---
More tripe from our friend Louis F. Any response Obama? You readily attack those who believe unions are greedy and who protest their right to the outlandish rewards (salaries and pensions) garnered through collective bargaining. Got any comment about Louis?
Or are you just selectively posturing for 2012 again by defending union thuggery?(See 1 below.) ---
Cal Thomas wrote an article recently about various government agencies trying to figure the worth of an American citizen and its relationship to the amount of health care we should be warranted. They concluded $1 million dollars. I guess the bureaucrats divided some 300 million souls into our assumed national asset base.
My suggestion would be as follows: I would think a more accurate standard by which our government could value the amount of health care spent on the life of an American should be the amount of per capita of debt we owe - after all off balance sheet items are included that would be about $300,000.
The more Obama and our politicians spend, the more our worth and health care cost. That might be an incentive to cut government spending and waste but I would not hold my breath. Why? Because holding your breath that long would cause you to die and that would throw a greater debt burden on your fellow citizens and that would be a most unpatriotic protest gesture.
Fearing voter backlash, politicians from both aisles respond to the 345 page GAO Report on waste, duplications and incompetence but it will probably only amount to some small changes because politicians are generally unwilling to have their oxen gored when they can stick it to taxpayers. It is all about sound and fury followed by meekness! (See 2 below.)
Newt is preparing to run. He was creative and effective in his day but does he not understand he is 'yesterday?' (See 2a below.)
---
Roubini's consulting group places state and local municipal default far below Whitney's prediction but still significant as a per cent of the entire municipal market and elevated when viewed historically. (See 3 below.)
But happier days are just around the corner according to this pundit. (See 3a below.)
---
I am a faithful reader of The Naval War College's Quarterly and report on some of the articles from time to time. I have the latest issue but have not read it as yet but I thought this op ed article was accurate and should be of interest.
Among other reasons, Britain, Portugal and Spain's decline, as 'modern empires,' can be traced to their shrinking naval fleets and declining effectiveness. (See 4 and 7 below.)
---
An alphabetized public service chart. Disregard and eat your heart out! (See 5 below.)
---
Union seniority rules should be followed to the letter. (See 6 below.)
---
I am going to be away on a cruise to The Madeira Islands and Lisbon Portugal, March 16 - April 6, so I went to purchase some Euros today. Last year I paid 127 this year 144. That shows you how much the dollar has declined even in the face of world problems. The dollar is no longer even viewed as a safe refuge and the below article reinforces this point.
America's role in the world is waning because of our long history of fiscal irresponsibility, a decline in our education and more recently Obama's pitiful and lousy leadership. A perfect trifecta! (See 7 below.)
Our president has been dubbed Waldo by this writer. I think Obama/Waldo is always out to lunch. (see 7a below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Farrakhan: Jews are pushing the US into war
By LAHAV HARKOV
Nation of Islam leader says his comments on Jews are meant "to pull the cover off Satan" and "Zionists dominate the US government and banks."
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Jews and Zionists are "trying to push the US into war" and are a cover for Satan, at the group's annual meeting near Chicago on Tuesday.
“President Obama," Farrakhan said, "if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.” Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi "my brother" and "my friend."
He also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, adding that "Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system."
One panel at the conference, titled "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," claimed that Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade and accused them of controlling the media.
“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people," Farrakhan said. "You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”
In response, ADL National Director Abe Foxman said: "Anti-Semitism has suffused the Nation of Islam's message, and Farrakhan is the standard bearer and bigot in chief....Perhaps what's more disturbing is that despite his anti-Semitic rants, he has not been made a pariah in his own community. What does it take for him to stop being a pied piper of hatred
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Both Sides Embrace Government-Waste Study.
By DAMIAN PALETTA
House and Senate leaders of both parties promised to rein in government spending after examining a new report that detailed billions of dollars in duplicative federal programs.
The 345-page report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said there were dozens of overlapping programs in areas like defense, transportation and education that could be consolidated to save taxpayers money. For example, redundant policies encouraging ethanol production cost the government $5.4 billion in lost revenue last year, the report said.
The GAO report, whose details were disclosed by The Wall Street Journal Monday, triggered an unusual amount of bipartisan applause amid bickering by Democrats and Republicans over how to reduce the federal deficit. Lawmakers from both parties have long said there were redundant programs, but the report identified a list of them.
"I think there are duplicative programs around here that we could eliminate," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said after the report was released Tuesday. "Those are some of the things we can do over the long term that could save some money."
Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the No. 3 Republican in the House, said the report "goes to show the waste in government. We will cut government just as the GAO report says."
Lawmakers were working to craft a package of cuts that could be included in a bill to authorize federal spending through September. Republicans and Democrats remained divided over how swift and sweeping the cuts should be, with Republicans calling for steeper reductions and Democrats warning that big cuts could hurt economic growth.
Still, both sides immediately supported the prospect of cutting or consolidating programs that the GAO, considered Congress's watchdog, had labeled potentially redundant and wasteful.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), who requested the report, estimated potential reductions would save between $100 billion and $200 billion a year.
Washington's focus has pivoted this year to the task of reducing the budget deficit, which is projected to reach $1.65 trillion in 2011.
Republicans seized on the report's findings as support of their push for deep reductions in spending.
"Enough is enough," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). "Our Congress is about delivering results."
Several Democrats said the report offered a bipartisan road map for targeted cuts. Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) called the report a "useful tool," but said major cuts wouldn't be achieved even if all changes the GAO recommended were embraced. He said the government would have to address the cost of entitlement programs such as Medicare to significantly slow the growth of federal spending.
The Treasury Department said Tuesday the government could hit the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling as early as April 15, 10 days later than it projected a few weeks ago. If the government hits the cap, it can't issue new debt and could default on its obligations, something Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke described Tuesday as "chaos." Administration officials have urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling by the end of March. Republicans are demanding that spending cuts be part of any such deal.
The GAO report highlighted areas where multiple federal agencies either perform very similar duties or have nearly identical programs. The report said there were 18 different food- and nutrition-assistance programs, 20 programs to help the homeless, 56 for financial literacy and many redundancies in military operations. It also cited overlapping programs for teacher quality and job training.
The report could also serve as a template for White House officials, who are expected later this year to propose overhauling the structure of the government to reduce duplication, overlap and wasteful spending. President Barack Obama "has made it a priority to reform government and make it more effective and efficient for the American people," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
Budget experts said many of the proposed cuts could draw opposition from interest groups and lawmakers looking to protect pet projects. "Often times, there's no real simple and straightforward ways to slice these things up," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "The ways you do it involve politics and different ideas of who should be controlling what."
—Naftali Bendavid contributed to this article.
2a)Budget Bunk
By Newt Gingrich
America is facing a fiscal crisis of the first order. Our national debt is spiraling to unprecedented and unsustainable levels.
Earlier this month, the White House predicted that the federal government will spend nearly $4 trillion this year. Meanwhile, it will collect barely $2 trillion in revenues.
After two years of profligate spending and a stunning rebuke at the polls, President Obama tried to create the impression during his State of the Union address that he was reevaluating the unchecked spending habits of his first two years in office:
"But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."
Unfortunately, the President quickly proved these were just empty words. The 2012 budget proposed by the White House is a totally unserious and insulting continuation of the reckless big spending policies of Obama's first two years in office.
Obama Can Talk the Talk, But He Can't Walk the Walk
The talk from the White House sounds fiscally responsible, but the actual numbers show this administration is still in denial about our debt crisis.
The President plans on adding nearly $5 trillion more to the debt held by the American public between now and 2016, bringing the total that we owe to creditors to over $15 trillion dollars.
(For a bit of context, in 1999, the last year I was Speaker, the publicly-held debt was only $3.6 trillion, and we were in the process of paying down nearly $500 billion of our debt by balancing four consecutive budgets. The projected deficit in 2011 is nearly as large as ALL federal spending in 1999.)
Nevertheless, in the press conference where he revealed his budget, the President tried to recast himself as a diligent custodian of the country's fiscal house. He told reporters:
"What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. So, to use a -- sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, we're not going to be running up the credit card anymore."
This posture from the President is fundamentally dishonest.
First, the numbers simply do not add up.
As the President's own Office of Management and Budget admits, in 2015 – "the middle of our decade"— the federal government will be taking in about $3.6 billion in revenues, but plans on spending $4.2 billion that year. That's because on top of new spending, in 2015 alone, we will be paying $494 billion in interest on our debt. That means that nearly 12% of all spending, more than half of what we will spend on all national security, will go just towards paying off our creditors. Much of this interest is owed on the roughly $3 trillion in debt that the President has already incurred in only 25 months in office.
Furthermore, Obama's own budget projections show that by 2021 the annual deficit will start growing again, to nearly $800 billion.
(To see how much Barack Obama plans to borrow and spend every year between now and 2021, check out Table S-1 on the White House's budget proposal here.)
Obama's "New Normal"
Second, many of the President's supporters have hyped the contention that this budget will aim to cut $1.1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. This is technically true, but completely misses the point.
Federal spending jumped almost 18% between 2008 and 2009 thanks to the bank bailouts and stimulus. These programs were intended to be a one-time emergency jumpstart in 2009, then spending was supposed to return to more modest levels in the following years.
Instead, President Obama and his allies are treating 2009 as the "new normal," and grown spending from that baseline ever since.
Thus, these "cuts" are merely small reductions from a grossly inflated baseline. Although spending will actually drop in 2012 over 2011, it is still up a staggering 25% since 2008. The month that President Obama took office, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that spending would be $3.39 trillion in 2012. Barack Obama now proposes to spend $3.72 trillion in 2012.
The President is trying to talk the talk of a fiscal hawk. But his budget shows he has no intention of walking the walk.
Look to the States for Leadership
If Americans want to find spending restraint in 2011, they should be looking to state capitols.
Conservatives have rightly cheered the heroic efforts of Chris Christie in New Jersey and Scott Walker in Wisconsin as they have taken on the entrenched interests in their states that are the source of all this excessive spending.
Today I want to highlight two other governors you may not expect.
Although I've previously criticized the spendthrift practices in Albany and Sacramento in this newsletter, today I would like to praise the encouraging initial efforts of two governors – both Democrats – who have just assumed office in those state capitols.
New California governor Jerry Brown and new New York State governor Andrew Cuomo both gave sobering addresses when unveiling their first budgets, but, unlike Obama, proposed spending cuts to match their rhetoric.
Brown proposes to reduce spending in California's General Fund 8.2% in fiscal 2012. Cuomo's budget reduces spending from all government funds by 2.7% for the coming year.
As a comparison, if Barack Obama had followed Gov. Brown's example and cut 8.2% out of the federal budget for 2012, this would have meant a $313 billion reduction in spending, as opposed to a mere $90 billion drop off of Obama's already inflated 2011 numbers.
It will be interesting to watch how these budget proposals from two Democratic governors are received by all the interest groups that elected them. Conservatives in these states may find themselves in the interesting situation of supporting their Democratic governors against left-wing attacks as they attempt to deal with the reality of their bloated, unsustainable budgets.
Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment
Why have governors, both Republican and Democrat, confronted the need to control spending with appropriate earnestness, while the federal government continues to act as if there is no budget crisis?
A big factor is that nearly every state has a constitutional requirement to balance their budget.
The federal government has no such requirement.
We proposed a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Contract with America and came within a single vote of passing it in 1995. We then decided to proceed as if we had passed the amendment and fought with the White House for months to insist on a balanced budget. (You can read my recent op-ed on the many myths of the 1995 government shutdown here).
The result was four straight balanced budgets and paying off almost $500 billion in federal debt.
Unfortunately, the will to continue to insist on a balanced budget wore off, proving that the only long term fix for Washington's profligate spending is a constitutional requirement to balance the budget.
A Balanced Budget Amendment would require the federal government to live within its means. It would make it constitutionally impossible for the President and Congress to rack up deficit after deficit, knowing that they will be long out of office by the time its effects are felt.
At ReAL Action Network, we have been working with BBANow (Balanced Budget Amendment Now), to marshal the forces necessary to pass a balanced budget amendment.
I encourage you to visit BBANow.org to find out how you can help.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Muni Default Estimate: $100 Billion
By MICHAEL CORKERY
A consulting firm founded by economist Nouriel Roubini said there could be close to $100 billion of municipal-bond defaults over the next five years as state and local government-debt problems damp the U.S. economic recovery.
That figure would by most estimates represent a significant increase over defaults in recent history, but it doesn't appear to be as dire as a prediction last year by analyst Meredith Whitney.
Mr. Roubini is known for his prescient warnings about the 2008 financial crisis. In weighing in on the muni-bond market, his firm joins a chorus of high-profile commentators who have offered their take on the fate of the once-staid market. It took a dive late last year and in recent weeks has made up some losses.
The report, by David Nowakowski and Prajakta Bhide at Roubini Global Economics and released to clients Monday, says state and local debt problems aren't "systemic" in nature, nor will they "infect the financial system." The authors of the report declined to comment.
Most of the defaults will occur among special government projects and revenue-generating entities that aren't considered viable, it says. "Defaults will continue to be isolated events.''
Tracking the total number of defaults can be difficult because they are concentrated among small bonds that aren't rated by national rating firms. Those firms typically track the bonds they rate.
S&P/Investortools Municipal Bond Index, which includes $1.27 trillion of municipal debt outstanding, reported $2.65 billion in defaults last year down from $2.9 billion of new defaults in 2009.
Combined defaults of rated and unrated bonds were as high as $8.5 billion in 2008, according to some estimates.
The Roubini report says that relying on the history of low default rates in the municipal debt market is "Pollyannaish."
"Avoiding a crisis will involve real austerity that has only partially been implemented thus far," the report states.
Still, the report points out that recovery rates for investors on defaulted muni bonds are typically about 80%, "far higher" than for corporate bonds. It also said an analysis of the Chapter 9 bankruptcy provision for municipalities shows bondholders retain strong protections.
Ms. Whitney, an independent analyst who correctly predicted future bank troubles in 2007, last year made a controversial prediction of 50 to 100 sizable muni-bond defaults, totaling "hundreds of billions of dollars."
3a)Get Ready for a Growth Supercycle
Emerging markets could propel a global boom comparable to the industrialization of the United States.
By IAN BREMMER
With the turmoil rattling the Middle East these days, it's easy to miss the rising tide of optimism about the global economy. The good news is coming from multiple sources. A recent CEO survey from PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, found a sharp spike in the number of business leaders who see strong growth for the year ahead. And for a long-term forecast, a report from analysts at Standard Chartered bank has produced the biggest buzz.
Standard Chartered argues that about 10 years ago, the global economy entered a "new super-cycle" of extended growth, one "driven by the industrialization and urbanization of emerging markets and global trade." The expansion is likely to last for "a generation or more." Forecasts in the report run through 2030.
We've seen this kind of surge before, say the bank's analysts. The first supercycle, driven by the industrial revolution and the emergence of the United States, developed between 1870 and 1913. The second wave, powered primarily by Europe's postwar reconstruction and a rise in Asian exports, ran from the end of World War II until the early 1970s.
The especially good news, according to the report's authors, is that though the third super-cycle will be driven mainly by emerging-market countries, particularly in Asia, "the winners will be global." Caveats apply. Business cycles will ensure the ride won't be a smooth one, and some countries and regions will fare better than others. The report's assumptions depend on "a backdrop of relative peace, or certainly no global war, and stable monetary policies."
The argument is compelling. Growth trajectories from China, India and Brazil to Indonesia, Turkey and sub-Saharan Africa speak for themselves. Americans and Europeans should be relieved to hear that other countries can do a bigger share of the world's economic lifting.
Yet, a global economy driven by emerging market states comes with big risks. First, the storm now cutting its way across the Arab world should remind us that emerging markets can be a lot more politically and socially volatile than established powers. Developing states with authoritarian governments can appear stable for decades, but they often come apart quickly.
We're also talking about a global economy that will depend for an ever larger percentage of its growth on countries where policy making is usually a lot less transparent and predictable, investment climates are more vulnerable to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats, and corruption is often endemic. Once confidence grows that an emerging power has actually emerged, and as it builds a larger stake in geopolitical stability and global growth, its interests will become more closely aligned with those of other governments. Its political institutions will mature and operate with greater predictability. In Brazil, for example—where a president regarded as a leftist slowly helped build political consensus in favor of disciplined, market-friendly macroeconomic policy—that process is well underway.
On the global stage, getting from here to there will involve a fundamental shift in the international balance of power. And history shows that transitions on that scale don't come without market-moving conflict. Growth itself can be a force for stability, as in the decades before World War I and immediately after World War II. But as the authors of the Standard Chartered report admit, every supercycle also yields its share of losers. At a minimum, this new supercycle will produce a competition that provokes nationalist passion and politically motivated protectionism in some quarters.
The other big problem is that a global economic growth cycle driven by developing states will generate overnight industrialization on an unprecedented scale, as hundreds of millions of new consumers migrate toward an emerging middle class. Until new energy technologies gain a global foothold, we can only guess at what this surge of activity will mean for competition for oil, natural gas and other scarce commodities, for the quality of the world's air and water, for the politics of climate change, and for the prices we all pay for food and other staples.
Standard Chartered's 20-year forecast may well prove wrong. A similar projection of global growth in 1990 would have included assumptions about long-term production for the Soviet Union, and many of the problems that development will create could cut this supercycle short. But there are plenty of reasons to believe the world could be in for another sustained period of growth.
Mr. Bremmer is president of the Eurasia Group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The Decline of U.S. Naval Power
Sixty ships were commonly underway in America's seaward approaches in 1998, but today there are only 20. We are abdicating our role on the oceans.
By MARK HELPRIN
Last week, pirates attacked and executed four Americans in the Indian Ocean. We and the Europeans have endured literally thousands of attacks by the Somali pirates without taking the initiative against their vulnerable boats and bases even once. Such paralysis is but a symptom of a sickness that started some time ago.
The 1968 film, "2001: A Space Odyssey," suggested that in another 30 years commercial flights to the moon, extraterrestrial mining, and interplanetary voyages would be routine. Soon the United States would send multiple missions to the lunar surface, across which astronauts would speed in vehicles. If someone born before Kitty Hawk's first flight would shortly after retirement see men riding around the moon in an automobile, it was reasonable to assume that half again as much time would bring progress at a similarly dazzling rate.
It didn't work out that way. In his 1962 speech at Rice University, perhaps the high-water mark of both the American Century and recorded presidential eloquence, President Kennedy framed the challenge not only of going to the moon but of sustaining American exceptionalism and this country's leading position in the world. He was assassinated a little more than a year later, and in subsequent decades American confidence went south.
Not only have we lost our enthusiasm for the exploration of space, we have retreated on the seas. Up to 30 ships, the largest ever constructed, each capable of carrying 18,000 containers, will soon come off the ways in South Korea. Not only will we neither build, own, nor man them, they won't even call at our ports, which are not large enough to receive them. We are no longer exactly the gem of the ocean. Next in line for gratuitous abdication is our naval position.
Separated by the oceans from sources of raw materials in the Middle East, Africa, Australia and South America, and from markets and manufacture in Europe, East Asia and India, we are in effect an island nation. Because 95% and 90% respectively of U.S. and world foreign trade moves by sea, maritime interdiction is the quickest route to both the strangulation of any given nation and chaos in the international system. First Britain and then the U.S. have been the guarantors of the open oceans. The nature of this task demands a large blue-water fleet that simply cannot be abridged.
Forty percent of the world's population lives within range of modern naval gunfire, and more than two-thirds within easy reach of carrier aircraft.
With the loss of a large number of important bases world-wide, if and when the U.S. projects military power it must do so most of the time from its own territory or the sea. Immune to political cross-currents, economically able to cover multiple areas, hypoallergenic to restive populations, and safe from insurgencies, the fleets are instruments of undeniable utility in support of allies and response to aggression. Forty percent of the world's population lives within range of modern naval gunfire, and more than two-thirds within easy reach of carrier aircraft. Nothing is better or safer than naval power and presence to preserve the often fragile reticence among nations, to protect American interests and those of our allies, and to prevent the wars attendant to imbalances of power and unrestrained adventurism.
And yet the fleet has been made to wither even in time of war. We have the smallest navy in almost a century, declining in the past 50 years to 286 from 1,000 principal combatants. Apologists may cite typical postwar diminutions, but the ongoing 17% reduction from 1998 to the present applies to a navy that unlike its wartime predecessors was not previously built up. These are reductions upon reductions. Nor can there be comfort in the fact that modern ships are more capable, for so are the ships of potential opponents. And even if the capacity of a whole navy could be packed into a small number of super ships, they could be in only a limited number of places at a time, and the loss of just a few of them would be catastrophic.
The overall effect of recent erosions is illustrated by the fact that 60 ships were commonly underway in America's seaward approaches in 1998, but today—despite opportunities for the infiltration of terrorists, the potential of weapons of mass destruction, and the ability of rogue nations to sea-launch intermediate and short-range ballistic missiles—there are only 20.
As China's navy rises and ours declines, not that far in the future the trajectories will cross. Rather than face this, we seduce ourselves with redefinitions such as the vogue concept that we can block with relative ease the straits through which the strategic materials upon which China depends must transit. But in one blink this would move us from the canonical British/American control of the sea to the insurgent model of lesser navies such as Germany's in World Wars I and II and the Soviet Union's in the Cold War. If we cast ourselves as insurgents, China will be driven even faster to construct a navy that can dominate the oceans, a complete reversal of fortune.
The United Sates Navy need not follow the Royal Navy into near oblivion. We have five times the population and almost six times the GDP of the U.K., and unlike Britain we were not exhausted by the great wars and their debt, and we neither depended upon an empire for our sway nor did we lose one.
Despite its necessity, deficit reduction is not the only or even the most important thing. Abdicating our more than half-century stabilizing role on the oceans, neglecting the military balance, and relinquishing a position we are fully capable of holding will bring tectonic realignments among nations—and ultimately more expense, bloodletting, and heartbreak than the most furious deficit hawk is capable of imagining. A technological nation with a GDP of $14 trillion can afford to build a fleet worthy of its past and sufficient to its future. Pity it if it does not.
Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)This chart is awesome! Everyone can use it.
Apples
Protects your heart
Prevents constipation
Blocks diarrhea
Improves lung capacity
Cushions joints
Apricots
Combats cancer
Controls blood pressure
Saves your eyesight
Shields against Alzheimer's
Slows aging process
Artichokes
Aids digestion
Lowers cholesterol
Protects your heart
Stabilizes blood sugar
Guards against liver disease
Avocados
Battles diabetes
Lowers cholesterol
Helps stops strokes
Controls blood pressure
Smoothes skin
Bananas
Protects your heart
Quiets a cough
Strengthens bones
Controls blood pressure
Blocks diarrhea
Beans
Prevents constipation
Helps hemorrhoids
Lowers cholesterol
Combats cancer
Stabilizes blood sugar
Beets
Controls blood pressure
Combats cancer
Strengthens bones
Protects your heart
Aids weight loss
Blueberries
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Stabilizes blood sugar
Boosts memory
Prevents constipation
Broccoli
Strengthens bones
Saves eyesight
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Controls blood pressure
Cabbage
Combats cancer
Prevents constipation
Promotes weight loss
Protects your heart
Helps hemorrhoids
Cantaloupe
Saves eyesight
Controls blood pressure
Lowers cholesterol
Combats cancer
Supports immune system
Carrots
Saves eyesight
Protects your heart
Prevents constipation
Combats cancer
Promotes weight loss
Cauliflower
Protects against Prostate Cancer
Combats Breast Cancer
Strengthens bones
Banishes bruises
Guards against heart disease
Cherries
Protects your heart
Combats Cancer
Ends insomnia
Slows aging process
Shields against Alzheimer's
Chestnuts
Promotes weight loss
Protects your heart
Lowers cholesterol
Combats Cancer
Controls blood pressure
Chili peppers
Aids digestion
Soothes sore throat
Clears sinuses
Combats Cancer
Boosts immune system
Figs
Promotes weight loss
Helps stops strokes
Lowers cholesterol
Combats Cancer
Controls blood pressure
Fish
Protects your heart
Boosts memory
Protects your heart
Combats Cancer
Supports immune system
Flax
Aids digestion
Battles diabetes
Protects your heart
Improves mental health
Boosts immune system
Garlic
Lowers cholesterol
Controls blood pressure
Combats cancer
Kills bacteria
Fights fungus
Grapefruit
Protects against heart attacks
Promotes Weight loss
Helps stops strokes
Combats Prostate Cancer
Lowers cholesterol
Grapes
Saves eyesight
Conquers kidney stones
Combats cancer
Enhances blood flow
Protects your heart
Green tea
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Helps stops strokes
Promotes Weight loss
Kills bacteria
Honey
Heals wounds
Aids digestion
Guards against ulcers
Increases energy
Fights allergies
Lemons
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Controls blood pressure
Smoothes skin
Stops scurvy
Limes
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Controls blood pressure
Smoothes skin
Stops scurvy
Mangoes
Combats cancer
Boosts memory
Regulates thyroid
Aids digestion
Shields against Alzheimer's
Mushrooms
Controls blood pressure
Lowers cholesterol
Kills bacteria
Combats cancer
Strengthens bones
Oats
Lowers cholesterol
Combats cancer
Battles diabetes
Prevents constipation
Smoothes skin
Olive oil
Protects your heart
Promotes Weight loss
Combats cancer
Battles diabetes
Smoothes skin
Onions
Reduce risk of heart attack
Combats cancer
Kills bacteria
Lowers cholesterol
Fights fungus
Oranges
Supports immune systems
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Straightens respiration
Peaches
Prevents constipation
Combats cancer
Helps stops strokes
Aids digestion
Helps hemorrhoids
Peanuts
Protects against heart disease
Promotes Weight loss
Combats Prostate Cancer
Lowers cholesterol
Aggravates
Diverticulitis
Pineapple
Strengthens bones
Relieves colds
Aids digestion
Dissolves warts
Blocks diarrhea
Prunes
Slows aging process
Prevents constipation
Boosts memory
Lowers cholesterol
Protects against heart disease
Rice
Protects your heart
Battles diabetes
Conquers kidney stones
Combats cancer
Helps stops strokes
Strawberries
Combats cancer
Protects your heart
Boosts memory
Calms stress
Sweet potatoes
Saves your eyesight
Lifts mood
Combats cancer
Strengthens bones
Tomatoes
Protects prostate
Combats cancer
Lowers cholesterol
Protects your heart
Walnuts
Lowers cholesterol
Combats cancer
Boosts memory
Lifts mood
Protects against heart disease
Water
Promotes Weight loss
Combats cancer
Conquers kidney stones
Smoothes skin
Watermelon
Protects prostate
Promotes Weight loss
Lowers cholesterol
Helps stops strokes
Controls blood pressure
Wheat germ
Combats Colon Cancer
Prevents constipation
Lowers cholesterol
Helps stops strokes
Improves digestion
Wheat bran
Combats Colon Cancer
Prevents constipation
Lowers cholesterol
Helps stops strokes
Improves digestion
Yogurt
Guards against ulcers
Strengthens bones
Lowers cholesterol
Supports immune systems
Aids digestion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels.
When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, "Is this a union house?"
"No, '"she replied, "I'm sorry it isn't."
"Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"
"The house gets $80 and the girls get $20,'"she answered.
Offended at such unfair dealings, the union man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded, "Why yes sir, this is a union house. We observe all union rules."
The man asked, "And, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"
"The girls get $80 and the house gets $20."
"That's more like it!" the union man said.
He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room, and pointed to a stunningly attractive green-eyed blonde. "I'd like her," he said.
"I'm sure you would, sir," said the Madam. Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and according to union rules, she's next.'"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Why the Dollar's Reign Is Near an End
For decades the dollar has served as the world's main reserve currency, but, argues Barry Eichengreen, it will soon have to share that role. Here's why—and what it will mean for international markets and companies.
By BARRY EICHENGREEN
The single most astonishing fact about foreign exchange is not the high volume of transactions, as incredible as that growth has been. Nor is it the volatility of currency rates, as wild as the markets are these days.
Instead, it's the extent to which the market remains dollar-centric.
Consider this: When a South Korean wine wholesaler wants to import Chilean cabernet, the Korean importer buys U.S. dollars, not pesos, with which to pay the Chilean exporter. Indeed, the dollar is virtually the exclusive vehicle for foreign-exchange transactions between Chile and Korea, despite the fact that less than 20% of the merchandise trade of both countries is with the U.S.
Chile and Korea are hardly an anomaly: Fully 85% of foreign-exchange transactions world-wide are trades of other currencies for dollars. What's more, what is true of foreign-exchange transactions is true of other international business. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries sets the price of oil in dollars. The dollar is the currency of denomination of half of all international debt securities. More than 60% of the foreign reserves of central banks and governments are in dollars.
The greenback, in other words, is not just America's currency. It's the world's.
But as astonishing as that is, what may be even more astonishing is this: The dollar's reign is coming to an end.
I believe that over the next 10 years, we're going to see a profound shift toward a world in which several currencies compete for dominance.
The impact of such a shift will be equally profound, with implications for, among other things, the stability of exchange rates, the stability of financial markets, the ease with which the U.S. will be able to finance budget and current-account deficits, and whether the Fed can follow a policy of benign neglect toward the dollar.
The Three Pillars
How could this be? How could the dollar's longtime most-favored-currency status be in jeopardy?
To understand the dollar's future, it's important to understand the dollar's past—why the dollar became so dominant in the first place. Let me offer three reasons.
First, its allure reflects the singular depth of markets in dollar-denominated debt securities. The sheer scale of those markets allows dealers to offer low bid-ask spreads. The availability of derivative instruments with which to hedge dollar exchange-rate risk is unsurpassed. This makes the dollar the most convenient currency in which to do business for corporations, central banks and governments alike.
Second, there is the fact that the dollar is the world's safe haven. In crises, investors instinctively flock to it, as they did following the 2008 failure of Lehman Brothers. This tendency reflects the exceptional liquidity of markets in dollar instruments, liquidity being the most precious of all commodities in a crisis. It is a product of the fact that U.S. Treasury securities, the single most important asset bought and sold by international investors, have long had a reputation for stability.
Finally, the dollar benefits from a dearth of alternatives. Other countries that have long enjoyed a reputation for stability, such as Switzerland, or that have recently acquired one, like Australia, are too small for their currencies to account for more
than a tiny fraction of international financial transactions.
What's Changing
But just because this has been true in the past doesn't guarantee that it will be true in the future. In fact, all three pillars supporting the dollar's international dominance are eroding.
First, changes in technology are undermining the dollar's monopoly. Not so long ago, there may have been room in the world for only one true international currency. Given the difficulty of comparing prices in different currencies, it made sense for exporters, importers and bond issuers all to quote their prices and invoice their transactions in dollars, if only to avoid confusing their customers.
Now, however, nearly everyone carries hand-held devices that can be used to compare prices in different currencies in real time. Just as we have learned that in a world of open networks there is room for more than one operating system for personal computers, there is room in the global economic and financial system for more than one international currency.
Second, the dollar is about to have real rivals in the international sphere for the first time in 50 years. There will soon be two viable alternatives, in the form of the euro and China's yuan.
Americans especially tend to discount the staying power of the euro, but it isn't going anywhere. Contrary to some predictions, European governments have not abandoned it. Nor will they. They will proceed with long-term deficit reduction, something about which they have shown more resolve than the U.S. And they will issue "e-bonds"—bonds backed by the full faith and credit of euro-area governments as a group—as a step in solving their crisis. This will lay the groundwork for the kind of integrated European bond market needed to create an alternative to U.S. Treasurys as a form in which to hold central-bank reserves.
China, meanwhile, is moving rapidly to internationalize the yuan, also known as the renminbi. The last year has seen a quadrupling of the share of bank deposits in Hong Kong denominated in yuan. Seventy thousand Chinese companies are now doing their cross-border settlements in yuan. Dozens of foreign companies have issued yuan-denominated "dim sum" bonds in Hong Kong. In January the Bank of China began offering yuan-deposit accounts in New York insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Allowing Chinese companies to do cross-border settlements in yuan will free them from having to undertake costly foreign-exchange transactions. They will no longer have to bear the exchange-rate risk created by the fact that their revenues are in dollars but many of their costs are in yuan. Allowing Chinese banks, for their part, to do international transactions in yuan will allow them to grab a bigger slice of the global financial pie.
Admittedly, China has a long way to go in building liquid markets and making its financial instruments attractive to international investors. But doing so is central to Beijing's economic strategy. Chinese officials have set 2020 as the deadline for transforming Shanghai into a first-class international financial center. We Westerners have underestimated China before. We should not make the same mistake again.
Finally, there is the danger that the dollar's safe-haven status will be lost. Foreign investors—private and official alike—hold dollars not simply because they are liquid but because they are secure. The U.S. government has a history of honoring its obligations, and it has always had the fiscal capacity to do so.
But now, mainly as a result of the financial crisis, federal debt is approaching 75% of U.S. gross domestic product. Trillion-dollar deficits stretch as far as the eye can see. And as the burden of debt service grows heavier, questions will be asked about whether the U.S. intends to maintain the value of its debts or might resort to inflating them away. Foreign investors will be reluctant to put all their eggs in the dollar basket. At a minimum, the dollar will have to share its safe-haven status with other currencies.
A World More Complicated
How much difference will all this make—to markets, to companies, to households, to governments?
One obvious change will be to the foreign-exchange markets. There will no longer be an automatic jump up in the value of the dollar, and corresponding decline in the value of other major currencies, when financial volatility surges. With the dollar, euro and yuan all trading in liquid markets and all seen as safe havens, there will be movement into all three of them in periods of financial distress. No one currency will rise as strongly as did the dollar following the failure of Lehman Bros. There will be no reason for the rates between them to move sharply, something that would potentially upend investors.
But the impact will extend well beyond the markets. Clearly, the change will make life more complicated for U.S. companies. Until now they have had the convenience of using the same currency—dollars—whether they are paying their workers, importing parts and components, or selling their products to foreign customers. They don't have to incur the cost of changing foreign-currency earnings into dollars. They don't have to purchase forward contracts and options to protect against financial losses due to changes in the exchange rate. This will all change in the brave new world that is coming. American companies will have to cope with some of the same exchange-rate risks and exposures as their foreign competitors.
Conversely, life will become easier for European and Chinese banks and companies, which will be able to do more of their international business in their own currencies. The same will be true of companies in other countries that do most of their business with China or Europe. It will be a considerable convenience—and competitive advantage—for them to be able to do that business in yuan or euros rather than having to go through the dollar.
U.S. Impact
In this new monetary world, moreover, the U.S. government will not be able to finance its budget deficits so cheaply, since there will no longer be as big an appetite for U.S. Treasury securities on the part of foreign central banks.
Nor will the U.S. be able to run such large trade and current-account deficits, since financing them will become more expensive. Narrowing the current-account deficit will require exporting more, which will mean making U.S. goods more competitive on foreign markets. That in turn means that the dollar will have to fall on foreign-exchange markets—helping U.S. exporters and hurting those companies that export to the U.S.
My calculations suggest that the dollar will have to fall by roughly 20%. Because the prices of imported goods will rise in the U.S., living standards will be reduced by about 1.5% of GDP—$225 billion in today's dollars. That is the equivalent to a half-year of normal economic growth. While this is not an economic disaster, Americans will definitely feel it in the wallet.
On the other hand, the next time the U.S. has a real-estate bubble, we won't have the Chinese helping us blow it.
Dr. Eichengreenis the George C. Pardee and Helen N. Pardee professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley. His new book is "Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System."
7a)Obama's 'Where's Waldo?' presidency
By Ruth Marcus
For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action - unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.
Each of these instances can be explained on its own terms, as matters of legislative strategy, geopolitical calculation or political prudence.
He didn't want to get mired in legislative details during the health-care debate for fear of repeating the Clinton administration's prescriptive, take-ours-or-leave-it approach. He doesn't want to go first on proposing entitlement reform because history teaches that this is not the best route to a deal. He didn't want to say anything too tough about Libya for fear of endangering Americans trapped there. He didn't want to weigh in on the labor battle in Wisconsin because, well, it's a swing state.
Yet the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a "Where's Waldo?" presidency: You frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape.
This tough assessment from someone who generally shares the president's ideological perspective may be hard to square with the conservative portrait of Obama as the rapacious perpetrator of a big-government agenda. If the president is being simultaneously accused of overreaching ambition and gutless fight-ducking, maybe he's doing something right.
Maybe, or else Obama has at times managed to do both simultaneously. On health care, for instance, he took on a big fight without being able to articulate a clear message or being willing to set out any but the broadest policy prescriptions. Lawmakers, not to mention the public, were left guessing about what, exactly, the administration wanted to see in the measure and where it would draw red lines.
That was not an isolated case. Where, for example, is the president on the verge of a potential government shutdown - if not this week, then a few weeks from now?
Aside from a short statement from the Office of Management and Budget threatening a presidential veto of the House version of the funding measure, the White House - much to the frustration of some congressional Democrats - has been unclear in public and private about what cuts would and would not be acceptable.
By contrast, a few weeks before the shutdown in 1995, Clinton administration aides had dispatched Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials to spread the message that cuts in education, health care and housing would harm families and children. Obama seems more the passive bystander to negotiations between the House and Senate than the chief executive leading his party.
He performs best on a stage that permits the grandest sweep. He rises to the big occasion, from his inspiring introduction to the public in his 2004 Democratic convention speech to his healing words in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings.
The president has faltered, though, when called on to translate that rhetoric to more granular levels of specificity: What change, exactly, does he want people to believe in? How, even more exactly, does he propose to get there? "Winning the future" doesn't quite do it.
My biggest beef is with the president's slipperiness on fiscal matters. Obama has said he agrees with some of his fiscal commission's recommendations and disagrees with others. Which ones does he disagree with? I asked this question the other day of Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Here's what I got: "The view espoused by some of the . . . commission that we ought to do Social Security 100 percent off of benefit cuts for sure he doesn't agree with." But of course, the plan that 11 of the commission members endorsed did nothing of the sort.
I was unfair to Goolsbee because I asked him a question he didn't have the leeway to answer. You can't blame the aide for ducking when the boss fudges.
Where's Obama? No matter how hard you look, sometimes he's impossible to find.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment