Last week, the IMF told the United States that it needs to start getting its budget deficit down. It put cutting Social Security at the top of the steps that the country should take to achieve deficit reduction. This one is more than a bit outrageous for two reasons.

First, the IMF deserves a substantial share of the blame for the economic crisis that gave us big deficits in the first place. The IMF is supposed to oversee the operations of the international financial system. According to standard economic theory, capital is supposed to flow from rich countries like the United States to poor countries to finance their development. In other words, the United States should be having a trade surplus, which would correspond to the money that we are investing in poor countries to finance their development.

However, the IMF messed up its management of financial crises so badly in the last 15 years that poor countries decided that they had to accumulate huge amounts of currency reserves in order to avoid ever being forced to deal with the IMF. This meant that capital was flowing in huge amounts in the wrong direction. One result of this reverse flow was that the United States ran a huge trade deficit instead of a trade surplus.

The trade deficit in the United States was a big part of the story of the housing bubble. The trade deficit cost millions of workers their jobs. This was one of the main reasons that economy was so weak coming out of the 2001 recession. This weakness led the Fed to keep interest rates at 50-year lows, until the growth of the housing bubble eventually began to generate jobs in the fall of 2003.

The IMF both bears much of the blame for the imbalances in the world economy and then for failing to clearly sound the alarms about the dangers of the bubble. While the IMF has no problem warning about retired workers getting too much in Social Security benefits, it apparently could not find its voice when the issue was the junk securities from Goldman Sachs or Citigroup that helped to fuel the housing bubble.

The collapse of this bubble has not only sank the world economy, it also destroyed most of the savings of the near retirees for whom the IMF wants to cut Social Security. The vast majority of middle-income retirees have most of their wealth in their home equity. This home equity largely disappeared when the bubble burst. Maybe the IMF doesn’t have access to house price series and data on wealth, because if they did, it’s hard to believe that they would advocate further harm to some of the main victims of their policy failure.

The other reason that the IMF’s call for cutting Social Security benefits is infuriating is the incredible hypocrisy involved. The average Social Security benefit is just under $1,200 a month. No one can collect benefits until they reach the age of 62. By contrast, many IMF economists first qualify for benefits in their early 50s. They can begin drawing pensions at age 51 or 52 of more than $100,000 a year.

This means that we have IMF economists, who failed disastrously at their jobs, who can draw six-figure pensions at age 52, telling ordinary workers that they have to take a cut in their $14,000 a year Social Security benefits that they can’t start getting until age 62. Now that is real black helicopter material.

Author’s Bio: Dr. Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He received his Ph.D in economics from the University of Michigan.

Source: OpEd News
Photo: -John–

by Larry Pruett

At first glance, the answer seems simple. Most people would say “yes.” And why not? Our politicians are constantly talking about our democracy, the Media shows us “Democracy in Action”, and we always hear about “spreading Democracy” around the globe.

However, we are NOT a Democracy.

We are a Representative Republic.

Most people today do not understand the difference, but it is crucial. In a pure Democracy, the majority decides things. Each issue would be voted on by the masses, and the majority would win. So, should we have a new tax on the “rich?” Everyone cast your vote. Since the majority of people do not fall in the “rich” category, the vote would probably pass and our economy would be damaged.

I explain this to my kids like this. There are seven people in our family. That means that if we were a Democracy, four of us could agree on something and the rest of the family would have to go along. So, if my 2-year old and 4-year old (who’s votes can easily be bought with marshmallows) go along with two older kids, they could outvote my wife and I every time. This would mean sugar for breakfast, lunch and supper, no chores, no school, and a day filled with video games and movies. There is no extra weight given for position, age, experience, wisdom, or even Biblical authority — everyone has an equal vote in a Democracy. Of course, we do not exercise democracy in our home, but my kids can keep dreaming about it.

In a republic, the people elect representatives to make laws, supposedly for the best of the people. If the people don’t like the way the representative handles himself, they have the right and duty to simply vote him out during the next election cycle.

But here is the biggest difference about these two forms of government. In a Democracy, the government is run on the feelings of the majority at that time. In a republic the government is based upon the rule of law.

Noah Webster, in his History of the United States, said that “the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible.” This means that in a Republic, the rule of law will always prevail. Murder will always be against the law because the Bible has already established it as against God’s law. In a Democracy, however, there is always a chance that the majority’s feelings may be swayed to change so that murder could become legal.

America has gradually declined toward democratic principles in the last century. What would the founders think of this? I’ll have to answer that next time. Look for my next article entitled, ‘What Did the Founders Think About Democracy’!

About the author: Larry Pruett is the owner of Stepping Stones Company, a Christian organization dedicated to the preservation of our national heritage. His website is www.1776web.com, where you can find much more information on the founding of the United States of America. He also owns an online bookstore, Ancient Paths Christian Bookstore. You could see his store at: www.ancientpathsweb.com or www.stores.ebay.com/ancientpathschristianbookstore.

Source: www.goarticles.com

By Jim Traficant

“We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon, Oct. 3, 2001.

Yes, folks they do! The Israelis manifest their control over America through a series of powerful lobbies. Yes, a series, hundreds of them, all under the umbrella of the parent organization known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). No one ever told you this?

AIPAC controls America with money, big money, that is funneled into the campaign funds of U.S. senators, representatives and yes, even candidates for the president of the United States.

AIPAC channels money through a number of innocently named Political Action Committees (PACS) that no one (I don’t believe anybody wants to) can trace to AIPAC—Israeli money.

As an example—XYZ PAC (for example only/not real). Sounds like it could be an educational lobby, or a science lobby—but alas, it’s money from Israel, routed to political candidates of their choice.

I can’t name all these PACS, but I suspect there are 200 or more such phony lobbies whose real purpose is to elect politicians at all levels, especially state and federal offices, who will support Israel without fail. These politicians will support Israel even when Israel is caught spying on America—yes, spying on America.

To provide background as the precursor to the official AIPAC lobby I cite an infamous Israeli spy. Check this out:

Jonathan Pollard

1. Jonathan Pollard was turned down by the CIA (after leaving graduate school) for failing a polygraph test. Pollard lied about his use of illegal drugs. He later admitted to prolific illegal drug usage between 1974 and 1978.

2. Guess what: That didn’t hurt Pollard with the Navy. He was hired as an “intelligence specialist.” The CIA refused to give the Navy any information they had on Pollard.

3. Within two months, Director Richard Haver wanted him fired on suspicion, but Pollard was only transferred to Naval Investigative Service (NIS).

4. In his new position, Adm. Sumner Shapiro ordered Pollard’s official clearance be revoked for suspicious behavior. Once again, Pollard was reassigned.

5. Pollard now complained he was being abused, and, in 1984, he received “excellent performance” reviews and was returned to Naval Intelligence. How’s that for a pat on the back?

6. Shortly after, in June 1984, documents show that Pollard “started to pass classified information” to Israel. The full extent of those crimes/info, that he gave to Israel has “never been revealed.”

7. Israel claimed that Pollard was a “rogue” without Israeli authority or knowledge. If you believe that garbage, it’s no wonder America is a puppet state for Israel. And guess what? Bingo! Israel’s memory improved—10 years later Israel admitted that Pollard was indeed working for—and with—Israel as a spy.

Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice

8. America asked for the return of all documents and materials that Pollard had given to Israel. Israel turned over—“a few, paltry dozen of lowly classified documents” even though our government knew that “Pollard had given Israel close to a million documents,” according to U.S. informants. Uncle Sam really shows great concern over this? I wonder why? I think you can start to figure this out.

9. Israel’s contact/handler of Pollard was withheld by Israel until finally pressured. One Aviem Selvia came forward to “satisfy” America, and then stepped down.

10. America now offered Pollard a plea agreement. In May 1986, Pollard accepted a life sentence.

11. Upon sentencing, Pollard’s wife said, “My husband and I did what we were expected to do for Israel. As Jews, we had a moral obligation to Israel.” Allegiance to Israel, not America! (I get sick reporting this to you, and you should be getting sick as well.)

12. Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert all asked for Pollard to be pardoned. All of these leaders are/were prime ministers of Israel. They said, “He was only spying for Israel—set him free!”

13. “After all—Israel is America’s greatest ally.” They also said “Pollard is a dear friend of both our countries.” Some friend to America!

14. Attorney Alan Dershowitz summed it up quite pointedly—“as an American and a Jew, I am outraged at Pollard’s life sentence. Pollard pleaded guilty to spying on America and should have received a lesser sentence.” Yeah, he only spied on America! I guess that’s no big deal for Dershowitz. I always thought traitors and spies were put to death. They should be.

You see folks, it’s all about power, pure power. I say that Pollard had big, powerful American power brokers behind him from the very start.

Think again about what Ariel Sharon said again: “We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it!”

I keep reminding you of this statement because I’m the man who’s been targeted by both Israel and America for proclaiming that “Israel has a stranglehold on American government, commerce and the media.”

I also said, “Israel has involved us in foreign wars to aid Israel expansion, bankrupts our great nation and has our kids shipped back to us in body bags.”

About the author: James A. (Jim) Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was a well-known football star. He also received a M.S. degree from Youngstown State University in 1976. For ten years he served as executive director of the Mahoning County (Ohio) Drug Program and from 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress as a Democrat in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, he was expelled from the House of Representatives. Despite his conviction and expulsion and being sent to prison for a seven year term Traficant still won 15% of the vote running for re-election to the House in the 2002 election as an independent. He recently completed a seven-year prison sentence, having refused to seek a pardon or clemency, refusing to admit to or apologize for crimes he did not commit.

Source: www.americanfreepress.net

The Congressional Black Caucus got another painful reminder that President Obama is not black President Obama. In a press interview Obama bluntly said that he would not propose any special initiatives for blacks. Obama’s sharp retort was in direct response to questions about how he’d solve a glaring problem and a glaring demand from the Caucus. The problem is the astronomical high unemployment rate for blacks, especially young black males. Latest job figures show joblessness for young black males matches and in some parts of the country tops the unemployment rate at the height of the 1930s Great Depression.

The Congressional Black Caucus demanded that Obama specifically shell out more money and formulate more programs to help the black jobless and to aid cash strapped minority broadcasters and minority businesses. The Caucus lightly saber rattled Obama with the threat of delaying or even opposing his financial regulation plan if he didn’t play ball. The Caucus is about as likely to buck Obama on the financial legislation when the final House vote is taken as the American Bankers Association is to back it. But the Caucus made its point. And so did Obama when he reiterated that he won’t propose any new programs for blacks.

Who is the Real Barack Obama?: For the rising generation; by the rising generation

Obama set that in stone from the first day of his presidential campaign. In his candidate declaration speech in Springfield, Illinois in February 2007, he made only the barest mention of race. The focus was on change, change for everyone. He had little choice. The institution of the presidency, and what it takes to get it, demands that racial typecasting be scrapped. Obama would have had no hope of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, let alone the presidency, if there had been any hint that he embraced the race-tinged politics of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. His campaign would have been marginalized and compartmentalized as merely the politics of racial symbolism. The month after he got in the White House he mildly chided Attorney General Eric Holder for calling Americans cowards for not candidly talking about race.

Obama got a bitter taste of the misery that race can cause a president himself when, in an unscripted moment, he spoke his mind and blasted a Cambridge cop for cuffing and manhandling Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates. The loud squeals that he was a bigot, racist and anti police for siding with Gates bounced off the Oval Office walls. A chagrined Obama back pedaled fast and asked all for forgiveness. There would no White House repeat of the Gates fiasco.

Obama has clung tightly to the centrist blueprint Bill Clinton laid out for a Democratic presidential candidate to win elections, and to govern after he won. The blueprint required that the Democratic presidential candidate tout a strong defense, the war against terrorism, a vague plan for winding down the Iraq War, tepid proposals to control greenhouse emissions, mild tax reform for the middle class, a cautious plan for affordable health care, pro business solutions to joblessness, and make only the most genteel reproach of Wall Street.

The Clinton blueprint also required a Democratic presidential candidate to formulate a moderate agenda on civil rights, poverty, failing inner city public schools, the HIV-AIDS crisis, and the racially skewed criminal justice system in written policy statements. And then say virtually nothing about any of these things on the campaign trail. Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry followed the Clinton blueprint to the letter during their campaign and if either had won, the likelihood is they would not made these problems priority items in their White House.

Obama is tugged hard by corporate and defense industry lobbyists, the oil and nuclear power industry, government regulators, environmental watchdog groups, conservative family values groups, conservative GOP senators and house members, foreign diplomats and leaders. They all have their priorities and agendas and all vie hard to get White House support for their pet legislation, or to kill or cripple legislation that threatens their interests. The health care reform battle and the decision to escalate in Afghanistan or near textbook examples of this. The two dozen back door meetings Obama had with the major pharmaceuticals and private insurers at the White House in February virtually guaranteed that a big chunk of the health care reform package would reflect the interests and the wishes of the health care industry. This is the price to be paid to get their backing.

It’s the same with Afghanistan. The Pentagon wanted and demanded a huge ramp up in American ground forces in the country. Given the pressure to win the war, and the power of the military and the defense industry, Obama was in no real position to say no.

Obama’s no to the Congressional Black Caucus on black joblessness and a beef up of minority businesses has everything to do with the price of White House governance. That price is a cautious, conciliatory, and above all, a race neutral presidency.

About the author: Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010. www.earlofarihutchinson.blogspot.com

Courtesy: www.opednews.com
Photo: Mr. Wright

By William Rivers Pitt
reprinted from Truthout

A Washington-based lawyer and former political director for the Log Cabin Republicans named Christopher Barron filed papers last week to launch a group called “Draft Cheney 2012.” The group now has a web site where you can sign on to try and convince the former vice president to jump into the presidential fray next time around. “We hope,” reads the banner on the site, “that you will join our effort to convince former Vice President Richard Cheney to run for president of the United States in 2012. No other Republican leader has the stature or experience of Dick Cheney. He alone can lead the Republican coalition to victory in 2012!” There’s also another site, possibly a joke, touting a Palin/Cheney ticket in 2012.

Sure. Why not? After the madness and stupidity of the last ten years, having the political version of Gilligan and the Skipper share a ticket for the highest office in the land makes a demented kind of sense. After all, once you’ve hit the bottom of the barrel, you might as well stay and enjoy the view.

Mr. Barron appears deadly serious about drafting Cheney to run in ’12, despite the fact that the former VP and his four heart attacks publicly stated he will not run. “We know that Dick Cheney doesn’t want to run for president,” said Barron in a recent interview. “This is about convincing the former vice president that we need him to run. And I think there is only one man who is capable of bringing the entire Republican coalition together and speaking with clarity about the values that have made our party great. And that is Vice President Cheney.”

Barron is not alone in his opinion, Bill Kristol, writing some months back on his Weekly Standard blog, likewise saluted the as-yet-nonexistent Cheney 2012 banner, but with a twist. “Of course,” wrote Kristol, “everyone’s first choice for president in 2012 is Dick Cheney. But Liz Cheney’s boffo performance yesterday in the lefties’ den, MSNBC, defending sensible interrogation policies in the war on terror, surely puts her in contention for the runner-up position.”

Dick Cheney's Diary

A recent Newsweek article by author Jon Meacham further fleshed out the Cheney-should-run argument. “Why?” wrote Meacham. “Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama’s unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.”

This is quite a country we live in, isn’t it? The Republican Party, once the dominant force on the political landscape, has caved in upon itself so completely that people in that party actually think this is a good idea. The unofficial front-runners for the GOP nomination in 2012 include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who would seem to be a sane choice, save for the fact that his adherence to the Mormon faith puts him at odds with the all-powerful-in-the-primaries GOP base, which considers Mormonism to be a satanic cult. There is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose prisoner-pardon policies have made him into a one-man crime spree that includes rape and the murder of four Seattle police officers. There is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is just slightly less qualified for the job than a sack of hair.

And now, thanks to a few fringe voices, there is Dick Cheney. The former VP is, of course, the most famous living Republican aside from George W. Bush. For eight years, he ran the Bush administration on the sneak, unleashing a campaign of fear, warfare and wild spending that has caused the very viability of this American experiment to teeter on the brink of collapse. This was the man who claimed the office of the vice president was not part of the Executive Branch because he did not want to obey the law and hand his official papers over to the National Archive. This was the man who tore the country and a fair portion of the planet apart with statements like these:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” – 8/26/2002

“Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists … The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.” – 12/1/2002

“Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – 3/16/2003

“There are a lot of lessons we want to learn out of this process in terms of what works. I think we are in fact on our way to getting on top of the whole Katrina exercise.” – 9/10/2005

It is tempting to laugh this off along with the idea that Huckabee or Palin could actually be considered viable candidates in 2012, except it isn’t funny. Dick Cheney belongs in a prison cell, not in a conversation about the presidency of the United States. That we actually have people floating his name in the first place reveals just how dark some of the corners of our politics really are. Worse, these are the people whose ideals and ideology were the dominant force in government for most of this decade, so dismissing them out of hand is a truly dangerous error in judgment.

Indeed, quite a country we live in.

About the author: William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.

Courtesy:

By Geoff Metcalf

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you’re full of bull, keep your mouth shut. — Will Rogers

Sen. Harry Reid has redefined the concept of “exaggeration for effect” with his latest whiney screed. Move over Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Reid has co-opted race baiting as a new Democrat leadership tool.

According to the Majority Leader of the Senate, ANYone who does not agree the health care gospel according to Barack and the dems is the same as those who previously supported slavery. Really!?! Anyone who disagrees with Dingy’s dogma is synonymous with those who resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1957? Of course personifying duplicity, he failed to note it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act and (again in an apparent oversight) it was in fact Republicans who led the charge against slavery. Go figure.

Reid’s rhetorical ramblings threaten to make strident opposing voices, like Ann Coulter, sound like Mother Theresa… and that is going some.

Apparently (based on Reid’s assessment) over half of his home state of Nevada are among those he claims would support slavery and oppose the female vote. 53% of Nevadans oppose the Obama/Reid solution to health care and only 39 percent of his constituents support his plan. Opposition within the Democratic part is climbing (up from 15% in October to 23% in the latest poll. Yet Harry remains in the growing minority who fail to accept facts that contradict his preconceived opinion and prejudice.

I have too often complained about the petty partisan rancor that masquerades as politics. “Foremost on the list of pet peeves and chronic annoyances is the constant, perpetual, adversarial excrement storm of left against right, Democrats against Republicans, and Liberals versus Conservatives that successfully maintains discord in our DISunited States of America. Legitimate policy differences notwithstanding, the acrimony and mean-spirited blood sport tactics of American politics are sufficient to gag any self-respecting maggot.” However, as bad as it has been (and the mudslinging has been real bad) Reid and Pelosi have routinely ratcheted up both the volume and vitriol. Both form and substance have escalated like CGI movie effects and James Bond movie chases.

The very concept of reasoned (and reasonable) debate and political compromise has been reduced to ashes in the Reid-Pelosi scorched earth tactics. Even party faithful (like Mary Landrieu from Louisiana) have to be bought and paid in full measure…with a cherry on top.

As if race baiting isn’t enough Reid even accused health care dissenters to those who opposed women’s suffrage. Really, he said that….Okay, let’s see: racism; sexism…how about accusing dissenters of hating kids, family, the military, seniors and God?

Yeah, that’s the ticket…those who reject Obamacare in principle must be anti-family, pro-abortion, anti-military and anti-God. Naaaw that won’t work…might blow back and attract attention to those pols who in fact, by demonstrated actions, votes and rhetoric ARE anti-family, pro-abortion, anti-military and anti-religion…

Senate Republicans (who apparently didn’t get the memo) called Reid’s comments “offensive” and “unbelievable.” What they fail to acknowledge is that “offensive and (once upon a time) “unbelievable” have become the new standard for the democratic leadership. This bomb throwing, over the top, rhetorical rubbish is no longer ‘abnormal’ but the business as usual standard for verbally bludgeoning anyone, anywhere, who dares to presume to articulate language that is not pre-packaged, homogenized and pre-approved by the power elite.

Many years ago, a politician told me that the House was populated with “politicians” whereas the lofty Senate contained “statesmen”. It is a very nice fantasy and perhaps once upon a time may have been more than wishful fiction. However, “statesmen” do not resort to race baiting.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary from Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al, 80 percent of all Nevadans (including 67 percent of Dems) really believe the Obamacare package, with its estimated cost of nearly a Trillion dollars, is going to require tax increases. Duh!

Once upon a time (during the presidential campaign) Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class while still making health insurance universal.

I have frequently bemoaned the perpetual ‘us’ verses ‘them’ whizzing matches which passes for political debate these days. Politicians (and those who presume to speak for them) need to temper partisanship with reason and eschew stupidity masked as team spirit. It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to also engage the brain before popping the clutch on the mouth either.

About the author: Geoff Metcalf is an author and talk show host. He is a ninth generation commissioned officer in the U.S. Armed services, a former Green Beret, and retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel. Geoff hunts down the stories the rest of the media ignores and exposes them for public scrutiny. He is also Editor of CalNews.com. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. Visit his website at: www.geoffmetcalf.com

Courtesy: www.EtherZone.com
Photo: Cosmic Smudge

• In the past decade, Insurance premiums paid by Americans have increased by 131%.
• In 2004, 18% of insured Americans had medical bill problems. That’s up from 14% in 2001.
• This year on average a family of four spent $17,000 on health care. That’s 19% of the family’s total income.
• In 2019, that figure is expected to climb to $39,000 per year, which is 31% of the average family income.
• Some insurance companies charge women 48% more than men due to their gender rating.
• In the current system, the average cost of a pregnancy with no complication is $7,500.
• 27% of women who had health problems requiring a medical attention were unable to see a doctor, compared to 21 percent of men.
• Health insurance companies in some areas charge seniors 11 times more than younger Americans.
• 41 states do not even limit the amount that insurance companies can charge based on age in the individual market.
• The average American age 50 to 64 has a credit card debt of $2,000 due to medical needs.
• 17.4% of insurance claims filed by individuals age 50 to 54 were rejected in 2006
• 22.3% of insurance claims filed by individuals age 55 to 59 were rejected in 2006
• 28.7% of insurance claims filed by individuals age 60 to 64 were rejected in 2006
• 16% of uninsured Americans are children.
• 7.3 million children were uninsured in 2008.
• On average, doctors spend 43 minutes per day dealing with insurance companies, and roughly 142 hours per year.
• Physicians in America waste $31 billion per year in time lost due to dealing with insurance companies. On average, that’s $68,274 per physician per year.
• Waste and inefficiencies in our health care system cost us $800 billion each year.
• In 2008 46.3 million Americans were without health insurance. That’s 700,000 more than in 2007, and nearly 8 million more than in 2000.

For more information on these statistics and the status of Healthcare in the United States, please visit www.americanprogress.org

by Justin Raimondo

In what the Los Angeles Times described as “a fence-mending trip” to Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton managed to tear down more fence posts than she repaired. Abrasive, arrogant, and condescending, she fired a series of verbal RPG volleys that nearly demolished what remained of good relations between the U.S. and its principal ally in the region.

On the fight against al-Qaeda:

“Clinton told a group of journalists in Lahore that she found it ‘hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.’ Al-Qaeda, she said, ‘has had a safe haven in Pakistan since 2002.’”

It is astonishing that a U.S. diplomat would say this in a public forum – at a question-and-answer session with Pakistani journalists, no less. One U.S. official tried to justify this outburst with the “explanation” that “You’ve got to remember, she was a senator from New York on 9/11.” But what has that got to do with the plausibility of Hillary’s contention that the government of Pakistan is holding out on us as to Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts? Exactly nothing. If she has evidence Pakistan is knowingly harboring the world’s most wanted terrorist, then she should state it publicly, rather than engage in unfounded innuendo.

A more inflammatory remark would be hard to imagine – unless it’s what she said about U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan’s territory. Asked if she thinks attacks that kill innocent civilians constitute terrorism – “execution without trial,” as one questioner put it – Clinton replied, “No, I do not,” and then refused to discuss the matter further, citing “security” reasons. The audience of Pakistani women sat there in stunned, horrified silence. Which was similar to the reaction of an audience of businessmen, who were told:

“‘At the risk of sounding undiplomatic, Pakistan has to have internal investment in your public services and your business opportunities,’ she told the executives. The U.S. government taxes ‘everything that moves and everything that doesn’t, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.’”

Hillary is miffed Pakistan doesn’t plunder its citizens to the extent we do, but that doesn’t mean the central government in Islamabad scores high points in any index of economic freedom. Pakistan’s poor bear the lion’s share of the tax burden in that country to such an extent that their Supreme Court recently intervened to lower the gasoline tax, overruling the national legislature. The lower and middle classes cheered, but Hillary will have none of it: how dare those Pakistanis lower taxes!

What’s scary is that Hillary considers this to have been a “charm offensive” – and, by her standards, it is. Having inflicted maximum damage on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, she took her bull-in-a-china-shop routine to Israel, where, standing next to Netanyahu, she declared:

“What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements … is unprecedented.”

Well, yes, Netanyahu’s absolute refusal to freeze all “settlement” activity is unprecedented – in its stubborn intransigence. This is specially evident in the context of the U.S. demand that, as Hillary put it not long ago, we “see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.” So much for taking the administration’s pronouncements seriously.

The Palestinian reaction was to declare that the peace talks – which Hillary had been sent to the region to kick-start – are indefinitely stalled. Nabil Abu Rudeinah, a spokesman for Palestinian Authority head honcho Mahmoud Abbas, averred, “The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel’s intransigence and America’s backpedaling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon.”

It is often said that the election of Barack Obama boosted our image in the world: suddenly, after eight years of unmitigated hatred directed against George W. Bush’s America, we’re popular again. Yet it looks like Hillary is trying as hard as she can to undo all that with her ill-will tour. The woman is John Bolton in a dress.

Just as I predicted upon her appointment to State, Clinton is conducting her own foreign policy while Obama, preoccupied with domestic matters, dithers and lets his “team of rivals” carry the ball. The problem is that the Clintonian policy is a blunt instrument with which our remaining allies are being hit over the head, and the results aren’t pretty. Hillary left Pakistan even more destabilized – and hostile to the U.S. – than it was when she arrived, and her trip to Israel is similarly disastrous.

This administration is hopelessly divided when it comes to foreign policy, with the Obama loyalists sending out hopeful signals in the form of the Dear Leader’s matchless rhetoric (e.g., the Cairo speech) and the the Clintonians in effective control of the foreign policy apparatus, contradicting and neutralizing whatever positive effects result from the president’s pronouncements.

Not only that, but at the policy level, where words are translated into concrete actions, Queen Hillary and her minions are carrying out another policy altogether, one virtually indistinguishable from the Bush administration’s in style and content. The same blundering crudity is used to express and justify a policy of unmitigated aggression and complete disregard for human life.

There is nothing diplomatic about Hillary’s words or the tone in which they are uttered; she speaks with the bold assertiveness of Obama’s co-president, rather than as a member of the cabinet. Which is, indeed, precisely what she is, having been ceded the entire realm of foreign affairs by a chief executive clearly staggering under the burden of his office.

The point is that, once again, American voters are faced with a coup at the top. They never voted for a more belligerent foreign policy – quite the opposite, in fact – and yet that is precisely what they are being given. Obama is the happy, smiling, politically correct face of a policy that remains essentially unchanged, which is why his secretary of state feels free to travel the world recklessly pushing her weight around and insulting everyone within range of her smug, grating, hubris-inflected voice.

So you thought you were getting change, eh? Not a chance, not as long as Obama refuses to rein in his secretary of state. It is going to take more than a mere presidential election to effect fundamental change in our interventionist foreign policy. We are in for a long, hard slog. So dig in, check that you have enough rations, and get ready for a protracted struggle against the War Party – which has by no means retired from the field.

About the author: Justin Raimondo is Editorial Director of AntiWar.Com.

Published originally at EtherZone.com

By Vidya

Michael Bloomberg bought New York City again yesterday. His favorite plaything, New York City had just become irreplaceable to the billionaire turned faux politician. Never mind that he had openly criticized Rudy Giuliani for wanting to stay on an extra three months. When you are dealing with an ego the size of Bloomberg’s, your memory is selective and short.

Bill Thompson came close. For those of you who are unaware, Thompson was this year’s sacrificial goat to the altar of Bloomberg. Something funny happened on the way to the sacrifice however. The people tried to fight back. The result was a narrow victory for Mayor Mike; much narrower than he thought his 90 million had bought. The 51-46% margin was nowhere near the 20 point blowout of Fernando Ferrer in 2005. What caused the closer than expected outcome? Term limits.

You see, the voters of New York had voted twice previously to guarantee no more than two terms for elected officials. It was in fact this law that Bloomberg stood so valiantly by when criticizing then Mayor Giuliani for daring to subvert the will of the voters for three extra months. But those same rules do not apply to Mike apparently. When faced with the prospect of not being allowed to run for a third term, he sought to overturn the will of the voters. He found allies in the City Council who also were facing term limits restrictions on running for a third term and together, they firmly planted their thumbs in the eyes of the voters of New York.

Obviously the voters of New York do not like having their eyes clawed out, hence the slim 5% win for Bloomberg. But how then did he win at all? I can give you 90 million reasons. Bloomberg is one of the richest egomaniacs in the world. So when he faced the prospect of facing the wrath of the voters he simply bought them. Mike Bloomberg spent 90 million dollars to buy the Mayorship of New York City. As a resident of New York City, I can personally attest to the lengths Mike went to buy my vote. I received no less than 20 impressive advertisements in the mail from him. Full page, color advertisements. The kind that obviously cost a lot of money. Most of them either bragged about his record or slashed his poor opponent to pieces. I say poor because I did not receive one advertisement from Bill Thompson; who obviously did not have 90 million dollars to spend to convince me why he would be the better Mayor. Poor Bill. He was just a politician trying to run fairly for office. His unfortunate luck, like Mark Green and Freddy Ferrer before him, was to run into a billionaire opponent whose money is only exceeded by his vanity.

I know some of the conventional wisdom is that Mike has done a good job. I could care less. Term limits were voted on by the people. What Mike Bloomberg did yesterday was say that he alone was more important than the people he claims to want to serve. It is an autocratic, dictatorial stance that is not acceptable in democratic circles. As a resident of NYC I can say that I personally do not think that the city is demonstrably better off. The transit system is an unmitigated disaster and the fares keep rising to the point of making working in NYC almost unaffordable. The education system has not advanced greatly. The infrastructure is not radically better. Sure he has not been a bad mayor but I am curious how 33 of Bloomberg LP’s top 124 customers have come to do business directly with New York City under his tenure. The appearance alone is somewhat questionable and unseemly.

But this is not even really the point is it? What kind of a mandate does Mayor Mike now have? I say NONE. What does it say when only 51% of the people vote for you and you outspent your opponent by 90 million dollars? It says that you really lost. Mike Bloomberg bought New York City again yesterday. But he did so with very little fanfare or luster. He did so by screwing the will of the voters and thumbing his nose at the people he claims to care so much about. He has been exposed as a hypocrite and an egomaniac. The truth is no matter how good a job he did, New York City could have survived – even thrived, under someone else’s leadership. It could have been Bill Thompson. Heck, it could have been anyone else. New York City did quite well for itself before Mike Bloomberg and it will do quite well after he leaves, assuming he ever allows us to move on without him.

Author’s Bio: Vidya is the webmaster for OpedNews

Source: OpEd News
Photo: wikimedia

by Chuck Baldwin

According to Macedonian Radio and Television On-line (MRT), a Russian professor predicts the United States will fall apart in July 2010. MRT reports, “‘Mr. Obama is similar to the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev was also making great promises for the Soviet Union, but the situation was only getting worse,’ he said. By next summer, according to Professor Panarin, the US will disintegrate into six blocs–and everyone will get their piece. ‘The probability that the United States of America fall apart in July 2010 is more than 50 percent,’ said Igor Panarin, Professor at Moscow’s Diplomatic Academy within the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

MRT went on to report, “Panarin came up with his grim forecast while analyzing the parallels between the Soviet Union in its final days and the current situation in the United States. ‘American dream ballooned seven times in 11 years. During Gorbachev era, the Soviet dream ballooned five times.’ Americans hope [President] Barack Obama ‘can work miracles,’ he wrote. ‘But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.’”

See the MRT report at http://tinyurl.com/mrt-report

Drudge “Reports”

The Drudge Report confirmed the MRT report and added, “Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA . . . ‘The dollar is not secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.’”

At least some of what Panarin said back in the fall of 2008 either has taken place or is in the process of taking place. Drudge reported, “When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: ‘It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world’s financial regulator.’”

Drudge continued reporting Panarin as saying that “the U.S. will break up into six parts– the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.”

Panarin further suggested that Russia might even “claim Alaska.”

See an archived version of Drudge’s report at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/readarchive_20090107.html

Wall Street Journal

Reporting on the same story, The Wall Street Journal said, “Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russian relations.”

The WSJ goes on to say that Panarin believes that “mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar.”

See The Wall Street Journal report at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

This is not the first time that Comrade Panarin has made such a prediction. Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily, noted in December of 2008 that Panarin has been making similar projections for the past ten years. In a column regarding Panarin’s predictions, Farah wrote, “Until recently, no one took him very seriously. And then came the economic calamity that has rocked Americans and the rest of the world, too. Now, Panarin’s predictions of an end of the United States, due to economic and moral collapse, is being taken seriously by many.”

Read Farah’s column at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84884

Countdown 2010?

So, will the United States break up in 2010? Or 2011? Or 2012? Or anytime in the near future, for that matter? If history is any teacher, the chances would seem good that Panarin’s predictions may be closer to reality than anyone would like to admit.

A historian and linguist from South Africa recently wrote me a fascinating letter, in which he chronicled the major world empires of history, dating the time of their rise and fall. Here is what his calculations look like:

• Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
• Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
• Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
• The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
• The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
• The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
• The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
• The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
• Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
• Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
• Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
• The USA (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.

My honorable historian-friend calculates America’s reign using its post-Revolutionary War years. He notes that America’s reign is currently at 219 years. He further notes that the average duration of every world superpower listed above is a little over 238 years.

One does not need to be a master mathematician or possess a Ph.D. to realize that America is fast approaching the mark in which every major world power in history has either collapsed or, at a minimum, lost its world leadership and power.

My friend also reminded me of his homeland’s (South Africa’s) demise. He told me that he noticed the handwriting on the wall in time to relocate his family to a more peaceful and stable European country. Many of his friends and countrymen were not so fortunate, however, and thousands were killed and their properties confiscated. He then warned me, “The period of Grace is closing, in what is your homeland.”

In addition, serious students of Holy Writ are also struck with the similarities between societal conditions in America and those of Old Testament Israel (as well as with Gentile nations) at those times of divine judgment and retribution. As someone trenchantly said, “If God spares the United States, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Will the Russian analyst’s prophecies come true in 2010? Probably not. Does that mean that America is impervious to some sort of national demise? Not at all. Is America already in serious trouble? You bet. Could there be some sort of break-up within the United States in the near future? In my opinion, that is a very realistic probability. If this happens, will freedom suffer? Almost certainly. Will those with tyrannical tendencies use the opportunity of any national disaster to try and enslave us? They already do. I personally do not believe that there is any “If” to the question. The only questions are, “When?” and “To what degree?”

And, of course, there is another question: “When the break-up comes, how many Americans understand the principles of liberty enough, and are personally prepared enough, and are willing enough to resist whatever power it may be that seeks to place us under the thumb of oppression and fight for the same protections and vanguards of liberty that first established this land?” Obviously, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, isn’t it?

© Chuck Baldwin

Source: Chuck Baldwin Live

The individual spearheading this clandestine campaign was Steve Rattner, head of Obama’s Auto Industry Task Force. Rattner, it must be noted, was a primary Democratic Party fundraiser during the 2008 campaign, and is now embroiled in a pay-for-play kickback scandal. He also has no experience whatsoever in the auto industry. Anyway, almost immediately, White House officials denied that any such juggernaut existed in which investors were pressured into accepting their deal.

Steve Rattner, head of Obama’s Auto Industry Task Force, was a primary Democratic Party fundraiser during the 2008 campaign, and is now embroiled in a pay-for-play kickback scandal. He also has NO EXPERIENCE in the auto industry.

Then, dramatically, on May 3, a post on the New York Times DealBook blog reported that Perella Weinberg accepted the “government-proposed settlement after Mr. Obama criticized the lenders in harsh terms.” They also proceeded to “deny Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”

Despite conflicting stories, the question remains: did White House representatives utilize a well-calculated campaign of fear by threatening to ruin or destroy the reputation of certain companies if they didn’t fall in line?

Before providing an answer, let’s look back to an incident that occurred in October 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gathered executives from America’s nine largest banks in a room, then gave each a one-page document and said, “No one is leaving this room until it’s signed.”

Reluctantly, all nine agreed, setting in motion what investment advisor Michael Shedlock called “the largest government intervention in the American banking system since the Depression.”

Working hand-in-hand with Paulson at that time was current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner helped mastermind the disastrous bailout scheme, which is not substantially helping the U.S. economy.

Part of this package involved the bailout, and subsequent bankruptcy, of Chrysler Motors. Under the Obama-Geithner settlement deal, bondholders were to receive approximately 29 cents on the dollar owed them. Not satisfied with this arrangement, especially when the United Auto Workers (UAW) received a much sweeter deal, Perella Weinberg (through its subsidiary Xerion Fund) balked at the offer.

Earlier, White House officials said that no undue pressure was exerted, nor did they attempt to ruin anyone’s reputation. But on April 31—the deadline date for Chrysler’s overhaul—President Obama directly targeted Perella Weinberg and, in today’s parlance, “threw them under the bus.”

“While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none.” He then concluded by saying, “I don’t stand with them.”

For starters, the loss of 70 cents on every dollar is definitely a sacrifice. Secondly, as attorney Tom Lauria professed, “It’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the president of the United States.”

He continued, “He stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy. He wrongly says they’re not willing to make any sacrifices. People are scared. They have gotten death threats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses.”

On the heels of David Kellermann’s unfortunate demise, ABC’s Jake Tapper wrote on May 2 that Perella Weinberg (via Xerion Fund), “decided to join the largest four creditors who are owed roughly 70% of Chrysler’s debt and had already agreed to participate with the administration’s plan.”

Incidentally, the other four creditors referred to are JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs—all recipients of billions in bailout money orchestrated by Timothy Geithner and company. Of course, as Tapper asserts somewhat sarcastically, “The Obama administration insists these matters were kept completely separate.”

About the author: Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.

Originally published as “Obama White House to Waffling Law Firm: ‘Chrysler Deal an Offer You Can’t Refuse’”

Source: American Free Press

If you’re an American citizen, the federal government reserves the right to at any time, for any purpose to compel you by threat of fines and imprisonment to open up every detail of your financial life.

In contrast, the Federal Reserve is legally exempt from audit.

That’s right, the biggest financial force in the world which has absolute authority over the US money supply does not get audited – ever.

Texas Congresman Ron Paul is trying to change that. The question is, is it too late?

Courtesy: Brasscheck TV

The National Reconnaissance Office is a lot more than an office; may have the largest budget of all the U.S. intelligence agencies. It may also be the best example of how U.S. government contractors, i.e., private industry, are taking over the government and costing us needless billions of dollars. The NRO buys spy satellites. Over the course of the last ten years, much of its government employee expertise has largely been eliminated by swapping career experts out for military personnel rotated in for a few years. Instead of having an Air Force officer who worked on satellites for ten or fifteen years making decisions, the NRO began bringing in officers on two- and three-year assignments. Someone who was procuring tires last year would be procuring satellite component systems this year. The result was that the big aerospace contractors gained greater influence in the decision making, not only because they were the only ones left with expertise, but also because the NRO decided to transfer much of its own program management responsibility to a single, big contractor.

Simultaneously with handing off management responsibility to the contractor, in the late 1990s and the first five years of this decade, the NRO and the aerospace industry were planning to spend scores of billions of dollars on a new generation of spy satellites with even more marvelous capabilities. The winning contractor was Boeing, which set about to build billions of dollars’ worth of new spy satellites with incremental capabilities under the project named Future Imagery Architecture, or FlA. The costs escalated, the delivery dates slipped by years, but the NRO kept going. Eventually, presented with ever bigger bills and ever later schedules, the NRO canceled FIA under congressional pressure. Billions of dollars had been wasted.38

These costly new spacecraft were to be built not so much because we needed to use their capabilities, but rather because if we spent the money, we would keep the industrial base alive by ordering newer and better satellites. It became a perpetual motion machine: constantly building slightly more capable satellites at ever-increasing cost, spending more on research to develop more capabilities, even though those capabilities did not address important intelligence collection needs. I was part of that cycle thirty years ago when, during my one year as an employee at a defense contractor, I was told by the NRO that it had developed a new capability that could lead to a new satellite. My job, at the NRO’s request, was to come up with some problem on which we could use the new technology. In other words, I was to figure out the need that the new satellite would meet, the requirement. This same backwards process (first developing the technology and then figuring out why we need it) has been going on for decades.

After you can see really small objects, after you have a synthetic aperture radar satellite that can take pictures at night, after you can pick up any signal released in the radio spectrum, what more do you really need? When most of the world’s communication is moving from electrons passing through the air to photons in fiber-optic cables, when commercial imaging satellites allow private companies to sell reconnaissance imagery, should we perhaps consider spending less on satellites, rather than more? Maybe what we do need is more numerous, less expensive spy satellites, capable of being quickly launched in a crisis to augment existing satellites or to replace satellites that may fail or be destroyed. Although the nation’s spy satellite agency is not planning to do that, another part of the Defense Department is. In addition to the costly satellites of NRO, the Air Force is planning to build the cheaper, more quickly launched birds as part of an additional program.

We do need to maintain an industrial base with the expertise to innovate intelligence platforms in space, but what we have done is destroy career government expertise and hand the keys to an agency over to giant contractors. These companies have so much congressional influence that feeding the beast becomes the requirement, rather than collecting intelligence we need at a reasonable cost, so that available funds can also be spent on other needs.

In the area of analysis, the number of contractors also grew. Not satisfied with doubling the number of analysts at the CIA, the intelligence community wanted access to even more staff. The intelligence community turned to the private sector, or at least privately owned companies. Many of the companies involved, such as Lockheed Martin, earn almost all of their money by selling to governments. Others, such as Booz Allen Hamilton, also have a commercial line of business. The companies are consultancies, weapons manufacturers, software developers, and IT support firms. What they now have in common is that they have established intelligence analysis staffs that are on contract to support various intelligence agencies.

A drive around northern Virginia reveals the many newly constructed high-rises in which private companies employ intelligence analysts to do the work that was formerly done only by government employees. Inside the buildings, in highly secured suites, analysts with top secret clearances write intelligence analyses for the CIA, DIA, and other agencies. Often the analyses are only slightly edited by government employees before being sent off to policy makers. A former government official told me that the initial draft of one National Intelligence Estimate was reportedly written by an analyst who was not a government employee; it was allegedly revised only slightly by the government. When an analysis is done by a contractor, the corporate logo is usually replaced by CIA letterhead and the policy maker is often unaware that the CIA did not really produce the analysis; a for-profit corporation did.

The private intelligence officers are not just in the corporate high-rises. Many work “on site,” meaning they go to the intelligence agencies and work alongside government counterparts doing similar work. As Sebastian Abbot, a former student of mine at Harvard and now with the Associated Press, reported, “That has led to a phenomenon known as ‘butss in seats’ — contractors literally sit beside their public sector counterparts and perform equivalent tasks. According to [former CIA official John] Gannon, ‘Butts in seats within the analytic community . . . is really a post-9/11 phenomenon, for the most part.’ John Brennan, former acting Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and currently President and CEO of TAC, says more than half of the 200 analysts at the NCTC were from the private sector while he was there . . . the vast majority of Booz Allen’s intelligence work is not classic management consulting, but simply providing. ‘butts in seats’ to the intelligence community.”39

One colleague of mine being given a tour of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) expressed surprise at the number of people working there and was told that “most of them are contractors.” He could have been told the same at the intelligence analysis division at Homeland Security or many other agencies in and around Washington. R. J. Hillhouse has made it her preoccupation to track intelligence outsourcing. She writes, “For all practical purposes, effective control of the NSA is with private corporations, which run its support and management functions . . . more than 70 percent of the staff of the Pentagon’s newest intelligence unit, CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity), is made up of corporate contractors. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) lawyers revealed at a conference in May that contractors make up 51 percent of the staff in DIA offices. At the CIA, the situation is similar. Between 50 and 60 percent of the workforce of the CIA’s most important directorate, the National Clandestine Service (NCS), responsible for the gathering of human intelligence, is composed of employees of for-profit corporations.”40

The head of one private intelligence analysis program proudly told me that the hundreds of analysts in his division average many more years of experience than do the young analysts now at CIA. Why have these experienced staff left the government to do essentially the same jobs in a privately owned company? The popular assumption is that the pay is better. For the corporate vice presidents and partners, that is the case. They have almost all been senior officials in intelligence agencies for twenty years or more, “retired” to collect their federal pension, and are now also being paid by their new private sector employer, often more than twice their previous federal salary. For the typical analyst, however, the private salary is about the same as what he or she would be paid “on the inside.” The analysts I have spoken with say they prefer the corporate environment because “it’s just run better” or “there is less bureaucratic chickenshit.” Their supervisors all seem to agree that they have “more time to focus on the issues” and “more ability to select only really good staff and an easier time getting rid of the ones who don’t work out.”

But does it cost more money than if the government’s work were done by government employees? Some studies show that a contract for a given number of analysts’ time is more expensive than paying a similar number of government employees. The contractors, however, cry foul and note that in an “all-in” comparison including the support costs (IT systems, buildings, and other overhead), the cost of private analysts is about the same. There is, however, a profit margin associated with the contracts. The hefty bonuses given senior officials in the contractor firms, along with the publicly reported profitability, are costs that would nor have been accrued had the jobs been done in-house, in the government agencies. Cost, however, is not the determining factor in the outsourcing boom. Ease of execution is probably the driving consideration. After 9/11, when money flowed quickly and in large sums to intelligence agencies, it was the path of least resistance to simply sign contracts rather than to rebuild the intelligence community in a thoughtful way with a long-term strategic plan.41

Senior intelligence managers have found it easier and quicker to turn to private companies to hire and house staff than to fix their own agencies’ hiring systems. The problems of hiring and firing civil servants that are often given as a justification for outsourcing really do not hold. Intelligence agency personnel are exempted from normal civil service personnel rules. They could be paid more than other government employees. They can quickly be fired without cause anytime an agency believes they are doing substandard work or their expertise is no longer in demand. The government could easily rent office space for more analysts. It was just easier for an intelligence agency manager to have a contractor do it all.

The result of all those many decisions to take the easy way out and sign contracts is that we have created a two-tier system for intelligence analysis. For now, at least, the more experienced analysts are often in profit-making firms, aspiring to be among the ranks of their highly paid bosses someday. And their highly paid bosses are motivated to persuade the intelligence agencies, where they once worked, of the continued need for their contracts. And many of the bosses in the intelligence agencies are thinking about what they will do when they have worked twenty years and can begin pulling down a government pension. Given those dynamics, it is unlikely that the post-9/11 boom in intelligence analysis outsourcing will be reversed anytime soon. The CIA did, however, promise in 2007 that there would be a 10 percent cut in outsourcing soon.42 It will, of course, be difficult to know if that really happens.

What is more likely to happen is that the dramatic growth in the intelligence community budget will slow and the budget may even have to retract, given overall federal fiscal realities. When cuts have to be made, based on past tendencies, the agency managers will cut their contracts before they reduce their own staffs and other activities. What we may then discover is that many of the best analysts we had, those with institutional memories, are no longer working on the important problems.

The above is an excerpt from the book Your Government Failed You by Richard A. Clarke Published by HarperCollins Publishers; May 2008;$25.95US/$27.95CAN; 978-0-06-147462-0 Copyright © 2008 Richard A. Clarke

About the author: Richard A. Clarke served the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence community, and the National Security Council for thirty years. His eleven years of consecutive White House service on national security, for three presidents, is unprecedented. In the Reagan administration he was a deputy assistant secretary for Intelligence. In the Bush (41) administration he was confirmed by the Senate as an assistant secretary of state. In the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations he served as national coordinator for security and counter-terrorism. Since leaving government, Richard Clarke has taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, authored several books (including the number one best-seller Against All Enemies), been an on-air analyst for ABC News, written columns for the New York Times and other papers, and formed the security-risk management firm Good Harbor Consulting.

Courtesy: GoArticles.com

Who profits from the Iraq war? More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq.

According to the latest reports, 151 members of Congress invested close to a quarter-billion in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the watchdog group OMBWatch.

Congressmen gave themselves a loophole so they only have to report their assets in broad ranges. Thus, they can be off as much as 160 percent. (Try giving the IRS an estimate like that.) In 2004, the first full year after the present Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—invested between $74.9 million and $161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to the Republicans’ “only” $577,500. As the war raged on, so did the billions of profits—and personal investments by Congress members in war contractors, which increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006.

Investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts.

War hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (IConn.), chairman of the defense-related Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush’s war, had stock in defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007.

Of the 151 members whose investments are tied to the “defense” (war) industry, as far as we know, not one of them offered to donate their bloodstained profits to the national treasury to offset the terrible debt they have imposed. Has one of them even offered to donate one cent of their war profits to lessen the debt that increases more than $1 million a minute?

When our boys and girls are wounded the government bills them to return their reenlistment bonus. They have to return any pay they received while they were hospitalized. They have to pay for their helmets and uniforms that are destroyed in the hell of war. But they keep on fighting for these politicians’ right to keep their war profits.

• Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000
• Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
• Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870
• Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000
• Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000

Source: American Free Press

Unless these measures are passed this year, the next president could act as silly as Bill Clinton. Clinton, you recall, ordered federal applications for welfare, medical care and other tax-payer-funded benefits to be printed, at great expense, in various languages.
Mostly it involved Spanish, but if the Census Bureau found a certain percentage of Vietnamese, for example, lived in an area, the applications had to be printed in Vietnamese.

This would be an expensive operation. About 400 languages are spoken in the United States. If we accept English and a “second language,” where does it end?

Unless English is made the official language, and government business conducted in no other, the United States will become Balkanized. The great waves of immigrants who came to America in the second half of the 19th century and early waves of the 20th century were looking for “a hand up, not a handout,” as President Ronald Reagan said.

The reverse is true today, of the immigrants who started arriving in the 1970s, after Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) got legislation passed making it difficult for Europeans to come here but easy for South Americans.

Nevertheless, many South Americans arrived illegally. And they were looking for handouts.

They would come and give birth, becoming parents of “American citizens.” (Some scholars say no constitutional amendment is necessary to change the doctrine that those born on U.S. soil are citizens; but Congress can pass legislation declaring that the Constitution’s intent was that only those born of legal citizens are citizens.)

Illegal immigrants would come, feed at the welfare trough, and bring in relatives to join the gravy train.

The average family of illegal immigrants has cost taxpayers thousands of dollars annually. A giant step toward ending this costly nonsense would be to enact English-only legislation. Today, an estimated 24 million newcomers cannot speak English, and many refuse to learn the language.

Unlike the earlier European immigrants, they do not want to assimilate into American society. All they want is American handouts and American jobs.

There is also a security factor, which has yet to enter the national debate, on having a “multi-lingual” society. Defeat in battle could result from the inability of military personnel to communicate in a common language.

Prussian Field Marshal Gebhard von Blucher could not effectively command his disparate elements of German, Swedish, Polish, Russian and other troops, and thus lost to Napoleon in several battles. American commanders must be able to communicate directly and immediately with their units.

Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments or laws making English official, including California, Texas, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and New York, all with substantial majority votes. Recently, Idaho and Kansas adopted English-only. Alaska has successfully defended its English-only law. It’s past time for Congress to join this patriotic parade.

Source: American Free Press

In case that name doesn’t ring a bell, Swett is the daughter of the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), who was one of Israel’s most ardent champions in the House. Her husband is former Rep. Dick Swett (D-N.H.), who, after two terms in the House and an unsuccessful Senate bid, managed to amass a respectable $95,500 in pro-Israel PAC contributions.

Will Sununu’s Democratic opponent, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who received $72,022 in pro-Israel PAC contributions to oppose Sununu in 2002, find it in herself to rise above the crowd?

Janet McMahon is managing editor of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. This astounding compilation of research was provided to AFP by that fine publication. For more information on The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, please write the publisher at P.O. Box 53062, Washington, D.C. 20009. Call them at 800-368-5788 or see their website at www.wrma.com

Top 2008 & Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds

Compiled by Hugh Galford

HOUSE: 2008 CYCLE $
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 34,700
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 32,500
Pence, Mike (R-IN) 30,000
Kirk, Mark (R-IL) 27,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) 27,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 25,500
Klein, Ron (D-FL) 16,150
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 15,745
Johnson, Tim (R-IL) 13,000
Bachmann, Michele (R-MN) 13,000
House: Career $
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 283,405
Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 193,418
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 171,775
Obey, David (D-WI) 156,100
Kirk, Mark (R-IL) 156,882
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 156,730
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 133,490
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 130,738
Levin, Sander (D-MI) 124,221
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 123,250

SENATE: 2008 CYCLE $
Levin, Carl (D-MI) 61,850
Swett, Katrina (D-NH) 44,000
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 39,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AK) 37,500
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) 35,500
Collins, Susan (R-ME) 33,500
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) 31,000
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 29,000
Reed, Jack (D-RI) 27,500
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) 24,790
Senate: Career $
*Levin, Carl (D-MI) 720,737
*Harkin, Tom (D-IA) 526,950
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 492,973
*Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 473,078
*McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) 412,685
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) 373,851
*Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 359,421
*Baucus, Max (D-MT) 342,648
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 320,301
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 277,562

*UP FOR RE-ELECTION

Author: Janet McMahon
Source: American Free Press

Farm Bill - House and Senate conferees will be working hard this week to try to finish a compromise bill by Friday. Last week the president signed a one-week extension to the 2002 Farm Bill. Republican leaders and the White House have said that this will be the last short-term extension and if negotiators are unable to reach an agreement by the end of the week they should pass a long-term extension of the 2002 Farm Bill that will reach into next year. However, House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson may ask for another extension until May 9. Formal conference negotiations will resume on Tuesday with votes on the most contentious provisions possible.

For more on CAP’s policy solutions for the Farm Bill, please see:

• Hungry for Next Generation Biofuels: Sustainable Crop Diversity Combats Poverty by Jake Caldwell and Gayle Smith
• Fueling a New Farm Economy: Creating Incentives for Biofuels in Agriculture and Trade Policy by Jake Caldwell

Veterans Benefits - The first vote of the week in the Senate will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1315, the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act, scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. The veterans’ insurance bill deals with life insurance, housing, education, and burial matters. It also makes Filipino veterans who served during World War II eligible for U.S. military pensions.

For more on veterans’ issues, please see:

• Keeping Vets off the Streets
• Veterans’ Mental Health by the Numbers

Wage Discrimination – After finishing work on the veterans’ benefits bill the Senate is expected to consider H.R. 2831, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Ledbetter Act reverses the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear that said employees cannot sue their employers for wage discrimination more than 180 days after the discrimination occurred. The bill specifies that an unlawful practice occurs each time an employee receives unfair compensation rather than simply when the decision was made to set the wage at an unfair rate. The president has threatened to veto the bill saying he believes it will lead to frivolous lawsuits.

For more on wage discrimination, please see:

• Signing Off On Discrimination
• Closing the Ledbetter Loophole

GINA – The Senate may take up a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Measure, H.R. 493, that would ban employers from using genetic information in decisions to hire and fire employees, and prevent insurers from using the information in determining insurance premiums. Similar measures have passed the Senate and the House in the past but never in the same year. Last April, the House passed H.R. 493 by a vote of 420-3.

For more information on CAP’s bioethics and science policies, please see:

• Bioethics and Science homepage

Medicaid - The House will consider a bill on Tuesday to maintain federal funding for Medicaid programs. The bill will be brought up under suspension of the rules, meaning a two-thirds majority is needed to pass the bill. The administration announced rules that will cut federal funding to the states for Medicaid programs because they feel states have shifted the burden of funding the joint federal-state programs unfairly onto the federal government. This bill will suspend those rules from taking effect until April 1, 2009. The president has threatened to veto the bill but it enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress.

For more on the Center’s policies on Medicaid, please see:

• Treating a Symptom, Not a Disease by Karen Davenport

Housing – The House Financial Services Committee will hold a markup for two bills aimed at helping the Housing Crisis. H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would create a $15 billion loan and grant program to purchase and renovate owner-vacated foreclosed properties. The properties would then be sold or rented to low-income families.

The second bill, H.R. 5830, the FHA Housing and Homeowner Retention Act, would allow the FHA to guarantee up to $300 billion in loans to refinance borrowers who are at risk of defaulting on their loan. The lender would have to agree to write-down the value of the loan to make them affordable for the borrower. If the lender agreed to the write-down, the FHA would guarantee the loan for up to 85 percent of the value of the home. The bill would also authorize $200 million for foreclosure counseling.

For more information on CAP’s policy solutions to address the housing crisis, please see:

• Addressing Foreclosures: A Great American Dream Neighborhood Stabilization Plan by David Abromowitz
• Strengthening Our Economy: Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Preservation by Michael Barr

Source: Center for American Progress

They are optimistic partly because Congress is suffering from a low approval rating of 14%, according to a poll they cited. Any incumbent in Congress is not altogether popular in the first place, they reason.

Still, Bailey lamented that the American people too often are brainwashed by a corporate media bent on playing favorites and goading the people into voting for the “projected winner.” Bailey recalled that he saw a statewide New Hampshire exit poll showing Paul would have won, provided you count the many people who paradoxically said they voted for McCain but would have preferred Paul, a classic case of the media-generated “projected winner” syndrome.

“We’ve got to get the American people to stand on principle and stop looking at elections like horse races,” Bailey said.

Bailey and Hargadon agreed that since some state’s primaries are mere preference polls, then Paul supporters at county and state GOP conventions can make some serious inroads (as many have in Washington state and Missouri) to challenge the rules so delegates are not necessarily bound to Sen. John McCain. They also said a number of people in other states are running for office in Paul’s spirit—a spirit that was clearly evident among the several hundred at the rally during its peak.

That spirit erupted loudly when the standard bearer, Ron Paul himself, spoke at the rally around 11:30 a.m., earlier than expected. He and his wife, Carol, were swarmed by autograph-seekers as the congressman made his way to the stage, where the patriotic rock band Pokerface later performed.

Paul briefly spoke of the need to eliminate federal income taxes and maximize freedom for the American people, among other issues.

“This is a day of remembrance,” Paul said, referring to the infamous April 15 tax day. He said the government needs to realize that “the money we earn is our own.” However, about 100 years ago, he said the U.S. government decided to start policing the world and telling others how to live. Soon, heavy taxation came along to underwrite this hegemonic approach.

“That concept is wrong . . . and un-American,” he said. He believes America needs “a free market, sound money and to mind our own business. . . .”

He added that there are a lot of Americans are waking up and need to be mindful that the results of the Republican National Convention in September, whatever they may be, are not the be-all and end-all of the national awakening, meaning that everyone must stay the course and do their part over the long haul.

“Great countries and empires come to an end for financial reasons,” he said, as the audience, many of whom were younger adults, repeatedly cheered. “What we don’t need is more management from the government; what we need is government to get out of the way. The system we have today divides us because everybody is clawing over a shrinking pie.”

Wanda Case came from North Carolina, where she has been a Ron Paul Meetup Group member in Asheville since early in Paul’s presidential campaign, which has been stymied by near nonexistent mainstream media coverage. Still, Paul has remained in the race because his supporters, such as Case, want him to do so.

“I first saw him in the Aaron Russo film,” she said, referring to the late filmmaker’s documentary, America: From Freedom to Fascism. The next thing Ms. Case knew, she was supporting Paul vigorously. In fact, she sang the national anthem for the Freedom Rally.

“I sang for the Ron Paul rally in Greenville (N.C.) in July 2007,” she recalled. “That’s where I met the Granny Warriors, and they contacted me and asked me to come and sing the anthem at this rally.”

College student Erica Sapp of West Virginia said she has learned a whole lot in a year’s time, going from a political neophyte to a well-informed person who now bears the burden of knowing lots of scary things about our troubled nation.

“I wasn’t interested in politics until one of my friends turned me on to him (Ron Paul),” she said, adding that, since then, the questions and facts about the 9-11 attacks, about the risks of government-mandated fluoride in the public water supply and other matters are, taken as a whole, unsettling.

Brent Sams, 25, of North Carolina, admitted that Dr. Paul cured him of his support for Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who dropped out of the GOP race. “I started realizing the views I have fall in line with Paul more than any politician I had ever looked at. I mean no NAFTA, get out of NATO and the U.N., and no North American Union.”

Huckabee, he said, revealed himself as a “big-government conservative.”

AFP talked to people from numerous states, and all shared the ubiquitous concern that Ron Paul has been blacklisted from coverage by the national media. Almost as many were cognizant of the computer vote fraud going on behind the scenes but frustrated as to what to do about it.

“We still have the fervor but have lost the momentum,” said Marci Ann of Michigan, speaking of her home state. “It seems that everyone gave up after the primary was over. And of course, the lack of media coverage hasn’t helped either, but we need to keep after those delegates’ seats.”

There are 66 delegates in Pennsylvania that are “unbound,” Andrew from Bucks County said. This means they are free to vote for Ron Paul (or anyone else) and not bound to cast a vote for John McCain at the convention.

“There are several other states that have those same rules,” shouted Kathryn over the din, but she wasn’t sure which ones they were. “But people from all states should check to see because they may be surprised to learn that their own delegates are not bound to McCain, either.”

Michael Moresso pedaled his bicycle 3,500 miles across country from Santa Monica, Calif. in time to campaign for Ron Paul in New Hampshire in January and has been roaming the East Coast attending the various primaries since then.

“Oh, I can tell you that Ron Paul is definitely the people’s choice,” said Moresso. “His signs dominated every state I went through. Matter of fact, I don’t remember seeing a single McCain sign anywhere. There may be a few up by now but not then.”

True to form, no news people from The Washington Post or The (allegedly conservative)Washington Times were visible at the scene and none from the local TV stations in the surrounding areas. Both newspapers
and broadcasters ignored the rally. All would have heavily covered a pro-abortion rally.

Recently, a subscriber wrote that, according to the Book of Revelation: “The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s . . . who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a massive Christ-like appeal. The prophecy says that people will flock to him, and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it Obama?”

About the authors: Mark Anderson may be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com. Pat Shannan may be reached at oceaniainvestigations@hotmail.com.

Source: American Free Press

“We ought to engage in a fairer, more productive negotiated rule-making with the states,” Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, said. “Maybe people want to have a national ID card in their state. In my state, they don’t.”

The hearing dealt with a range of homeland security issues, from the border fence to the backlog in the naturalization process. But the discussion kept returning to the initiative for a uniform drivers license, known as the Real ID program.

“Bullying the states is not the answer, nor is threatening their citizens’ rights to travel,” Leahy said. “From Maine to Montana, states have said no.”

Seventeen states have passed bills or resolutions rejecting Real ID.

Source: American Free Press

For more information on CAP’s bioethics and science policies see Bioethics and Science homepage

Infrastructure: On Monday afternoon the Senate will hold a cloture vote on H.R. 1195, a bill to make technical corrections to the 2005 SAFETEA-LU transportation reauthorization. The corrections bill, normally a routine measure, does include some controversial provisions, including an increase in the minimum share of highway safety formula grants from 0.5 percent to 0.75 percent, and an increase in funding for an earmarked magnetic levitation transportation project in Las Vegas.

For more information on CAP’s policy solutions for infrastructure see Safe at Home: A National Security Strategy to Protect the American Homeland, the Real Central Front by P.J. Crowley

Education: This week, the House will consider H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act. The bill will raise student loan limits by $2,000 and make changes to the parent PLUS loans program by giving parent borrowers another six months after their child leaves school to begin making payments. It also relaxes some of the requirements on PLUS loans to allow some parents who have fallen behind on their mortgages to still be eligible for PLUS loans.

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee is holding a hearing on “The Credit Market’s Student Loans Impact” on Tuesday.

For more on CAP’s policy solutions for student loans see Dealing with Debt: New Legislation Could Help Millions of Students and College Students Need Help

Farm Bill: Senate conferees will continue formal conference committee negotiations to complete the Farm Bill by the April 18 expiration. A conference committee meeting is set for Monday. If negotiations are completed a conference report will be brought to the floor this week. If lawmakers are not able to finish negotiations it is possible they will pass a one-year extension to the current Farm Bill.

For more on CAP’s policy solutions for the Farm Bill see Hungry for Next Generation Biofuels: Sustainable Crop Diversity Combats Poverty by Jake Caldwell and Gayle Smith and Fueling a New Farm Economy: Creating Incentives for Biofuels in Agriculture and Trade Policy by Jake Caldwell

This material was published by the Center for American Progress