9. 9.     Reform Medicaid programs.  Spending on Medicaid can be brought under control without lowering the quality of care received by Medicaid patients.
  10. 10.  Protect state employees from politics.  State and local government employees should be prohibited from deducting funds used for political purposes from the paychecks of public workers.
   For far too long, state governments have employed every accounting device to provide popular but unaffordable benefits and services.  Governors and legislators have placed their own careers over the fiscal health of their jurisdictions. Their ability to do so any longer has come to an end, and painful but practical steps must be taken.

Categories
NY Analysis

Budget Battle

The dueling budgets presented by President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI) neither of which is likely to become law, reflect an almost unprecedented divergence of views on the role of government, and the priorities of the American people.  The partisan tone was even contained in the official Budget Message of the President, which specifically criticized Republicans for not agreeing with the President’s proposals. The battle lines have become so stratified that the United States Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over a thousand days.

Coach: Jamie Siddons Ireland buy cheap levitra deeprootsmag.org World Cup squad: William Porterfield (capt), Trent Johnston, Alex Cusack, Andre Botha, Kevin O’Brien, Niall O’Brien (wk), Nigel Jones, Ed Joyce, John Mooney, Paul Stirling, Gary Wilson (wk), George Dockrell, Boyd Rankin, Albert van der Merwe, Andrew White. That’s buy levitra where why more normal people should join the party. Occurrence of male sexual dysfunction is increasing partly due to underlying metabolic defects levitra de prescription and partly simply because from the lifestyle guys nowadays are adapting. This is the best medicine for men women viagra pills who want to increase their sexual pleasures.

   There is one figure that can’t be denied by either side:  America is in a deep fiscal crisis. Overspending has produced an almost unimaginable $15.566 trillion dollar deficit that continues to grow by leaps and bounds.  As noted in the Heritage Foundation Report, Saving The American Dream, “We have come to a time of decision…Our nation is going broke, and we are passing the costs of these misguided policies to our children and their children.”

   Over the first three years of the Obama administration, the deficit grew more than it did during the entire eight years when Bush occupied the White House. As noted by the Center for Fiscal Accountability, “Almost immediately upon his inauguration, President Obama signed into law the $787 billion American Recovery and reinvestment Act that-along with TARP-totals nearly $1.5 trillion in government growth for taxpayers…in 2009, the [federal] government spent $3.9 trillion dollars, and took in $2.1 trillion dollars in taxes.  That is, the government spent beyond its means by $1.8 trillion-almost as much as it takes in on a yearly basis.”  Further White House proposals continued the trend, which will double the size of the already deficit-laden federal budget within ten years.

   The nation now faces a perilous reality in which the debt is greater than the Gross Domestic Product.  That’s a classic definition of bankruptcy.

   There is almost nothing to show for the great national spending spree over the past three years.  Unemployment and underemployment remain at crisis levels. The economy is barely progressing. Inflation has become a significant problem. Infrastructure needs remain largely unaddressed (unlike the Great Depression, when programs such as the WPA and the CCC’s engaged in massive public works.) Our armed forces haven’t received badly needed equipment. Even the vaunted American Space Program has been mothballed.

   American families have suffered. Homes have lost unprecedented amounts of value. According to an ABC News report, “The S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city index through November showed home values fell 3.7 percent from the previous year. The 20-city home price index dropped slightly more than the 3.3 percent economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected, weighed down by foreclosed properties.”  Here too, the President and Congress diverge sharply on the reasons.  The White House concentrates on the mortgage crash; the Republicans emphasize the depressed economy.

   President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget includes tax hikes that range from $1.5 trillion to $1.9 trillion (depending on whose estimates you use) over the next decade.  (This would produce tax revenues above the historical average of 18.3% of GDP, according to Heritage.) The Bush tax cuts would expire for upper income earners, and the US corporate tax rate would remain as the highest in the world,  although the White House has said it may introduce a measure to lower the rate  (to a figure”in the high 20s,” according to a Reuters report) at a future date.  The additional revenue would provide a 17.5% increase in revenue during the coming year. The additional funds would not be mainly devoted to reducing the deficit. They would be used for $2.7 trillion in increased spending, but at least one key area, defense, would still endure budget cuts. Under the President’s plan, the annual deficit would be about $900 billion.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has introduced a radically different budget, which he calls a “Path to Prosperity.”  The core of his proposal is a return to 2008 levels of non-security discretionary spending, producing a “primary balance” (spending-interest payments=revenue) by 2015. The savings are achieved by repealing “Obamacare,” and ending what it identifies as duplicative or useless government programs, and stoping “corporate welfare” to politically-connected private companies.  The proposal locks in spending caps and budget process reforms, and converts Medicaid spending into a block grant to the states.

   Rather than administer drastic cuts to national security funding as is currently planned, Ryan would slightly increase spending on military needs. (Defense spending as a percentage of the budget has dropped from 25% thirty years ago to 20% currently.) In contrast, the President’s budget would get rid of what he describes as “outdated Cold War era systems.” This is largely a code phrase for furthering the White House push to unilaterally slash America’s nuclear deterrent, end the capability to fight on two fronts, and sharply reduce acquisition of replacements for worn out and outdated equipment, as well as reducing health benefits for active duty servicemembers.

   According to Ryan, the individual tax code would be simplified by attacking loopholes, lowering rates, and broadening the base of those who pay. The alternative minimum tax, originally designed for wealthy taxpayers but now a major problem for many middle class taxpayers, would be eliminated. America’s highest-in-the world 35% corporate tax rate would be reduced to 25%. Investment in our military would not be slashed, as is currently planned.

   Republicans emphasize that Ryan’s plan would reduce the 2013 deficit by $20 billion, and save up to $3.3 trillion over the next decade. They estimate that federal spending would be reduced from 23% of the economy down to 20%. They note that the White House’s “stimulus” spending did little more than reward politically-connected corporations.

   The dueling budget proposals reflect diametrically opposed political beliefs. The President continues to adhere to a plan that would use increased tax revenues and increased federal spending to address domestic needs and entitlement programs.  Human Events chides many of the President’s initiatives as “frivolous projects.”   The House of Representatives believes that growing the economy, promoting employment, lowering taxes and allowing more discretion to the individual states will allow the U.S. to emerge from the “Great Recession.”

   The fate of the nation hangs on which side is correct, and which side wins this battle of the budgets. But total victory for either side before the 2012 elections remains completely unlikely.

Categories
NY Analysis

INDEFENSIBLE

Although Defense spending accounts for only 20% of the federal budget, The White House has targeted the armed forces (which have basically been deprived of adequate supplies of new equipment since the end of the Reagan era) to take 50% of all spending cuts. It has also been leaked that a radical and unilateral reduction in our nuclear defense posture is being considered.

Imagine what it would be like to change your activity always and annihilate the affecting affliction acquired by your penis admeasurement back accepting sex. cialis discount pharmacy The hold of smart developers such as DLF, Divyashree Developers, Prestige Estates and K Raheja Corporation, is combining the position in the projects to extract the better canadian cialis online pieces from the equity funds. To levitra cialis viagra attract customers, several portals provide exclusive offers like free shipping, discounted pricing, festival offers, discrete packaging, and many more. generic viagra discount Causes of ED The causes of ED can sometimes not be cured at all especially in older men.

In his budget, Obama has rejected the long-held doctrine that the U.S. must be prepared to fight in two separate regions simultaneously. The possibility of a large scale conflict with a powerful adversary such as China or Russia apparently has been rejected.
The President also advocates a unilateral and unprecedented 80% reduction of atomic warheads.  This would place the U.S. in a distant third place, behind Russia with its 6,000 warheads and on a par with China, leaving America vulnerable to ongoing intimidation from either of these powers as well as outright nuclear blackmail.
The proposal lowers U.S. nuclear strength to 1950 levels.  Strategically, this means that a first strike by an adversary could easily wipe out our arsenal, leaving the nation with no choice but surrender.
As the President attempts to enact his plan, Russia continues an ambitious military modernization program. MILPLEX  reports that China will double its announced military budget within the next five years.  North Korea and Iran are also moving swiftly ahead with their nuclear weapons programs.
In a bizarre twist, The Obama budget also cuts funds from Homeland Security, while increasing aid to Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt.
Last week, a group of military experts assembled by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney noted that while the proposed defense cuts will slash our military capability, civilian DOD personnel will not be affected.  In other words, the fat will be spared while muscle is cut.
In the past, proposals to substantially reduce our national security posture would face stiff Republican opposition.  This year, the Republican Party is diverted by a fierce presidential primary battle, and it is being influenced by a small group of isolationists led by Ron Paul.
The end result of this proposed reduction to military spending may well cost far more than it actually saves. The impact of 100,000 low paid soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen returning home with very few available jobs will produce more expense in unemployment checks and related benefits than will be saved.  The fragile industrial base may not recover from the loss of military contracts. Numerous contractors and subcontractors will be forced out of business, destroying the recession-proof tax revenue and jobs they produce. Many of these businesses will close forever, meaning that future administrations would be powerless to undo the harm this reckless attack on our safety would produce.  To cite just one example, it has been estimated that New York State alone will lose almost 27,000 jobs.

Historians remind us that it was the pre-World War Two defense buildup that actually began to end the Great Depression. Gambling with our national safety is a poor bet at any time; doing so in an era of economic crisis is even worse.

Categories
NY Analysis

Voting Fraud: A Growing Danger

Inappropriate election practices have long been an unfortunate part of American history.  During the period between the end of the civil war and the adoption of the voting rights act of 1965, various schemes were utilized to deprive African-Americans access to the ballot box. Once again, the degree of concern expressed by many over the fairness of national elections has reached a crescendo.

It rejuvenates skin, viagra australia mastercard helps reduce body weight, controls high blood pressure, improves digestion and boosts immune system. Applicants those who are attentive cialis shop for the teacher vacancies in relevant departments of the organization are advised to study the article clearly. It is simple procedures which are meant commander viagra for external use. If ever this issue lasts continually despression symptoms have https://pdxcommercial.com/property/740-82nd-drive-gladstone/ buying generic cialis to possibly be brought with a mental health expert meant for even more treatment.

In a recent study, the Pew Center on the States found “millions of voter registration records nationwide that are either inaccurate or no longer valid…based on data [indicating] a voter died, moved, or had been inactive from 2004 to March 2011.”  The study revealed that 2,758,578 individuals were registered to vote in more than one state.  In addition, “12.7 million records nationwide…appear to be out of date and no longer reflect the voter’s current information, more than 1.8 million records for people who are no longer living, but have active registrations on voter rolls, and 12 million records with incorrect addresses…once duplicates among categories are eliminated, approximately 24 million registration records, or nearly 13% of the national total, are estimated to be inaccurate or no longer valid.” There are further concerns that “motor voter” registrations and similar efforts to expand participation in elections may open the door to massive voting fraud.   Interestingly, liberal media sources such as The New York Times, despite the hard evidence, have sought to minimize or deny the crisis.
Will fraudulent voting practices, as well as inaccurate voter registration, have an impact on the upcoming presidential election? Numerous studies from across the nation document brazen attempts to destroy or misplace ballots, and allow ineligible individuals to vote, or register to vote. Americans are increasingly concerned.  The refusal of the Justice Department to prosecute a clear case of voter intimidation in the city of Philadelphia by the New Black Panther Party in the last presidential election has been partially responsible.
John Fund, who has extensively studied election fraud, reports that “nearly 10% of Americans…believe that the election system doesn’t count their votes accurately.”  He documents significant misdeeds from the 2000 presidential election, in which over 15,000 ballots in Florida’s Palm Beach County were warped in an attempt to invalidate Bush votes. Also in the 2000 elections, Philadelphia had more registered voters than actual citizens. Similarly, in 2007, Indianapolis/Marion County had more registered voters than adult citizens. According to published reports, an internal Wikileaks memo documents abuses in the 2008 election including foreign contributions from Russia going to the Obama campaign, as well as accounts of ballot box stuffing in Pennsylvania and Ohio also on behalf of the Obama campaign.
Presidential election fraud is not restricted to the general election.  Last December, the chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party resigned in the wake of a scandal involving the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, in which claims of unlawful practices by the Obama campaign continue to surface.
What differentiates traditional—but still illegal–election misdeeds from current concerns is both the involvement of the Department of Justice and the impact of legislation such as motor voter.
“Motor voter” is actually the popular name of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.  The legislation mandated state motor vehicle departments as well as other state agencies to offer voter registration forms and register those who came to their offices.  Inexplicably, it forbade employees of those offices from checking IDs of those it registered.  This not only made fraud possible; it essentially invited it.
Jack Kelly, writing in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, notes that there have been recent investigations, indictments, or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland.
Hans Spakovsky, writing in the Free Speech & Election Law Practices publication, emphasizes the problem of noncitizens registering to vote.  He reports that in a random sampling of 3,000 registrations in California’s 39th Assembly District, 10% contained phony addresses or were not U.S. citizens.
A number of states have attempted to attack fraudulent registrations by passing legislation requiring a valid ID to vote.  To the dismay of  those dedicated to honest balloting, The Obama Justice Department has responded with significant hostility to this common sense measure.  Although almost all the reported fraud has aided hard-left Democrats, Kelly reports, even liberal United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens stated “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of  state’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes” in a 2008 case that upheld Indiana’s stringent ID law following a challenge by the Democrat Party and its allies.
In testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Rules ad Administration, John Samples, The Cato Institute’s Director of the Center for Representative Government stated that the Motor Voter Act “has made it difficult if not impossible to maintain clean registration rolls…the inaccuracy in the rolls caused by the Act has thrown into doubt the integrity of our electoral system.”
The Judicial Watch organization, in response to its August 9, 2011 Freedom of Information Act filing, has received records which they describe as detailing friendly communications between the Justice Department and a former ACORN attorney now serving as Director of Advocacy for Project Vote.  The ACORN connection is ominous. 70 ACORN staff throughout 12 states were convicted of voter registration fraud; more than one third of the registrations that group submitted were found to be invalid.
Project Vote is described by Judicial Watch as a group that actively threatened lawsuits under the Motor Voter law in an effort to force election officials to increase the registration of individuals receiving public assistance—a prime source of Democrat support. According to Judicial Watch, “Project Vote was besieged with charges of corruption and fraud.”  Despite that checkered reputation, Judicial Watch found that Project Vote and the Justice Department worked in tandem, producing results that contained heavy amounts of invalid voter registration forms. Project vote also sought to allow individuals without any state identification to register to vote online.  The Judicial Watch investigation indicates that “it becomes clear that Project Vote and the Justice Department have implemented a ‘joint litigation strategy’ in the run-up to the 2012 elections.
J. Christian Adams is an attorney who served five years in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice. He has documented extensive accounts of that agency’s improprieties and partisanship in matters relating not only to its refusal to prosecute illegal election activities, but to actually encourage and abet such unlawful practices.
Citing little or no evidence, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. defends the Department of Justice actions by maintaining that attempts to properly identify voters is somehow discriminatory against minorities.  Jack Kelly’s research indicates otherwise.  He cites the work of researchers at the universities of Delaware and Nebraska , who found no chilling effect of ID requirements on minorities.  In fact, in Georgia, following the passage of a photo ID requirement, African American participation in elections increased from 42.9% to 50.4%.  Similar results were noted in Indiana and Mississippi.

The tolerance of unlawful election practices, and the complicity of government agencies in those practices, is a truly existential threat to American freedom.

Categories
NY Analysis

AN UNNECESSARY APOLOGY

The President’s apology in the wake of the Koran burning incident in Afghanistan throws into a harsh light the growing surrender to “Islamic Rage,” much of which is fundamentally political and thoroughly undemocratic.

viagra canada deliver The blood circulation in the veins and arteries increases in time of erection, if it happens so, the strength and stamina and urge of having sex can frustrate the individual and trigger all kinds of feelings of embarrassment and guilt. In course of aging, men go online viagra order for low production of semen. For most of us, http://valsonindia.com/about-us/ viagra buy in usa there is more possibility for you to become dehydrated. The person pursuing treatment of prostate cancer therapy, Pediatric urologic conditions like disorders of the genitalia, neurogenic bladder, enuresis, genitourinary tumors and Male fertility and sexual health conditions such as erectile online viagra pharmacy dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, retrograde ejaculation, varicocele, hormone imbalance.

The Korans in question had been misused (religious Muslims might say defiled) by Afghan detainees attempting to surreptitiously send messages.  After the ruse was detected, the defaced texts were disposed of in a manner that was proper and respectful; they were burned.  In fact, this is the manner in which the military disposes of worn out flags. This appropriate course of action was used as an excuse to whip up anti-American furor in the Muslim world.  Six Americans were killed in the resulting riots; The White House has yet to demand an apology for this loss of life.
Over the past twenty-three years, there have been at least eleven major Islamic riots in response to incidents that were either wholly fabricated for political reasons or were in response to the exercise of freedom of speech.  As outlined by Mark Humphreys, they include:
·       The Salman Rushdie Riots of 1989;
·       The Miss World Riots of 2002;
·       The Newsweek Riots of 2005;
·       The Muhammed cartoons Riots of 2005-2006;
·       The Pope Benedict Riots of 2006;
·       The Sudan “teddy bear” incident of 2007;
·       The Johann Hari Riots of 2009;
·       The Taslima Nasrin Riots of 2010;
·       The “everybody Draw Mohammed Day” of 2010;
·       The “International Burn a Koran Day” Riots of 2010; and
·       The “Koran Burning” Riots of 2012.
     The pace of these civil disorders has accelerated sharply since 2009, as many Islamic leaders perceive the west, and in particular the USA, to be more susceptible to the pressure they present.  It would be incorrect to assume that these events are spontaneous.  Paul Marshall, writing in Imprimis, notes that they are “stoked and channeled by governments for political purposes…the highly controlled media in Egypt and Jordan raised [these] issues so persistently that an astonishing 98 percent of Egyptians and 99 percent of Jordanians…had heard of them.”  In response to the “cartoon Mohammed” incident in Denmark, Saudi Arabia and Egypt urged boycotts of Danish products.  Marshall notes that Iran and Syria “manipulated riots partly to deflect attention from their nuclear projects…Turkey used the cartoons as bargaining chips with the U.S. over appointments to NATO.”
     An objective view of the treatment of Islam by western governments would indicate that the riots have been extremely effective.  Islam, and particularly the figure of Mohammed, is treated far more delicately by European and North American governments, media, and other institutions than the indigenous Catholic, Christian, or Jewish faiths.
     In the west, the Islamic religion is flourishing under the ideal of religious toleration that is wholly missing in the Moslem world.  In the United States alone, according to the Washington Examiner, since the September 11 attacks, Islamic Centers have increased significantly in number.  The Examiner reported in  February, 2012 that there are currently 2,106 U.S. Islamic centers, compared to 1,209 in 2000, and only 962 in 1994, after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
     While Islamic governments whip up citizen frenzy over trivial incidents or perceived slights to their state religions, they have either sanctioned or failed to stop extreme acts of religious bigotry and repression within their own nations.  Writing in Newsweek, Ayaan Hirisi Ali, a Dutch Citizen originally from Somalia, describes a “rising genocide” against the Christian faith throughout the Muslim world.  She describes the horrific acts of the Boko Haram in Nigeria, slaughters in the Sudan, Egyptian security force murders of Copts, Saudi Arabia’s ghetto-type imprisonment of Christian guest workers, and ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
    Last week, Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA16] introduced H. Res. 556, which passed 417-1, condemning the government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities and its ongoing violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights.
   Rep. Pitts’ efforts notwithstanding, Marshall’ Imprimis study finds that “western governments have begun to give in to demands from the Saudi-based ‘Organization of Islamic Cooperation” (OIC.)  He cites explicit examples of various European and North American governments essentially bowing to the anti-free speech demands of militant Islam.
     While the First Amendment would appear to protect Americans from speech restrictions regarding the Islamic faith, threats of violence have had a chilling effect.  American universities, publishing houses, and television producers have “self censored” under the threat of violence.
     Marshall reports that the facts get even more frightening.  President Obama, in his 2009 speech in Cairo, declared that he had a “responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”  Following suit, Secretary of State Clinton has acted cooperatively with the OIC, which continues to tacitly condone repression and murder against Christian and Jews while pushing for anti-free speech restrictions in regards to criticisms of Islam in the West.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits giving one religion preferential treatment.  This, however, is precisely what the leaders of Moslem leaders have demanded, while continuing to persecute western-based faiths in their own lands.  It is fair to question whether they do this out of true religious fervor, or merely to distract their own populations from their tyrannical and corrupt rule.

Categories
NY Analysis

OBAMACARE IN CRISIS

President Obama’s signature legislative initiative, the “Patient Protection & Affordable Health Care Act,” (PPAHCA) may not exist in a recognizable form by the end of Spring.

If we talk about the most effective, and which brand is certified more info here cialis samples and which one is not.To make matters simpler for you, we have compiled a list of techniques that’s most commonly used by the Doctors. So, it is better to opt purchase cheap viagra for the trusted brands of many Americans. It allays stress when used with brand cialis prices the balancing herbs like ashwagandha, vata, jatamansi and bala. It is very obvious that a person can have their love making sessions without any worries. http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Kelly-Ends-NYLJ-2007.pdf cialis sale

   From its very inception, this major measure contained overwhelming flaws that virtually guaranteed ongoing controversy, and the strong possibility of being overturned either legislatively by a concerned Congress or by a Supreme Court decision ruling that key portions were unconstitutional.
   The original $940 billion estimated cost of this dramatic and broad new law was always overwhelming.  However, it has become clear that the measure will actually be far more expensive.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1.76 trillion is the latest reliable figure, and that sum is sure to rise.  House Ways and Means  Committee Chair Dave Camp  was quoted in the Washington Times as estimating the actual cost as over $2 trillion.  The price tag issue in and of itself may eventually doom it.
   There are three extraordinary problems beyond the devastating cost, and they appear to be coming to the forefront this month. The first is Congressional anger over the “death panel,” the name wary Americans have given to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) established by Section 3403 the PPAHCA.  The second is the serious constitutional objections over the bill’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance, known as the Individual Mandate.  Finally, there is the controversy that Health & Human Services Secretary Sebelius prompted when she issued regulations requiring religious institutions, along with all other employers, to provide coverage for services such as abortion that those organizations consider morally objectionable.
   Related to the IPAB’s cost-saving mission is the question of its effect on research of  new treatments.  Innovative techniques are expensive to develop.  Many question whether this new agency will have a chilling effect on research organizations that may see their innovations deemed to be too expensive.
   This week, the House of Representatives is debating a measure that would repeal the IPAB, largely based on public distaste for its unchecked power and “death panel” authority.  From the initial release of information about this bizarre institution, the majority of Americans expressed substantial discomfort with its concept. The IPAB is designed to have a 15 member panel tasked with achieving Medicare savings.  David Catron writes that the IPAB’s “sole purpose is to cut funding for some health care services seniors now take for granted.  And those cuts will kill people.”  Pollster and political expert Doug Schoen has stated that the IPAB is “flawed, unethical and represents the worst of health care policy reform.”  Due to the IPAB’s regulations, senior citizens are almost guaranteed to have a more difficult time finding a doctor who will treat them.
   From March 26 to March 28, the United States Supreme Court will hear an extraordinary six hours of oral argument on the issue of the Individual Mandate’s constitutionality.
   The PPAHCA’s Individual Mandate forces individuals to secure health insurance. Supporters of the law assert that this is the only way to fund the whole idea.  The Obama Administration has signaled its unease with its legal position by changing its argument that the Individual Mandate is justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to one that asserts it can do so under the “Necessary and Proper” provision of the Constitution. The president’s unease is certainly warranted. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has already ruled this measure unconstitutional.
   A California State Library Background Report noted that political opposition to the concept comes from both the left and the right.  Conservatives dislike the increased power and the lack of Constitutional authority;  leftists “are skeptical…especially as it is supported by the insurance industry.’
   While debate in Congress and before the Supreme Court take place, religious institutions, spearheaded by the Catholic Church, will continue their vigorous defense of their first amendment right to practice their faith free from unlawful federal interference.
   The regulations forcing Catholic institutions to cover abortions may also find their way into the Supreme Court, and there is a substantial chance that this unprecedented intrusion into the affairs of a religion will also be found unconstitutional.  The Catholics aren’t alone in their challenge.  An IBD editorial noted that two protestant colleges are filing suit in the U.S. District Court to challenge the imposition on their First Amendment rights, not on their opposition to abortion.
   Indeed, there is much to question about the reason this law was originally passed and what the expected results would be. It imposes a heavy financial burden on already beleaguered federal and state governments, and fails to provide improved or universal coverage. In fact, according to Forbes Magazine, Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wy) estimates that four million people will lose job-related health insurance.  Last year, health costs rose 9% for employers, notes the article, “triple the rate of the year before ObamaCare’s provisions began to be implemented.” It surrenders vital decision making power to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
Practical concepts, such as tort reform, which would sharply reduce the expenses of doctors and hospitals, reducing federal bureaucracy, allowing innovative treatments to get to market more efficiently, and interstate sales of insurance policies which would increase competition and lower policy rates, were ignored.  It is difficult not to conclude that the real goal of the legislation was to give the executive branch of the federal government vast new powers over the one-sixth of the American economy represented by the health industry.