In Washington, both Republicans and Democrats regularly reiterate the link between Islamic radicalism in Pakistan and the safety of the American homeland. Across the porous border in Afghanistan, NATO forces also claim to be fighting Islamic insurgents. And just recently, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that India was facing a common threat with Pakistan, the threat emanating from religious extremism.
But who exactly are these Muslim men (and women, in some instances) who have been painted with the broad terrorist brush since 9/11?
Following a recent trip to the restive Swat Valley, a student leader of the Peshawar-based Awami National Party said that “virtually every single armed follower of Mullah Radio [Mullah Fazlullah] comes from the most marginalized section of society; these men don’t have jobs, their families find it difficult to put two meals on the table, and they have been in some form of bondage—to warlords, landowners or smugglers—for decades. They are the ones being killed in the face of a brutal onslaught by the Pakistani army.”
So let’s get the facts out first; we will get to religious fanaticism later. Which segment of the Pakistani population do these “terrorists” come from?
Firstly, the armed fighters in the North West Frontier Province are essentially landless and unemployed men who are caught up in the vicious nexus of deeply-entrenched commercial interests representing the Pakistani army, large landowners, market traders, village mullahs and drug kingpins.
Secondly, those taking orders from warlords in the neighbouring tribal areas are not only landless and unemployed; they are, for all practical purposes, living under the worst form of modern-day feudalism, whether in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. In fact, in the days following the Taliban’s downfall in late-2001, a veteran spokeswoman for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) had warned that “the complete failure of governments in this part of the world to resolve basic issues like land titles, and to implement genuine land reforms, has already created an economy which is entirely conditioned by the trade in drugs and arms; our young men have nowhere else to go in order to find work and to fend for their families.”
In effect, the so-called Islamic militants are, in fact, unwilling mercenaries, within the context of the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre. They may or not be devout Muslims, but they certainly are not committed to the destruction of Pakistan, India or the West. As harsh and alarming as it may seem, more than 95% of them are paid, directly or indirectly, to protect or further vested commercial interests.
Shortly after the Soviet Army marched out of Afghanistan, a veteran Peshawar politician (who dare not speak on the subject openly today) was left wondering whether anybody in the West understood that “the Great Jihad of the 1980s was a myth, and that people like Osama Bin Laden and Gulbuddin Hekmateyar were basically running mercenary operations and protection rackets with money from the Gulf and from Saudi Arabia, with arms provided by the CIA and MI6, and with the protection of Pakistan’s notorious Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency.”
To take the example of Swat, there are some disturbing underlying economic issues which have been demanding urgent attention ever since the establishment of Pakistan. It is common knowledge that nearly 85% of the 1.7 million residents of Swat’s seven sub-districts live below the poverty line. Unemployment rates exceed 75% in many parts of Swat, if underemployment (casual and seasonal labour) is adequately recognized, regardless of misleading government data. Agricultural productivity has actually diminished during the previous three decades, dictated no doubt by minimal inputs in infrastructure in low-lying areas and by the exploitation of forests in the mountains. Swat’s relatively small market centres are in a state of total decay. Corruption in the police and bureaucracy has deep roots.
In the midst of this already depressing scenario, the rebel cleric, Mullah Fazlullah, allowed his gangs to collect tariffs and taxes, to organize Sharia courts and to impose strict restrictions on women. Mullah Fazlullah himself obviously claims to be implementing God’s laws, but the facts suggest otherwise. Mullah Soofi Mohammed, Mullah Fazlullah’s father-in-law, was known to have the backing of powerful local smugglers. “The same smugglers who backed Mullah Soofi are now backing Mullah Radio,” the Awami National Party student leader confirmed. “The battle in Swat is nothing but a turf war, between the alliance of smugglers, loggers and clerics on one hand and the collective interests of the bureaucracy, the police and small-city businessmen and traders on the other.”
Outside observers have been questioning why the Pakistani Army delayed entering the fray to restore a semblance of order for so many months; interestingly, today, the snowbound mountains to the west and north of Swat have already curtailed mobility, and the route leading to the Karakoram Highway is under the control of armed criminal groups [also called Islamic militants] owing allegiance to renowned Swat-based smugglers and loggers. As a result, the much-publicized drive to bring peace to Swat by the Pakistan Army is unlikely to produce anything sustainable.
For that matter, over 10 long years, the West has failed to recognize that, that the Islamabad establishment and Pakistan’s mainstream political parties have been fundamentally misrepresenting the true nature of the social fabric in the badlands of Waziristan.
The reality of Swat speaks for itself. “Nobody expects anything to change out here,” a Swat sub-district official, who is currently packing up to go back to his hometown of Lahore, told an Al Jazeera stringer last week. “The Army is not going to dismantle the power structures here, a few hundred armed men and civilians will die, and then the local, low-intensity conflicts will continue, like nothing ever happened.”
Now for the critical question: Is the West pursuing phantom terrorists in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre? The answer is an unequivocal YES.
An overwhelming proportion of those pitted against regular military forces are not Islamic militants; in fact, Islam has got nothing to do with their compulsion to work for warlords, smugglers, intelligence agencies or the Pakistan Army’s vast industrial empire. Devout, mosque-going Muslims they might be; but it is not religion which is driving them to kill and destroy.
If anything, the terrorism which we need to be concerned about is the terrorism to which the people of Swat, the rest of the North West Frontier Province, the tribal areas and, to set the record state, the rest of Pakistan are being subject to in their daily lives; the kind of terrorism only poverty can bring---malnourished children, abused women, dismal healthcare, impaired education, high unemployment and ever-rising levels of household debt owing to local money lenders.
The true nature of Al Qaeda and the Taliban needs to be thoroughly reviewed, without spin and propaganda. Are these loosely knit outfits, at the end of the day, mercenary outfits using religion simply as a convenient cover for personal gains?
The threat from the phenomenon of Political Islam—i.e. from parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami—is an entirely different type of threat altogether, rooted in the lower middle classes in the towns and cities of Pakistan. That threat can easily, and only, be countered if the struggle of impoverished Pakistanis in the countryside gathers momentum.
India offers a unique insight into that threat: without a genuine and powerful indigenous movement to resolve poverty and marginalization in the rural context, nothing can stop right-wing Hindu groups, backed by huge sections of the urban middle class and led by people like Narendra Modi, from sharply increasing their influence over Indian society within the next 1-2 years.
Source: Free Articles
Earlier this year, the Falls Church City Council had to make one of those hard choices, voting 3 - 2 to cut $2 million of affordable housing funding from the FY 2011 budget. Those who opposed the cuts expressed concern for the future of low-income housing projects in the city. Their fears seem to have been realized. In light of this most recent setback, the Falls Church Housing Corporation announced it will no longer pursue projects within the city limits, citing the lack of funding as a primary reason for its decision.
One of the dissenting votes for the funding cut came from Ms. Robin Gardner, who said the vote was an indicator of the Council's general attitude toward low-income housing. City Mayor Nader Baroukh denied that he opposes affordable housing projects, and said the decision to cut funding was an unfortunate necessity caused by the city's current financial position. Several affordable housing advocates attended the Council meeting and spoke out against the cuts. One even recommended the vote be delayed until the next Council meeting.
Council members gave no indication as to when, or if, the money will be re-allocated should the city's financial picture improve. The silver lining in these budget crises comes by way of the Federal government, which recently allocated an additional $1 billion in funding for low-income housing-related programs.
As Obama’s legacy of a healthcare reform was developing through Congress, Orszag believed that the increased spending on health in the nation’s budget needed to be carefully assessed, otherwise it had the risk to worsen the problems of the nation fiscally over the longer term. Because of this, he ensured that his office invested into greater resources to analyze the implications of the new policies which were coming in, phasing in programs which were not using finances effectively under the previous government. Because of the extensive budget deficit, Obama believed that there was a mandate to begin acting even before he began office on January 20, 2009, by appointing Orszag and even holding press conferences in 2008 after the result had been announced.
It seems that the President-elect at the time realized the pressure he was under to address America’s economic woes before they worsened, instead of waiting until he assumed office to address the problems, which could have developed into a severe crisis by that time.
This was why Orszag’s discerning eye was employed so early on in the process, in pre-Presidential policies that were the most radical since Franklin. Upon assuming the provisional role, Peter Orszag proceeded to forego his old position of managing the Congressional Budget Office, in which he coordinated as many as 230 on critiquing economical issues, and the policies which were being pushed through the processes of government.
It is claimed that the Arab Muslim Brotherhood is deliberately holding back on its religious message for the moment, in the middle of a people-driven revolt that is purportedly not being determined by either Islam or politics.
The organization proclaimed its support for opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mohamed ElBaradei, a secularist with Western democratic principles, as a transitional president, if the Mubarak government was put out of office.
Esam Shosha, a movement member said "The revolution does not belong to any one group. We are one country. It's not just about the Brotherhood, at least not now; it's about all Egyptians."
"They don't want to appear as if they're using this revolt to seize power. What they want is free and fair elections to allow them to take power transparently," an analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, Wahid Abdul Magid, said.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the world's most influential Islamist movement and the oldest and largest Islamic political group. Their goal however, is to also penetrate and take over other Muslim organizations in order to unite all Muslims to the general aims of the brotherhood.
The organization's beliefs are moderate when compared with many of the world's more militant Muslim organizations. However, it rejects the idea that a woman, or a Christian could be president of a Muslim country and would lean the nation's laws toward more rigorous Islamic codes. It would certainly ban alcohol and topless beaches at the resort of Sharm el Sheik. The organization also prohibits dancing and other such pastimes.
Hassan al-Banna, Islamic scholar and Sufi schoolteacher, who believed in reclaiming Islam's manifest destiny, an empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia, founded the organization in 1928.
The organization's goal is to instill the Sunnah and Quarn as the 'sole reference point for ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual and community and state'. It generally opposes violence to achieve its aims, though division has been created within the group, through its stance on no violence.
The Egyptian government accused the group of a campaign of killings in Egypt after World War II, as the organization strongly opposed Western colonialism. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned in Egypt, with members being arrested, in spite of the membership being kept a secret. The brotherhood was involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and assisted in the overthrow of secular Ba'athist dictators in Syria.
Al Qaeda has censored the brotherhood and charged them with 'betraying the cause of Islam and abandoning the 'jihad' in preference to forming political parties and supporting modern state institutions'. While studying at university, Osama bin Laden claimed he was influenced by the religious and political beliefs of many professors, who had strong connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
What direction does the foreign policy of Viktor Yanukovych take?
In just one month Viktor Yanukovych will celebrate his first year in the office of the President of Ukraine. During this time the approach to national foreign policy has changed dramatically. From being overtly pro-western and Euro-Atlantic during the term of president Yuschenko it appears to now to focus on Russia. With new legislation coming into force Ukraine also declared insulation from any blocks and unions as well as cancelled the provisions for integration into NATO. Various political steps suit Russia exclusively: Russian businesses were incorporated in to privatisation tenders allowing the take-over of Ukrainian companies, particularly in strategically important sectors of economy; The agreement with the Russian Naval Base included a long term extension, in exchange for a short term gas discount. Thus even though Yanukovych tries to demonstrate that he intends to preserve friendship with president Dmitriy Medvedev Russia is gradually increasing its pressure on Ukraine. This will result in the Head of Ukraine either yielding to Moscow’s economic influence entirely, or a hasty political rapprochement with the West to balance the Russian influence.
Although the first official visit by Yanukovych as President of Ukraine was to Brussels, at present the relations with the European Union are increasingly troubled by concerns over the Ukrainian authorities restricting the democratic rights and freedoms of Ukrainian people. The latest visits of European Commissioners to Kyiv proved that the intentions of the EU's policy makers are to prevent the establishment of Belorussian-esque regime in Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych should personally value the support of the European Union as it will allow him to not only balance relations with Russia but also enjoy his trips to the EU, communicate with European leaders and be welcomed as a member of the European elite. To achieve these goals he should terminate the establishment of the Russia model of control over society irrespective of its successes in Russia and resume dialogue with the people. Otherwise we face not only sanctions from the EU and the USA, but an increased dependence on Russia and the potential for a social explosion of similar magnitude to that of the "Orange Revolution" and equally unexpected as was the case in Egypt.
People First Comment:
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs have stated that the policy of this government will be to express the independence of Ukraine. There would be no dependence on Russia but there would be close economic ties. There would be no dependence on the EU although Ukraine would follow a path of economic and later political integration with Europe. There would be no formal engagement with NATO but they would continue to participate in the partnership for peace programme. One year on the picture is very different and the country is now looking more isolated than independent.
Relations with Russia are at best cool, the EU is becoming outspoken in its criticism whilst the military, starved of funds is becoming less and less effective to a point where joint NATO exercises serve little purpose. The political parallels with Belarus have not gone unnoticed. What has happened as a result of current policy is that Ukraine is now no longer a hindrance to Russian-EU relations as both recognise that the country has backed it’s self into a corner and can now be virtually ignored in real East-West relations. Ukraine has become a problem for both the EU and the USA as the economic and social conditions deteriorate and so rather than expressing Ukrainian independence all that seems to have been achieved is an expression of Ukraine’s ineptitude.
Isolationism is not a policy; it is a result of a lack of real policy. Ukraine needs a strong economic and political relationship with both Russia and the EU. Ukraine needs to demonstrate that it has real direction, that it is serious about partnerships, that, importantly, it fully understands European and western values and that the Ukrainian culture and heritage has something of real value to the world. The present policy can only reduce Ukraine to a disruptive international problem that the world does not need.
Ukraine remains separated on the day the country declared its sovereignty
The true depth of Ukraine’s social and political disruption was illustrated recently by public action on the day of symbolic national reunion of the western and eastern regions. The authorities confined themselves to typical protocol: an on-screen presidential greeting, a concert for top officials and provocative warning by the Minister of the Interior concerning possible "bloodshed" by the opposition. The still divided opposition celebrated the Day of Independence separately. The majority, including "Batkivshchyna" of Yulia Tymoshenko, All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" and "Narodna Samooborona" gathered at the historical Sophievska square, where they denounced the Kharkiv Agreements with Russia, called for the resignation of the government and stressed the importance of alliance between all patriotic forces. This political meeting gathered between 20-40 thousand people. Other parties, who have declared themselves as oppositional to the government, such as "Front Zmin" led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, held their own meeting on Kontraktova square. Some party fellows of the former president Viktor Yuschenko joined this meeting alongside several thousand citizens.
In contrast Ukrainian citizens, especially young people, demonstrated more aspiration for a political reunion of Ukraine than that described by politicians. Ukrainians in all major cities including Kyiv came out in celebration of unity by joining hands and creating ‘live chains’. In Kyiv young people connected the two banks of the Dnieper river with a symbolic ‘live chain’, proving that Ukrainians feel united, despite attempts by politicians to instil a sense of separation in the country. Such a burst of spontaneous patriotic activity inspires hope for the development of civil society in Ukraine. It also illustrates the vast and widening gap between the attitudes of the people, and their authorities that have chosen to ignore the citizens of Ukraine on the Day of Independence. Thus due to an indifferent government and separation within the opposition, hopes for civil society become the most powerful factor of the development of democracy in Ukraine and marginally raise its potential to become a successful European state.
People First Comment:
Is it any wonder that the good people of Ukraine are not prepared to demonstrate their enthusiasm for the nation when the political parties have singularly failed to deliver anything but more suffering on the nation. In 1991 when Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union the nation had suffered from a lack of real investment for something like 20 years. The people had watched their standard of living slowly deteriorate as the lack of investment in industry, schools, hospitals, housing, roads and infrastructure really began to bite. Today the GDP of Ukraine is 30% lower than at independence in 1991.
With the declaration of independence the nation believed, and the politicians promised that democracy and freedom would create a new Ukrainian utopia. The reality has been somewhat different. Initially nationalist sentiment ruled and the authorities wasted valuable time on matters of national pride and ignored national priorities. The international community invested millions in promoting market economics but virtually nothing on democracy education and institution building and in this area Ukraine was left to fend for its self. As a result the authorities and the opposition began to bend the rules of democracy and democratic good practice under the weight of corruption. Money has become the deciding factor to a point where today the national philosophy has disappeared in a fog of self interest.
The political parties have become little more than money making personality cults. None have parliamentarians that have been locally elected from grass root support therefore it is little wonder that the people feel disenfranchised. None have presented well thought out and fully budgeted manifestos preferring the creation of policy on the hoof. The people have little to believe in and little faith that any politicians will work in their interests, therefore nobody should be surprised if they prefer to celebrate the Day of National Unity away from the limelight of political rallies.
False start of administrative reform
The Ukrainian authorities have decided to spread reforms onto the administrative sector. By the Presidential Decree titled "On Optimisation of Central Executive Authorities System" Viktor Yanukovych has attempted to reform the state machine, as well as middle and top-ranking state officials, in accordance with the challenges that Ukraine faces today. There are currently around 350,000 state officials in Ukraine. The declared first step of the reform involves the removal of around 100,000 officials from various levels. Moreover, the number of top-ranking officers has been reduced leaving each minister with just two deputies. Central executive authorities are divided into six types in accordance with European practices: ministries, services, inspections, agencies, independent regulatory bodies and authorities with special status. A positive outcome of the reform also includes the reduction of expenditures on the maintenance of state officials from national budget and a small restriction on the opportunities for corruption.
At the same time the authorities claim that in order to implement similar reforms in other spheres of Ukraine it is necessary to not only reduce staff in state departments but also to increase their efficiency; The IMF offers the same solutions in its official recommendations. The reforms appear to have got of to a false start prove to be poorly thought through. The majority of the reduced ministers will receive equivalent positions in extended government services preserving an old and ineffective management approach. The number of central executive authorities does not be reduced but will in fact increases from 45 to 56. There is no clear concept for these reforms leaving the government's new approach unexplained to its people. One clear effect of these reforms is the assistance to Viktor Yanukovych in further centralising power to his hands through the right to personally appoint the heads of all the central executive authorities. Due to the fact that the administrative reform was developed without requesting recommendations from the EU, thus the functions of the executive authorities will have to be reviewed once the Association Agreement enters into force. Besides, the reform fails to address the issue of self-governance which is one of the key requirements of the European Union. As a result of undue haste this latest attempt of the Ukrainian authorities to implement administrative reform in Ukraine may eventuate in failure.
People First Comment:
Playing the numbers game with the civil service is in reality a deception. The question should not be ‘how many do we really need’ but ‘what do they actually contribute to the management, development and growth of the nation’. It may well be that the country needs 350,000 bureaucrats working efficiently to ensure that the nation is consistently running at peak capacity. Cutting the numbers may well reduce the options for corruption but it does not guarantee that the nation will be run any more effectively.
The Ukrainian civil service of today is virtually identical to that of the former Soviet Union, little or nothing has been done to stream line systems as reducing the bureaucracy would in many cases hurt the revenue streams set up to maximise the opportunity for corruption. In reality the civil service has done an excellent job in protecting its own back but this relatively untrained and undisciplined civil service may well be the President’s Achilles heel. For the President to achieve the targets he promised in his election campaign he needs a civil service that not only understands what has to be done but also has the will to make it happen.
Cutting the numbers may go some way to streamlining decision making and drawing the civil service into some sort of order but unless there is fundamental reform of the systems of public administration, in reality little may change. If the President where to combine the streamlining of the civil service with a programme of incentivized targets then this would be a radical change as it would break the back of the corruption that is currently strangling many aspects of the governmental machine. The reforms are a step in the right direction but in reality may not be a step far enough.
Conflict between the authorities and entrepreneurs in Ukraine may lead to another revolution
After giving protestants' demands token consideration the Ukrainian authorities adopted a new version of Tax Code which demonstrates a somewhat nonchalant attitude towards the interests of entrepreneurs. Thus, the government led by the Party of Regions chose to safeguard the interests of business heavyweights and mark small and medium sized businesses as a primary source of taxation, without considering the hostile environment menacing the SME sector. One of the provisions of the new Tax Code provides the tax administration with the right to freeze any ‘offender's’ bank accounts but fails to present a procedure for unblocking such accounts.
The administrative pressure on entrepreneurs participating in the protests at the end of 2010 was indicative of an aggressive attitude among the authorities. In Kyiv and other regions of Ukraine there have been reports of the authorities purposefully shutting down the trade places of those entrepreneurs who participated in protests. Substantial increases in the number of inspections and interrogations by the militia have become common indicators of pressure.
Thus the population engaged in small and medium sized business - the bulk of the middle class and a fundamental of civil society in Europe - has begun to mobilise itself. As a result, fresh protest actions against the government have already been planned for February 2011. The schedule of demonstrations was recently confirmed by Igor Gurnyak, head of the Coordination Council of the Assembly of non-governmental organisations of small and medium-sized businesses in Ukraine. New protests will voice such demands as the cancellation of the new Tax Code, resignations from the Cabinet of Ministers, pre-term elections for the Verkhovna Rada and the cancellation of a new Labour Code that jeopardises the social security of hired workers. The ongoing battle between entrepreneurs and the policy of the Party of Regions demonstrates a shift away from the typical apathetic population, as segments of the population band together to protect their rights. If the government proves incapable of accommodating the demands of its people, instability in the socio-political and economic fields may get significantly worse before the end of the year.
People First Comment:
What is interesting about the recent public out cries in Tunisia Jordan, Yemen and Egypt is that these revolts are characterised by cries for democracy, jobs, lower food prices, an end to corruption and political reform. This public reaction to social injustice has not been by a radicalised few but by the middle class and ordinary people who simply want a better standard of living. Recent national research carried by the People First Foundation has found that the average middle and working class Ukrainian family’s primary concerns are: jobs, food prices, education, medical care, corruption, representation in government and the rule of law.
Successive governments have ignored job creation, in fact now we see the opposite as the tax police, enforcing the new tax code, force thousands of small and medium sized enterprises to the wall. Food prices continue to rise not simply because of world pricing but also because of the cartels that have been allowed to develop unopposed in the food and food supply industry. Education and healthcare bare the brunt of budget cuts. Corruption is costing the country literally billions in illegal offshore transactions, VAT scams and over pricing, democracy is under direct attack and the majority of Ukrainians now believe that justice is a tradable commodity.
The parallels between the social conditions in North Africa and Ukraine are uncannily similar particularly with the authoritarian clamp down and the middle class tax revolt. The only difference being that in Ukraine the opposition is even less likely to solve the problems as they are cast from the same die. The authorities had better rethink their policies lest Ukrainians learn from the North African and Middle Eastern examples and follow suite.
Historical quote of the week:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of potage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money; is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do; I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! Go! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
.jpg)
Different economists have varying perspectives of how to tackle the budget, and Peter Orszag was no different in his role as the Director of the Office for Budget and Management until July 2010 – one of the pivotal roles in deciding how US money is spent. His perspectives and economic values greatly influenced the direction that the Obama administration and America took as a whole in allocating Government expenditure, and Orszag believed that greater analysis was vital to ensuring a successful outcome. In this article, we are going to show Orszag’s stance on dealing with certain aspects of the budget while in office.
As Obama’s legacy of a healthcare reform was developing through Congress, Orszag believed that the increased spending on health in the nation’s budget needed to be carefully assessed, otherwise it had the risk to worsen the problems of the nation fiscally over the longer term. Because of this, he ensured that his office invested into greater resources to analyze the implications of the new policies which were coming in, phasing in programs which were not using finances effectively under the previous government. Because of the extensive budget deficit, Obama believed that there was a mandate to begin acting even before he began office on January 20, 2009, by appointing Orszag and even holding press conferences in 2008 after the result had been announced.
It seems that the President-elect at the time realized the pressure he was under to address America’s economic woes before they worsened, instead of waiting until he assumed office to address the problems, which could have developed into a severe crisis by that time.
This was why Orszag’s discerning eye was employed so early on in the process, in pre-Presidential policies that were the most radical since Franklin. Upon assuming the provisional role, Peter Orszag proceeded to forego his old position of managing the Congressional Budget Office, in which he coordinated as many as 230 on critiquing economical issues, and the policies which were being pushed through the processes of government.
Peter Orszag’s stance could be attributed to his inspirations as an economist, and the people who he studied under in his previous years and while at the London School of Economics. For example, some of his mentors included Alan Blinder, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Rubin as he developed as an economist in later life
Article Source:http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_934.shtml
A showdown is looming in Washington. And it's all about debt.
Just to put this into perspective, our national debt stands at about $14 trillion. According to the national debt clock on brilling.com, the debt is $14,107,455,627,940.78, and the estimated population of the United States is 309,976,811. So each citizen's share of this debt is $45,511.33. The national debt is increasing by approximately $4.16 billion per day.
To put this simply, the federal government spends more money than it takes in. That's called a deficit. When you do this year after year, it creates a large amount of national debt. Did you know that since about 1970, we've run federal deficits every year except 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001? The politicians in Washington sure like spending our money.
The federal government also has what's called debt ceiling. The Congress votes on and sets a national debt ceiling, the total amount of money the federal government can go into debt. In recent years, this debt ceiling gets raised almost every year. Sometimes more than once per year. Last year, the democratically controlled Congress raised the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, a political decision to push the next increase after the 2010 elections. We are expected to reach this ceiling within the next month or two.
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) recently reported that we are likely to set a new record this year with almost a $1.5 trillion federal deficit. Studying our federal deficits over the last 25 years, it's been clear that we've run through several groups in control of Congress with various fiscal priorities.
Fiscal Conservatives
In 1994, Newt Gingrich lead the Republican Revolution, and voters elected fiscal conservatives into Congress, taking control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in many years.
First let's look at budget deficits before the 1994 election. These numbers have all been adjusted for inflation.
1986: $429.128 billion deficit
1987: $279.939 billion deficit
1988: $277.808 billion deficit
1989: $260.775 billion deficit
1990: $358.344 billion deficit
1991: $420.108 billion deficit
1992: $438.504 billion deficit
1993: $374.997 billion deficit
1994: $290.576 billion deficit
Keep in mind that by the time the new Congress was in place in January, 1995, the budget was already in place for the '95 fiscal year from the '94 Congress.
So what happened with deficits during the time that fiscal conservatives controlled Congress? They became surpluses for the first time since 1969.
1995: $227.96 billion deficit
1996: $145.125 billion deficit
1997: $29.04 billion deficit
1998: $89.96 billion SURPLUS
1999: $159.512 billion SURPLUS
2000: $290.772 billion SURPLUS
Fiscal Moderates
By 2000, moderates and liberals had made significant gains into Congress. While the House and Senate were still controlled by Republicans, they were now controlled by moderate Republicans instead of fiscal conservatives. These moderate Republicans controlled Congress be small margins through 2006. And by 2002, we returned to budget deficits instead of budget surpluses.
2001: $152.76 billion SURPLUS
2002: $186.204 billion deficit
2003: $430.1 billion deficit
2004: $462.56 billion deficit
2005: $347.71 billion deficit
2006: $260.4 billion deficit
Fiscal Liberals
In the 2006 election, Democrats finally wrestled away control of Congress from the Republicans. Here are the federal deficits we've run during the last few years with Democrats in control. Keep in mind, that like the example above, the 2007 budget was already in place by the time Democrats came into office in January of '07.
2007: $165.24 billion deficit
2008: $455 billion deficit
2009: $1.416 trillion deficit
2010: $1.294 trillion deficit
2011: Projected $1.5 trillion deficit
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Fiscal conservatives now have control over the House, but Democrats continue to control the Senate and the White House.
Do you want to know what President Obama had to say about our increasing national debt? He called it a "sign of leadership failure". But at the time, he was Senator Obama, and the year was 2006. And Senator Barrack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling. Back then the national debt was only about $8 trillion. Since then, our national debt has increase by about 75%. That was only five years ago.
On this one, I agree with Barrack Obama completely. Our current level of national debt is certainly a failure of leadership.
Article Source:
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_936.shtml
I've long made a joke that credit cards are evil. But that's not true. When a person who is responsible with their money uses a credit card responsibly, credit cards are not evil at all. Try renting a car or making a hotel reservation without a credit card. Credit cards also offer a level of protection when you make purchases. For instance, if you buy something online, and you're unhappy with it, or it's never delivered to you, you have the option of disputing the charges on your credit card. It can protect you from many of the possible dangers of purchasing something from an unknown company.
The problem is that many of us do not use credit cards responsibly. When my wife went back to school to finish her degree, we were making very little money. We were basically living off student loans and credit cards. By the time she got out of school, we had racked up thousands in credit card debt. We were buried with it and finding it difficult to dig our way out. We considered bankruptcy.
We went to a credit counseling service, chopped up our cards, and made monthly payments until we were out of debt. It's a liberating feeling to make that final payment on your credit cards. We haven't looked back. We no longer use credit cards. If we can't afford it, we don't buy it. We have learned the hard way that we're better off without credit cards. It doesn't make them evil. It just means that we're not responsible enough to use them responsibly. Because of our access to "money" on our credit cards, we were spending more money than we were making. We were running a budget deficit every year.
Does this remind you of our federal government at all?
Since the early 1960s, our federal government has run budget deficits every year except 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. They spend more money every year than they receive in tax revenues.
Many have brought up the idea of a balanced budget amendment. This would force the federal government to balance their budget every year, and eliminate budget deficits.
In theory, I disagree with this approach. But in reality, it needs to be considered.
Why? It's kind of like credit cards. In theory, credit cards are useful and offer purchasing protections for consumers. But in reality, many consumers use them to buy products they cannot afford.
In theory I oppose a balance budget amendment. In times like these when our country is in a recession, or is coming out of a recession, tax revenues to the federal government are down. A balanced budget amendment would force the federal government to reduce services during a time we need them the most.
But reality shows us a different picture. If the federal government ran budget surpluses during the good times, we could trust them to make good decisions and allow them to run budget deficits during the bad times. The problem is that our government does NOT run budget surpluses, even during the good times. They just continue to increase spending in good times and bad.
They are not responsible with our money, and they need to chop up their credit cards. It's time for a balanced budget amendment. It would be good for our country, and ultimately, good for our economy.
Article Source:
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_937.shtml
As most of now know, after more than two weeks of street demonstrations in and around Tahrir Square in Cairo, Hosni Mubarak has stepped down as the leader of Egypt and that a temporary, military-based government will step and rule in until democratic elections can be arranged. We should all offer congratulations to the people of both Egypt and Tunisia who have stood up for the cause of freedom in their respective countries despite the high potential of harm to themselves and their families. They are to be applauded for their courage and we wish them the best of luck. May they find happiness and liberty the way eastern Europe did after the collapse of the Iron Curtain and avoid the fate of the Iranian people, who never got a chance at freedom after the Shah was toppled in Iran. Interesting times.
This whole episode in freedom gets one thinking about a hypothetical situation: what if a similar uprising or outpouring of emotion in the pursuit of freedom happened in the United States and Americans gathered for days on end on the Mall in D.C., similar to what the brave souls did at Egypt's Tahrir Square? President Obama recently spoke to the issue saying that "the Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity." (note: this statement was put out before Mubarak stepped down).
But what if Americans decided they also wanted a "genuine democracy," that the form of government they were living under today was not a genuine democracy because:
1) The government and the political class controlled the major portion of each American's retirement funds via Social Security and the government and the political class controlled the major portion of each American's retirement medical care and fate via Medicare?
2) The government and the political class controlled the major portion of each American's pre-retirement medical care and fate via Obama Care?
3) The government and the political class confiscated over 40% of each American's earnings every year via taxes and fees, leaving each American far less flexibility and freedom to manage how their kids are educated, to start or expand a business, to save for retirement, to contribute to their favorite charity, or to just spend the fruits of their labor any way they wanted?
4) The government and the political class had absolutely no financial discipline when it came to managing the nation's finances, burdening each of today's Americans and future generations of Americans with tens of thousands of dollars of debt burden?
5) The government and political class has rigged nearly every election process, from gerrymandering Congressional districts to using taxpayer money on earmarks, that are only thinly disguised campaign fund raising vehicles for incumbents, to allowing unions, PACs, corporations and the such to overwhelm our election processes and the will of American citizens with billions of dollars, etc.
6) The government and the political class waged a highly expensive and highly ineffective "War on Drugs" campaign that failed to contain the flow of illegal drugs into and around the country, failed to provide an effective drug addiction treatment network, caused a violent, near narco state to develop just south of our borders , infringed on our freedom via illegal or semi-legal searches of our homes and cars, and infringed on the rights of Americans to do what they want to their own body?
7) The government and the political class spent far more money on education than any other country in the world but succeeded only in turning out mediocre students, when measured against the education quality of students from around the world, wasting generations of brain power that could have been developed in American kids.
8) The government and the political class has shown no ability to respond to natural and man made disasters despite incredible amounts of taxpayer dollars spent to run government departments and agencies, disasters that have ranged from Hurricane Katrina to the BP oil rig disaster.
9) The government and the political class have erected huge bureaucratic processes that discourage business formation and innovation and benefit no one but the bureaucrats in charge of the useless processes and red tape.
10) The government and the political class tried to control the press by either trying to control the message via the obnoxious and anti-liberty "Fairness Doctrine" principle or through the outright banning of media outlets holding contrarian views.
11) The government and the political class viewed American citizens as not free people whose contrary opinions were not to be belittled but respected and celebrated but as votes to be controlled, bargained for, and discarded once the election was over.
12) The government and the political class think that the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and holding people in custody forever without a trial are consistent with freedom.
Unfortunately, these "dirty dozen," anti-freedom behaviors are not theoretical today, they are the reality of America under the current political class. We ourselves do not live in a "genuine democracy" that President Obama desires for the Egyptians. I would make the case, as I do in the fifty steps in "Love My Country, Loathe My Government," that we are not living in a genuine democracy in this country. Maybe the President should worry more about fixing our democracy than in telling others how to live freely.
However, the chances of that happening are slim relative to the dirty dozen items listed above:
1) Obama's rejection of the Social Security and Medicare recommendations from his OWN Debt Reduction Commission does nothing to prevent the coming insolvency of these two programs.
2) His health care overhaul legislation accounts for the control of Americans' pre-retirement medical care in negative ways that are just becoming apparent.
3) He fought the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and has shown no propensity to reduce taxes for ALL Americans or making government more efficient so that not as much taxes are needed to run it.
4) Government spending deficits have skyrocketed during his administration to terrifying heights, usually exceeding a TRILLION dollars a year.
5) Political campaign spending in the recent midterm elections was in the billions of dollars, with no indication from Congress or the President that they have the will and desire to return voting power to the common, individual American and to take the power away from the moneyed interests.
6) The War on Drugs - over four decades after it started, still a lost cause.
Recent testing of high school students from all over the world showed that in reading science, and math, there were at least 17 nations in each category educating their kids better than our government and political class were doing with public education in this country.
7) U.S. kids do not come close to competing on education quality in any cagtegory.
8) BP Oil Spill - has the government and political class learned nothing as it applies to contingency planning since Katrina?
9) The number of Federal employees has grown by untold thousands since President Obama was elected, worsening an already slow moving, immobile government structure.
10) Numerous members of the President's party and himself, have made accusations against Fox News and tried to isolate the news outlet in many different ways, all for having a difference of opinion with the administration, basically trying to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
11) Rather than respecting and celebrating diversity of opinion, and essential part of any genuine democracy, the President has remained silent while his henchmen have called those that oppose Obama's policies un-American (Nancy Pelosi), knuckle dragging Neanderthals (Alan Grayson), racists (Charles Rangel and Howard Dean), members of the Ku Klux Klan (Sheila Jordan Lee and Grayson), and gerbils (a Congressman whose name escapes now). Senate majority Leader Harry Reid actually stated in public that Americans visiting D.C. in the summer time physically smelled. When citizens are held in such contempt by the ruling class, you do not live in a free, genuine democracy. One of the few times the President spoke up when discussing those Americans who had an honest and rightful disagreement with his policies, he spoke of the need to "punish" his "enemies." How sad, a sitting President feeling that those citizens he is supposed to serve were his enemies and were in need of punishment. Hardly a democratic viewpoint.
12) Patriot Act and Gitmo - enough said.
It would certainly be interesting to transpose the Egyptians in Tahrir Square into Americans on the Mall in D.C.but keep the demands the same: free citizens living in an economically sound environment with a true voice in determining how they are governed. That is all the Egyptians want, that is all Americans want. Would President Obama be so supportive and forthright in his praise and desire for "genuine democracy" in America as he is for "genuine democracy" in Egypt? Unfortunately, his actions in office so far indicate he would not.
Article Source:
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_938.shtml
Today the President went on the road to Baltimore to tout his new budget; to a middle-school. Huh?
The rumors are now replaced by facts, and those facts are far scarier than the rumors. Mr. Obama’s supposedly pared down budget calls for $3.73 trillion in spending, a $1.1 trillion deficit next year, $1 trillion in supposed spending cuts and tax increases, including a 5 year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. And what do we get for all this bogus fiscal restraint? You’re gonna laugh…I promise: the deficit will stabilize at about 3% of GDP in 2017! Stabilize…not shrink. That means it will continue to grow for another 6 years!
Wake up Tea Party! Mr. Obama didn’t hear you!
Let’s dig a little deeper. On the tax front, Mr. Obama has proposed a one-two punch of massive tax increases. First he wants to remove the deduction for home interest payments. Imagine how good that’ll be for the real estate market! He’ll raise the death-tax from 35% to 45%. Just a year ago we had no death-tax, then it came back this year and he’s already looking to increase it by more than 25%! Then all the President’s number assume the Bush tax cut expires in 2012. Can you see where this is heading?
On the spending front, Mr. Obama proposes not reductions, but significant increases in the areas of infrastructure (you know, more of those shovel-ready projects) and education. The spending is all fueled by the tax increases, so don’t expect any reduction in the debt. In fact, if you’re to believe the administrations own numbers, this budget will increase the national debt by over 7.2 trillion dollars! Is this man deaf? All the talk about reductions in spending, and the Education department alone gets a 35% increase over 2008 levels! There is not a single cut in this entire budget. What a farce!
The Democrats are quick to pull out the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) whenever convenient to them, but today they were not very convenient. According to the CBO, this budget doesn’t only fail to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars over the next decade, it in fact increases it by over a half trillion dollars. Let’s see if the liberal media brings up that inconvenient truth!
I implore conservatives and independents, all over the country, to come out into the streets and proclaim, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!” Nothing that took place in November has gotten through to this man or his cadre of tax and spend liberals. Is his goal to drive us into bankruptcy?
This budget could be the last step to devaluing our currency to third-world status. Congratulations Jimmy Carter Obama, I think you’ve hit the trifecta!
Article Source:
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_941.shtml
Go back to the 2009 Iranian elections, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected, but not without a controversial victory. Much like Egypt but under different circumstances, people flooded the streets in protest, claiming that the vote was fixed and that voter fraud was the reason why Ahmadinejad was thrust back into office.
Unfortunately there was also bloodshed and deaths. The Iranian ruling party tried to cover up their handling of this situation by not allowing the news media or cameras into the area. What they didn't factor in was the Internet age of Twitter and the social network. Their atrocities were seen all over the world from cell phones and computers. It was called the "Twitter Revolution", but unfortunately it ended in the people being run off the streets and back into their homes by the force of the Iranian military.
Now we come back to today, and right after the Egyptian conflict, the Iranian people are back in the streets and they are wanting a change. Will they succeed this time? We will just have to wait and see what comes from all this, but one thing is for sure, Iran's president, Ahmadinejad, can't keep blaming the U.S. for all its internal problems. At some point he is going to have to step up to the plate and admit that his people don't want him or his way of ruling the country.
Are we starting to see a domino effect with these uprisings? Are there more Islamic countries that are in danger of this exact kind of reaction from its people?
I am a businessman and I use the Internet to market my business . The Internet has been a tremendous tool for companies all across the globe and now we are seeing new things that the Internet has a function for. If it wasn't for the Internet, these people in these very closed and restricted countries would never have an opportunity to hear the truth and see what is really going on in the world. The Internet has given them the ability to access the news from anywhere around the world, and this is a good thing.
These corrupt governments, who want to force their ways and views down the people throats, have always used the cloak of secrecy, trying to keep or shade the truth from the people and use this lack of knowledge to control and manipulate everyone and promote their agendas. This was true of Hitler and every other evil dictator that has been drunk with power, and control.
Freedom can never be controlled and locked up in a prison, it always will find a way to escape, and many think that this is just the beginning. Other oppressed people will join the cry for freedom and like Egypt and Iran, be running through the streets in an effort to reclaim their nation and their lives.
I think with all that is going on right now, we are seeing a very different side of these regimes. They claim freedom and fairness, but pictures and the voice of truth show a different story and their escape of responsibility by pointing their accusing fingers at America, and others, for all their short comings, is wearing very thin. The whole world is seeing what they are really made up of.
Is this a good thing? It all depends on who takes the reins of power and control next. The Islamic Brotherhood was involved in the Egyptian protests and wants to be involved in the next ruling party. This group is the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group and calls itself conservative and non-violent. It condemns terrorism and the 911 attacks, but others say it is a terrorist organization with ties to Al-Queda.
Is Egypt the first domino to fall in this long line of dominoes? Only time will tell, but like it or not, the world is watching.
Article Source:
http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_940.shtml
