Sometimes cartoons tell a story better than words.---
Time Magazine has lost readership, advertisers and sunk into the 'muck created by its own 'muckrakers.' (See 1 below.)
---
I am posting this to 'butter' up to you and 'rendering' a public service. (See 2 below.)
---
Accounting sleight of hand? (See 3 below.)
---
Last night my speaker, Elliot Chodoff, wove the audience through a series of events beginning with the Ayatollah's ousting of Iran's Shah. He said, in retrospect, it was a world shaking event whose implications were not just limited to Iran.
Moving the clock forward, he described how Hezballah came into being and morphed away from its founding Shia roots. He believes the situation in Lebanon will continue to simmer. Elliot explained the conflict and parallels between Hamas and Hezballah and concluded by suggesting Iran holds the cards and have made clear their intent - which is evident by the range of their missile. Right or wrong, Iran believes the next Caliphate is at hand, within their destiny to bring it about because history is on their side.
America remains Iran's Satan and Israel remains the little one simply by virtue of its association with America.
In answer to a host of questions Chodoff pointed out that we were at another critical stage in the Middle East, made more so by Iran's nuclear intentions. Israel has the ability to attack Iran but only once in a co-ordinated air, land and sea operation. Israel already made one smaller land foray when they took out some Iranian hidden rocketry with no loss of casualties on their side. A little known article cited the operation's leader being decorated for such and I called attention to the raid many memos ago.
However, only the US has the ability to sustain a wave of such co-ordinated attacks.
Israel does not seek war but will attack when and if they deem Iran has crossed a determined delivery capability line and will do so regardless of any supposed diplomatic or relationship restraints.
With respect to the Palestinians he, like myself, believes settlement issue is a ruse because the PA is not serious about establishing a state or would have already either done so or could have. Israel, Elliot pointed out, has always withdrawn settlements after agreements were struck (Egypt, Jordan, Gaza) but also reminded the audience if Israelis want to remain in Arab countries they should have the right just as Israeli Arabs have the right to live in Israel.
In terms of the plight of Christian Arabs he responded their plight is not favorable and they are being systematically driven from land and businesses and/or killed while the Western World stands by idly and mute.
In an extensive private conversation at home over several scotches Elliot discussed a myriad of subjects from Israeli governance and leadership issues, Israel's economy, military preparedness, and relationship with America's military which has never been better and closer.
He considers talk about Israelis leaving the country, because they live under constant tension, a media myth though he acknowledges many scientific minds leave for better pay and/or academic tenure opportunities.
His greatest concern about current and some former American administrations is their inability to think and plan strategically. In his opinion, the Viet Nam War was not strategic to this nation but taking care of Iran and ending the current regime is of strategic significance both to the West but now, even more importantly, to our so-called Arab allies, ie Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt etc.(See 4, 4a and 4b below.)
---
To be 18, Irish and to walk on water. (See 5 below.)
---
Ed Lasky, citing my friend Paul Rubin's thinking, comes to the same conclusion I have regarding Eve' Obama's announcement of cutting red tape - the same as slicing baloney. (See 6 below.)
---
An explanation of Obama's foreign policy - one dismal failure after another or a success? You decide
Chodoff agrees the sanctions against Iran have induced pain but they were designed to make Iran stop its nuclear program, ie. to yell Uncle Sam. Since this has not happened and is not likely to happen, in his opinion, Iranian sanctions are not a success. (See 7 below.)
And what about 'Eve's domestic agenda and successes? You decide. (See 7a below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) A Response to Time Magazine from the Office of Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu
By Ron Dermer, Senior Advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011
Dear Mr. Stengel,
I wanted to bring to your attention a recent article in Time entitled "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives." I hope that you will agree that the article's obvious bias and numerous distortions are not worthy of the standards of your prestigious magazine.
Israel is depicted in the article as essentially sliding towards fascism. Your correspondent refers to Israel's Shin Bet (the equivalent of the FBI) as a "secret police," claims that the Israeli government "increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty," and accuses the Prime Minister of "taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states."
The evidence offered for these outrageous allegations includes a preliminary vote in our parliament that would require naturalized citizens to make a pledge of allegiance, a proposal to strip citizenship from Israelis convicted of espionage and terrorism, a motion to investigate foreign government funding of local NGOs, calls on Jews to not rent property to Arabs, and demonstrations demanding prohibitions of Arab boys from dating Jewish girls.
But your correspondent did not find it necessary to inform your readers of a few facts.
Oaths of allegiance are commonplace in most democratic countries, including the United States. Naturalized citizens in America swear an oath to its Constitution and to defend the country against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Israel's proposed pledge would require naturalized citizens to swear an oath to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, words taken directly from our Declaration of Independence.
Moreover, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are just some of the many countries where citizenship can be stripped for various infractions that are defined as undermining "national interests." Are these European countries not democratic?
In the United States, Senator Joe Leiberman proposed a bill last year to "add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality." Is American democracy threatened by such a bill?
As for questioning the legitimacy of foreign government funding of Israeli NGOs, mentioning America's Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) may have presented a more balanced picture.
FARA requires that any organization engaged in lobbying in the U.S. that receives money from foreign individuals, let alone foreign governments, must among other things register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice and permit the Attorney General to inspect all of its activities.
It is hard to imagine any democratic country accepting foreign governments intervening in its domestic affairs by funding domestic groups engaged not merely in criticism of a particular government's policy but also attacking the very foundations of the State.
What would Britain do if the French government was actively funding a British NGO that sought to eliminate the monarchy? What would the United States do if the Iranian government was funding American NGOs pressing for a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East?
There is a vigorous public debate in Israel, including within the Likud party, over the best means to address the problem of foreign government funding of local NGOs. Proposals range from launching a parliamentary investigation to laws banning or restricting such funding to measures to ensure full transparency. Far from being a sign of Israel's slide toward fascism, the current debate in Israel is a testament to how vibrant our democracy truly is.
Finally, contrary to the implication of your correspondent, Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly and forcefully condemned the racist sentiments that were mentioned in the article. For example, this is what the Prime Minister said at the opening of Israel's annual Bible Quiz to an audience of mostly observant Jews a few hours after he learned of the letter calling on Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs:
There are non-Jews among the citizens of this country. How would we feel if someone said not to sell apartments to Jews? We would have been outraged, and indeed we are outraged when we hear such things in neighboring countries or anywhere else. Such statements should not be made, neither about Jews nor about Arabs. They must not be made in any democratic country, let alone a Jewish-democratic country that respects the moral values of the Jewish heritage and the Bible. Therefore, the State of Israel categorically rejects these things.
Contrast this unequivocal condemnation by the leader of Israel to the Palestinian Authority law that mandates the death penalty for any one who sells land to Jews. Such laws are all too common in a Middle East in which Christians are persecuted, gays are hanged in public squares and women are stoned for adultery.
In Israel, things are different. Here, we protect the rights of women, gays and minorities, including the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs, who enjoy freedom of speech and religion and the protections afforded by independent courts and the rule of law.
Every decision in Israel is put under the microscope by one of world's largest foreign press contingents, the hundreds of human rights organizations and NGOs that operate freely here, a famously adversarial local press and most critically, by a vociferous parliamentary opposition.
Israel has upheld its democratic values despite being threatened like no country on earth. In defending itself against wars of aggression, unparalleled terror campaigns and continuous promises to annihilate it, Israel has a track record on the protection of rights that would compare favorably to the record of any democracy, much less democracies under threat.
Even in peacetime, other democracies enact laws that would be inconceivable in Israel. The Swiss ban on minarets and the French restrictions on headscarves passed in Europe, not Israel.
One final point regarding media coverage in the Middle East. In 2000, after an Italian television station (RAI) was threatened by the Palestinian Authority for broadcasting the film of a Palestinian mob lynching two Israeli soldiers, RAI issued a shameful apology. Similarly, in 2003, CNN admitted to burying negative coverage about Sadaam's regime so that its personnel could continue working safely in Baghdad.
I can assure you that no matter how biased and unbalanced your correspondents' coverage of Israel, they will always be free here to write whatever they want. Of course, Time is also free not to print it.
Ron Dermer
Senior Advisor to the Prime Minister
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Having Worked at Unilevers Premier Margarine Factory in the UK for 1
Year, as a Management Trainee, and then in Sri Lanka Managing Margarine Manufacture, I can safely admit that what you are about to
read is true !! Pass The Butter ... Please.
Margarine was originally manufactured to fatten turkeys. When it
killed the turkeys, the people who had put all the money into the
research wanted a payback so they put their heads together to figure
out what to do with this product to get their money back. It was a
white substance with no food appeal so they added the yellow colouring
and sold it to people to use in place of butter. How do you like it?
They have come out with some clever new flavourings....
DO YOU KNOW.. The difference between margarine and butter?
Read on to the end...gets very interesting!
Both have the same amount of calories. Butter is slightly higher in
saturated fats at 8 grams; compared to 5 grams for margarine.
Eating margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53% over
eating the same amount of butter, according to a recent Harvard
Medical Study.
Eating butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in
other foods. Butter has many nutritional benefits where margarine has
a few and only because they are added!
Butter tastes much better than margarine and it can enhance the
flavours of other foods.
Butter has been around for centuries where margarine has been around
for less than 100 years. And now, for Margarine..
Very High in Trans fatty acids.
Triples risk of coronary heart disease ...
Increases total cholesterol and LDL (this is the bad cholesterol) and
lowers HDL cholesterol, (the good cholesterol)
Increases the risk of cancers up to five times..
Lowers quality of breast milk.
Decreases immune response.
Decreases insulin response.
And here's the most disturbing fact.... HERE IS THE PART THAT IS
VERY INTERESTING!
Margarine is but ONE MOLECULE away from being PLASTIC... and shares
27 ingredients with PAINT These facts alone were enough to have me
avoiding margarine for life and anything else that is hydrogenated
(this means hydrogen is added, changing the molecular structure of
the substance).
Open a tub of margarine and leave it open in your garage or shaded
area. Within a couple of days you will notice a couple of things:
* no flies, not even those pesky fruit flies will go near it (that
should tell you something)
* it does not rot or smell differently because it has nonutritional
value ; nothing will grow on it. Even those teeny weeny microorganisms
will not a find a home to grow. Why? Because it is nearly plastic .
Would you melt your Tupperware and spread that on your toast?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Accounting Tweak Could Save Fed From Losses
By Reuters
Concerns that the Federal Reserve could suffer losses on its massive bond holdings may have driven the central bank to adopt a little-noticed accounting change with huge implications: it makes insolvency much less likely.
The significant shift was tucked quietly into the Fed's weekly report on its balance sheet and phrased in such technical terms that it was not even reported by financial media when originally announced on Jan. 6.
But the new rules have slowly begun to catch the attention of market analysts. Many are at once surprised that the Fed can set its own guidelines, and also relieved that the remote but dangerous possibility that the world's most powerful central bank might need to ask the U.S. Treasury or its member banks for money is now more likely to be averted.
"Could the Fed go broke? The answer to this question was 'Yes,' but is now 'No,'" said Raymond Stone, managing director at Stone & McCarthy in Princeton, New Jersey. "An accounting methodology change at the central bank will allow the Fed to incur losses, even substantial losses, without eroding its capital."
The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.
This enhances transparency by providing clearer, more frequent, snapshots of the central bank's finances, analysts say. The bonus: the number can now turn negative without affecting the central bank's underlying financial condition.
"Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible," said Brian Smedley, a rates strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and a former New York Fed staffer.
"The timing of the change is not coincidental, as politicians and market participants alike have expressed concerns since the announcement (of a second round of asset buys) about the possibility of Fed 'insolvency' in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly," Smedley and his colleague Priya Misra wrote in a research note.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Palestinian group responsible for New Year's Day church bombing, Egypt says
By Jeffrey Fleishman
25 Coptic Christians were killed in New Year's Day attack
The Egyptian government announced Sunday that it had "conclusive proof" that an al-Qaida-linked Palestinian terrorist group orchestrated the New Year's Day bombing outside a Coptic Christian church that killed 25 worshipers and exacerbated sectarian tensions across Egypt.
Interior Minister Habib Adly blamed the attack on the Army of Islam, an extremist organization based in the Gaza Strip. The naming of foreigners as the culprit may help Egyptian authorities in easing escalating tensions between Muslims and Copts, who make up about 10 percent of the nation's population.
Adly indicated, however, that the Army of Islam recruited Egyptians in planning the bombing in Alexandria. Cairo has long accused militants in Gaza — backed either by al-Qaida or other the radical groups — of using the Palestinian territory to plot attacks across the border to upset Egypt's tourism industry and inflame religious mistrust.
"We have conclusive proof of their heinous involvement in planning and carrying out such a villainous terrorist act," Adly said of the Palestinian organization.
Authorities did not initially disclose what evidence they had. The state-run newspaper, Al Ahram, reported that the government had obtained confessions pointing to the Army of Islam. The Interior Ministry later identified one of the suspects arrested as a 26-year-old Egyptian university student who had traveled to Gaza and was enlisted by the militants to strike Coptic churches.
The Palestinian group has denied involvement. "Despite our praise to those who executed the attack, the Army of Islam has no connection to the Alexandria church bombing," the group said in a statement.
No one has claimed responsibility for the bloodshed. Egypt has accused the Army of Islam of masterminding a 2009 bombing that killed a French tourist and wounded 24 in Cairo's historic district. Authorities believe the group also was linked to the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006.
The New Year's Day car bombing at All Saints Church in the coastal city of Alexandria stunned Christians and Muslims alike. The attack was followed nearly two weeks later by another assault on Copts when an off-duty policeman opened fire inside a train, killing a 71-year-old man and wounding five other Christians.
A week ago, Egyptian state security court sentenced a Muslim man to death for last year's drive-by shooting on a church in southern Egypt that killed six Christians. Copts and Muslims have lived in relative peace in Egypt for generations, but Christians are accusing the government of President Hosni Mubarak of ignoring deteriorating relations and a rise in extremism.
"Our government will triumph over terror, and I will do my utmost to maintain unity between Egyptians," Mubarak said Sunday in a televised speech during a ceremony honoring police officers. "I will not be lenient with sectarian actions from either side and will confront their perpetrators with the might and decisiveness of the law."
4a)Two decades of secret Israeli-Palestinian accords leaked to media worldwide
Al-Jazeera TV begins leaking 1,600 secret documents: PA agreed to concede almost all of East Jerusalem to Israel, accept Israeli demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
By Jack Khoury and Haaretz Service
Al-Jazeera TV and The Guardian revealed Sunday the details of 1,600 confidential documents on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians over the last two decades.
The documents leaked so far mostly reveal secret concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators on the issues of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, territorial concessions, and the recognition of Israel.
According to Al-Jazeera, Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to concede almost all of East Jerusalem to Israel.
The Palestinian Authority reportedly offered in 2008 that Israel take control of all neighborhoods in Jerusalem except Har Homa, the first time in history the Palestinians made such a proposal, one that they refused to during the Camp David summit.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, also proposed in an October 2009 meeting that Jerusalem's Old City be divided, giving Israel control over the Jewish Quarter, part of the Armenian Quarter, and part of the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
Further details reveal that the Palestinians agreed that solely 100,000 Palestinian refugees return to Israel as part of the Palestinian right of return, and that Erekat agreed to the Israeli demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state.
Among other documents due to be released is an Israeli offer to transfer Israeli Arabs citizens to the territory of a future Palestinian state.
Moreover, Al-Jazeera revealed that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was personally notified by a senior Israeli official that Israel was planning an attack on the Gaza Strip, the night before Operation Cast Lead. Israeli and Palestinian officials reportedly discussed targeted assassinations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in Gaza.
Al-Jazeera reported that it plans to dedicate one day for every issue detailed in the thousands of pages of documents, which are regarded as the largest leak in the history of the Middle East conflict.
The documents already released on the Al-Jazeera website can be seen as official documents with Palestinian Authority stamps and signatures of several PA senior officials, in particular Saeb Erekat.
4b)A REMINDER IN HISTORY
General VoNguyen Giap.
General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leaderof the North Vietnam military. The following quoteis from his memoirs currently found in the
Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi :
'What we still don't understand is why you Americansstopped the bombing of Hanoi . You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battle of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.
But we were elated to notice your media was helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!'
General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed what most Americans knew. The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam -- it was lost at home. The same slippery slope, sponsored by the US media, is currently underway. It exposes the enormous power of a Biased Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.
A truism worthy of note: ... Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media, for they will destroy your honor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)An Irish Family Tradition
Sean, had long heard the stories of an amazing family tradition.
It seems that his father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all been able to walk on water on their 18th birthday.
On that special day, they'd each walked across the lake to the pub on the far side
for their first legal drink.
So when Sean's, 18th birthday came 'round, he and his pal Mick, took a boat out to
the middle of the lake, Sean, stepped out of the boat ...and nearly drowned!
Mick just barely managed to pull him to safety.
Furious and confused, Sean, went to see his grandmother.
'Granny,' he asked, "It's me 18th birthday, so why can't I walk 'cross the lake like me fatha, his fatha, and his fatha before him?"
Granny looked deeply intoSean's, troubled brown eyes and said, "Because your fatha, your grandfatha and your great grandfatha were all born in December, when
the lake is frozen, and you were born in August, ya dip shit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7)Obama 2.O: The First Big 6)Lie
By Ed Lasky
President Obama made a big splash with his recent Wall Street Journal column, "Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System." He wrote that he had issued an executive order to review federal rules with the goal of eliminating those that stifle job creation and economic growth.
To paraphrase the Bard (and leaving the "idiot" part out), the column was full of sound and fury and signified nothing. This was just another fake feint to the center and one more step on the reelection road to refashion the image of Barack Obama.
Behold Obama 2.O and his first big lie.
Barack Obama's poll numbers are listless; the shellacking his fellow Democrats took was a wake-up call to him regarding his own fate in 2012. A new Associated Press poll finds that more than half of Americans disapprove his handling of the economy. These views are also reflected in a New York Times/CBS poll that finds majorities disapprove of him on the economy and on job creation.. Disapproving majorities do not lead to reelection.
Barack Obama's reign has seen one job killing measure after another, culminating in the greatest job killer of them all, ObamaCare. David Harsanyi was on point when he wrote in his column "Obama Isn't Fooling Anyone" that "I can't recall a single federal program, piece of legislation or proposal in the past two years that was initiated to ease the burden on business or consumers."
Obama's rhetoric has chilled business activity. He has let regulators run amok, whittling away our liberty. For a man whom environmentalists worship like a modern day Pan, he has sure cut down a large number of trees to make the pages that fill the rapidly expanding Federal Register, the Bible of Bureaucrats that is a compendium of all federal regulations. In Obama's first two years in office, he showed nary a concern regarding the number of new regulations. He set records for both the number of major regulations issued (43) and their added annual net burden on the economy (at least $26.5 billion).
At his current pace, should Obama serve 8 years, he would add $212 billion in burdens to job creating businesses. But as pointed out in the Washington Examiner, the pace will be accelerated when Obama Care and the new Financial Regulation bills kick in this year. And who knows what mischief will come when the Consumer Protection Agency is formed under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren.
But with his image suffering and his reelection chances up in the air, he was forced to respond the way he normally does: with a bunch of hooey and public relations chaff released into the airwaves.
Are we ready to believe that his extreme makeover will lead to fewer regulations and more jobs? Or is it just one more promise made to burnish his image, a promise that will be broken? The latter seems more likely and there are a slew of reasons to believe it was just another promise with lots of loopholes that render his promises as meaningless as much of his 2008 oratory.
Indeed, his grand executive order merely duplicates a Clinton-era order that has been on the books all along ! Business should not be breaking out the bubbly.
He has a history of previous pivots to the center that have merely been campaign props to help his poll numbers.
The federal pay freeze was smoke and mirrors -- the formulas used to pay federal workers are as complicated as any bureaucrat can make them, but they allow for more pay hikes, regardless of the "freeze." The lifting of the moratorium on Gulf drilling, announced with much fanfare as the midterm elections approached, has been met with the most powerful force known to man: bureaucratic inertia. Federal salaries are not being frozen, but drilling permits have.
He has a history of failing to follow through after making these political pronouncements. In 2009, he demanded every federal department cut their budgets for a total of $100 million dollars and put a deadline of 90 days on his "order." However, it seems like no one got the memo or if they did it went straight to the recycling bin, since the deadline passed and the money was not cut. But it did make for some good press and very few checked followed up -- least of all, the President -- to see if his order was obeyed.
Where in the world is Cass Sunstein? Remember him? Barack Obama anointed him his regulation czar (officially, the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs). As a professor and writer he had championed the idea of submitting regulations to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Has there been much of that going on during the explosive growth in regulations over the past two years? Or was it just elite featherbedding (Sunstein is married to Obama's good friend, Samantha Power, who moved to Washington to serve on the National Security Council)? As part of the public relations spin to improve Obama's image as the Regulator-in-Chief we can expect to see and hear much more from the AWOL Sunstein in the weeks ahead. The roll-out has already begun with a "rare interview" with Bloomberg News.
Here is a prediction: history will repeat itself, skipping the tragedy phase, and go directly to the farce phase.
How Obama will betray his promise to cut regulations
Obama and his team have plenty of tools to wiggle out of any serious commitment to slash regulations. They will use them.
As the Washington Post points out in an editorial, his executive order has limited reach and his own words display his own half-hearted approach to his own promise:
In fact, much of the regulatory state consists of independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Reserve, that fall outside the scope of Mr. Obama's executive order. So there is that inherent limit to any potential regulatory rollback. Also, it will take months for the rest of the bureaucracy to produce recommendations for regulatory pruning. We see nothing in his executive order that would skew the analysis against regulation; indeed, it clearly says that the cost-benefit analysis must take account of intangible factors as "equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts." All the president has done is to promise business another look at the balance government has struck between public risk and private enterprise under current rules.
Bureaucrats may have read the Obama's columns, but what they took away was only this part: cost-benefit analysis must take into account intangible factors as "equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts." These are the type of Hallmark Card sentiments that Barack Obama habitually uses ("empathy" seems to be retired for now) and they will allow wily bureaucrats to leave their Xacto knives sheathed.
Why cut regulations that ensure their own jobs? They can always find regulations that serve "equity, human dignity...blah...blah...blah". Their first priority is the dignity of keeping their own jobs. Slashing the number and scope of regulations would be slashing their own job security.
Besides, regulators form a permanent ruling class. Politicians come and go but they stay. Paul Rubin, who served under Reagan, wrote of the problems with deregulatory initiatives :
The permanent staffs of the agencies were always interested in more regulation, either because of self-selection or because promotions and power increase in a larger agency. It also helped that we deregulators (generally economists) were not usually interested in permanent government positions, because reducing the power of the agency is a sure way to make enemies.
Although my mandate was to cut back, I spent more time fighting new proposals than getting rid of old ones. The staffs wanted more, not less. Whenever I met acquaintances from other agencies the invariable comment was "You won't believe what they want to do now." ("They" were the permanent staffs.)
The current regulatory agencies are not going to hire or promote people like me. Without managers with a strong interest in deregulation and with the backing of senior administrators, there will be no serious power to buck the staffs.
Will these putative efforts really have the backing of the senior administrators, including the Regulator-in-Chief? Rubin concludes that deregulation will probably be "impossible under Mr. Obama."
As if on cue, the New York Times just published a column pointing out that there are very few regulations whose elimination won't impact one group or another. Therefore one group or another will feel its elimination to be "unfair". How likely will the scales be tilted against Big Bad Business and in favor of the status quo?
Of course, the Times also led readers to believe that all regulations worthwhile, a belief that those who work in the Obama administration are undoubtedly inclined to hold as well.
Will Cabinet members and Czars whom Obama hand-picked because they shared his left-wing ideology push their people to seriously review regulations? These officials pledge their allegiance to a regulatory state; very few Cabinet members have any real-world business experience. Are they likely to find any regulations that give them power over business burdensome? "Personnel is policy," goes the Washingtonian axiom.
Indeed, the Times celebrated the coming regulatory regime when it published an article just last year titled "With Obama, Regulations are Back in Fashion." They still are in fashion. More than 4200 proposed rules are in the pipeline at federal agencies.
Perhaps this was the reason Barack Obama chose one former regulation as exemplifying the type of regulations he was targeting (pardon the violent term): the listing of saccharin as a form of toxic waste. This was an absurd regulation since saccharin has been legal to consume for many years, here and abroad. Will that be the extent of his heralded pushback against regulations?
This may be only slightly far-fetched. Although the administration has made some token regulatory changes the last week regarding worker noise and medical devices the Big Kahunas may be off limits. Look no farther than the Environmental Protection Agency.
Industry groups have been criticizing Obama's Environmental Protection Agency for many actions that have suppressed growth, including growth in the number of jobs. Most recently, for the first time ever, the EPA pulled a permit for a new mine -- after the company developing the mine had already spent 200 million dollars on it. This just followed one action after another by the EPA that has discouraged businesses from expanding their operations; they fear running afoul of the latest EPA pronouncements on carbon dioxide or any other element that the EPA wants to regulate to death. Even some Democrats (mostly from coal mining states) have had the temerity to oppose the EPA.
There is never been any love lost between the EPA and American business, but the level of rancor the last two years has been at record levels. If Obama truly wanted to extend an olive branch to American business and convincingly demonstrate he means business about the overuse of regulations, he would take a stand against the EPA and perhaps even throw its head, Lisa Jackson, under the bus as he has thrown others who might damage his election prospects. Instead, he has all but declared the EPA a fire-free zone safe from review. He defended his administration's environmental regulations in his WSJ column:
Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter - and in some cases tougher - rules to protect our health, safety and environment. Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars.
The EPA issued its own self-congratulatory note when it declared itself "confident" that Obama's new regulatory policy won't affect new climate rules and stated it will not have to later current or pending environmental regulations as part of the new review framework of President Obama's. So the EPA is off-limits to review, and that is the one agency that has probably done the most harm to our economy-despite Obama's words to the contrary.
Will Obama really restrict the rule making behind his own handiwork: Obamacare, Financial Regulation, and the Consumer Protection Agency? Those are his babies (it is far more likely we will see low hanging fruit picked off. How likely will these foolish regulations be blamed on previous Presidents? ).
Calling Obama's Bluff
Obama did not preempt Republican efforts to stop his agenda and expose his strategy to ram through a left-wing program through rules and regulations. The GOP has a Game Plan to challenge these efforts. Obama is trying to steal their message and their thunder. But there are far fewer real changes in store than just more smoke and mirrors. There is less true triangulation and just a lot more diversion. Obama is a poker player. Republicans should call his bluff.
Once the GOP won back the House, committee chairs flipped to the Republicans. They now control the agenda of those committees and have begun using those positions of power to constrain Obama's agenda. They have been front and center challenging job killing regulations. Obama himself done what politicians do: jumped in front of the parade to seize the spotlight (and we know how he loves the limelight).
Darrell Issa, the new Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has been in the forefront in scrutinizing regulations. Issa seems to be running circles around Barack Obama. He asked business for suggestion regarding regulations that were stifling job growth.
Then came Obama's Wall Street Journal column. This was followed by the formation of a new White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, headed by General Electric's CEO Jeffrey Immelt to gain (Wall) street credibility and divert some of the donations that have been flowing to Republicans. Will this ploy work?
Immelt has been characterized by the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes as Obama's Pet CEO. General Electric is heavily dependent on government contracts and its clean energy division has been showered with taxpayer money, courtesy of the Democrats. Theirs is a symbiotic (a fancy word for one hand washes the other) relationship. Immelt is the King of Crony Capitalism but for many people, less versed in the ways of Washington, the image of American businessmen joining Obama's efforts will help make Obama 2.O more believable.
Issa then trumped Obama. He took his message to the people. He issued a video asking the public (not just business) to send him examples of regulations that are holding them back. "Where does Washington help and where does it hurt" he said in the video. He unveiled a website - americanjobcreators.com- that solicits feedback from the public . Issa's challenges have prompted personal attacks-but he is not flinching.
What more can Republicans do?
Republicans have in their files a passel of devastating regulations that should be changed if not eliminated. He could, but won't, make a fresh start by freezing an all new regulatory activity mandated by Obamacare until Congressional debate and court action has decided its future. There are plenty of rules and regulations flowing from the Dodd-Frank bill that will stifle job growth. Will he turn the handle on that faucet? He could but won't.
These should be publicized and the administration challenged to justify them. Business groups have responded and are flooding the White House with requests to scrutinize their least favorite regulations. The Republican Party should publicize these regulations-call it the Ridiculous Regulation of the Day or give it some handy moniker. House Committee chairmen should call in department heads and query them. Have these regulation been scrutinized for their costs and their benefits? Progress reports should be posted and publicized. Liberals love the word Progress after all.
The power of the purse should be considered if these reviews show no progress. The budgets of these departments should be scrubbed. If these steps are not enough, the Congressional Review Act should be used to kill job destroying regulations whose burdens exceed their benefits.
But there is one more vital step that Republicans must take to take back power from the permanent governing class in Washington (politicians come and go, but regulators stay right where they are-forever). Republicans should draft legislation much more carefully so less discretion is left to busy body bureaucrats for idle hands are the devil's workshop. ObamaCare is a prime example of legislation that delegates far too much power to bureaucrats to make decisions that legislators have been too lazy, too reluctant, or too irresponsible to make on their own. We should not be too lazy, too reluctant or too irresponsible to hold our politicians accountable.
For when all is said and done it is also our battle to win or to lose.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Obama and the Middle East
Half way through his first term, US president lets Middle East slip through fingers. Peace talks break down, Syria-Iran relations tighten, Hezbollah dominanting Lebanon. Bright side: Economic sanctions on Iran working
By Yitzhak Benhorin
The Middle East has slipped through President Barack Obama's fingers during his first couple of years in the White House. His genuine drive and his government's commendable efforts failed to successfully bring peace to the region, to disconnect Syria from Iran and to weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nuke Threat
If there is one area in which Obama was successful it is creating a diligent and sophisticated diplomacy to establish an international coalition, which voted in favor of the sanctions against Iran at the United Nations Security Council. The economic pressure is beginning to take its toll on Iran, even if it has yet to "convince" the Iranian regime to abandon its dream of nuclear capabilities.
Despite vigorous declarations made by Obama when he first entered the White House, his first two years in Washington were filled with rookie mistakes regarding the Middle East, mistakes that hurt the US' ability to convince the Palestinians to take part in direct negotiations and coerced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into showing his cards.
Everyone in Israel is disappointed with Obama: The Right is upset over US pressure to freeze settlement construction, while the Left is frustrated because in its mind Obama failed to put enough pressure on Israel.
Today the Middle East is united in its disappointment in Obama. The Muslims and Arabs in particular were let down by the president, as they expected a new US approach towards Israel following the Cairo and Istanbul speeches. Obama did in fact pressure Israel publicly, but in the past couple of years the relationship between the US and Israel regarding security, intelligence, diplomacy and strategic issues grew much closer.
It's no secret that the public demand made by Obama to halt construction in the West Bank settlements was the main factor which brought Israel to freeze the construction. However this pressure should have been applied behind the scenes, if at all. In that case, Obama might have realized that both Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were not the kind of leaders who can make such a historical decision.
Obama wasted no time, unlike his predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and immediately appointed George Mitchell as US special envoy to the Middle East and declared his commitment towards promoting peace.
He had said many times that it is not only in Israel's best interest to reach a two-state solution and preserve its Jewish and democratic identity, but it was also an American strategic interest to achieve Israeli-Arab peace.
From the moment he first stepped into the Oval Office, Obama was forced to deal with the US global war on Islamic terror and handle the given state of American soldiers deployed in two separate Islamic countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting wars.
The American president thought peace between Israel and the Arab world, but especially between Israel and Palestinians, would help him get close to the Muslim world and dissolve its animosity towards the US. He truly believed that promoting peace would also help him when dealing with Iran.
The speeches made by Obama in Egypt and Turkey were his way of letting the Muslim world know that a new dawn has broken. The Americans launched a major diplomatic effort to achieve a breakthrough, but the problems still surfaced.
Everyone in the Middle East tried their best to read between the lines so as to understand what Washington is like under the Obama regime and who is the one making the decisions.
Syrian President Bashar Assad decided to try and make a deal with the US – Syria was to help Washington by calming down the situation in Iraq by blocking any fighters attempting to cross its border into Iraq. In return, the US was to remove all economic sanctions on Damascus.
Senator John Kerry received the green light from Assad to invite General David Petraeus, the head of US central command, to discuss ways to seal the Syrian-Iraqi border. Meanwhile, Washington representatives arrived in Syria to discuss US expectations from Damascus, including cutting all ties with Iran and ceasing its support of Hezbollah and Palestinian terror organizations, particularly Hamas.
Senior advisor to George Mitchell, Fred Hoff, was then appointed to handle the Syrian issue. He devised a plan to turn parts of the Golan Heights into a national park open to Israelis even after the Jewish state's withdrawal from the disputed region.
The US' mission remains to solve Israel's security issue resulting from a possible withdrawal from the Golan Heights. De-facto, Washington wishes to turn the Golan Heights into a demilitarized zone open to Israeli visitors.
Assad speaks of peace but arms Hezbollah
Many officials in the Israeli defense establishment are in favor of a peace process which will successfully remove Syria from the so-called "axis of evil". Obama's envoys held many meetings with Syrian officials, but after these meetings Assad immediately met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or with his representatives.
The Americans quickly learned that Assad was insincere. On the one hand he talks of peace, but on the other he continues to arm Hezbollah and signal to Teheran that nothing has changed.
Shortly after General Petraeus' visit to Syria, a booby-trapped car exploded in Baghdad, killing over 100 people. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki then claimed that the explosives were "provided by Syria". This incident occurred only a short while after Obama announced the appointment of a US ambassador to Damascus.
Meanwhile, Israel presented the Americans with proof of a Syrian production line of rockets intended for Hezbollah.
Hillary is fed-up with Syrian games
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is fed-up with the Syrian game. In a recent interview she summed up the last couple of years by saying that Syria's behavior does not coincide with Washington's hopes and expectations. She added that the US does not hold talks just to talk, but to actually try and promote its interests.
The US interest is, among others, to establish a sovereign Lebanese state free of foreign influence and to dismantle the country's militias, including Hezbollah.
As of today, Syria is making a comeback and increasing its influence in the area, mainly by massively arming Hezbollah.
While Obama sat at the Oval Office with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Hezbollah disassembled the Lebanese coalition.
The WikiLeaks website released cables sent to Washington describing what is really going on in Middle East capitals. Saudi Arabia suggested the US set up a Sunni-based force to fight Hezbollah.
'Cut off the head of the snake'
In another cable, the Saudi Arabian king and other Persian Gulf leaders urged Washington to attack Iranian nuclear sites and "cut off the head of the Iranian snake".
The same cables reveal that the Arab world does not see a connection between putting an end to the Iranian threat and solving the Israeli-Arab conflict.
A known historical fact is that all peace processes between Israel and Arabs always began secretly. The Israeli-Egyptian dialogue started with a secret meeting between Moshe Dayan and Hassan Tuhami in Morocco and only later did they ask the US to join as a mediator. The Palestinian agreement was also achieved only after covert talks in Oslo.
Past experience has taught us that only strong Israeli and Arab leaders are capable of advancing a peace process. How will the US react to all the question marks regarding Netanyahu and Abbas' political ability to promote a true peace process? Officials in Washington talk about continued efforts to bring both sides to the negotiations table. However during a public conference in Qatar in January, the US was accused of failing to pressure Israel. Clinton explained that Israel is a sovereign state which makes its own decisions.
Clinton reminded the participants that the US must convince Israel that whatever compromises it makes in preparation for a two-state solution will not jeopardize its future. She added that Israel did withdraw from Lebanon and Gaza but is still constantly attacked by rockets.
Another Intifada?
Washington is debating its next move. Should it enforce a presidential plan? Should it give up and suspend its efforts until both sides beg it to return? The latter decision might make headlines, but the US cannot leave a vacuum which might lead to another intifada, violence and terror.
Even if no solution is visible right now, the US will continue to maintain the conflict by creating an illusion of talks. What will actually happen is that the US will keep a low profile and let nature take its course, without written agreements at this point. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will continue to build Palestinian governmental institutions, and as long as Palestinian security forces grow stronger – Israel will be able to evacuate IDF forces from the West Bank and transfer the area to the control of the Palestinian Authority.
This reality suits Abbas and especially Fayyad, who still lacks the basic political power. This might also be beneficial as far as Netanyahu is concerned, because he knows what he must do but he's not sure he can or wants to make such an important decision.
Abbas and Fayyad believe Israel and the PA have no need for another Camp David, which might lead to more violence on the ground. They prefer to take small measures in order to improve lives and security, which might cause IDF presence in the West Bank to become unnecessary.
Obama's strategy is to make sure any peace agreement will be based on a strong and confident Israel and on regaining Arab honor. Obama has tried to indicate to the Palestinians that mediations are impartial, but in the meantime he continues to strengthen Israel.
During his first couple of years in office Obama appeared as someone who understands Israel's unique situation. He reiterated his commitment to Israeli security and stood by it. No other country in the world is conducting such intense dialogue with Israel like the US.
Relations between the two countries were expressed not only through talks. Besides the annual $3 billion in defense aid given to Israel, in 2010 Obama decided to allocate an additional $250 million for the Iron Dome project, a mobile air defense system designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells.
A similar amount was allocated for David's Sling, a military system designed to intercept medium to long-range rockets, and the Arrow system against ballistic missiles. This aid has been provided despite the US' dire economic situation, including a deficit of over $14 trillion.
Under Obama's regime Israel and the US army held a joint security drill called Juniper Cobra, with the participation of over 1,300 US soldiers from the Navy, Air Force and Marines.
Israeli-US cooperation was also visible on the diplomatic front in attempts to prevent Israeli isolation regarding the nuclear issue and human rights.
Slow moving diplomacy
Obama's strategic diplomacy against Iran succeeded beyond expectations. By taking slow moving diplomatic steps the US managed to expose Iran's true intentions and establish a broad coalition which imposes significant sanctions on Iran via the UN Security Council.
More sanctions were separately imposed on Iran by the US, the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea.
Obama's most significant move in this regard was initiating relations with Russia. The US shut down its defense missile battery in Eastern Europe, a program helmed by former President Bush. In return, Russia decided to call off its sale of long range surface-to-air missile systems (S-300) to Iran.
International pressure mounted, exacting a heavy price from Iran.
The situation on the Iranian front has caused Washington to feel euphoric. The pressure has dropped.
US officials now predict, just like outgoing Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, that the Iranian nuclear threat will not resurface until 2015. Many believe this threat is now no longer on the short list of US priorities. However this issue should still be concerning, not because of what we do know but because of what we do not know.
7a)Barack Obama’s State of the Union address could be a Big Government disaster
By Nile Gardiner
While the British government has embarked on a large-scale austerity programme to completely eliminate the nation’s structural deficit by 2015, the Obama administration still remains committed to further stimulus spending in the United States, clinging to the naïve and hopeless belief that Big Government solutions are needed to get America’s economy back on its feet. As The Wall Street Journal reports today, President Obama is planning to unveil a series of new spending plans in his State of the Union address on Tuesday in response to Republican calls to cut $2.5 trillion in federal spending over the next decade.
The Obama presidency has been trying this high spending approach for the past two years and has spectacularly failed to advance America’s prosperity. Over $800 billion of stimulus spending has failed to create jobs, and has simply added to America’s ballooning $14 trillion national debt, which the Congressional Budget Office predicts could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent of GDP by 2035, a massive millstone around the neck of the world’s only superpower.
By adopting this reckless stance, Barack Obama is demonstrating once again how out of touch he is with the views of the American people. A New York Times/ CBS News poll published on Friday revealed that 56 percent of Americans think it is necessary to take immediate action to lower the federal budget deficit, with just 38 percent saying it is possible to wait for better economic times. In addition, 55 percent believe it is necessary to cut back on government programmes, as opposed to 39 who are against such cuts. By a margin of 62 percent to 29 percent, American voters support reducing spending rather than raising taxes.
A Rasmussen poll last Wednesday showed that “most voters aren’t convinced that government bailouts have been a good idea”, with 53 percent of likely voters stating that bailouts of banks, auto companies and insurance firms were bad for the US, with just 31 percent disagreeing. Further, a Fox News poll on Friday revealed that “almost all American voters think the country’s economy is in bad shape, and few see benefits from the Obama administration’s economic policies,” with 9 in 10 voters giving the economy negative ratings.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama has a major opportunity to outline pro-growth measures that will rein in the deficit, create jobs, and revitalise the economy. This can only be achieved by cutting spending, freeing businesses from red tape, lowering taxes, increasing foreign investment, and advancing free trade. Economic freedom, not more government intervention, is the key to prosperity in the United States.
It is doubtful however that the president will seize this moment, and his chief advisers remain wedded to failed Big Government solutions that will only result in a weaker, more indebted nation that will increasingly struggle to compete internationally. By all accounts, his speech on Tuesday could be disastrous not only for America, but also for US leadership on the world stage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment