Archive for Radicals and Others
01.05.10
Posted in Radicals and Others at 3:30 am by admin
Emergency Housing Consortium and Barefoot Coffee Roasters partner to deliver sustainable support to end homelessness and build lives
SAN JOSE, CA July 1, 2004 — Grinding homelessness to a halt is the aim of new partnership between Emergency Housing Consortium (EHC) and Barefoot Coffee Roasters. Through its “Cause and Effect” program, Barefoot Coffee Roasters will raise awareness and provide sustainable support for EHC’s programs serving homeless adults, families, and youth.
For every pound of Casa Segura sold at retail, Barefoot Coffee Roasters will donate $1 to EHC. In addition to retail sales, EHC will receive $0.50 for each pound sold to wholesale customers. Casa Segura will debut at Day on the Meadow and the San Jose America Festival, two July 4th weekend events that also benefit Emergency Housing Consortium.
“We are very excited about our new partnership with Barefoot Coffee Roasters,” says Barry Del Buono, EHC’s President and CEO. “For EHC, this support is more than dollars in the door. Casa Segura will help to raise awareness about EHC’s work and the issue of homelessness.”
Casa Segura is a new blend created specifically to benefit EHC by Barefoot Coffee Roasters’ CEO -Chief Espresso Officer - Andy Newbom. Casa Segura is a beautifully bright and lively coffee with rich red wine highlights and sublime floral and cacao undertones. It is a rich and heady blend of a world class Central American coffee and an intense East African coffee. The flavor is rich and buttery yet features a bright and snappy intensity. While Barefoot Coffee Roasters provides sustainable support to the global community by purchasing coffee directly from farmers, the creation of this special blend highlights the company’s commitment to bring that support to the local community.
“All businesses have an obligation to support the community both locally and globally,” says Andy Newbom, CEO of Barefoot Coffee Roasters. “Coffee and community are intertwined. We want to give back to our communities and reach out to everyone regardless of their situation. What we love about Emergency Housing Consortium is their support for the entire community, not just a select few. EHC is a model cause for our Cause and Effect program and we are extremely excited about working hard to spread awareness about their valuable services and having some small hand in grinding homelessness to a halt.”
Casa Segura is available for purchase at the July 3rd Day on the Meadow festival and the July 4th San Jose America Festival in downtown San Jose. To jump start the program, the donation an all purchases of Casa Segura made at these two events will be doubled to $2 per pound. It is also available at Barefoot Coffee Roasters located at 5237 Stevens Creek Blvd. in Santa Clara.
Restaurants, cafés or other businesses interested in providing sustainable support for the homeless or any of the other Cause and Effect charitable support programs can contact Barefoot Coffee Roasters at 408-687-3692 for more information.
Emergency Housing Consortium is a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation serving homeless and low-income individuals, families, and youth in Santa Clara County. At several locations throughout Silicon Valley, EHC offers shelter, housing and services, and assists clients in their efforts to regain independence. EHC is more than shelter. EHC rebuilds lives. For more information about EHC, please visit www.homelessness.org or call (408) 539-2100.
Barefoot Coffee Roasters is a full-service coffee and espresso bar and artisan wholesale coffee roaster located at 5237 Stevens Creek Blvd. in Santa Clara (at the corner of Lawrence Expressway near Bed, Bath and Beyond). All coffees are roasted fresh in the café by skilled artisan roasters using old-world, small batch roasting techniques to coax the best flavor out of every coffee. Barefoot Coffee Roasters actively practices and promotes sustainability in both products and practices. Over 85% of Barefoot Coffee Roasters coffees are organic, shade grown and fair traded, resulting in not only better coffee but better living and working conditions for the farmers and their children for successive generations. The café features computers for Internet access, as well as Wi-Fi Internet access, and serves high-quality coffees, teas, pastries, desserts and chocolates. Barefoot Coffees are served and enjoyed in many fine cafés and restaurants throughout the Bay Area. Barefoot Coffee Roasters is proud to be a participating member of the Specialty Coffee Association of America, the Roasters Guild and a founding member of the Barista Guild of America. For more information, please call (408) 248-4500 or simply drop by.
About the author:
.
Permalink
05.08.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 5:18 am by admin
Financial news: Dire times call for drastic measures. Hurricane Katrina; alone, dealt a major blow to our economic infrastructure, causing fuel prices to soar. It’s amazing how the oil industry raised prices to offset their additional costs of refining and transporting oil, costs which they attributed to hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. What’s so amazing, is that the oil giants just reported a large quarter of earnings. How can that be, when they claimed the loss of the refinery and pipeline in Louisiana burdened them with additional costs? As winter sets in, heating oil shortages can be anticipated, with no immediate, drastic reduction in costs.
Setting that issue aside, and giving due respect and condolences to the victims of the Gulf Coast, the upside is that we project a boom in construction. But there’s a problem. Where will the timber come from? Conservationists reject opening more timber land in the U.S., while democratic politicians rebuke importing timber. If we are to rebuild the Gulf Coast, and employ tens of thousands of people alone in that region who are currently out of work due to their businesses being destroyed, there will need to be an immediate resolution to this issue.
No one desires disasters, but at least the recent disasters occurred at a time that may bring economic revival. This Christmas shopping season may lack luster for the retail industry, but every penny gained will indeed help, and to say the tax revenue is needed is an understatement. Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi estimates a needed 63 billion in federal relief funds to rebuild Katrina’s damage to South Mississippi. Don’t forget, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida also suffered from Hurricanes and flood waters. It could be argued that shopping; versus charitable contributions, may have a greater positive impact on recovery.
But shopping also presents a problem. Now that the new bankruptcy laws are in affect, there may be trouble following the Christmas season if consumers are unable to repay debts, either because of fuel prices or loss of employment income. The key here is for consumers to shop, but not to forego their personal budgets.
U.S. resources are being stretched near the breaking point. Just as in World War II, consumers need to conserve what resources we have. Construction materials and fuel are the top two resources which require conservation.
Partly due to fuel prices, material and labor costs, U.S. automakers will continue to have difficulty with sales. While this may drive down sticker prices, there will likely be fewer consumers who can afford a new auto, particular SUVs and trucks with lower fuel mileage. Anticipate more autoworker layoffs, as well as soaring prices for steel and a possibility of steelworker layoffs.
Also expect lenders to rally for the Fed to lower interest rates. This can help improve housing starts, which we desperately need to encourage, but may present another problem with outstanding debt and lender risk.
In 2006, watch where; and with whom, you invest your money. If the Federal Government relaxes lending restrictions in an effort to boost the economy, the potential for high risk lenders to go under will increase dramatically.
For a healthy economic recovery, we will need to conserve our natural resources, but not place restrictions which would interfere with construction or our nation’s infrastructure. Consumers must carryon business as usual with a safety margin of savings to offset any rising costs. And, most importantly, as JFK said: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Article by Toni Phelps of Credit Federal, which provides consumer credit resources.
Permalink
05.06.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 4:06 pm by admin
A watchdog press, unfortunately, will often invite the government leash. To the extent that the press adopts an adversarial position vis–vis the government, it makes many government officials consider it a nuisance to their agenda. If unconstrained by the First Amendment and the courts, government officials have often turned to regulation of the media to prevent this “nuisance.” As Justice Douglas has noted, when the press does its job under the watchdog model, “the press is often engaged in projects that bring anxiety or even fear to the bureaucracies, departments, or officials of government. The whole weight of government is therefore often brought to bear against a paper or a reporter.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 722 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting). This phenomenon has been noted by commentators whose work suggests that the subjects of unwanted media attention often target the press, criticizing their investigative methods as offensive and seeking to curtail them. See Sandra F. Chance, The First Amendment In The New Millenium: How A Shifting Paradigm Threatens The First Amendment and Free Speech, 23 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 169, 179 (2000) (describing intense public criticism of the methods of investigative reporters who documented Watergate, the Civil Rights struggle, and the Vietnam War). The desire to avoid criticism and to control the discussion of one’s actions is a basic human emotion, and it just as surely exists in the military context as in the civilian government. When investigative journalism comes into conflict with national security, members of the military have advocated and might turn to measures to control information that can only be described as draconian (such as seizure of cameras and film, exclusion of the media from specific sites, and prohibition or delay of live television broadcasts). See Captain Porcher L. Taylor, III, The Installation Commander Versus an Aggressive News Media in an On-Post Terrorist Incident: Avoiding the Constitutional Collision, 1986 ARMY LAW. 19, 27-29 (1986) (analyzing a scenario involving a terrorist attack and concluding that each of the listed activities could be constitutional).
III. Issues Regarding Embedded Journalism
The rise of embedded journalism as a new method of media coverage of conflicts has generated substantial controversy about this new relationship between journalists and the government. In coverage of past conflicts, journalists have largely relied on outside, independent reporting to find out information. Joe Strupp, Newspapers Pull Reporters From Embed Slots, EDITOR & PUBLISHER, April 28, 2003. In the 2003 Iraq War, however, journalists were given an opportunity to cover the war from the front lines, traveling along with the military to gain firsthand information about the war. At its peak, there were nearly 800 journalists embedded with U.S. military units. Id. The number dwindled rapidly after major combat operations ended, but nearly 200 reporters remained with military units to cover their continuing activities. Id. Having so many journalists follow the conflict firsthand was an unprecedented change in military coverage of warfare.
The rise of embedded journalism as a new method of media coverage of conflicts has generated substantial controversy about this new relationship between journalists and the government. In coverage of past conflicts, journalists have largely relied on outside, independent reporting to find out information. Id. The embedded media program, like any change, has generated both positives and negatives for media coverage. This section will analyze the costs and benefits of shifting toward embedded journalism as a major source of information about war.
A. Benefits of the Current Approach
Embedded journalism has been credited with a number of potential benefits and lauded as a new method of journalism that will revolutionize the coverage of wartime events. Proponents claim that embedding provides accurate, frontline coverage of warfare that could not be obtained through other sources. Regardless of the criticisms leveled at embedded journalism, it is plain that it offers some important potential improvements in war coverage.
One major benefit of embedded journalism may be an increase in the safety of reporters. Of over a dozen reporters killed during fighting in the Iraq War, only two were embedded with military units. Martin Bell, Media: Say No to News on Tap, THE INDEPENDENT, Dec. 16, 2003 Five reporters were killed by American fire, and they presumably would not have risked this danger had they been embedded with American units. Id. The reduction in danger that these statistics suggest adds several benefits to any military embedding program. First, the lives of reporters are protected to a greater degree in war zones, certainly a beneficial development. While a complete separation of reporters and the military during times of war may preserve the independence of the two groups, that very independence can be dangerous when the military is unaware of what journalists are doing or unable to distinguish them from the enemy. Second, an increase in the safety of reporters may persuade more of them to enter the area and report on the conflicts. This could provide benefits to the values behind freedom of speech by increasing the number of diverse voices with access to firsthand information about the battlefield. Of course, these benefits of protection are contingent on the American military holding a decisive advantage in terms of military force in whatever conflict is being covered. Should America get involved in a war with an enemy with greater military capabilities, it would obviously be more dangerous to be paired with American soldiers than to operate independently and under the protective banner of neutrality. Frank Smyth, On Assignment: Covering Conflicts Safely, Report, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS, 2003, (noting that embedded journalists who wear the uniforms of combatants can easily be mistakenly attacked). It may thus be inappropriate to make generalizations about the safety benefits to reporters without advanced knowledge about the specific conflict in which a reporter will be embedded.
Many supporters of embedding have also pointed out that a flawed or restrictive embedded journalism program may still provide more public access to information than the prior model of indirect information filtered through military bureaucracy. During the War in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf War, information was dramatically less available then under the current embedding system because reporters could usually collect only what information the military chose to release. Howard Kurtz, Front-Line Reports Mostly Accurate, Media Group Finds, WASHINGTON POST, April 3, 2003, at A29. At least one independent analysis has shown that information reported by embedded journalists was 94 percent accurate. Id. One should keep in mind, however, that factual accuracy may be wholly irrelevant in trying to determine the existence of bias or in answering allegations that the program turns the media into a propaganda wing of the government. These are not allegations of a problem in accurately reporting facts but rather are allegations of the propriety of which facts were selected to be reported. For those who adhere to the informer model of the media, reporting the facts about the war is perfectly adequate - so long as the public is more informed than it would be absent the embedding program, the public is being served by its existence. For those who adhere to the watchdog approach, there is still the nagging question of whether accuracy alone serves the needs of the public.
Teve Torbes is a prolific author about such subjects as fleas along with his favorite thing which is an air bed. He has also created a valuable air purifier site.
Permalink
05.04.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 12:02 pm by admin
The democrat move to impeach President Arroyo is an abuse of democracy. It shows political immaturity and a dangerous shift of priorities of our Congress and Senate from real issues, like the social welfare, destruction of the environment, low funding for education, and other important and urgent matters.
Perhaps the media is partially responsible. Most news services cover the impeachment proceedings, and many have expressed their dismay at the Congress’s misuse of political power as well as at the people’s wrong use of democracy.
When Congress people and other people use their freedom of expression to turn a yet-to-prove electoral fraud into a major mess, it must be for a reason. Obviously, their motive is purported to be genuine and sincere, yet it’s pretty obvious that the party line division of the voting makes it a political power play. Once again, their greed is revealed. The untold truths cause far more damage to society and the environment. Shouldn’t the government get out of these issues and get back to working for the common people?
The impeachment movement has done tremendous and extensive damage to the productivity of the government. This is a far greater damage to the integrity of the government. The impeachment movement worsens the scenario.
Preserving the institution of the law in this case has become the shield of the greedy hoodlum government figures, when in the everyday lives of the people, it looks like a lynch mob - as shown in the television everyday, every time. When the government spends huge amounts of time, money and effort on such a trivial issue, it shows a disrespect of the common people and the real issues.
It’s just but great that the impeachment case which was filed against President Arroyo had died a natural death. This shows some development of political maturity in the country, as the president mentions. But for me, probably it is just that the people of this nation are fed-up of using democracy in the wrong context - at last, they have finally realized it.
The author is a student in a prestigious college in Manila, Philippines. He is fond of writing articles about any topic.
Permalink
Posted in Radicals and Others at 6:22 am by admin
To be justified, taxes should satisfy a few conditions:
Above all, they should encourage economic activity by providing incentives to save and to invest. Savings - transformed into investments- enhance productivity and growth of the economy as a whole.
A tax should be simple - to administer and to comply with. It should be “fair” (progressive, in professional lingo) - although no one seems to agree on what this means.
At best, it should replace other taxes, whose compliance with the above conditions is less rigorous. In this case it will, usually, lead to budget cuts and reduce the overall tax burden.
The most well known tax is the income tax. However, it fails to satisfy even one of the conditions above listed.
To start with, it is staggeringly complicated. The IRS code in the USA sprawls over more than 8,000 pages and 500 forms. This single feature makes it expensive to enforce.
Estimates are that 100 billion USD are spent annually (by both government and taxpayers) to comply with the tax, to administer it and to enforce it.
Income tax is all for consumption and against savings: it taxes income spent on consumption only once - but does so twice with income earmarked for savings (by taxing the interest on it).
Income taxes discriminate against business expenses related to the acquisition of capital assets. These cannot be deducted that same fiscal year. Rather, they have to be depreciated over an “accounting life” which is supposed to reflect the useful life of the asset. This is not the case with almost all other business expenses (labour, to name the biggest) which are deductible in full the same fiscal year expended in.
Income taxes encourage debt financing over equity financing. After all, retained earnings are taxed - while interest expenses are deductible.
We can safely say that income taxes in their current form were somewhat responsible to an increase in consumer credits and in the national debt (as manifested in the budget deficits). They also had a hand in the freefall in the saving rate in the USA (from 3.6% in the 80s to 2.1% in the 90s). And money evading the tax authorities globalised itself using means as diverse as off-shore banking and computer networking. This made taxing sophisticated, big money close to impossible.
No wonder that taxes levied on consumption rather than on income came to be regarded as an interesting alternative.
Consumption taxes are levied at the Point of Sale (POS). They are a mixed lot:
We all get in touch with Excise Taxes. These are imposed on products which are considered to be bad both for the consumer and for society. These products bring about negative externalities: smoke and lung cancer, in the case of tobacco, for instance. So, when tobacco or alcohol are thus taxed - the idea is to modify and reform our behaviour which is deemed to be damaging to society as a whole. About 7% of tax revenues in the USA come from this source - and double that in other countries.
Sales taxes have a more modest calling: to raise revenues by taxing the finished product in the retail level. Unfortunately, so many authorities have the right to impose them - that they vary greatly from one location to another. This adds to the confusion of the taxpayer (and of the retailer) and makes the tax more expensive to collect than it should have been.
Moreover, it distorts business decisions: businesses would tend to locate in places with lower sales taxes.
Sales taxes have a malignant effect on the pricing of finished goods. First, no tax credit is allowed (sales taxes paid on inputs cannot be deducted from the sales tax payable by the retailer). Secondly, the tax tends to cascade, increase the prices of goods (taxable and not, alike), affect investments in capital goods (which are not exempt). It adversely affects exports and domestic goods which compete with imports.
In short: sales taxes tend to impede growth and prevent the optimization of economic resources. Compare this with the VAT (Value Added Taxes): simple, cheap to collect, contain no implicit taxes on inputs. VAT renders the pricing structure of goods transparent. This transparency encourages economic efficiency.
VAT is used in 80 countries worldwide and in 22 out of 24 OECD countries, with the exception of the federal ones: the USA and Australia.
There are three types of VAT. They are very different from each other and the only thing common to them all is the tax base: the value added by the taxpayer.
Economic theory defines Value Added as the sum of all the wages, interest paid on capital, rents paid on property and profits. In the Addition VAT method, these four components are taxed directly. The State of Michigan in the USA uses this method since 1976. Experience shows that this method yields more predictable tax revenues and is less susceptible to business or industry cycles.
The Subtraction method, employed in Japan and a few much smaller countries, is admittedly the simplest. It taxes the difference between a taxpayer’s sales and its taxed inputs. However, it becomes very complicated when the country has a few VAT rates, because the inputs have to be separated according to the various rates.
Thus, the most widely accepted system is the Credit Invoice. Businesses become unpaid tax collectors. They are responsible to get tax receipts from their suppliers (inputs). They will be credited with the VAT amounts on the receipts that they have collected, so they have a major incentive to do so. They will periodically pay the tax authorities the difference between the VAT on their sales and the VAT on their inputs, as evidenced by the receipts that they have collected. If the difference is negative - they will receive a rebate (in certain countries, directly to their bank account).
This is a breathtakingly simple concept of tax collection, which also distributes the costs of administering the tax amongst millions of businesses. In the fiscal year (FY) 1977/8 in the UK - the tax productivity (cost per 1 dollar collected) was 2%. This means that the government paid 2 cents to collect 1 dollar. But businesses paid the remaining 10 cents.
If introduced in the USA, VAT will cost only 3 billion USD (with 30,000 tax officials employed in a separate administration). To collect 1 dollar of income tax costs 0.56% in the USA. But, to collect VAT in Norway costs 0.32%, in Belgium - 1.09% and, on average, 0.68%. In short, VAT does not cost much more than income taxes to collect.
Yet, what is true for government is not necessarily so for their subjects.
The compliance cost for a business in the USA is $49. It is $53-282 in other countries.
Small businesses suffer disproportionately more than their bigger brethren. It cost them 1.94% of VAT revenue in FY 1986/7 in the UK. Rather more than big firms (0.003%!).
Compliance costs are 40 times higher for small businesses, on average. This figure masks a larger difference in retail and basic industries (80 times more), in wholesale (60 times more) and in manufacturing and utilities (45 times more).
It was inevitable to think about exempting small business from paying VAT.
If 16 out of 24 million businesses were exempted - the costs of collecting VAT will go down by 33% - while the revenues will decline by only 3%. KPMG claims that businesses with less than $50,000 annual turnover (18 out of 24 million) exempted in the USA, revenues would have declined by 1.5%. About 70% of the tax are paid by 10% of the businesses in the UK. For 69% of the businesses there (with turnover of less than 100,000 USD annually) the costs of collection exceed 60% of the revenues. For 96% of the businesses (with less than 1 million USD a year) - the costs exceed 50%. Only in the case of 30,000 companies - are the costs less than 20%. These figures do not include compliance costs (=costs borne by businesses which comply with the tax law).
No wonder that small businesses borrow money to pay that VAT bills. Many of them - though exempt - register voluntarily, to get an endless stream of rebates. This is a major handicap for the tax system and reduces its productivity considerably. In a desperate effort to cope with this law-abiding flood, tax authorities have resorted to longer periods of reporting (instead of monthly). Some of them (in the UK, for one) allow annual VAT reports.
Part of the problem is political. There is little disagreement between economists that VAT is a tax preferable to income taxes. But this statement comes with caveats: the tax must have one rate, universally applied, without sector exemptions. This is the ideal VAT.
The world being less than ideal - and populated by politicians - VATs do not come this way. They contain many rates and exemptions for categories of goods and services.
This mutilated version is called the differentiated VAT.
An ideal VAT is economically neutral - though not equitable. This means that the tax does not affect economic decisions in ways that it shouldn’t. On the other hand, its burden is not equally distributed between the haves and have nots.
VAT taxes value added in each stage of the production process. It does so by levying a tax on goods and services - but what is really taxed are the means of production, labour and capital. Ultimately, shareholders of the taxpaying businesses pay the price - but most of them try to move it on to the consumer, which is where the inequity begins. A rich consumer will pay the same tax as his poorer counterpart - but the tax will constitute a smaller part of his income. This is the best definition yet found for regressivity.
On the face of it - and for a very long time - VAT served as a prime example of regressive, unfair taxation.
For a very long time, that is until the development and propagation of the Life Cycle Theories. The main idea in all these theories was that consumption was not based on annual, current income only. Rather, it took into consideration future flows of income (income expectations). People tended to be constant in their level of spending (in different periods in their lives) - even as their annual income vacillated. With the exception of millionaires and billionaires, people spent most of their income in their lifetime.
VAT was, therefore, a just and equal tax. If income equalled consumption in the long run, VAT was a form of income tax, levied incrementally, with every purchase. It reflected a taxpayer’s ability to pay (=to consume). It was a wealth tax. As such, it necessitated the reduction in other taxes. Taxing money spent on consumption was taxing money already taxed once (as income). This was classic double taxation - a situation which had to be remedied.
But, in any case, VAT was a proportional tax when related to a lifetime’s income - rather than a regressive tax when compared to annual income. Because consumption was a parameter more stable than income - VAT made for a more stable and predictable tax.
Still, old convictions die hard. To appease social lobbies everywhere, politicians came up with solutions which were unanimously rejected by economists.
The most prevalent was exempting a basket of “poor people’s goods” from VAT.
This gave rise to a series of intricate questions:
If food, for instance, was exempted (and it always is) - was this not a subsidy given to rich people as well? Don’t rich people eat?
Moreover, who will decide what is or isn’t food? Is caviar food? What about health food? It was obviously going to be very hard to reach social consensus.
If tax on these products were zeroed - taxes on other products would have had to go up to maintain the same revenue. And so they did. In most countries VAT is levied on less than 45% of the GDP - and is reckoned to be twice as high as it should be.
Some sought to correct this situation by subjecting services to VAT but this proved onerous and impossible to implement in certain sectors of the economy (banking and insurance, to name two).
Others suggested to dedicate VAT generated revenues to progressivity enhancing programs. But this would have entailed the imposition of additional taxes to cover the shortfall.
It is universally thought, that the best method to “compensate” the poor for their regressive plight is to directly transfer money to them from the budget or to give them vouchers (or tax credits) which they can use to get discounts in education, medical treatment, etc. These measures will, at least, not distort economic decisions. And we, the less lucky taxpayers, will know how much we are paying for - and to whom.
This is one of the budgetary items which increase with the introduction of VAT. Research shows that there is a strong correlation between the introduction of VAT and growth in government spending. Admittedly, it is difficult to tell which led to what. Still, certain groups in the population feel that it is their natural right to be compensated for every income reducing measure - by virtue of the fact that they don’t have enough of it.
But VAT is known to have some socially desirable results, as well.
To start with, VAT is a renowned fighter of the Black Economy. This illegitimate branch of economic activity consists of three elements:
- The non official sales of legal goods (produced within the tax system)
- The sales of illegal goods (which never were within the tax system)
- The consumption of money not declared or disclosed to the tax authorities VAT lays its heavy paws on all three activities.
VAT is self enforced. As we said, VAT offers a powerful (money) incentive not to collaborate in tax scams. Every tax receipt means money begotten from the tax authorities.
VAT is incremental. To completely evade paying VAT on a product would require the collaboration of dozens of businesses, suppliers and manufacturers. It is much more plausible to cheat the income tax authorities. VAT is levied on each and every phase of the production cycle - it is possible to avoid it in some of these phases, but never in all of them. VAT is an all-pervasive tax.
VAT is levied on consumption. It is indifferent to the source of the money used to pay for it. Thus, it is as easily applied to “black”, undeclared, money - as it is to completely legal funds.
Surely, there are incentives to avoid and to evade it. If the amount of inputs in a product is very low, the VAT on the sale will be very burdensome. A business non-registered with the VAT authorities will have a sizeable price advantage over his registered competitor.
With a differential VAT system, it is easy to declare the false sale of zero-rated goods or services to linked entities or to falsify the inputs, or both. Even computers (which compare the ratio of sales to inputs) cannot detect anything suspicious in such a scheme.
Yet, these are rare occurrences, easily detectable by cross examining information derived from several databases. All in all, VAT is the ultimate, inevitable tax.
Moreover, it is virtuous. By making consumption more expensive, it would tend to divert capital into investments and savings. At least, this is what our intuition tells us.
Research begs to differ. It demonstrates the resilience of consumers, who maintain their consumption levels in the face of mounting price pressures. They even reduce savings to do so. We say that their consumption is rigid, inelastic. Also, people do not save because it “pays better” to save than to consume. They don’t save because the relative return on savings is higher on savings than on consumption. They save because they are goal oriented. They want to buy something: a car, a house, higher education for their children.
When the yield increases - they will need to save less money to get to the same target in the prescribed period of time. We could say that, to some extent, savings display negative elasticity.
Markets balance themselves through a series of intricate feedback loops and “true models” of economic activity. Take an increase in savings generated by the introduction of VAT: it is bound to be short lived. Why? because the equilibrium will be restored.
Increased savings will increase the amount of capital available and reduce the yields on this capital. A reduction in yield would, in turn, reduce the savings rate.
Moreover, narrow (differentiated, non-ideal) based VATs lead to higher rates of VAT (to generate the same revenue). This reduces the incentives to work and the amount of income available for savings.
In a very thorough research, Ken Militzer found no connection between the introduction of VAT and an increase in the rate of saving in 22 OECD countries since 1965 (VAT was first introduced in France in 1954). He also found no connection between VAT and changes in corporate (profit) and income taxes.
In Europe VAT replaced various turnover taxes so its impact on anything was fairly insignificant. It had no influence on inflation, as well. VAT apparently has two conflicting influences: it raises the general price level through a one time “price shock”, on one hand. On the other hand, it contracts the economy by providing a disincentive to consume. If VAT does influence inflation - its impact will be echoed and amplified through wage indexation and the linking of transfer payments to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In this case, maybe its effects should be sterilized from the calculations of the CPI.
But research was able to demonstrate only the potentially dangerous contracting, deflationary (stagflationary, to be exact) influences of this tax. The recommendation is surprising: the Central Bank is advised to increase the money supply to accommodate the reverberations of the introduction of this tax.
Finally, VAT is a “border adjustment” tax (under the GATT and WTO charters).
This means that VAT is rebated to the exporter and imposed on the importer.
Prima facie, this should encourage exports - and equally discourage imports.
Surprisingly, this time the intuition is right - albeit for a limited period of time.
Despite a raging debate in economic literature, it seems safe to say the following:
- VAT increases the profits of exporters and producers of import substitutes.
- VAT increases the investments in the trade sector.
- VAT increases exports and decreases imports.
- These advantages are, ultimately, partially offset by the movement of exchange rates.
- If certain sectors are not taxed - investment will flow to that sector and badly affect the trade sector and the competitiveness of the country in world markets.
With its burgeoning black market, under-developed export industries, huge shortfall in tax revenues - Macedonia urgently needs VAT.
It will do well to learn from the experience of others and introduce a VAT which is as ideal as socially permissible and politically possible.
The draft law that I have seen is a copy - almost verbatim - of laws in the European Union and is riddled with exemption to various goods, services and sectors.
VAT is a good idea - but it seems to be starting on the wrong footing in Macedonia.
About The Author
Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited” and “After the Rain - How the West Lost the East”. He is a columnist in “Central Europe Review”, United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.
His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com
Permalink
05.02.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 8:55 am by admin
De-classification of official documents have been a routine practice in the United States, while just the opposite is true of Pakistan. Successive governments over the years have believed in hiding away from public eye even the most innocuous of official documents without realizing that the practice only adds to the sense of national confusion. “I will expose everybody when the time is right,” is a sentence that finds place in every politician’s armory. A case in point is that of Mohammad Khan Junejo who kept repeating the line in the context of the Ojhri disaster, but the “right time” never came in his own lifetime.
The book, The American Papers, is a selected bunch of documents de-classified by the US government in recent times, and now resting at the National Archives II at College Park in Maryland. The documents in the current volume have been drawn from State and Defense Department files, and focus on the 1965 war, the East Pakistan crisis of 1971, the breakup of Pakistan, and the first two years of Z.A. Bhutto’s rule. The documents, consisting of correspondence between the US embassy staff in Pakistan and the State Department, confidential letters to the US president, draft replies and minutes of high-profile US government policy meetings, constitute the thought of American diplomats and the US government about events taking place in the subcontinent.
The documents give the reader a taste of how foreign missions conduct their business, and the quantum of input that the US government has at its disposal before taking any decision. For instance, a Policy Appraisal airgram dated February 2, 1971, from the US embassy in Islamabad to the State Department in Washington talks of a “hypothesis” which leads to the question: “… will the country split into two independent wings, East and West?” The same document later says, “Keeping Pakistan together has now become a major political task … both parties lack seasoned leaders except Mujib and Bhutto at the top. Both parties have more experience in agitating than in governing.”
The 14-page appraisal and a few more follow-up papers based on various embassy officials’ meetings with key Pakistani figures of the time led to the National Security Study Memorandum 118, dated February 16, 1971, which was issued by the National Security Council, advising the State and Defense departments and the CIA that the “President has directed that an immediate contingency study be made of the alternative US postures towards a possible move in the East Pakistan toward secession.” This study was to be completed not later than February 26. All this, mind you, was being actively discussed when the actual event was still a good ten months away!
All this input, naturally, cannot be generated in the absence of willing and colluding local officials. For instance, the note on President Yahya Khan’s visit to China in December 1970 repeatedly quotes Tabarak Hussain, who was director-general (Socialist countries) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and had accompanied the president on the visit. The covering letter for the detailed note ends thus: “Some of Hussain’s comments to the reporting officer were made in `strict confidence’. Please protect source.”
What might give a feeling of nausea to a discerning reader are the repeated and continued assurances handed out to American officials by almost every single key Pakistani figure — political or otherwise — of continued allegiance to the might of the United States. Whatever had been the public posture of various politicians and military officers active during 1965 and 1973 — which is the relevant period in the context of this book — they were all in one voice the moment they reached backstage.
The anti-US, anti-West stance of the Pakistan People’s Party, for instance, was quite obvious during the 1970 election campaign, with Bhutto and his cohorts going out of their way to condemn Imperialism. Various notes sent by US embassy staff to Washington, however, show what was going on behind the scene, with Bhutto offering private assurances in this regard to calm down any frayed nerves his campaign may be causing. One of the notes by Ambassador Farland talks of a meeting Bhutto had with him in Peshawar where he had also brought Mustafa Khar and Hayat Sherpao, “who during political campaign was violently anti-US.” The ambassador notes: “He (Bhutto) was quite jovial in acknowledging that Sherpao had been one of my principal vilifiers, adding that Sherpao’s presence in this meeting indicated that `that chapter’ had now closed.” Not just that, “Bhutto said that he had asked them to come with him to stress the fact that these two men would serve in their respective areas as the PPP’s principal contact for `Mutual Briefings’ with US officials.”
The cynicism and disillusionment that even a quick glance through the book causes is, indeed, enormous. This is not a book for the faint-hearted. Interestingly, however, when Roedad Khan embarked upon this gigantic task, he himself had been below his usual self. Jamshed Marker has this to say in the Introduction: “The material in this book was culled by Roedad Khan during a period of enforced medical confinement following a surgical procedure in Washington, D.C. This is an unusual form of convalescence, but then all who know Roedad would know that he is an unusual man … Roedad’s assertion that his research work formed a therapeutic component of his convalescence is a value judgment which is best left to the discernment of the reader.”
The documents, naturally, have the potential to constitute source material of immense importance to research scholars, historians, diplomats, students of History and International Affairs as well as the general public. Having said that, it must be borne in mind that these documents have been selected from among a large number of papers available, and, as such, any concrete assessment of any subject that has come under discussion in the book will have to be made keeping in view the documents that have been left out for reasons of brevity or even otherwise.
While the readers must be grateful to Roedad Khan for having done what he has, the importance of the Introduction written by Jamshed Marker must not be forgotten. The 23-page write-up gives the correct context to the accompanying 985 pages of official correspondence. Those who may fall to the temptation of skipping the Introduction and heading straight for the text would do so at their own cost, for they will be making hasty and inexact conclusions.
The American Papers: Secret and Confidential India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Documents 1965-1973. Published by Oxford University Press, Karachi.
The writer is a senior Pakistani journalist, associated at present with the largest circulate English-language newspaper of the country, the daily Dawn, as its Assistant Editor. He is based in Karachi. he can be reached at Humair_IQ@hotmail.com
Permalink
04.30.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 10:43 am by admin
Richard Nixon was by far a most fascinating and colorful character in our nations history. Richard Nixon, well even his dog’s past was checkered. Richard Nixon was an excellent diplomat, negotiator and politician. Anyone who studies Machiavelli, Carl von Clauswitz, Politics and the reality of the human species has to understand what really goes on. Without praise or condemnation Richard Nixon was a man who indeed, did care very much for this country and served our nation very well in many regards. His foreign diplomacy and tough negotiations came in handy at a time when those skills were needed. And yes there was the other side of history as well. I recommend an Audio Book, which has many excerpts of his secret tapes on them to better understand the man;
“Abuse of Power-The New Nixon Tapes” By Stanley I. Kutler.
This was an incredible insight into the Nixon Administration. I am glad to have reviewed these tapes. Although I have to wonder, who the hell is running this great nation; is it really the president? Great nations need great leaders and it appears it is not a pre-requisite to have all the necessary qualities to be the leader of the free world. Nixon got some real interesting advise from a whole lot of people, who I question their judgment. Watergate was of little real importance in the scheme of running a nation. This thing went way too far and got way out of hand. Too bad really; it destroyed the image of the presidency and leads people to continually think ill of the now in office administrations. Also of value were the books by Woodward, and Biographies of Regan, Bush Sr., Ford, Clinton and Bush GW. Also the first ladies had some great insight as to what the administrations job really is. Maybe we do not need great advisors since the government machine is so large and obtrusive. Maybe we are better off having little real leadership in the white house? Maybe the Presidential Powers should be greater. I can remember my own political career and can attest to the fact that there is a lot of hanky panky going on, on all sides. Politics in America are not about who is best, most deserving or even smartest. They are about who lies the best or whose political group is able to character assassinate the other.
I wonder should we blame Richard Nixon or should we blame such a flawed process. Politics is no way to run the human race, think about it. And definitely buy this set of audio books for a better understanding of the man.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/
Permalink
04.27.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 5:29 am by admin
Translation of Russian political analyst Alexey Pushkov’s article of the same name.
Handing over power to Vladimir Putin in 1999, Boris Yeltsin sought to preserve the political alignment of forces and coordinates he set during his rule in Russia in 1991-1999. The project ‘Heir’ did not only imply selecting a man from Yeltsin’s ‘camp’, but the one who would preserve the status quo of the regime. This is indicated, among other things, by the fact that he insisted on his ‘key men’ Alexey Voloshin and Mikhail Kasyanov to have the longest possible term in office.
However, the overall results of Putin’s five-year office show that he has discarded most of Yeltsin’s heritage.
First of all, he bridged the basic gap of Yeltsin’s epoch, the gap between the left and the right wings. Under Yeltsin, there was a continuous struggle between the authority, on the one hand, and the communists, patriots and socialist-oriented part of the population, on the other. The country was fevered by constant strife; the State Duma, where the communists had majority, being in the vanguard of struggle with Yeltsin and the elite, could not carry out the legislative process, as their laws did not suit the executive and were virtually directed against the latter.
Putin neutralised the left, adopting much of their arguments: Russia does have the acute demographic problem (the low birth- and high death-rates), the oligarchy dominance, corruption and weak army. These points were taken upon by Putin in his election program, at least as a rhetoric (in the part of olgarchy limitations and army financing they were put into actual practice). Then, Putin broke the Communists’ ‘monopoly’ on patriotism, thus rendering their traditional ‘anti-people’s regime’ rant meaningless.
Communists are now heard only when the authority initiates rash, unprepared and ill-grounded laws, like the monetisation of perquisites for pensioners - the measure, which was not enough elucidated in the press.
Secondly, the President was able to revamp the pattern of power and unite the elite. Putin assigned the issues of economy to liberal democrats, those of security - to the military and law enforcement, and entrusted the administrators who succeeded in retaining power in later Yeltsin’s weakened hands with domestic policy. These are all very different people representing differents parts of the elite, but to a certain extent united under Putin.
Why did the Union of the Right Forces (the SPS) lose the recent election? Because it was no longer indispensable: many government officers, such as German Gref, Alexey Kudrin, Igor Shuvalov pursue the rightist policy as it is. The perquisites monetisation, drafting the hyperliberal Forest Code, cancellation of State Standards for pharmaceutical products and even motioning prison privatisation are the telltale signs of the liberal course in Russia’s domestic policy (whether these measures are for the good or for the bad is another matter).
V. Putin has in his arsenal not only the leftist, but also the rightist ideas. It is not accidental that Anatoly Chubais tried to throw in the catchphrase ‘a liberal empire’ to define the present political system in Russia - the SPS was losing its ‘property right’ for liberal reforms. Neutralisation of the right wing is the third accomplishment of Putin’s office.
Fourth. Putin was able to considerably weaken the influence of big business on the State machinery and policy. Mikhail Khodorkovsky made an attempt of directly converting money into power, like at a bureau de change - he offered 15 billion roubles for power in Russia. His plan was frustrated by Putin. Some people say, it is not democratic. But did Khodorkovsky act in a democratic way? How were the 15 billion rubles obtained? In general terms, does big money entitle a person to power purchase? The history of Russian oligarchy is essentially about converting money into power. Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky were doing it through mass media, for example, when in 1996 Gusinsky helped Yeltsin win the elections enlisting the services of the establishment-sponsored television channel NTV, it was the direct conversion of a media resource into power.
Earlier in 1994 Alexander Korzhakov, the then Chief of the President’s Security Service, conducted - by Yeltsin’s instructions - the ‘mug in snow’ operation against Gusinsky, so that the oligarchs could understand that authority should not be conflicted with, but paid off (not necessarily with direct finance). So the oligarchs began to finance media to brainwash people by meting out, distorting information, misinforming, launching media attacks as a punishment for public figures, orchestrating public opinion, spin control and fixing elections… For such services Berezovsky even obtained an office in the government - he became deputy secretary of the Security Council and was responsible for the Chechen issues (a glaring absurdity from today’s perspective!).
Berezovsky and Gusinsky believed that Yeltsin’s apointee Vladimir Putin would let them play their games as before. They were baulked in their plans. However, certain agressive representatives of big business persisted in their struggle for power - the inertia of complete license was too strong, the sense of omnipotence struck root. ‘We would beat Yeltsin all the same - while he had been learning to play domino, we had mastered chess’, said Leonid Nevzlin, a businessman and public relations expert. Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s logic was of the same strain: the sense of exclusiveness prompted him to attempt to use financial clout and gain control over the State Duma and the Federation Council, thus becoming the ‘power broker’, de facto leader of the country. That splendid coup was thwarted - Putin’s government wouldn’t play either domino or chess with Khodorkovsky, it simply upturned the table. Some say it wasn’t nice or fair. Perhaps. But it was not fair play on the part of Khodorkovsky in the first place.
Khodorkovsky’s political failure as the failure of converting money into power was logical. Yeltsin depended on the oligarchs, as he had no other ‘point of rest’, being politically and physically infirm, unpopular, and undergoing persistent pressure from the left wing. Contrariwise, Putin is popular; he succeeded in uniting the elite and was able to move away from the oligarchs.
Some political scientists maintain that the restriction of big business power is wrong, as it entails the omnipotent power of State bureaucracy. True, the official powers should be counterbalanced, otherwise the State becomes overpowering (this was Russia’s permanent political bane, but the country needed it because of its size, climate and a number of other factors). But Yeltsin’s immoral big business is not the kind of counterbalance the community needs. While Russia was historically better off unter total power, the oligarchs would retain it, but make it inhuman and anti-national - even more unscrupulous, mercenary and corrupt. State totalitarianism would turn into oligarchal totalitarianism. There was but imitation of democracy under Yeltsin, but if Khodorkovsky could have gained power, the political pseudodemocracy might have turned into oligarchal pseudodemocracy, with its arsenal of manupulative and venal media. The restriction of oligarchal influence on the policy and strategy of the State is necessary. Giving a resolute check to Khodorkovsky’s plans, Putin made him understand that individuals (even very rich ones) cannot dictate the policy to the State.
Fifth. Putin proclaimed the foreign policy based on national priorities. Under Yeltsin it was based on absolutely different principles: the first postulate was that Russia should at all costs become the part of civilised world, implying the West; the second was that Russia has no national interests basically different from those of the USA; the third was that Russia should completely reject the use of force in solving its political problems, as it is ‘undemocratic’.
Over the past 10 years we have seen other nations solve their problems by various methods, including, alas, the use of force as, for instance, in Bosnia or in Iraq.
We also realised, that the course of equating Russia’s political interests with those of US or EU is not absolutely correct. Putin agreed with the USA in the crucial issue of fighting terrorism, but he made it clear that our countries’ views on some other issues differ. He is not afraid to say that Russia has inherent interests in the countries of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States), even if it may annoy some political parties abroad. However, the practical realisation of Russia’s national interests may be impeded by two factors: the cosmopolitan character of big business and the ‘anational’ mentality of the younger generation of Russians, formed during the past 10 years.
‘Paying taxes is our only duty, and we owe nobody but God and our conscience’, Peter Aven, a business and media tycoon, said in his interview. Yes, but if an individual knows neither God nor conscience? Why should big business detach itself from the rest of the nation? Russia’s big business is essentially cosmopolitan, not to say anti-national.
As for the ‘anational’ mentality, it becomes apparent from the fact that younger people, even those whose major at universities is political science, sometimes question the necessity of Russia’s ’special attutude’ towards certain issues. ‘Why don’t we just trim ourselves to the US position?’, they ask. The notion of ‘national interests’, as well as patriotism, has been decried as narrow-minded anachronism.
Russian politicians still argue which party to pattern our economy and policy on - Europe or the USA. Oh, but we must pattern them on Russia, the total of its interests! Checking our interests with those of other counrties, of course.
Sixth. Under Putin the country’s controllability was restored, its slow desintegration was stopped. When Yeltsin was in office the national republics fell off the Union, break-away sentiments appeared in the Chechen, Tartar and other autonomous republics, even certain Russian regions began to claim autonomy (let us remember the Urals Republic proposed by the Urals governor Eduard Rossel). This process was slow, but it endangered the country’s integrity. Meanwhile Yeltsin took the ‘gulp as much sovereignty as you can’ stance.
Zbignev Bzhezinsky, a well-known American political scientist, published a map where Russia was divided into three countries: European, Siberian and Far Eastern. That was his tentative project for Russia. Yes, there was a possibility of such an outcome - take the town of Khasavyurt in Dagestan, a part of Russia that was given 5 years’ independence. The danger of disintegration is still looming, although the Center is keen on consolidating the country. Putin lifted the national morale and showed that separatism will not go unpunished. He should beware, though, putting too much pressure on the national republics and divesting them of their rights, as it may cause an outburst of nationalism.
Seventh. Despite all the drawbacks of the present government, V. Putin was able to win back people’s trust for public authority. There is no trace of ‘devilry around the throne’, so glaring in Yeltsin’s time and headed by Boris Berezovsky. Even the liberal journalists, who criticise, sometimes unreservedly, the present government, admit that there was a mafia-like ‘family clan’ around Yeltsin, which held power in the country. True, there are various factions and influential groups, promoting their interests and struggling with each other in today’s administration, but none of these claim to have entire power, to be the only decision-makers.
Some people say V. Putin’s team is not united. Yes, there are controversies in it. But, on the other hand, there is no ‘family’ either. St. Petersburg’s representatives were at first considered more ‘close’ to the President than others, but it was not born out, say, Dmitry Kozak, was dispatched to the Southern Federal District as the President’s plenipotentiary to deal with the Chechen Republic and terrorism. Under V. Putin the ‘office politics’ (the code of relations between officials) became fundamentally different - meritocracy was established.
However, there are serious problems ahead for Putin. He ’steered the ship about, but has not set a well-defined course for her’.
First. The economy grows largely due to the oil price rise. Russia hasn’t begun forming a competitive economy - developing high technologies, launching large-scale target programs, renovating the defense establishments, etc. All these could only be attained with the participation of the state, but it left the economy to its devices. The positive dynamics of Russia’s economy won’t keep, if the oil prices drop.
The economy remains passive: it absorbs enormous sums of money and yields 6-7 percent growth, but Russia keeps selling its staple raw materials and does not work up new foreign markets. There is no growth in mechanical engineering exports, nor in high tech production. However, the competitive strength of an economy is determined by these two factors, and not by raw materials, but by finished goods. So far Russia’s economy has not been set for efficiency, no innovative breakthrough has been made.
Second. The situation in Chechnya is much more serious than it may seem, and the Chechen leader Ahmad Kadyrov’s assassination is a heavy blow to the peace in this region. Though there is no war in the classic sense there, as separatists have no power to ‘fight on fronts’, Chechnya is pervaded with separatist and terrorist agents. Raids and acts of terrorism still obtain in the region, and even spread to the country at large.
Third. Vladimir Putin has not yet created an efficient state machine. For example, the events in Beslan on September 1-3 2004, when more than 4,000 children and teachers were held hostage, prove the low efficacy of security service. Under B.Yeltsin the KGB was being consistently wrecked under pretence of fighting communism (the consequences of this act are not yet fully overcome). Yet not one democratic state could manage without strong security services, what was really needed is to reform the former Soviet intelligence.
Fourth. Russia should vindicate its positions in foreign policy with more firmness. American politicians spoke to me (Alexey Pushkov) about the surprise Russia’s refusal to back the war in Iraq caused with the US administration. Why did Russia give an impression that it could be counted on in any matter, or that it shouldn’t be reckoned with? Because it had settled for anything the USA was doing, be it the withdrawal from the Anti-Missile Defence Treaty (the Russian government’s comment: ‘a deplorable error’) or the second round of the NATO expansion. The US administration overestimated its influence on Moscow, but it was Russia who gave cause for this, adopting a policy too ‘comfortable’ for the USA.
Unfortunately, many features of Yeltsin’s administration devolved on that of Putin. The lack of publicity in legislature is one of them. We are faced with political reforms, which come as if out of the blue - nobody has taken the trouble to explain their essence and prove their necessity. This is said to be the traditional Russian authoritarian style of administration. But bad traditions should be changed, unless the government is willing to stand aloof from its people.
The main dangers impending over Putin’s administration are as follows.
The first is the situation in Chechnya. The efficiency of Putin’s policy largely depends on his ability to settle the Chechen conflict. If the ‘vertical of power’ built by him does not yield fruit in that region, he will fail to convince the country in the necessity of exerting control. It is precisely the issue of Chechnya that will be the touchstone of Putin’s policy, both in Russia and internationally. The Chechen war and terror became Putin’s gravest challenges, which demand the consolidation of power, strengthening of the State, and in some cases, turning the screw. But if the screws are tight, and the vehicle does not move, the question of the adequacy of such a policy will arise.
The second danger (more prominent during his second term in office) is the appearance of consolidated opposition. It includes the liberal politicians who lost the election in the Duma, but have a solid support of big business, their own financial resources, and a substantial backing from abroad. They are eager to score political points using the government’s mistakes. For example, against the logic of their liberal market views, they are attacking the monetisation of perquisites for pensioners. They are doing it, because the authority is vulnerable in this poorely prepared reform. The next power standing in opposition to Putin is the ‘exiled’ oligarchs. Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Nevzlin are people with resources, and have connections in the West. Berezovsky is quite frank in saying that his principal goal is to weaken Putin’s regime. Then, the government is opposed by certain liberal media (which include several central TV channels of Russia), especially their aggressive part backed by the oppositional big business. A part of national and regional elite, displeased at the decision that regional governors be appointed by the President (and apprehending the restoration of the unitarian state), may also join the opposition. A part of liberal intelligentsia and the communists joining the liberals on certain points also swing against the administration. Finally, the anti-Russian and anti-Putin forces in the West are also opposed to Putin. All the mentioned forces are, however, largely outnumbered by Putin’s supporters (in Russia the ratio is about one to ten). Nevertheless, they should be reckoned with.
Putin has few propagandists of his ideas and proposals. He himself has to explain his home and foreign policy, the ideas of his political reforms. His press secretaries and information services keep silence, although it is their duty to compete with the huge bulk of anti-Putin propaganda. The system lacks people with active ideological and political thinking, capable of supporting its plans and decisions. And this is in the face of strong opposition, nostalgic for Yeltsin’s Russia - weak, docile, corrupt, and disintegrating.
However, if the efficiency of administration rises, the economy grows, the opposition will have to bear Putin’s ‘authoritarian liberalism’. Conversely, if there are no tangible results, he will be accused of sacrificing democracy. Putin must prove that his model is efficient.
The period of authoritarian development is inevitable. The liberals condemn Putin’s policy as restoration, but restoration is a normal practice for any country after a sharp ’side slip’. If a nation loses capacity for correcting its ’side slips’, it may, like a car, roll over at a sharp turn of history. Restoration is the nation’s adaptation to new conditions, its self-regulation, aligning a car after a drastic side slip.
Permalink
04.24.09
Posted in Radicals and Others at 3:53 pm by admin
Leadership and Overcoming Adversity: Senator Orrin G. Hatch story, United States Senator (R-Utah)
By Howard Edward Haller, Ph. D.
This groundbreaking leadership research by has received extensive endorsements and enthusiastic reviews from well-known prominent business, political, and academic leaders who either participated in the study or reviewed the research findings.
You will discover the proven success habits and secrets of people who, in spite of difficult or life threatening challenges shaped their own destiny to become successful, effective leaders. The full results of this research will be presented in the upcoming book by Dr. Howard Edward Haller titled “Leadership: View from the Shoulders of Giants.”
The nine initial prominent successful leaders who overcame adversity that were interviewed included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Monzer Hourani, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, Dr. John Malone, Larry Pino, U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar.
The data from the above nine research participants was materially augmented by seven other successful leaders who overcame adversity including: Jack Canfield, William Draper III, Mark Victor Hansen, J. Terrence Lanni, Angelo Mozilo, Dr. Nido Qubein, and Dr. John Sperling.
Additionally, five internationally known and respected leadership scholars offered their reviews of the leadership research findings including: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Jim Kouzes, Dr. John Kotter, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley.
This is a short biography of one of the principal participants who generously contributed their time and insight for this important research into the phenomenon of how prominent successful leaders overcome adversity and obstacles.
This Senator Orrin Hatch’s story: Orrin Hatch is the surviving son of a lower middle-class Mormon pioneer family from Utah. During the Depression, his family, though penniless, moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Orrin’s older brother was killed in Europe while serving in the Army Air Corps in World War II.
Orrin noted, “I was always someone who was kind of strange to them, in that sense, but they still liked me, because I was a good student, and a good athlete. But there were things I just wouldn’t do.” Orrin and his family belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as “Mormons,” which was a relative rarity in Pittsburgh at that time. “I had to prove myself, always being kind of a ’square.’ I had to set certain things aside, because of my religious beliefs. I never drank, I never smoked, I never caroused, [and] I never committed sexual sin.”
Orrin said, “My parents scraped together a little money, bought a wooded acre of land, and then purchased secondhand materials, including partially burned lumber . . . and built their home, board by board with their own two hands.” His father was a “union-card carrying” wood lather.
Orrin learned his father’s trade and worked as a wood lather while still in high school. Later, Orrin worked his way “through Brigham Young University as a janitor.” He interrupted his education at BYU to serve a two-year unpaid mission for the Mormon Church. He then returned to BYU, got married, graduated, and returned to Pittsburgh to work at his union construction job.
He got a scholarship to the University of Pittsburgh, College of Law, and worked his way through law school while providing for his growing family. When Orrin was in law school, he said that he and his “wife and children literally lived in a converted chicken coop” behind his parents’ home.
Hatch and his young family returned to his parents’ home state of Utah so that Orrin could accept a corporate legal position. Shortly after arriving in Utah, Orrin left that corporate job and opened a law firm in Salt Lake City, Utah, as the senior partner.
Although he had absolutely no political experience, Hatch decided to pursue the Republican Party nomination for the United States Senate race in 1976. He was up against an experienced Republican politician. Hatch won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator.
Now the difficult part began, as he “ran a campaign against a well-entrenched Democratic incumbent, U.S. Senator Moss.” Senator Hatch shared with me that his “confidence was not improved” by the fact that in 1976, “Moss was a three-time incumbent who could not be beaten. U.S. News and World Report that year had said that Senator Moss’ seat was the ‘most safe’ seat in the Senate.” But Orrin won the battle against the incumbent Senator, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976. Senator Hatch has since been re-elected by his adopted state of Utah four times.
It is customary for new U.S. Senators not to speak out in their freshman terms, but Senator Hatch did not follow that custom. In his first term in the U.S. Senate he led a filibuster to defeat a major labor bill that was heavily backed by the Democrats.
The proposed labor bill, before the U.S. Congress, was critical to the union movement of the late 1970s. “Union membership was starting to decline, and this bill would have legislatively forced more union membership.” Hatch was very concerned about what some had referred to as the most important labor union bill in four decades. The bill was strongly supported by George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO, and was supported by President Jimmy Carter, as well.
Hatch took on the defeat of this bill as his own “personal cause.” He said, “I strongly felt that the proposed labor bill was not in the best interest of the country and would be very detrimental to the U.S. economy, which was already starting to see high inflation entering the picture in the late 1970s.” Hatch added, “I believed that if this labor bill passed that millions of workers could be forced to join unions and inflation would skyrocket.”
Since 1976, Orrin has been a key member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He has served on that Committee during his entire tenure in the United States Senate. Senator Hatch and his wife Elaine live in Vienna, Virginia, and Salt Lake City, Utah.
The Hatches are active in their Mormon faith; they are happily married with several children and many grandchildren. Orrin, a returned Mormon missionary, also served as a Bishop in the Mormon Church before being elected to the U.S. Senate.
His insightful and informative biography, “Square Peg: Confessions of a Citizen Senator” (2002), provides a unique inside perspective of Capitol Hill.
Copyright 2006 © Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D.
Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D. Chief Enlightenment Officer The Leadership Success Institute
www.TheLeaderInstitute.com
Permalink
Posted in Radicals and Others at 8:16 am by admin
Robert Novak, who ignorantly writes about “Menaced Holy Land Christians,” clearly doesn’t have a clue as to what constitutes a true Christian or anything about the real Jesus. The real Jesus was sent to JUDAH, His fellow Jews, and rarely spoke to Gentiles like the covetous and murderous Arabs of Aboud.
This is just another opportunity for the bloody Roman Catholic Church to get involved and exploit feigned interest for traditional “Christians” to further demand UN/EU occupation of the Jewish homeland. The stooge Robert Novak couldn’t bring himself to utter the word “Israel” within his putrid piece, but used the generic “Holy Land” since apparently, like the accursed Vatican, doesn’t recognize the God-given right of Judah to their Jewish homeland of ISRAEL.
If those Arabs are truly Christian they would follow Jesus’ example and keep the biblical Sabbath, biblical festivals and biblical dietary laws rather than the sloppy swill they’ve received from pagan Rome.
Watch for the concerted efforts of the “concerned” - staged by the Vatican and its collaborators - to increasingly demand the implementation of UN Resolution 181 to undermine Israeli sovereignty and breach Jerusalem.
It is Jews who are menaced in Israel by the Vatican, as the sorcerer-pope already has his evil eye on Mt. Zion and won’t stop until Rome again occupies the Holy Land!
Permalink
« Previous entries
