Thursday, September 16, 2010

No wonder our schools and metros our collapsing, are water full of lead, etc

 Facing 'Obligations' From Leadership, Democrat Congresswoman Leaves Voicemail for Lobbyist Cash

by Capitol Confidential

A couple weeks ago, House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton made a fundraising call to a lobbyist. The lobbyist wasn't available, so Holmes Norton left a voicemail.

We have been given a copy of that message. The audio is below.

ehn_and_pelosi

By way of background, with their prospects for November quickly deteriorating, Congressional Democrats are scrambling to assemble the financial resources they hope can stave off their electoral armageddon. Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team are putting a lot of pressure on Democrat members to pony up campaign contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the article linked above, Politico noted:

In August, Pelosi and other top leaders wrote members, saying, "We need to know your commitment is to maintaining a strong Democratic majority now" and pleading with them to call "to let us know what you are able to do and when."

The pressure is especially strong on members from "safe" districts, who need little campaign money of their own to win reelection. The catch, though, is that many of these members haven't amassed vast campaign war-chests, for the simple reason that they haven't needed them. So, they are scrambling to meet their Pelosi-imposed obligations. Holmes Norton is from one such "safe" district–the District of Columbia.

In the following voicemail recording, Holmes Norton seeks a campaign contribution from the lobbyist and even mentions that she hadn't previously asked  for a donation. Such is the pressure Speaker Pelosi has placed on the members. But, it is the content of Holmes Norton's message that is interesting. (Note: the first few seconds of the recording, where the name of the lobbyist is said by Holmes Norton, have been redacted by the source.)

Her message raises many concerns.

1. At the very beginning of the message, Holmes Norton notes that the lobbyist:

ha[s] given to other colleagues of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Beyond being a bit heavy-handed, where did she get this information? Such donations are listed in FEC reports, but it is a violation to use that information to solicit campaign donations.

2. More serious, however, is her frequent mention of her seniority and her Chairmanship of a subcommittee. She is attempting to solicit funds based on her past actions taken in her official capacity in Congress. She is implying to the lobbyist that, should he decline to donate, he will be turning down a senior member of Congress who Chairs a subcommittee highly relevant to his "sector".

3.  Worse than that, she details her role overseeing a large economic development project in the District, funded by "stimulus" funds. It would appear that either the lobbyist has an interest in this project, or the Congresswoman thinks he does, as she states she is "frankly surprised" the lobbyist hasn't given to her. Especially, she notes, because of her

long and deep work …in fact it has been by major work on the committee and subcommittee it's been essentially in your sector

"In your sector." This raises additional concerns, and we note potentially relevant laws here:

She who promises, directly or indirectly, any government contract or other government benefit (provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress) as a reward for a political contribution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 600).

She who attempts to cause anyone to make a political contribution by denying or threatening to deny any government payment or other government benefit (provided for or made possible, in whole or in part, by any Act of Congress) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor (18 U.S.C. § 601).

Then there are the House Ethics rules, according to House Ethics Manual (2008 Edition):

p. 147: "[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member … in his or her official capacity. … The Standards Committee has long advised Members … that they should always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity. … [A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access to the Member in the Member's official capacity."

p. 150: "[A] Member may not accept any contribution that is linked with an action that the Member has taken or is being asked to take. A corollary of these rules is that Members … are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals …. Members … are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations."

4. We don't know from where she made this call, but it is a relevant inquiry. It is, after all, illegal to solicit campaign funds on federal property.

As Holmes Norton repeatedly notes on the call, she is a senior member of Congress. She knows or should know all of this. First elected to Congress in 1990, she took her law degree from Yale University and clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Leon Higginbotham before working as an assistant legal director at the ACLU, law professor at NYU, Chairman of the NYC Human Rights Commission, and Chairman of the EEOC. She is a tenured law professor at Georgetown University and serves on the boards of three Fortune 500 companies.

That a Member like Holmes Norton would leave the foregoing voicemail message must be a testament to the kind of pressure Speaker Pelosi has put on her members. Indeed, she acknowledges this in the call:

As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn't, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I'm trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

Note: Beginning this morning, we made several attempts throughout the day to contact Holmes Norton's office. At least two email requests for comments were sent to the Congresswoman's Communications Director. Three phones calls and messages were also left. None of these were returned. We made clear we were on deadline, but we held the story for almost an entire day to give Holmes Norton's office a chance to respond. If we receive a response from her office, we will update the post.

Below is the full transcript of the call:

This is, uh, Eleanor Norton, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, Senior Member, a twenty year veteran and am Chair of the Sub-committee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I'm handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth's hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, fifteen other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus .

I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don't have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it's been my major work, uh, on the committee and sub-committee it's been essentially in your sector.

I am, I'm simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a sub-committee chair, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn't, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I'm trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

I'm asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, PO Box 70626, DC, 20024. I'll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

New Politically Correct Phrase?

Will "global climate disruption" replace the phrases, "global warming" and "climate change"?

Obama's Science Adviser: Don't Call it 'Global Warming'
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75296
--
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government

"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory

Oh, Tampon, Tampon, Tampon,(sp?)

RayGun Ronnie had little if nothing to do with ending the cold war.... Moral and Economic bankruptcy (cold war expense and a ten year open war in Afghanistan when the US actually backed and trained todays terrorist core) did the trick you try to assign to the Alzheimer Kid... He had a big hand (as in sole) in laundering the rags used for head wear in the nether regions of the old Mongolian Western regions. The beginning of the end for the reputation the US had for righting wrongs by doing the right thing was cashed in for expedience and cold hard CIA cash under this shining black hole of moral lapse. You are normally above the revisionist crap yet have a blind spot when speaking of Nancys' Puppet.

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, Annointed One, Annointed One, Annointed One.......
 
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, and 1984, he had a mandate from the People.  He ran on a platform of slapping anyone who even looked like a Sandanista, and I am pretty sure that he went down there personally and bitch slapped Manuel Noreiga.
 
With regard to Reagan's legacy on the foreign affairs stage.....Uhm.....He ended the Cold War.  (I'm pretty sure he slapped that nasty looking birthmark off of Gorbechov's forehead too, but I might be mistaken on this particular issue)
 
No, Reagan's foreign affairs platform remains solid.   There were a few mistakes, but in general, the United States was the, "Shining City On The Hill";  and no one dared fuck with us, including any folks that sport dirty laundry on their heads.....


 
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:48 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Cold,

"Yes!  Imagine if Reagan had listened to "conventional wisdom"."

There would have been no Iran-Contra problem, Poppies would not be so
prevalent in Afghanistan, the Nicaraguans would have several hundred
thousand more "LIVE" citizens, etc.

Reagan may have been good for the domestic policies but his legacy was
one of disaster on the foreign front. Don't think so?, ask any dead
soldier in the mid-east just who it was that trained/funded al-Queda
and originally funded Hamas and Hezbolla. His legacy lives on.

Hell of a role model there.






On Sep 15, 3:50 pm, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes!  Imagine if Reagan had listened to "conventional wisdom".
>
> This came to mind after reading your comments today:
>
> The Shining City Upon A Hill
>  On January 25, 1974
>
> http://www.originofnations.org/books,%20papers/quotes%20etc/Reagan_Th...
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith In Tampa
> To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:07
> Subject: Re: Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
>
> Hello Cold "Undaunted00"  Water!!
>
> I agree.  I do think that the Republicans have done some housecleaning, (not as much as I had hoped, but there has been some!!)  and we are back to the Reaganesque conservative libertarian policies that made not only our Party, but our Nation great, and what our Nation once again so desperately needs!  
>
> If the Republicans go back to D.C. in November with the same "spend/tax/big government" mindset that they had four and six years ago,  then I think you will see the demise of the Republican Party as we know it, and quite possibly the beginning of a new political party in the United States for the first time in over a century.
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   It pains me to say this BUT the Republican establishment has needed a good shaking up for a while now.  Should be very interesting to see how this all works out on Election Day.
>
>   CW
>   New SKYPE name:  Undaunted00
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Keith In Tampa
>   To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:02
>   Subject: Re: Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
>
>   I wouldn't count on that seat being in Democratic ("Marxist") hands come November Tom!  It's a brand new world, it's a brand new day, and Americans have had all they can enjoy of yours and President Obama's "Change".  Clearly, it wasn't "Change That Anyone Believed In";  and as O'Donnell represents, there is a sweeping sea change throughout America,  (with the exception of D.C. and personally,  I don't think anyone in D.C. should be allowed to vote).  
>
>   On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party Express, and The Democrats Score Huge Election Victory
>
>     Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will remain in Democratic hands come November.
>
>     O'Donnell Scores Huge Upset in Delaware
>     By Steve Peoples
>     Roll Call Staff
>     Sept. 14, 2010, 9:15 p.m.
>
>     Print
>     E-Mail
>     Reprints
>     Text Size
>     Latest News
>       a.. O'Donnell Scores Huge Upset in Delaware
>       b.. Murkowski Will Settle Her Campaign's Future on Friday
>       c.. NRCC Adds Boucher and McIntyre to Ad Target List
>       d.. LeMieux Expects Former Boss to Lose Senate Race to Rubio
>       e.. Senate Democrats Divided Over Warren as Possible Consumer Agency Chief
>
>     Updated: 9:38 p.m.
>
>     Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party Express shocked the Republican establishment in Washington and Delaware alike Tuesday night, winning the First State's GOP Senate primary and effectively ensuring the seat will remain in Democratic hands come November.
>
>     The Associated Press called the race just after 9 p.m. for O'Donnell, who earned 54 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for Rep. Mike Castle, with 85 percent of precincts reporting.
>
>     O'Donnell's victory almost certainly hands the general election to New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D). Republicans don't plan to spend money to contest the race with O'Donnell claiming the nomination, because they do not view her as a viable candidate who can appeal to the broader electorate.
>
>     Had he survived the primary, Castle, a former governor and longtime Congressman, would have been the frontrunner to defeat Coons.
>
>     Following a string of upsets by tea party-backed Senate candidates in Kentucky, Nevada, Colorado and Alaska, the Delaware race tested the clout of the conservative movement in the Northeast, a region where Republicans must make substantial gains to reclaim majorities in the House or Senate. And in some ways, Tuesday's contest showcased the GOP's identity crisis amid intense pressure from the right.
>
>     Democrats delighted in the defeat of another establishment-backed candidate and used Republicans' own words to demonstrate how unlikely it is that O'Donnell will be embraced by party leaders now that she is the nominee.
>
>     "Delaware Republicans chose an ultra-right wing extremist who is out of step with Delaware values. Christine O'Donnell cares more about imposing an extreme social doctrine than addressing the challenges facing working people," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said in a statement. "Even the Delaware Republican Party Chairman has said O'Donnell is 'not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware,' and 'could not be elected dog catcher.'"
>
>     The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had vigorously supported Castle, released a one-sentence statement in reaction to O'Donnell's victory.
>
>     "We congratulate Christine O'Donnell for her nomination this evening after a hard-fought primary campaign in Delaware," NRSC Executive Director Rob Jesmer said.
>
>     O'Donnell and her tea party supporters knocked Castle earlier in the week as "King RINO, the most liberal GOP member of Congress."
>
>     "We have gone all in," Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell said before polls closed Tuesday. The group is an arm of the national movement and sent a team to Delaware for about a week, organizing rallies, phone banking and spending as much as $250,000 to help O'Donnell. "We think we've done everything we can to put the spotlight on Christine," he added.
>
>     But in a state where less than 30 percent of voters are registered Republicans, the Delaware GOP waged all-out war against O'Donnell and the tea party in recent days. After repeated accusations that O'Donnell was dishonest on the campaign trail and irresponsible in her personal finances, the state party disseminated an eleventh-hour robocall Tuesday featuring former O'Donnell campaign manager Kristin Murray.
>
>     "As O'Donnell's manager, I found out she was living on campaign donations, using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt," Murray said in the recording. "She wasn't concerned about conservative causes. O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck. That's why I left and why I won't trust O'Donnell with my hard-earned tax dollars."
>
>     More:
>    http://www.rollcall.com/news/49827-1.html?ET=rollcall:e8672:80082561a...
>
>     --
>     Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>     Have a great day,
>     Tommy
>
>     --
>     Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>     For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>     * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>     * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>     * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>   --
>   Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>   For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>   * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>   * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>   * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>   --
>   Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>   For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>   * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>   * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>   * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Liberal Alert: Crime Rates Continue Decline While Gun Ownership Continues To Rise

Crime Rates Continue Decline While Gun Ownership Continues To Rise
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/crime-rates-continue-decline-while-gun-ownership-continues-to-rise
--
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government

"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson

Palin's Connections Starting To Surface

Meet Randy Scheunemann
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-libertarian-in-los-angeles/sarah-palin-s-top-advisor-outed-as-pnac-new-pearl-harbor-director

--
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government

"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson

Fwd: New Campaign: Opportunity to repeal the 1099 Tsunami

Quote of the Day: "The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority." -- Will Durant

Instead of asking, "Would you like paper or plastic?" the checkout clerk may soon ask, "Do you need our form W-9?"

A W-9 is the IRS's "Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification." Because of the new health care law . . .

If you spend as little as $55 at the local Office Shack each month, you'll exceed $600 for the year. That means you'll need to file a 1099 with the IRS for Office Shack. You'll also need to get a W-9 from Office Shack so that you can have their tax id number handy when the time comes to fill out the 1099.

It used to be that businesses only had to file 1099s for unincorporated, independent contractors (with some exceptions). But now a 1099 will be required every time a business spends more than $600 with any entity. Multiply this requirement across the entire economy and it amounts to a tsunami of hundreds of millions of additional tax form filings.

This is what happens when we let politicians pass un-read bills containing thousands of pages!

Not surprisingly, a revolt is building against this requirement, but it will be a lot easier to repeal this 1099 requirement now, before the election, when the politicians are paying more attention to public opinion, than it will be after the election. So take action now!

Please send Congress a letter asking them to repeal the 099 Tsunami. We have a NEW CAMPAIGN for this purpose.

This one is simple. There's no need to write personal comments unless you have something extra to say. The hardwired message we provide reads . . .

There's a coming 1099 tsunami. Stealth language in the 2,400-page health legislation requires millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It's a cumbersome and expensive, anti-business measure, during a time of unemployment. Please repeal this provision now!

You can send your letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System. 

Please send your letter today. There are only a few weeks left before the Election. Now is the time to get this terrible provision repealed.

And be sure to tell your friends. Here is a handy link to share with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, and other sites: http://bit.ly/9Bvx28

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".

Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".

Your subscription comes to this email address: jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com.

If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.

If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click here.

Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter or by using our "Educate the Powerful System" to send a message.



-

Powered by           PHPlist2.10.5, © tincan ltd

Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere.
Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts.
http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html

**JP** Can Pakistan Storage the Flood Water?

Can Pakistan Storage the Flood Water?
 
BY.Shoaib Habib Memon
 
The Total land area of Pakistan is approximately 310,322 square miles or 88 million hectares of land, of which approximately 20 million heaters are used for agriculture purposes.
The river system of Indus and its tributaries provides Pakistan some of the most fertile land in the Indian subcontinent.
Under the Indus Water Basin Treaty of 1960 three eastern rivers namely: Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allocated to India for its exclusive use. The Treaty gives Pakistan control over the western rivers namely: the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. India has also been allowed to develop 13,43,477 acres of irrigated cropped area on the western rivers without any restriction on the quantum of water to be utilised.
India has already developed 7,85,789, acres for which 6.75 MAF has been used. Thus, for the remaining area of 5,75,678 acres, 4.79 MAF would be required on pro rata basis.
The water availability in our rivers is highly erratic and unreliable. The highest annual water availability in the recorded history 1922 todate was 186.79 MAF (million acre feet) in the year 1959-60 as against the minimum of 95.99 MAF in the year 2001-2002.
This includes the Kabul River contribution. The Kabul River contributes a maximum of 34.24 MAF and a minimum of 12.32 MAF with an annual average of about 20.42 MAF to Indus main.
 

Although Pakistan's catastrophic floods have claimed at least 1,600 lives and made millions homeless, the problem is not that it is inundated with water. Pakistan, in reality, is a water-short nation, and its southern and western provinces are especially water-deficient. However, Pakistan gets plenty of rain during the monsoon months, but does next to nothing to store that water and make it available for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses.

While the Punjab is well served by three large rivers—the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenub—the entire western part of Pakistan, including Balochistan, depends on snowmelt and rainfall. Sindh gets very little water, since the bulk of the Indus water is used, or evaporated, by the time it arrives in Sindh.

While Pakistan has dozens of projects in the planning stage, very little money has been allocated for water management. Moreover, the lack of political will has left these projects sitting on the drawing board. In addition, the British-inflicted ethnic rivalry, which dominates socioeconomic discussions in Pakistan, and prevents integrated nationwide projects from taking shape, is also a major impediment. For instance, the Kalabagh Dam, designed in 1984, never saw the light of theis still not built. day. The dam, to be located at the junction of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab on the Indus, would store water inside Punjab. The Sindhis did not allow this project to go through because they claim Sindh will be further starved of water, while the Punjabi agriculturists will benefit from the use of additional stored water.

 

According to some Pakistani engineers, the Kalabagh Dam, even it had been constructed, would have done little to hold these all-immersing floodwaters, and probably would have caused more misery by flooding the main Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa city, Peshawar, and beyond.

It is in this context that we need to review the existing water storage capacity alongside the efficiency of national drainage system; and create enhancements in storage capacity as well as optimize drainage efficiency to avoid recurrences of this nature.

There is a need to ascertain the existing water storage capacity and quantum of surplus water that has flown into the sea during current flooding; identify the shortfall and determine the requirement for enhancements through up-gradations of existing reservoirs and construction of new ones.

 

Moreover, we also need to focus on capacity shortfall of existing drainage system and undertake appropriate enhancement measures. Furthermore, there is a need to formulate a composite strategy of enmeshing drainage and storage through interlinking the two for achieving an efficient storage/drainage combine through water regulation.

If water storage capacity is enhanced, the surplus water could be stored for usage during remaining period of the year. Keeping in view the sensitivities of the provinces with regard to water management issues, it is proposed that in addition to national level strategic storages, the provinces be encouraged to develop their own water storage infrastructures. Provinces should have exclusive rights of usage over their stored water.

 

Writer belong to Thatta Shoaibhmemon@yahoo.com Cell.0314 2090252

 


Wonder if anyone will ask Sarah Palin for a comment on this court case - Frank Murkowski's aide trying to get a case dismissed

e
    I think that was the election where she beat Murkowski to become governor on the basis that Murkowski was crooked - and now his daughter just lost her re-election bid in the primaries in Alaska.


ww.adn.com/2010/09/15/1456482/former-governors-aide-wants-corruption.html

**JP** Affectees are returning to their homes Now.

Dear Friends,
 
A group of 135 flood victims left for their homes in Jacobabad and Shikarpur from their temporary abode, a relief camp established in Government Boys Secondary School, Street Number Nine, Cattle Colony, Bin Qasim Town . The group that availed shelter for more than a month, comprised 60 children, 40 men and 35 women. These families pertained to a single family. They were provided one month's food items, clothes besides other essential household items, prior to their departure for their homes.  another group of people from flood affected areas will leaving Now..
 
Around 80 % flood affected people who were displaced have returned to their homes in Punjab and 40 % in Sajawal (Sindh). , troops of Pakistan Army have been working in relief operations to the flood affected areas in different parts of the country. Army in collaboration with civil administration has been using 15 De-watering pumps to drain out flood water from Dera Allah Yar, Gandakha and surrounding areas in Balochistan. The Turkish Red Crescent with help of Army is constructing 70 houses per day at Pir Sabab, Akora Khattak while 29,636 affected people are staying in relief camps in Southern Punjab. Army Engineers have plugged the breaches on Budh - Kot Addu, Taunsa Barrage and Tori Bund and are working on Badin - Sajawal and Jati - Chuhar Jamali road. Till date 2042 and 16750 flood affected people are living in relief camps at Bahawalpur and Balochistan respectively.
 
Regards
 
Shoaib Habib Memon
Cell.0314 2090252

**JP** Pakistan crises -floods in the country have destroyed crop-Rabi Season 2010-11

Dear Friends,


Eighty percent flood affected people have gone back to their homes in southern Punjab and forty percent in Sajawal, Sindh. The army in collaboration with civil administration is using 15 de-watering pumps to drain out flood water from Dera Allah Yar Khan, Gandakha and surrounding areas in Balochistan. Turkish Red Crescent with the help of army is constructing 70 houses per day at Pir Sabab and Akora Khattak. Only 29,636 affected people are staying in relief camps in southern Punjab. Army engineers have plugged the breaches on Budh-Kot Addu, Taunsa barrage and Tori bund. Army engineers are working on the road Badin - Sajawal and Jati - Chuhar Jamali. 2042 and 16750 flood affected people are living in relief camps at Bahawalpur and Balochistan respectively.

 

Rabi Season 2010-11

 

The government is likely to set wheat production target as 25 million tonnes for (October to March) Rabi Season 2010-11, .

Last year, the government also set wheat production target of 25 million tonnes but actually achieved 23.87 million tonnes wheat production over 9.042 million hectares sowing areas.

The officials claimed that 25 million tonnes wheat production would be achieved over 9.045 million hectares sowing areas in Rabbi Season 2010-11. The wheat crop, 2009-10 targets were fixed in line with Task Force on Food Security recommendation (4% per annum growth in wheat production) the target for 2010-11 crop are being proposed as of last year keeping in view that the last year targets (25 m/t) were not achieved and the flood 2010 situation in the country.

The government is likely to set production target for Punjab as 19.205 million tonnes over 6.836 million hectares sowing areas, Sindh 3.682 million tonnes over 1.031 million hectares sowing areas, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) 1.210 million tonnes over 0.769 million hectares and Balochistan 0.903 million tonnes over 0.409 million hectares sowing areas, the sources maintained.

As the flood badly damaged agriculture land across the country, the government is considering various proposals to provide more incentives to wheat growers during the season. Special attention would be given to the precision land leveling and water management programmes and provision of wheat production technologies by provincial/federal agriculture research organisations. The 25 million tonne wheat production target would be achieved through dissemination of production technologies through provincial agricultural extension services.

Special arrangement has been made for availability of quality certified seed, timely availability and supply of fertilizers, increase use of fertilizers, and arrangements would be made for increased loan facilities. It is also expected that the government will maintain wheat support price at Rs 950 per 40 kg for next Rabi Season, the sources maintained.

Last year the government fixed wheat procurement target of 7.5 million tonnes but till end of August 2010, the government procured 6.714 million tonnes. Punjab procured 3.721 million tonnes against total target of 4 million tonnes. For Sindh, the government set procurement target of 1.5 million tonnes and procured 1.496 million tonnes. For Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the target was 0.3 million tonnes for the current season and procured the whole quantity. For Balochistan, the target was 100,000 tonnes, and so far 68357 tonnes have been procured.

Whereas, for Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Limited (PASSCO), the total wheat procurement target was 1.6 million tonnes and till August 2010 it procured 1.127 million tonnes.

 

While observing a major sugar crisis in the country, Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) has urged the federal government to import 0.5 million tons of raw sugar to meet the domestic needs, besides removing 25 percent Regulatory Duty on the commodity, it has been learnt.


  PSMA had written a letter to the Ministry of Industries and Production, asking them to import 0.5 million tons of sugar instead of refined commodity on an urgent basis, otherwise the sugar crisis could deepen in the coming weeks, as prices could further go up. Meanwhile, they also demanded of the government to remove 25 percent duty on the commodity, so that dealers could import sugar. 
flash floods had also affected the sugarcane crop and according to the unofficial statistics, floods in the country have destroyed 10 percent crop.


"Yes, we have written a letter to the Ministry of Industries and Production regarding importation of sugar immediately," said Iskandar Khan while talking to TheNation when contacted. He said that the country could save $100 million if it imports raw sugar against the refined one, as it proves cheaper.
He further said that from last three years, he has been asking the government to import raw sugar, however, every time, they had turned down this suggestion, he added. On a query, Khan said, sugar millers are not involved in the soaring price of commodity, as it is just a baseless statement of the government that we are responsible for the crisis, he said.


It is worth mentioning here that the sugar prices went up to Rs 90 per kg in the country. Meanwhile, the centre had asked the provincial governments to take action against profiteers and hoarders of sugar, as they are behind the sky rocketing prices of the commodity. Officials of the Ministry are of the view that the country had sufficient sugar stock, and there is no shortage of it. While on the other hand, PSMA believed that there is shortage of commodity as sugar millers are left with 3000-4000 tons of commodity, therefore, the govt should import it well at time.

 

Regards

 

Shoaib Habib Memon

Thatta Sindh pk

Cell.0314 2090252


Pics and toons 9/15/10 (7)







 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 9/15/10 (6)







 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Old Statism, New Statism


Old Statism, New Statism
September 10, 2010
by Jeffrey Tucker

The old statism (Progressivism, New Dealism, Stalinism) was all about forcing material progress on people even when the economic structures and people make them work were not prepared for it. So we had these huge dams made to force electrification in the U.S. and Russia. Wires had to be stretched all over rural areas so they could be modernized. We had interstate highways built. Everyone had to be industrialized and abandon the old agricultural ways. We did the whole space thing.

It was all about progress, progress, progress, onward and upward into a future of blissful embrace of all great things. Government would give us civilization in replacement for the backwardness of the settled ways of the population and the too-slow process of market exchange. It was hello yellow-brick road, courtesy of the central planning elite. That was the idea anyway.

Today everything has changed. The ethos of statism today is that the market moves too fast, wastes too much, gives us too much luxury and progress, exalts materialism over quiet reflection and pastoral scenes of organic beauty. Capitalism has wickedly taken us away from our roots and ties with Mother Nature and made us all too dependent on artificial realities constructed by machines, chemicals, and digits. Statism in our times is all about forcing change in the other direction: goodbye yellow-brick road.

In other words, government used to promise to force civilization on us; now it promises to force de-civilization on us. Examples that pop readily to mind include recycling (blech on sorting through garbage), tricks for conserving water like reduced water pressure and shower-head water restraints, low-flush toilets, less frequent trash pickups, the imposition of lukewarm water on our homes, the push for bicycling and punishment for individual drivers, the attack on toilet paper, taxes on gas and punitive regulations on coal and industry, the subsidies for wind and solar power, electric cars, you name it: public policy is all about reducing our standard of living for our own good.

And so the state can add another victory it its campaign to take away great things in our life: the last GE factory that makes incandescent light bulbs is shutting down. The government has banned them, all in the interest of improving our spiritual attachments to saving mother earth and putting an end to the sin of wanting warm and pretty light in our rooms. I guess we should all start investing in candles.

http://blog.mises.org/13857/old-statism-new-statism/

Re: Carl Paladino, NY Gov GOP Candidate, on CNN, says he opposes gay marriage and abortion

Tommy,

Are you endorsing Mr. Paladino?

Good for you.

On 9/15/2010 5:37 PM, Tommy News wrote:

Paladino, on CNN, says he opposes gay marriage and abortion

September
15

Buffalo businessman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino was quizzed on CNN this afternoon by host Rick Sanchez on the Park51 project, gay marriage and abortion.

It was his first national interview since winning the Republican primary against former Rep. Rick Lazio.

Paladino said he opposes gay marriage, but is in favor of civil unions.

"It's fine, I think if the definition of unions is what we have right now I'm fine with that, I have no anxiety" he said.

Sanchez asked him about his position on abortion, which Paladino said he opposes in all cases.

Sanchez: What is your position on abortion?

Paladino: No.

Sanchez: Should a woman have a right to an abortion if she's been raped?

Paladino: No.

Sanchez: She should not? She should have to have the baby?

Paladino: The baby can be adopted.

Sanchez: What if it's a case of incest?

Paladino: The baby can be adopted, yes.

Sanchez spent the majority of the interview, which ran in two segments, on Paladino's stance on the Muslim community center being built near the site of the World Trade Center. Paladino opposes the project and said he would seek to turn the area into a war memorial. Sanchez grilled him on his opposition, which Paladino appeared to bristle at.

"You believe in the political correctness of those views, I don't," he said.

More:
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2010/09/15/paladino-on-cnn-says-he-opposes-gay-marriage-and-abortion/

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Before digital, there was mechanical. View and purchase fascinating mechanical
antique pocket watches and vintage wrist watches. Visit Bogoff Antiques today.
http://www.bogoff.com

--
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government

"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Carl Paladino, NY Gov GOP Candidate, on CNN, says he opposes gay marriage and abortion

Nothing new there.   He said that long ago as soon as he started running.  Is that a news flash for you?

On 09/15/2010 08:37 PM, Tommy News wrote:

Paladino, on CNN, says he opposes gay marriage and abortion

September
15

Buffalo businessman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino was quizzed on CNN this afternoon by host Rick Sanchez on the Park51 project, gay marriage and abortion.

It was his first national interview since winning the Republican primary against former Rep. Rick Lazio.

Paladino said he opposes gay marriage, but is in favor of civil unions.

"It's fine, I think if the definition of unions is what we have right now I'm fine with that, I have no anxiety" he said.

Sanchez asked him about his position on abortion, which Paladino said he opposes in all cases.

Sanchez: What is your position on abortion?

Paladino: No.

Sanchez: Should a woman have a right to an abortion if she's been raped?

Paladino: No.

Sanchez: She should not? She should have to have the baby?

Paladino: The baby can be adopted.

Sanchez: What if it's a case of incest?

Paladino: The baby can be adopted, yes.

Sanchez spent the majority of the interview, which ran in two segments, on Paladino's stance on the Muslim community center being built near the site of the World Trade Center. Paladino opposes the project and said he would seek to turn the area into a war memorial. Sanchez grilled him on his opposition, which Paladino appeared to bristle at.

"You believe in the political correctness of those views, I don't," he said.

More:
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2010/09/15/paladino-on-cnn-says-he-opposes-gay-marriage-and-abortion/

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Patriotism as a Threat to Capitalism

Patriotism as a Threat to Capitalism
Monday, September 13, 2010
by Kel Kelly


[From The Case for Legalizing Capitalism]

Having learned that the government acts in ways detrimental to its citizens economically, and by causing wars, we should ask exactly why we support our politicians, why we support most of our military operations, and why we support our very national identity. In short, we should ask ourselves why we are patriotic.

What is patriotism? What exactly are we supporting when we are patriotic? If the answer is "our country," does that mean a geographical region that our government has artificially and arbitrarily identified as its own? If so, does our patriotism change when the boundaries change? Should we not have been patriotic toward the southwestern states before we stole them from Mexico? Should the residents there have been patriotic toward the United States once they were forced to be citizens? Should the citizens of the various countries of the Soviet republic have been patriotic to the USSR after they were forced at gunpoint to be countrymen? Should the citizens of Czechoslovakia ­ who were forced together by Woodrow Wilson ­ have been patriotic toward the Czech republic or to Slovakia after the nation split up? Geographical borders are only imaginary, temporary, lines.

Is patriotism instead the act of being loyal to the land itself, specifically the land upon which one grew up? If so, should someone who grows up in Nevada but moves to Connecticut for their career be patriotic toward Nevada or Connecticut? One might reply that the answer is both, because one lived in and identified with both regions.

If that's the case, what if one grew up in the United States, but had a career overseas in South Korea teaching school or working for a multinational corporation? Is it bad if such a person is also patriotic toward South Korea? What if I have lived in France and learned to love the people and the land and actually prefer France to the United States? To whom should I be patriotic, to France or to the United States? Am I unpatriotic to favor France?

If so, were our forefathers unpatriotic to want independence from their native Britain and make America their new home? We Americans don't seem to think so now. But if the Latinos of Miami wanted to make Miami their own new Cuba by seceding, or if the southwestern states wanted to secede from the nation as a separate country or once again become part of Mexico, we would call them traitors.

Or is patriotism based on a connection to the people of a nation, to our fellow citizens? If so, should I be loyal to Americans because they are my compatriots? Why should I? It is my very patriotic neighbors who democratically vote to take my property and give it to someone else against my will. It is my neighbors who vote for regulation and government intervention that makes my life worse. It is my fellow citizens who vote for politicians that create wars and send millions of their own citizens to die.

Naturally, our government leaders call stealing from our neighbors patriotic. In 2008, Joe Biden said, "it's time [for the rich] to be patriotic … time to jump in … time to be part of the deal … time to get America out of the rut." Many people in fact do believe that the rich need to pitch in and help us innocent workers who are in this rut ­ a rut created by Biden and other government officials by their policies of printing money, spending more than they can steal from citizens, and in many other ways destroying our wealth and bringing on economic crises. It is a rut that was created because we voted yet again for the same bad policies of the last 100 years.

Biden implicitly says the wealthy are using too much of their money to provide us with goods and jobs. They should instead turn their assets into cash and give it to us to consume. Thus, according to Biden, it's unpatriotic to provide the things that improve our lives. Conversely, it's patriotic to squander all our wealth.

If this is patriotism, we should all be anti-American. Most Americans support these terrible ideas and support terrible politicians like Biden who cause this harm. The same applies to politicians and citizens in every country. Why should one be loyal to such people?

The people of Argentina ­ and other Latin American countries ­ face massive economic crises caused by their thieving politicians every decade, crises that involve hyperinflation that wipes out their life's savings, creates banking crises, mass unemployment, massive national debt, and general suffering. They have endured human-rights abuses, political persecution, subservient judiciaries, lack of accountability, widespread corruption, virulent demagoguery, social upheaval, and the absence of individual economic rights for centuries. Yet Argentineans are incredibly patriotic and proud of their nation.

Citizens of Mexico and Cuba risk life and limb to escape to the United States in order to find work and survival, because their fellow citizens and government offer them few opportunities at home for prosperity. Yet both of these peoples proudly display their native flags while in exile.

Citizens of Germany and Austria have been led into war over and over with millions of fathers and brothers killed, yet they are historically always patriotic and ready for the next war (though since World War II they have been largely antiwar). Why should any of these people be patriotic? Exactly what are they supporting by being devoted to their country?

Patriotism is an abstract notion with no real substance. It means nothing; it's just a façade, a fake, imaginary glue that keeps a people naively devoted to causes, countries, governments, and neighbors who usually bring them harm (the phrase "come together" is similarly ambiguous and empty). National borders mean nothing. They would not exist without government force, and they are usually laid out for reasons of politics and power, not in accordance with the religions, identities, culture, or preferences of individuals.

Time and again, decade after decade, borders change. The people on each side of a new border are supposed to be loyal to people within their new border, and to the new government forced upon them. They often resist and want their previous identities back. It is for this reason, and for reasons of freedom and self-rule, that regions such as Chechnya, Georgia, Palestine, Quebec, Northern Tibet, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, and Kosovo, among many others, often fight for independence. More often than not, those who fight for freedom (and for socialism, incidentally) are called freedom fighters, but they are labeled terrorists by those who oppose their separation.

In today's America, patriotism, effectively, is the act of aggressing upon other nations; it is the act of stealing from our fellow man in the name of furthering our prosperity, while in fact destroying our prosperity. It is under the name of patriotism and supposed freedom that it is justifiable for the United States to attack citizens of any country, including its own.

Patriotism is usually the cause of many of our problems, not the solution to them. And as time passes, we become more obsessed with it. Now, a government official, or even football players and referees, cannot appear in public without an American flag on their lapel or jersey. Soon, it will be required that each of our cars have the red-white-and-blue ribbon plastered on it (for the few left that don't already) ­ and such things have certainly happened in this country previously. We must all show that we are, as Biden said, "part of the deal." It is reminiscent of Nazism, where all citizens swore allegiance to their ruler and proudly saluted and waved the Nazi flag in the name of nationalism; they lived and died for the glorious fatherland. We are only several steps behind them.

The right-wing radio hosts further this cause by obsessing about why we need to protect ourselves from aggressors and terrorists and fight for our freedom. In truth, there would be little to no protection needed if we would just leave the rest of the world alone. And not only do Republicans not offer us freedom through the economic and social policies they propose, but they cause us to lose freedom at rapid rates during the wars they sucker us into.

The patriotism charade is now at the point that these talk show hosts tell each caller (that they agree with) that they "are great Americans," and each caller, in return, tells the host that he, too, "is a great American." One wonders how they don't feel just a bit silly with such melodramatic antics.

And when all of "our boys," our "heroes," are at war, willingly taking money to go and kill other people around the world, many of us blindly "support our troops." It does not matter whether our troops are actually helping or harming us, or saving people or destroying them: because they are American troops, we should support them … just as the German people blindly supported their Nazi troops simply because they were German.

Patriotism leads people in each country to think that their country is superior to others, and that their country must survive and prosper at all costs ­ even if it means death to people in other countries. Patriotism breeds an "us-versus-them" attitude. Without the notion of patriotism and national borders, people would live wherever and however they prefer, practice the religions they want, marry whomever they desire, and produce, exchange, and prosper in whatever way they see fit. (There does need to be, and there would be, a governing body, just not a single one with monopoly powers of enforcement and control.) We would not see ourselves so much as members of particular groups (nationalities), but as various people of the world. And yet we are forced by law to "celebrate" diversity in our government-controlled world.

In absence of government borders, people would more easily mix and mingle in the world and not look at each other as "those other people" but instead naturally look at them as their neighbors. Those who wanted to be racist or simply to keep to their own kind would be able to do that, too, on as much property as they could peacefully acquire through exchange.

People could quickly rush to judge me as unthankful. They could say that I should be grateful that my country has permitted me the level of freedom that it has, which is in fact far in excess of most countries, even if it diminishes by the month. Indeed, I am grateful to be lucky enough to live in a place that offers relative freedom. But this is not a reason to be loyal. If it were, we could also argue that a wife who gets beaten up periodically by her husband who threatens to bring much greater harm to her if she tries to leave him, but is otherwise treated well and quasi lovingly by him, should also be loyal to him. She should in this case be thankful that he allows her a relatively normal life, even if he threatens to use force against her and periodically does.

This thinking is wrong. No one should be loyal and patriotic to someone who allows them to be mostly free but still treats them unfairly. Freedom from harm and coercion should be a natural right, not something granted by those good enough not to kill us or keep us as slaves. This is why, for example, it is still illegal and unacceptable to forcefully hold women against their will or to strike a fellow man as an initiating aggressive act. Aggression is aggression, even in a free society.


The Ills of Democracy and Political Parties

Political parties in every country have their shticks, and each one usually entails some form of socialism. In the United States, the Republicans' agenda consists of imposing their hypocritical and extreme religious beliefs on our country and causing wars, killing, and setting up dictators in other countries. The Democrats' agenda involves deliberately trying to destroy our means of increasing our standards of living, and trying to equalize everyone by dragging us all down to the lowest economic common denominator. These issues are the things each party merely focuses on; but, in fact, both parties promote most of the same policies. Both of these groups, along with every other form of government, engage in the use of force to make people live and act differently from what they would otherwise choose, and to make them hand over much of their personal property once it's been fairly earned.

Regardless of the fact that Republicans (and Democrats to a lesser degree) claim to be about free markets and capitalism, they are not. Republicans are socialist and totalitarian just like the Democrats. Individuals fervently support their respective Republican and Democratic parties, and see the other party, which they detest, as supporting reprehensible views. In the bigger picture, Republicans and Democrats are virtually side by side on the political spectrum that runs from communism (full socialism) on one side, to free-market capitalism (complete freedom) on the other. Both parties, for example, recently had their respective plans for government bailouts, and for nationalizing our healthcare system.

Our society is always proud to support "democracy" as though it automatically equates to freedom. But freedom is not necessarily related to democracy and may or may not coincide with it. A dictator, such as Pinochet in Chile, can create largely free markets, and a democracy can create near or complete totalitarianism, as was the case with the democratic election of Adolf Hitler and more recently with that of Hugo Chavez. Democracy can really be reduced simply to a method of voting, one that allows the expropriation of the property of others ­ "the tyranny of the majority."

Though it is socialists of one stripe or another, be they fascists, dictators, communists, or Democrats who have begun every war in the last century, killing hundreds of millions, who have strictly and often violently controlled and directed individuals in their respective countries, and who have caused starvation, unemployment, and suffering of millions for decades, it is socialism that most people in the world cling to as something that will help them. Mild socialists (your average Democrat or environmentalist), curiously, think that extreme socialists (communists) are bad, even though communism is just an advanced state of the policies socialists adamantly support.

After World War II, our economists and government officials were impressed with the socialist system that destroyed Germany's economy, and they wanted to replicate it for the economy of the new West Germany. Thankfully, West German leaders, aware of this, and aware of the destruction that Nazi economic policies had caused, through twists and turns, set up a system of relatively free markets that brought dramatic economic growth for the next 30 years (overcoming the negative effects of the Marshall Plan[1]).

People support the evil of socialism because, ironically, they fear that individual companies ­ which have rarely, if ever, had anyone killed, and which, absent government regulation, have never taken anything forcefully from anyone, and could not only not bring harm, but provide improvements for our lives ­ can somehow hurt them. All because they don't understand what capitalism is and how it works.


The Patriotism of Politicians

While politicians claim to be patriotic and to do what's best for America, they do the opposite. How could they know what would truly help or hurt American citizens? Have they spent years studying economic cause and effect? Have they learned production techniques that could result in greater output? Have they read numerous books on organizational behavior, so that they can "plan" the economy? Of course not!

They have spent their days kissing babies, polling to find out what voters want, learning to be actors, and making emotional, passionate speeches that appeal to the masses who will be suckered into such antics. In short, politicians are equivalent to game-show hosts. If they were really patriotic, they would spend their time figuring out how truly to help people, instead of simply figuring out how to win votes.

We naively believe politicians are there to "lead us." We believe that the president, in "running the country," has the toughest job on earth. This is partly because people who do not understand economics believe that a country cannot "run" on its own. But it can.

It is the individual people and businesses that progress our lives. The president does not get up in the morning and turn on the factory lights or start the machines. He does not determine how much should be produced that day. He does not decide who should work where. Individuals, capital, and market prices run the country.

President Obama is not "leading" us through this crisis ­ he's simply manipulating the economy further than it was already manipulated. Had he not done so, the market (i.e., individuals) could have already fixed itself.

We have seen that the government's planning does not help an economy. We have seen that regulation does not protect citizens from companies, and that military actions do not protect citizens from foreign aggressors (except in special circumstances). Of course, some of the actions the president engages in involve setting or adjusting laws pertaining to protecting our legal rights and our legal property. But most of his actions involve just the opposite ­ taking our property or preventing our free-will choices.

For example, there are laws that prevent gangs from barging into our homes and kicking us out of them; but, at the same time, there are many more laws linked to how our homes will be taken from us by the government if we fail to pay one of the myriad taxes forced upon us ­ taxes that legally allow our property, our paychecks, to be given to others, including these very gangs, via wealth redistribution.

The same type of "work on behalf of the people" is done by all members of Congress and the Senate, and to a lesser degree by state and local government. The country would get along quite fine in any given year if Congress and the president ignored all of the "work" it would otherwise do, except for focusing on the 1 percent or so of the decisions that involve truly protecting citizens and providing basic services that we want and need. Most of the other 99 percent of their work involves imposing implied or actual government force for the purpose of benefiting one group at the expense of another. The government is simply an institution ­ an instrument ­ that is used to bring about these iniquitous actions.

Politicians' "work" involves doing what is needed to please their constituents. Their constituents, in turn, usually want government subsidies, regulation, wealth transfers, or some other government force imposed, so that they can benefit from the suppression of others when they otherwise could not.

Almost everything we see government doing today consists of this: bankers, car companies, airlines, and steel companies are subsidized at the expense of taxpayers so that they don't have to go out of business; workers are protected from having to receive market wages; poor workers are protected with a minimum wage; companies are regulated so that they don't harm consumers; government forces the negation of contracts such that borrowers can benefit at the expense of lenders; inflation is generated so that more money can be taken from taxpayers and given to others; environmental legislation is imposed in order to let environmentalists "protect our environment" at the expense of the rest of us; one industry is prevented from producing a particular product so that another industry's profits will not be affected. The list literally goes on and on for tens of thousands of pages (in the national register).

Though all of these actions are detrimental to society, politicians don't care. What they care about is getting votes. They care about getting re-elected. They will therefore do what appears to help voters, even though their actions usually harm voters. The long-term health of the country is not in their interest; the short-term success of their career is. They do not know exactly what would help or what would harm, but they need not be concerned with such immaterial matters.

This is why it is so vitally important for voters themselves to understand what helps and harms them. If voters would demand of politicians the things that would truly benefit them, politicians would give it to them, for they will pass or not pass whatever laws will get them votes.

If people demanded that government quit printing money, quit regulating businesses, quit taxing, and stopped stealing from the rich, the government would cease these operations. Then, all members of society would see a dramatic increase in their standards of living, with jobs available to everyone and prices falling by the day.

But there is a catch: those of us who earn less than the average ­ those who are net beneficiaries of wealth redistribution ­ would have to clearly understand how they would benefit from refusing to vote for free money. They would have to understand that, instead of having money handed to them, they would instead earn money in the form of a salary. But this change in structure would result in significantly increased wealth for this group. This issue is likely the biggest challenge free markets face, for it is very difficult to convince someone that if they refuse free money they will be better off.



Kel Kelly has spent over 13 years as a Wall Street trader, a corporate finance analyst, and a research director for a Fortune 500 management consulting firm. Results of his financial analyses have been presented on CNBC Europe, and the online editions of CNN, Forbes, BusinessWeek, and the Wall Street Journal. Kel holds a degree in economics from the University of Tennessee, an MBA from the University of Hartford, and an MS in economics from Florida State University. He lives in Atlanta.


This article is excerpted from chapter seven of Kel Kelly, The Case for Legalizing Capitalism.



Notes

[1] To understand the myth of the Marshall Plan, see Jeffrey Tucker, "The Marshall Plan Myth."

http://mises.org/daily/4664