Chicago Freedom And Reason Forum

On The Clash of Cultures (Part II)

2012-02-12T22:52:00.001-08:00

As discussed in our previous post, when culturally distinct groups reach sufficient demographic density they
seek to recreate the social life of their nations of origin. In this case a Dutch Muslim Party includes the
"criminalization of blasphemy" in its platform, which contradicts the well established Dutch tradition of freedom of expression. It is quite ironic that some people seek to undermine the very culture and policies that made the Netherlands such an attractive place to live and work.

New Muslim Political Party Formed in the Netherlands

Posted GMT 2-10-2012 18:46:1

Recently the Partij voor Moslim Nederland
(Party for Muslim Netherlands), which already
enjoys a significant presence in various
municipal governments in that country,
announced that it intended to run candidates
for the Dutch Parliament. An article in Forbes
listed the party's major principles, which included
limits on "offensive" speech about religion;
the criminalization of blasphemy and of the
destruction of religious texts; immediate admission
of Turkey to the EU; an end to support for Israel;
and the free and unimpeded importation of Muslim
brides from abroad.

Whether to work within existing parties, or to
concentrate onforming and building up separate
Muslim parties, has always been a key strategic
question for the soft jihadists of Europe.
Though there are Muslimsin Norway who are
prominent members of several large traditional
parties, the country now has a Muslim party too.
Founded in 2009 as the Independent Labour Party,
it was obliged later that year to change its name
to the Samtidspartiet (Contemporary Party)
because of official concerns that it might be
confused with the Norwegian Labor Party.
When outlining the party's goals, its founder,
Norwegian-Pakistani Ghuffor Butt, focused on a
desire for lower taxes, gas prices, and the like
-- making it sound like rather a libertarian party
for Muslims.Formerly a cinema director, producer,
and political journalist in Pakistan, as well as an
actor in some twenty Pakistani movies, Butt ran
-- and, as far as I know, still runs -- a successful
store in Grønland, a largely Muslim district in Oslo,
that sells Bollywood films.

Yet lest these credentials suggest he was a
"liberal" and "modern" Muslim, Butt made it
clear, in answer to a Dagbladet journalist's
questions, that his party's other objectives
included lifting the ban on hijab in the police
force, establishing exclusively Muslim
schools and hospitals, instructing
immigrant-group children in
their parents' native tongue rather
than in Norwegian, easing residence-visa
rules using taxpayer money to fund the
building of mosques and pay the salaries
of imams, punishing those who had
reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons,
withdrawing troops from Afghanistan,
and prohibiting homosexuality.
(Later, presumably loath to offend some
of his allies on the left, Butt made
a phone call to Dagblade to walk
back the bit about gays: while homosexual
conduct is forbidden by Islam, he said, the
party did not intend to change Norwegian law
on the subject. (Yeah, right.)

"If Norwegians didn't drink alcohol, have
premarital sex, and eat pork," Butt told
Dagbladet,"they'd be the world's best Muslims."
He also suggested that Mossad was responsible
for 9/11 and echoed the popular myth that Jews
hadn't shown up for work at the World Trade Center
that day.

It is interesting to note that the official launch
of this putatively Norwegian political party took
place in Pakistan -- yet another apparent indication
of the way in which many Norwegian-Pakistanis
view their relationships to their old and new
homelands.As Butt explained, it was easier to
reach Norwegian Pakistani voters in Norway this
way because they didn't watch Norwegian TV:
thanks to satellite dishes, their sets are tuned
to the Pkistani channels on which he was planning
to do interviews. "In three years, Oslo's mayor will be
a Norwegian-Pakistani," he predicted (wrong so far),
and expressed the hope that within fifteen years a
"second-generation immigrant" would be Norway's
prime minister.

Then there's the U.K., where Muslims established
the Islamic Party of Britain in 1989 only to dissolve
it in 2006 after limited success in local elections.
The party received widespread attention when
one of its functionaries, in answer to a reader's
question on its website, said that gays should
be put to death for "public…lewdness."

The party is no more, but it lingers on, after a
fashion,in the form of the socialist Respect Party,
to which it had intimate ties. Based in the
immigrant-heavy city of Manchester,
run by two peoplenamed Salma Yaqoob and
Abjol Miah, and founded in 2004 in opposition
to the war in Iraq, the partyn-- which has what
one might call a"special relationship"
with the Muslim Association of Britain,
the Muslim Council of Britain, and the

Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain
(Marxist-Leninist)-- calls for a higher
minimum wage, higher taxes on the
rich to fund welfare programs,
stauncher support for Pakistani,
and a tough stance toward Israel;
though it presents itself as a part of the

left,it has soft-pedaled women's rights and
gay rights to garner Muslim votes. Its most
famous member us the Hamas-loving
international gadfly George Galloway,
who represented the party in
Parliament after his expulsion
from Labour.

And let's not forget Spain, where in
2009 Muslims formed the Partido Renacimiento
y Unión de España (PRUNE), which -- though
it calls explicitly for a "moral and ethical regeneration"

of Spanish society,with Islam as the
motive force-- denies that it's a Muslim party.
A similar situation obtains in Germany,
where a party called the Alliance
for Innovation and Justice, founded
in 2010, also claims It's not a Muslim
institution, despite its overwhelmingly
Muslim membership, its clearly Islamic
ideological orientation, and its intimate ties
with the ruling party in Turkey.

So it goes. In those places in Europe where
Muslims, have reached a certain percentage
of the population, it's not surprising to see
Muslim parties cropping up, fielding candidates,
and, eventually, winning elections -- first for local
offices, then for seats in Parliament.

One challenge facing all such parties,
however, is that of convincing Muslims that
a separate party is the best way for them to
gain power. Indeed, while it's important to
keep an eye on these still relatively small
parties, at present the far more significant
problem is the readiness of the large,
established parties that, in order to win
Muslim votes, are quick to betray

their founding principles -- and to sell out the
interests, rights, and security of members of
constituencies (such as gays and Jews)
that are increasingly being dwarfed by
ever-ballooning Muslim populations.
The possibility of those Muslim votes
being siphoned off by newer, smaller
parties with aggressively Islamic platforms
can only encourage the major parties
to shift their own agendas in even more
Muslim-friendly directions.

It's all part, needless to say, of the complex,
subtle -- and ominous -- workings of soft jihad.
Which is why he decision of the Party for
Muslim Netherlands to dive into the
parliamentary fray is a development
worth taking note of. For it's no isolated
incident, but part of a much larger
and constantly shifting picture
-- that of the steady, and seemingly
inexorable, political Islamization of Europe.

By Bruce Bawer

Frontpage Magazine

On the Clash of Cultures (Part I)

2012-02-12T22:34:00.000-08:00

Far too often debates on immigration and cultural diversity are framed in terms of the relative worth of different cultures and different groups. Are the values and norms of group A better than group B? Should group A assimilate or should group B accommodate? Rather than get distracted on contentious and largely subjective debates, we should focus on the indisputable fact of cultural clash. More specifically, wise policy must take into account the reality that when a sufficient number of sufficiently distinct cultural groups reside in the same space, tension arises. Imagine if 10,000 deeply traditional and conservative baptists from rural Mississippi and Alabama moved to the culturally and politically liberal San Francisco Bay area each year. We can be certain that in a short time tension between the native San Franciscans and southern migrants would emerge as the latter failed to assimilate to the norms of the former. As their presence grew, so would their political assertiveness and they would work to shape the laws (on gay marriage, abortion, religious expression, business regulation, taxation, etc.) of their new city to resemble those of the south. At that point even the most tolerant San Franciscan would grow resentful of the growing number of "red neck interlopers."

Why should it be any different with the millions of deeply conservative Muslim migrants in France? Rather than debate if the North Africans migrants should adopt the values and norms of their new homes or if Western Europeans should be more tolerant of burqas, polygamy and other alien practices, we should view this as an example of mutually alienation. We should question the wisdom of the politicians and bureaucrats who promoted the immigration and cultural policies that planted the seeds for this clash of cultures. A more sound policy would have been to welcome in the more educated, secular, western segments of Muslim societies, those who held the greatest potential to quickly assimilate to social and economic life in France. For this very reason, the assimilation of Muslims into American Society has by and large been successful. But, in the parlance of multiculturalism, assimilation is a dirty word. A growing number of critical thinkers are placing unconditional multiculturalism in the same category as communism, a belief system that's good in theory but disastrous in practice.

Occupy Wall Street: Half Right

2012-02-12T21:12:00.000-08:00

It would be unfair the speak of an Occupy Wall Street platform, because it is a diverse, decentralized movement, with more opinions than members. But, there are some commonly held beliefs of the protesters, which can roughly be divided into two categories: freedom from undue corporate influence in political life and an expansion of entitlements. I share the former set of grievances; tax payer funded government bailouts of politically connected corporations forced us to reckon with the extent to which powerful financial interests and their lobbyists control national policy. But, the protesters who believe that this an example of a "free market gone amok" are painfully mistaken, the socialization of private, corporate loss is a toxic examples of excessive government intervention in the economy. But, rather than simply protest the bailout of reckless Wall Street firms, a notable segment of protesters declare that bailouts and entitlements should be vastly expanded. They call for "free" education, including the forgiveness of all billions in student debt, "free" health care, "free" transportation and the creation of 25 million jobs via a New Deal Style program. They fail to see the inherent moral and economic hazards in a system that usurps wealth from one sector to subsidize another. And the more obvious question that eludes them is: "What part of broke don't you understand?" A nation already buried in debt cannot expand the largess of the state, it must embark on the path of austerity.

Debt And National Sovereignty

2012-01-28T18:47:00.000-08:00

Interesting, but troubling article from the Washington Post. Germany is calling on Greece to temporarily cede its right to determine its tax and spend policies to a eurozone commissioner, before it can secure further bailouts. Let his be a lesson to the United States; spend beyond your means and sooner or later your national sovereignty will be compromised.

German proposal seeks EU commissioner with sweeping powers to directly control Greece’s budget

(Associated Press) - Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos, left, and Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos leave Maximos Mansion after a meeting Charles Dallara and Jean Lemiere from the Institute of International Finance in Athens on Saturday Jan. 28 2012. Talks between Greece and private creditors on halving the country’s privately held debt load have ended and a deal is very close, according to the creditors’ representatives.

By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, January 28, 11:34 AM

BERLIN — Germany is proposing that debt-ridden Greece temporarily cede sovereignty over tax and spending decisions to a powerful eurozone budget commissioner before it can secure further bailouts, an official in Berlin said Saturday.

The idea was quickly rejected by the European Union’s executive body and the government in Athens, with the EU Commission in Brussels insisting that “executive tasks must remain the full responsibility of the Greek government, which is accountable before its citizens and its institutions.”

Comments

But the German official said the initiative is being discussed among the 17-nation currency bloc’s finance ministers because Greece has repeatedly failed to fulfill its commitments under its current €110 billion ($145 billion) lifeline.

The proposal foresees a commissioner holding a veto right against any budgetary measures and having broad surveillance ability to ensure that Greece will take proper steps to repay its debt as scheduled, the official said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential.

Greece’s international creditors — the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the European Central Bank — already have unprecedented powers over Greek spending after negotiating with Athens stringent austerity measures and economic reforms in return for the first bailout.

The so-called troika of creditors is currently negotiating another €130 billion rescue package for the heavily indebted country. German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday cited an unnamed troika official as saying Greece might actually need a €145 billion package because of its prolonged recession.

The German proposal, first reported by the Financial Times, is likely to spark controversy in Greece.

Despite the quick rejection from the EU Commission, Germany’s demand underlines the frustration of the eurozone with Greece’s slack implementation of the promised reforms, spending cuts and privatizations. During every verification mission last year, the troika found huge implementation shortfalls, which in turn increased gaps in Athens’ budget and intensified the need for a second bailout.

A powerful budget commissioner would further diminish the political leeway of Greece’s government, just as politicians there are gearing up for an election set to take place this spring.

A government official in Athens said a similar proposal had been floated last year but got nowhere. Greece would not accept such a measure, he added. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because no formal proposal has been made by the EU or Germany yet.

The unprecedented and sweeping powers for creditors would indeed deal a huge blow to Greece’s sovereignty, but they could help mobilize more support for the government in Athens from its European partners.

Several German lawmakers have repeatedly said that giving more money to Greece is unthinkable without stricter enforcement and control of the conditions attached to the rescue packages.

Greece is currently locked in a twin effort, seeking to secure a crucial debt relief deal with private investors while also tackling the pressing demands from its European partners and the IMF for more austerity measures and deeper reforms.

Failure on either front would force the country to default on its debt in less than two months, pouring new fuel on the fires of Europe’s debt crisis.

In that case, Greece would likely leave the eurozone, which would bring disaster to the country, destabilize the currency bloc, fuel panic on financial markets and ultimately threaten the fragile world economy.

Despite two weeks of intensive talks, a debt relief agreement with private investors worth some €100 billion has yet to be reached.

Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos and Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos met anew with representatives of international banks and other private institutions Saturday, with a final deal being very close, officials in Athens said.

A statement from the creditor representatives said the two sides are “close to the finalization” of the voluntary writedown that would roughly halve Greece’s privately held debt. “We expect to conclude next week as discussions on other issues move forward,” they said.

The statement also referred to a previous framework agreement which indicated that the creditors have accepted an interest rate below 4 percent for the new bonds to be issued in place of the old ones — a very favorable rate that will make it easier for the Greek government to service its debt.

With the current troika mission still ongoing and no final deal with the private sector creditors, Greece is unlikely to feature prominently at a summit of the EU’s 27 leaders Monday, according to officials in Brussels.

___

Demetris Nellas in Athens and Gabriele Steinhauser in Brussels contributed to this report.

Adult Medicine

2012-01-28T18:37:00.000-08:00

Personal testimony from a friend on the absurdity of the marijuana prohibition.

Adult Medicine

A number of years back I was in an accident. The lowest disc in my spine shattered and the shards floated into the spinal canal and began to carve up the spinal root sac.

I had a number of surgeries and treatments and years of rehab.

I also had loads of pills. I had morphine, Vicodin, Felxerall, Valium, Oxycontin and Lyrica just to name the main drugs I was taking.

And they didn't work. Or rather, they did work for pain in the sense that if I took enough, eventually I would pass out and not feel the pain. But there was no in-between; either I took enough to get unconscious or I was devastatingly high but still in pain.

I have been prescribed medical cannabis.

And it works. I am functional, I can work, I can interact and it more effectively deals with the pain and nerve involvement than any pill I've taken.

These doctors have given me back a life.

What I don't understand is who is against this treatment? Why is it even an issue? How can anyone imagine that Medical Marijuana is worse than the pills they gave me?

It's nice to be treated like an adult and get the most effective treatments with the fewest side-effects. Why can't everyone have this? Why do you need to be in the right location, the right State or Country? Why do you need to go through years of disgusting and noneffective treatments before they finally give you something cheap and simple that works?

And every single person I see at the dispensary says the same exact thing. Every time a doctor, nurse or staffer walks by they are greeted by a row or people all of whom stop them and thank them and are grateful for getting their lives back. Cancers, MS, Accidents and more... across the board.

It's a flower, a plant. Please stop being stupid.
It's time we stopped putting religion and politics above the well being of real people.

Peter the Great Saves Russia From the Hipsters

2012-01-28T18:28:00.000-08:00

Alarmed by the growth of Hipster Douches in the Russian Empire, in 1705 Peter The Great issued a Degree, forcing his citizens to shave off their beards. Only the clergy and those who paid a beard tax were exempt. In light of Chicago's budget deficit and hipster surplus, should we not consider the same?

In Mayor Rahmulan Emanuel's Chicago...

2012-01-27T00:43:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: Rahmulan Emanuel's Top Advisors

It appears that in Mayor Rahmulan Emanuel's Chicago, support for questionable policies has to be manufactured and paid for. Wonder went on behind closed doors when he was President Obama's Chief of Staff?

Two say they got paid to protest, back closing Chicago schools

BY ROSALIND ROSSI Education Reporter rrossi@suntimes.com January 24, 2012 12:06AM

Thaddeus Scott poses for a photograph outside the HOPE organization, 6921 S. Halsted, Friday, Jan. 20, 2012, in Chicago. | John J. Kim~Sun-Times

Updated: January 24, 2012 8:42PM

Always contentious hearings on whether to close failing Chicago schools have taken a bizarre twist this year with charges that cash-strapped residents were hired as “rent-a-protesters” and given pre-made signs and pre-crafted scripts to support school shakeups.

Two men told the Chicago Sun-Times they showed up to apply for financial help with their energy bills at the Englewood office of the HOPE Organization headed by Rev. Roosevelt Watkins III, only to be offered money to attend school-related “rallies” held Jan. 6. Watkins denies they were paid to protest, saying money paid was for training.

Both protesters said they didn’t realize until the last minute that they were supposed to support school closings. One said he was promised $50 to speak at a rally “for schools,” but was stiffed $25 after Watkins complained he had publicly revealed at the hearing he was “compensated” for speaking.

“I don’t want the $25 he owes me,” Thaddeus Scott, 35, told the Sun-Times. “He can keep his dirty money. You can quote that.

“Why am I speaking out? Because I am in support of Crane [the high school whose closure he says he was supposed to support]. . . .

“They thought for a few dollars they could get us to say whatever they want. . . . We were preyed upon.”

Stipends for ‘training’

Watkins, pastor of Bethlehem Star M.B. Church and founder of Pastors United for Change, acknowledged he organized busloads of people to attend the Jan. 6 school closing hearings.

Yellow buses delivered people from 69th and Halsted, where HOPE’s Englewood office is, to at least three closing hearings on that date. The hearings concerned Crane High, Guggenheim Elementary and Reed Elementary, hearing participants told the Sun-Times.

Scott said he was offered $50 to speak at a hearing from what turned out to be scripted remarks.

But Watkins said protesters were supposed to be paid to attend “training” first on “community organizing” and how “to be aware of what’s taking place in the community.”

“What we do — so you can hear it from the horse’s mouth — we provide training because we engage community activists to participate in things such as health care, affordable housing, education, safety. Those things. So we do training on community organizing,” Watkins said.

A “small stipend” helps “offset their car fare” or “babysitting,” Watkins said.

Of the Jan. 6 protesters, Watkins said, “Those that did not receive the training should not have received a stipend.”

A day after the Sun-Times asked Watkins about the payments, at least one protester said he received a call from organizers asking him to attend a meeting first if he wanted to attend the next rally.

Chicago Teachers Union Vice President Jesse Sharkey called the busloads of hearing participants “rent-a-protesters.” He likened them to “paid stooges” who “make a mockery of what public participation is about.”

Said Sharkey: “It’s a new low.”

Cash-filled envelopes

Scott and a second man, a Guggenheim Elementary alum, said they were paid after the Jan. 6 hearings at the HOPE Englewood office by a woman who pulled envelopes holding $25 in cash from a container full of envelopes. Scott said Watkins was in the room when the woman told him he had done them a “disservice” and handed him half the promised amount, but Watkins insisted he was not there. Watkins also denied he ever chided anyone for using the word “compensated” at the hearings.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “There are people saying we pay them. We provide training. We’ve always done this. And they receive a stipend for their time.”

Watkins said he used neither church nor HOPE funds for the stipends. The money came from a “coalition of clergy” who have “money set aside for outreach in the community,’’ he said.

“This is money from clergy. Clergy have money,” Watkins said. “We used private money.”

Initially, Scott said, he thought he would be joining “an act of activism. … They wouldn’t say what the rally was about until we got there.”

Only at the last minute, Scott said, was he asked to choose from a list of prepared remarks and told not to support Crane.

“If he calls that training and that’s what I was paid for, fine, but that’s not training,” Scott said.

The Guggenheim alum also said he received no training before he boarded a bus outside HOPE’s Englewood office at 6921 S. Halsted on Jan. 6. He said he, too, was seeking assistance with energy bills when he was offered $25 to attend a rally.

He said he was told the rally would be about “longer school hours” — an issue pushed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who announced last year that a long list of ministers supported his stand.

A woman at HOPE’s Community and Economic Development Association outlet for energy assistance “asked me did I want to go to a rally,” the Guggenheim alum recalled. “I said no. She said they will pay $25. She said they were rallying for longer hours in the school day. I said ‘I have no problem with that.’ ”

To his surprise, he said, a bus filled with people delivered him instead to a hearing about closing Guggenheim Elementary, where he had graduated. There, he was given a sign saying “something about ‘I cannot support failing schools.’ ”

“That’s how I knew I was on the wrong side,” he said. “I was on the ‘close’ side. I wanted to be on the ‘open’ side. . . . If I knew it was about closing Guggenheim, I never would have gone because I went to Guggenheim. . . . I never would have been in favor of closing Guggenheim.”

Watkins said people were not paid to take a specific side at the hearings, and if they were reading from scripts, “I’ll check into it.”

“My position is, we want [schools] fixed,” said Watkins, whose HOPE Organization offers after-school programming and won nearly $1.47 million in Chicago Public School contracts since 2010.

“We’re not siding with CPS or the Chicago Teachers Union. . . . We’re siding with the children. We don’t want the message to get faded in this.”

The Unintended Consequences of the Chicago Residential Landlord And Tenant Ordinance

2012-01-26T01:18:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: The Author Of The RLTO

Like many unduly heavy handed government regulation, the Residential Landlord And Tenant Ordinance of Chicago produces unintended consequences that harm the very group they were purportedly designed to help. This ever expanding set of codes is heavily biased against landlords and enables tenants and lawyers looking to gain a quick buck from frivolous lawsuits. As I will demonstrate, the end results are diminished housing opportunities, especially for families of modest means.

The most egregious aspect of the ordinance are the heavy fines mandated for clerical errors such as not maintaining security deposits in separate, interest bearing, escrow account. I personally know an honest landlord who returned the full deposit plus interest in a timely fashion, but was fined twice the amount of the deposit plus the tenant's legal fees! In this case, a $1,000 deposit generated a $3,000 fine, much of which went to the tenant's parasitic attorney! It gets worse; there are lawyers who contact tenants engaged in eviction proceedings and offer them "free" legal assistance, but only if they provided the landlord a security deposit. The unscrupulous attorney then attempts to turn the tables by counter-suing the landlord for any failure to comply with the regulatory minutia governing the deposit. Thus the said landlord can potentially face thousands of dollars in lost rent, fines and legal fees from his own attorney as well as the derelict tenant's attorney! Even if he is not subject to a counter-suit, if a tenant is well versed in the law, it can potentially take 3 or 4 months to evict him. Given that very few landlords immediately begin the eviction process, most spend a month or more hanging onto the broken promises of deceitful tenants, they can potentially face 5 or 6 months of lost revenue. And if the judge rules in the landlord's favor, the chances of collecting the lost revenue is slim at best. Does this sound like equal protection under the law?

Understandably, a growing number of landlords have decided to waive the requirement for a security deposit. Even landlords who have not decided to take this course of action have gotten much stricter on their credit requirements for prospective tenants. Most landlords would be willing to "lend a hand" and "give working families a chance," but given the increasingly costly and time consuming nature of evictions, most would rather maintain their apartments empty than run the said risks. What this means is that a lot of good, hard working families are having even more trouble finding quality, affordable housing in decent neighborhoods. To make matters worse, the growing risks and regulatory burdens that landlords face in Chicago are causing fewer individuals to purchase property, especially in the blighted neighborhoods that are most in need of investment. And the landlords who remain will direct more of their resources towards regulatory compliance and keeping up with surging property taxes, than the upkeep and improvement of their property.

The Rule Of Law in Chicago & Mexico

2012-01-24T01:29:00.000-08:00

In itself I do not find it so troubling that Chicago and Cook County are not systematically enforcing immigration laws, because limited resources should be directed towards apprehending dangerous criminals. And contrary to far right wing narratives, few immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, commit serious crimes. But, I find it unsettling that given the extent to which immigration laws are violated, we now don't even have the option to choose to systematically enforce them. Given demographic and economic realities, doing so would cause greater damage and dislocation than continued non-enforcement.

While I sympathize with the mostly good and hard working families that have been driven by desperation to cross the border, it is a troubling precedent that a law has in effect been overturned not through the democratic process, but because the extent of its violation has made it virtually non-enforceable. This is exacerbated by the nature of the Chicago Machine, a patronage system in which individuals and groups believe that their electoral and financial support for a political machine entitles them to economic and political benefits, including immunity from the law. A repeated theme in discussions led by Univision Anchorman Jorge Ramos is that the federal government should enact amnesty, not so much because it serves broad national interests, but because electoral support for Obama has entitled Latinos to it.

So, in effect the decision to enforce a law has now been determined by its violators and not by the will of the public. Is this not the very phenomena that has rendered Mexico, a country rich in human and natural resources largely ungovernable? The problem is not that Mexico lacks laws and regulations, but the extent to which they are disregarded by the public and the collusion of key segments of the police and politicians, has created widespread impunity for minor and major offenses alike. Is this not the foundation of Mexico's endemic corruption? This holds true for "harmless offenses" like the bootlegging of movies and music, unregulated food vending and littering, as well as more serious violations, like drug trafficking. It has been speculated that the reason why illicit industries are allowed to operate with a considerable degree of impunity is that they now constitute such a significant portion of the economy that their elimination would cause a sharp economic decline in the "lawful sectors" of the economy, like banking and transportation.

I am not for one second comparing undocumented immigration to the drug trade, because whereas the former has offers some economic benefits, the latter is almost entirely destructive. And in no way is an undocumented drywaller or dishwasher comparable to a vicious drug trafficker. But, the underlying principles holds true: the unwillingness or inability of political elites to enforce existing laws and regulations, even ones that we do not entirely agree with, erodes the rule of law. Overtime the social, political and economic repercussions of allowing the rule of law to deteriorate renders cities, states and nations ungovernable, if not unlivable.

One thing is for certain, we the people cannot expect change to come from our rotten politicians; if we wish to clean up our city and our country, we must first affirm the rule of law in our daily lives, in our public and private conduct, in the board room and classroom, in the toll booth and voting booth. Whether we are in Chicago or Mexico, we cannot seek to gain rewards and immunity from the law, through the pursuit of political clientelism and expect our politicians to behave any more responsibly.

Media, The Great Hysteria Maker

2012-01-23T23:56:00.000-08:00

Most people believe that violence has been on the rise, but in his book The Better Angles Of Our Nature, Harvard Psychologist Steven Pinker presents compelling data that even when we factor in horrific events like World War II and the Holocaust, violence has been on the decline. I suspect that some of this stems from medical and hygienic advances that allow individuals injured in warfare or criminal instances to survive, however there is no escaping the fact that the per capita rate of murder has plummeted in the last millennium. Few people are aware of this because the media is the great hysteria maker knows that fear sells. I believe this is one of several factors that have had a corrosive effect of community life in the United States.

Book Review: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Rates of violent deaths have declined, but psychologist Robert Epstein argues in this review that it is too early to praise human nature's "better angels."

By Robert Epstein | October 7, 2011 | 8

Image: Viking Adult

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), worldwide military expenditures have been growing annually for the past 15 years, and between 15 and 20 major armed conflicts—yes, wars—are in progress as you read this. All told, upward of 175 million people died in war-related violence during the 20th century, plus another eight million because of conflicts among individuals.

Even so, according to a weighty new book,The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Viking Adult, 2011), by Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker, the "better angels" of human nature have actually brought about a dramatic reduction in violence during the past few millennia. Yes, the absolute number of victims has been rising, but relative to the world’s population, the numbers look good.

The shift toward nonviolence, he says, has been driven by many factors, such as the spread of agriculture and the rise of feminism and democracy. Such trends have led to a reduction in institutionalized torture and execution and slavery and, especially in recent years, to an increase in the rights of women, homosexuals, children andanimals.

Pinker acknowledges that one's immediate experience belies these facts to the point where you might even want to call him "hallucinatory." Yet the wealth of data he presents cannot be ignored—unless, that is, you take the same liberties as he sometimes does in his book. In two lengthy chapters, Pinker describes psychological processes that make us either violent or peaceful, respectively. Our dark side is driven by a evolution-based propensity toward predation and dominance. On the angelic side, we have, or at least can learn, some degree of self-control, which allows us to inhibit dark tendencies.

There is, however, another psychological process—confirmation bias—that Pinker sometimes succumbs to in his book. People pay more attention to facts that match their beliefs than those that undermine them. Pinker wants peace, and he also believes in his hypothesis; it is no surprise that he focuses more on facts that support his views than on those that do not. The SIPRI arms data are problematic, and a reader can also cherry-pick facts from Pinker's own book that are inconsistent with his position. He notes, for example, that during the 20th century homicide rates failed to decline in both the U.S. and England. He also describes in graphic and disturbing detail the savage way in which chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives in the animal world—torture and kill their own kind.

Of greater concern is the assumption on which Pinker's entire case rests: that we look at relative numbers instead of absolute numbers in assessing human violence. But why should we be content with only a relative decrease? By this logic, when we reach a world population of nine billion in 2050, Pinker will conceivably be satisfied if a mere two million people are killed in war that year.

The biggest problem with the book, though, is its overreliance on history, which, like the light on a caboose, shows us only where we are not going. We live in a time when all the rules are being rewritten blindingly fast—when, for example, an increasingly smaller number of people can do increasingly greater damage. Yes, when you move from the Stone Age to modern times, some violence is left behind, but what happens when you put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of modern people who in many ways are still living primitively? What happens when the unprecedented occurs—when a country such as Iran, where women are still waiting for even the slightest glimpse of those better angels, obtains nuclear weapons? Pinker doesn’t say.

The Middle Path To Understanding (And Addressing) The Racial Achievement Gap

2012-01-23T21:35:00.000-08:00

The existence of a glaring achievement gap among different racial and ethnic groups within the United States is widely known. When we analyze rates of high school graduation, college attendance, unemployment, income, incarceration, obesity and out of wedlock births, we find that Asian-Americans enjoy the most positive outcomes, followed by European-Americans and then Hispanic-Americans with African- Americans demonstrating the most troublesome statistics. Where the greatest disagreement lies in on the explanation for this persistent phenomena. Progressive explanations typically center on the following factors of continued Institutional Racism and White Privilege. Whereas, conservative explanations usually discount racism, instead focusing on: cultural pathologies that encourage poor social and economic strategies.

The first glaring problem with the progressive explanation is that not only have Asian-Americans outperformed European-Americans in every social and economic measure, but so have African Immigrants. For example, 43.8% of African Immigrants are college graduates, which greatly exceeds the national average of 23.1%. If the "white power structure" and "institutional racism" are the deciding factors in educational and economic achievement, how is it possible that Indian, Japanese and Chinese immigrants have risen so quickly and are now doing better than whites? And interestingly this same phenomena is mirrored on an international level, with East Asian nations experiencing outstripping most European Nations in educational and even economic output. This clearly demonstrates the economic and social welfare are not static phenomena; throughout history, the fortunes of individuals, groups, nations and even regions have risen and fallen.

This phenomena become much clearer when we "look at the trees" rather than at the "forest, i.e. focus on specific, individual values, behaviors and choices that increase or decrease an individual's chance for improving their economic and social trajectory. The reason I chose to focus on trajectory, is because comparing the absolute outcome of (let's say) the child of a working class immigrant to a well established, middle class family would neither be fair nor allow us to fully determine the effect of culture and choice. But, comparing the relative improvement or decline of each individual or group would allow us to do so. And exploring the multi-generation trajectory of families and groups paints an even clearer pictures of the dynamics that government social and economic assent and decline.

Or, to be even more specific, we could ask ourselves what advise would we give to a friend or family member about how to improve their chances for success? Here are the most obvious: dedicate more time to studying, at all costs do not drop out of high school, do not have a child before you graduate, do not have a child until you are married and financially stable, avoid engaging in behaviors that run the risk of arrest, if possible choose a highly marketable field of study, such as math, science and engineering, live beneath your means, establish a good credit history, save and invest in the future. While making the right choices are not absolute determinants of one's trajectory, no one can deny that there exists a very strong correlation between choices, behaviors and outcomes. When we "compare apples to apples," or the more upwardly mobile to the less upwardly mobile components of the African-American community, we will certainly encounter markedly different approaches to family, education, employment, saving and investment strategies. And unless we are hopelessly intellectually dishonest, we will see that the same is true for more (and less) upwardly mobile ethnic groups. To put it simply, Indians and African Immigrants have risen so quickly, because a higher percentage of their respective groups adopted values, choices and strategies that are conducive to success and African-Americans and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic and European-Americans have not.

There is a balanced middle path that does not look at issues of social pathology as an either / or phenomena; they acknowledge the continued effects of racism, but believe that they are greatly amplified by the prevailing culture, values and behaviors of individuals and communities alike. In this day and age, such choices have a far greater bearing on the social and economic welfare of individuals and communities than racism and white privilege. For example, many African-American communities are provided by substandard schools, whose negative effects are amplified by the insufficient commitment to learning and discipline present in many families. But, those who take the middle way differ from most conservatives by their acknowledgement that culture and behavior do not occur in a vacuum; they are products of one's history and experience. In other words, the most pernicious aspect of America's long history of racist oppression is that it degraded the social and cultural capital of its victims, leaving them in a state in which they cannot fully capitalize on the rapidly expanding opportunities of a free society.

Decimate a people's common culture, outlaw education for 5 generations and provide shamefully substandard schooling for 3 more and it will not come as a surprise that a substantial portion of the next generations will be left without a tradition of learning. Subject several generations to slavery and bar their descendants from all but the most menial professions and do not be surprised if the next generations do not see the connection of work and discipline to upward mobility. And then finally when you acknowledge the magnitude of the crime you committed against a whole people, you seek to make amends by the massive expansion of the welfare state that renders a portion of the beleaguered community dependent on the state, with their traditional family structure eviscerated. Part of this tragic drama are the "experts" and "activists" who treat the battered community like children and passive agents who are incapable of shaping their environment and their destinies, like other communities have done so before them. Their refusal to assign any responsibility to diverse communities for the problems that they face may stem from a well meaning prohibition against "blaming the victim," but it has eroded their capacity to acknowledge and address the pathological behaviors and cultural patterns that play a major role in shaping disparate outcomes.

The view of the Middle Way begs the questions: What can be done? If personal choice and culture are driving forces in the trajectory of individuals, communities and cultures, can the state do anything to induce real, positive change? Relatively to progressives, who have deep faith in the power of the state to shape equal outcomes, classical liberals (libertarians) believe that at best the state can expand equal opportunity. The problem is not that universities are discriminating against diverse groups, quite to the contrary, most are religiously pursuing "diversity" and "equal outcomes." Rather, the dearth of qualified high school graduates means that far too diverse students are able to capitalize on these unprecedented opportunities. So, improving the dismal schools that diverse communities face is of paramount importance. Without real improvement in educational outcomes, progress will remain elusive and economic inequality will continue to worsen.

How schools can be improved is truly a vexing question, because more than a half century of efforts by the educational establishment to bridge achievement gaps have bore little fruit. Rather than repeat the tried and failed formula of: increased funding, increased federalization and the pursuit of unproven pedagogic fads, a new paradigm must approached: school choice and competition. Unlike most of my conservative brethren, I make no illusions that the said factors can improve failing schools, but at the very least they can offer expanded opportunity for the students who are willing and able to pursue them. And on an even broader level, the education establishment must shift its focus from the study of failure, towards understanding and promoting the norms, values, behaviors and strategies that upwardly groups (Asian-Americans) and nations have pursued. As painful as it may be to admit, not only do schools shape their students, but students and their families have a central role in determining the quality of the schools. So, without a shift in the values, norms and behaviors that predominate in a community, even the most well run schools will still produce dismal results.

This brings us to the topic of welfare. As a classical liberal (libertarian) I would like to see welfare in its present form significantly reduced. However, until we arrive at that improbable point, the best we can hope for is to reform welfare programs so that they will subsidize positive, rather than pathological choices. Increasing subsidies for welfare recipients who choose to not have more children (than they can afford and educate) may constitute excessive social engineering for most conservatives, but would ultimately offer a net decrease in expenditures and provide incentives for positive behavioral changes. In addition, the incentive structure that governs social welfare agencies needs to be transformed; social workers and bureaucrats who are able to help their clients transition away from dependency and pathology should be offered bonuses. Mandating full time employment, even "menial jobs" that "Americans won't do" for all adults in a household that receive welfare is essential for breaking the cycle of dependency and re-establishing a culture of work.

Ultimately what characterizes the middle way is intellectual honesty, a belief that we must allow facts and reason to carry us to logical conclusions, now matter how uncomfortable they make us, no matter how offensive others find them. For using sophistry to support comfortable narratives will spare feelings, but will lead us to continue pursuing the ineffective paths and policies of the last half century. The first step towards real compassion is adopting the intellectually honesty acknowledgement that past racism casts its heavy shadow on the present via the persistence of widespread cultural and behavioral pathology. Failure to do so will doom future generations to even greater economic and social inequality; a more racist outcome I cannot imagine.

A Classical Liberal (Libertarian) Approach To Fighting Racism

2012-01-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: The Great Martin Luther King JR.

As someone who detests the evils of racism and sexism, I very much looked forward to taking a pedagogy class which included an anti-bias curriculum. But, early on in the class I discovered that the curriculum was heavily ideological and used as a platform to promote other political and cultural agendas. Present in this vision was the belief that the American Way was innately racist and oppressive. The driving vision of this class was a multicultural ideology that indirectly encouraged teachers to view their students as members of groups, rather than unique individuals.Among the agendas that it promoted was a curricular transformation that encouraged teachers to de-emphasize "eurocentric literature" with a "white male perspective." While these view points are worthy of debate, one need not adopt them in order to live a life free of prejudice and discrimination. In fact, the strong vein of Cultural Marxism present in anti-bias curricula has done much to dissuade well meaning Americans from embracing its otherwise reasonable message.

Perhaps what I find most troubling about some university level anti-racist programs is their invasive focus on addressing "incorrect" private thoughts, attitudes and ideologies, rather than concrete behaviors. The University of Delaware's resident life program even bore resemble to a Maoist era struggle session, in which participants had to confess and atone for their prohibited thoughts. New students faced one-on-one interviews, in which they were questioned by their Resident Assistants (RA) on their views on race, gender, sexuality and the environment. The secession included deeply invasive questions like "when did you discover your sexual identity" and "race?" If the purpose of these invasive sessions were to facilitate open debate and exploration, perhaps they might have been acceptable, but their stated goals were for students to accept preordained conclusions like "systemic oppression exists in our society" and to "recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." Even more troubling was the fact that RAs wrote up and delivered reports to their superiors, with one student even being written up for stating that she was "tired of having diversity shoved down her throat."

An approach to anti-bias and anti-racism that is more effective with and attractive to Americans is one that invokes the spirit of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism), which affirms the importance of individual (economic and social) liberty and rule of law. A key component in the success of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was his ability to present racism as a failure to realize the American Way; for what can be more Anti-American than preventing others from enjoying "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? The engine for progress in the treatment of African-Americans has not been radical efforts to reject or redefine the Great American Vision, but to fully realize it, so that all Americans can enjoy its spiritual and material fruits. And without invoking multiculturalism and other divisive ideologies, we can and should call upon our fellow Americans to reject racist behavior as an affront to civility, fairness and individualism.

While the constitution protects individual liberty from state and private oppression, it also guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of expression, even for those who hold racist and "incorrect" beliefs. Accordingly, most classical liberals (libertarians) are not so focused on the beliefs that one may hold about groups, but in the manner in which they behave towards individuals. For example, I am not so concerned about the "improper" beliefs that some of my clients hold about my group (Jews), because they fairly treat me as an individual. How is this possible, you may ask? An observant and intellectually honest person can recognize trends that they may or may not like about any given group, while still affirming the uniqueness of each individual and treating them accordingly. When I posed this very question to a client of mine who engages in racist rants against virtually every group, yet has employed and even befriended: African-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Polish and Jewish individuals, his response was "I may be racist, but I am not Stupid!!!" This seemingly paradoxical view highlights the fact that participation in a competitive free market is a far more effective antidote to racist behavior than hours of indoctrination at the University of Delaware.

I will close this post with a thoughtful speech by Dr. Ron Paul that elaborates on the hazards that even well meaning collectivist campaigns against racism hold and reaffirms the surest protection being an affirmation of individual liberty:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

Rembetiko, Music of My Heart

2012-01-20T19:46:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: Semsis, Eskenazi and Tomboulis

One of my favorite musical genres is Rembetiko, the soulful, inventive music of the Greeks of Anatolia (Asia Minor). This style is rich with Ottoman, Persian and Arabic influences, both musical and cultural and many of its great performers were Ottoman Jews and Armenians. A study of the Ottoman Empire highlights the wonderful and destructive power of multiculturalism and diversity. On one hand the incredibly rich mix of cultures, races, religions and languages produced some of the most amazing music, architecture, poetry and cuisine that has graced the world. On the other hand, it bred conflict, instability and the first Genocide of the century, ultimately leading Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria to undertake a massive population exchange, with the goal of creating more homogeneous, stable and peaceful nations. If I had to derive a one line line lesson from the Ottoman Experience for the United States, it would be as follows: enjoy the cultural blessings that diversity bring, but tread carefully, for human beings are flawed creatures of conflict. Here is a wonderful song performed in 1929 by Andonis Dalgas and one performed by the prodigious Roza Eskenazi.

Return Of The Worthy Poor?

2012-01-16T00:08:00.000-08:00

While leafing through a university text book for a course in social work, I came across an interesting chapter on the history of charity and the welfare state. The author described and rejected prior efforts to delineate the "worthy poor" from the "unworthy poor." This concept holds that the former are comprised of individuals unable to care for themselves because they were sick, orphaned, elderly, etc. The latter are able bodied individuals whose impoverishment was conceived to stem from their pathological values, habits and choices.

Philanthropists that subscribed to this vision believed that the right to receive assistance was accompanied by the responsibility of the poor to demonstrate their willingness to work. Even progressive reformers and champions of the poor, like Jane Addams, who emphasized "structural factors" in poverty, actively sought to promote middle class values of personal responsibility, self control, sobriety and thrift among the poor families that they assisted. Later generations of reformers and progressives criticized her for this and (what they perceived to be) her efforts to "acculturate" diverse immigrants to America towards white, Anglo-American culture. Many felt that efforts to address the behavior of the poor unjustly "blamed the victim" and distracted from "oppression" and "institutional causes of poverty." Furthermore, if food, housing, health care and child care were "fundamental rights," by definition one could someone be unworthy of them. Many of the architects of the modern welfare state held and actively promoted this worldview, presumably not only on philosophical grounds, but also because government bureaucrats neither had the ability or even the will to intimately interact with recipients of aid as philanthropists had. The unprecedented post war economic boom, from the late 1940's to the 1990's, coupled with the growth of deficit financing allowed for the vast expansion of size and scope of the welfare state and accepted notions of eligibility.

Anyone who follows the news sees that the federal government, as well as most city, state and county governments are facing mounting debt. On a local level this has forced politicians to begin cutting government services, whereas the federal government's capacity to borrow and print money will, for the time being, allow it to avoid austerity measures. I am convinced that growing financial pressures will force governments to not only enact broad budget cuts, but to engage in contentious, but necessary efforts to prioritize the use of limited funds. The public and politicians will have to determine if funds should be directed towards (badly needed) programs for the mentally ill and disabled or towards fraud ridden section-8 housing vouchers. Progressives who wish to prevent the dissolution of the safety net will have to become conscience and critical of the strain that pathological behaviors, such as unchecked single motherhood and sloth place on the system. So, if not in word, at least in practice, limited government resources will force us to determine who is more and who is less worthy of receiving scarce funds. And the much maligned shame and social stigma that welfare dependency engendered may even be promoted as a cost effective means to maintain sustainable levels of participation. This should be viewed not as a "mean spirited condemnation of the less fortunate," but as an exercise in accounting and prioritization that all households and businesses must engage in on a regular basis.

Is Intellect (In Politicians) Overrated?

2012-01-15T17:43:00.000-08:00

In the course of most political debates, supporters of President Obama inevitably turn to the topic of great intellect and the alleged cognitive deficit of his opponents. While I place great value in intellect and am troubling by the anti-intellectual vein (i.e. Sara Palin) present in conservatism, I believe that in the realm of politics, intellect can be overrated. Broad knowledge and strong analytic faculties are important components in policy making and problem solving, but history is littered with examples were a leader's or movement's intellectual hubris led them to undertake disastrous policies. Their inflated belief in the power of their intellects led to unwise and overly ambitious campaigns to reshape economic and social life according to their whims.

This is most clearly seen in the Economic Calculation Problem, or the question of how to coordinate prices, production and distribution of resources and labor in an economy. Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated that economic activity could only be rationally coordinated through the decentralized decisions of millions of consumers, producers and workers (categories which are not mutually exclusive), responding to and driving changes in prices, which convey the relative supply and demand of goods and services at any given time. Without ever meeting the multitude of individuals and industries who utilize their product, the rubber industry is provided with incentives to appropriately expand or contracts their production via changing prices. Without the "wise" mandate of a central planner, fluctuations in wages, send vital signals that reallocate labor towards regions, professions and sectors of the economy in which a real, sustainable demand exists.

Time and again, history has demonstrated that even the most brilliant economist or politician did not have the capacity to successfully obtain, analyze and act upon the continuous flow of data generated in an economy.When teams of brilliant economists and mathematicians attempted to do so, nations faced vexing shortages and wasteful surpluses of vital goods and services. This is also seen in the crippling booms and busts that are occur when the cost and availability of credit (interest rates) are determined by central planners, rather than by forces of supply and demand. So, if faced with the choice of a "brilliant planner," like President Obama or a "mediocre mind" who understands the inherent hazards of engaging in endless crusades to re-shape economic and social life, I will choose the latter. The path of limited government and decentralization of power are pursued by so few politicians, because it curtails the power and prestige that they command over the social and economic life of their peons...I mean citizens of the nation.

On Kenyan Birthers

2012-01-01T23:47:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya

President Obama's popularity has reached such a low point that we are now witnessing Kenyan Birthers. The President of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki stated "we, the people of Kenya reject insinuations that Obama was born in Kenya, clearly he is of Somali birth. No son of Kenya is capable of doubling the national debt and money supply in 3 years, waging war on Libya without congressional authorization and supporting the indefinite, prolonged detention of American citizens and foreigners alike."

On Green Conservatism

2012-01-01T22:56:00.000-08:00

One topic that I depart from some of my conservative compatriots is the environment and anthropocentric climate change. Or to put it simply, I do not share their skepticism that human activity is a significant factor in ongoing global warming. Many people ask why are otherwise rational individuals resist a theory that the majority of scientists affirm. I believe that privately a good number of the public skeptics do accept, to varying certain degree, man's role in climate change, but are deeply reserved about the policy implications that such a belief entails. But, thankfully we have seen the emergence of "green conservatism" and "free market environmentalism," whose proponents seek innovative and effective solutions to environmental ills while promoting economic liberty and property rights.

The first question we face is why some conservatives resist publicly acknowledging global warming. With good reason they fear that it would be seized upon by politicians as an opportunity to expand the size and scope of the state. It would grant them a carte blanche to expand the power of the government's control to regulate, subsidize and penalize companies and whole sectors of the economy, while offering little discernible benefits. First, while I principle would love to see the expansion of the use of renewable forms of energy, current wind, solar and other "green" technologies are incapable of meeting more than a fraction of our energy needs. And even assuming that subsidies to "green" industries were well designed, well administered and not "polluted" by nepotism, economic history would lead me to question their effectiveness. An example is the laughable "Cash For Clunkers" program, which not only added billions to the deficit, but may have had lead to a net increased in carbon emissions. According to William Chameides, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke Environment,

"between 3 to 12 tons of carbon dioxide are emitted for each new car, due to such factors as shipping the car, and the electricity consumed in manufacturing. In addition, in order to offset the carbon footprint of the new car from a clunker, the average driver would need to drive the car about five and a half years; with trucks, the figure jumps to eight or nine years of typical driving."

Furthermore, in the context of a global economy, heavy burdens placed on domestic industries would increase the flight of production to China, Mexico and other less regulated nations. Not only would this aggravate unemployment, but it may lead to a net increase in carbon emissions. Furthermore, American Conservatives question the wisdom of accepting costly regulations, while the chances that egregious polluters like China would seriously curtail their emissions are slim to none. And the though of granting greater power to unelected international bodies is anathema to almost any serious conservative.

But, let's say a team of environmentalists, engineers and economics were able to create an ambitious, effective plan to revolutionize production and consumption in the United States to seriously shrink our collective "carbon footprint." Tallying direct costs to tax payers and indirect costs to consumers, such a plan would run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions. In theory, I could accept this, if politicians were willing and able to offer budget cuts that were equal to or greater than the cost of the environmentalist "Marshall Plan." But given the track record of Democrats and most Republicans, we can be certain that the costs would be heaped on our ever growing tower of debt, which is completely unacceptable.

So, whats a "green conservative" to do? To start off with, we must confront the fringe who erroneously believes that environmental concerns fall outside of the sphere of interest of conservatives. For if we as conservatives do not present creative, market driven solutions, "progressives" will promote policies that are contrary to economic and social liberty. Reforms in tax policies could go far in helping the environment, while also fostering greater economic growth. Tax burdens should shift away from corporate and individual income towards fossil fuels and other pollutants in a manner that addresses the externalities that they generate, i.e. the costs that they impose on the public. Under this scenario, the price of goods would reflect the costs that they impose on the rest of society. This would create effective market incentives for firms and consumers to adopt more environmentally friendly patterns of production and consumption. Admittedly I am reserved about expanding the power of the state to influence prices, but if this move were accompanied by the elimination of wasteful subsidies, invasive regulatory mandates and a reduction in corporate taxation, it could offer a net . reduction in state economic intervention. This should be viewed favorably by clear thinking conservatives, because the socialization of costs represents one off the worst practices of the interventionist state.Economics have even put forth the argument that firm property rights, rather than government ownership of land provide the greatest long term environmental protection.

Even the most effective regimen of environmental taxation is only a fraction as effective as market forces in shifting patterns of production and consumption. The recycling of metal surged, not because of any government policy or environmentalist campaign, but because of the rise in cost of metals. More people opted away distant suburbs (not connected to public transportation), less because of environmental concerns and more because of rising fuel costs. And as the consumption of fossil fuels soars in China, India and the rest of the developing world, we can be certain that costs will rise, increasing incentives for companies to develop and consumers to purchase energy efficient, green technologies. We can only hope that changes in the tax and regulatory environment will occur that will allow this technological revolution to occur within the United States.

Translation of Obama's Biography Into Farsi

2012-01-01T15:13:00.000-08:00

Title: Klown Nameh

That is all.

What is Liberalism? What is Conservatism?

2012-01-01T15:07:00.000-08:00

I shy away from being excessively reductive, but if I had to define the political currents of the last century, in the United States it would be as follows:

Liberalism was the critique of the social, political and economic status quo from the turn of the century to the 1970's that resulted in an unparalleled growth in the size and scope of the state . During this time, Conservatism was by and large the defense of the status quo.

Now we see that Liberalism has become a defense of an unsustainable status quo and at least the more dynamic branches of Conservatism has become its greatest challengers.

True Respect For Diversity

2011-12-19T01:27:00.000-08:00

Back in my university days, a friend of mine once proposed a drinking game in which we would read the student handbook and take a shot of liquor every time it mentioned "diversity." We ultimately rejected his proposal on the grounds that after the first few pages we would succumb to alcohol poisoning. The point of this anecdote is that "respecting" or "celebrating diversity," has become a basic mantra of most progressives. If we are unable to achieve "relativistic enlightenment" and understand that all cultures and traditions as equal, we must at the very least accept the right of individuals and communities to express their culture and celebrate their traditions.

After much thought I become convinced that the greatest individual differences are found within rather than between groups. The aggregate statistical differences between (let's say) African-Americans and European-Americans are dwarfed by the diversity within each community. And at least within the United States, once we control for class and education, the greatest cultural differences are not found between different ethnic groups, but between different regions. For example, there is a greater probability that I (as a white) would have more in common with a secular, educated, middle class Hispanic-American of my native Chicago than I would with a deeply religious, working class white of rural Alabama. This leads me to determine that Southern Christians are as a"distinct piece" of the "gorgeous cultural mosaic" that makes up the United States as Asian-Americans, Jewish-Americans or any other group.

For these reasons it strikes me as contradictory, if not hypocritical, when progressives voice contempt for devout, southern Christians, whom they refer to as "red necks," for it would be beyond the pale for them to criticize observant Muslims, Jews, etc. This demonstrates that they neither respect the cultural diversity found within their group nor the marked cultural differences that flourish between regions of the United States. This had led to instances in which school districts encouraged Muslim and Jewish students to set up displays of Crescents and Menorahs, while barring Christian students from presenting similar displays. In a recent case, the Supreme Court had to intervene to defend the right of a Christian student group from meeting after school. In this case, I do not believe that the administrations were motivated by a concern for the separation of church and state, but rather by their inability to include Traditional Christians in their "celebration of diversity."

In the political arena this is seen when activists and politicians seek to oppose uniform policies across the land, indifferent to the sentiments and desires of diverse states and regions. During the push for health care reform, the federal government largely ignored the Tenth Amendment by seeking to impose a single plan, rather than allow each state to pursue policies that reflect the cultural and philosophical inclinations of their residents. Implicit in the strong sense of Federalism present in the constitution is a respect for the principles of self governance and an affirmation of and respect for the pronounced regional diversity that already existed.. To allow a strong central government to impose uniform policies across the land, beyond the carefully enumerated powers granted by the constitution, would be a recipe for conflict. Individuals who objected to the laws that governed their state or community could seek to alter them through the democratic process or move to other localities that better reflected their political and cultural visions. Of course this is not to say that states rights are without limits; slavery and other egregious abuses of individual rights warrant federal intervention. But, beyond that, we should respect the rights of diverse peoples and regions to enjoy their cultural and political traditions, even when we find them distasteful. That makes for a freer, stronger and more interesting nation.

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

2011-12-18T23:45:00.001-08:00

Great article dispelling the myth that Ron Paul is against Israel.

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

86 Responses

by RonPaul.com on August 14, 2011

Day after day we receive many questions aboutRon Paul’s stance on Israel and Iran. And while as grassroots supporters we do not speak for Ron Paul himself in any way, here’s how we understand his position.

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

First of all, it may come as a surprise to many that Ron Paul is actually the most pro-Israel candidate in the presidential race.

With hundreds of nuclear weapons in her possession, Israel has become the most powerful state in the Middle East. She could easily take on her neighbors and eliminate any and all threats to her existence.

Ron Paul would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she saw fit. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn the act. Ron Paul was one of the few dissenters: he voted against the condemnation and in favor of Israel’s right to self-determination.

Ending Foreign Aid Sets Israel Free

Ron Paul has also been criticized for wanting to “end foreign aid to Israel.” He had in fact called for an end to all foreign aid in general. Foreign aid acts like an entitlement: eventually the recipient grows dependent on it and will do everything in his power to continue the flow of funds. This might even involve spending some of the already-received payments to “lobby” for more money.

Ron Paul believes this is a bad thing. Not only does foreign aid lead to corruption on both sides; it is inherently immoral. Ron Paul said that “foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country.”

If foreign aid to all countries were stopped immediately, Israel would be the biggest net beneficiary. This is because the U.S. pays much more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies combined than to Israel.

Like a discouraged unemployed person whose welfare payments are about to run out, Israel would finally have the motivation to take care of herself, for example by ending socialist domestic policies within Israel. This in turn would make Israel much stronger and more independent. Ending all foreign aid would indeed set Israel free.

Iran Is a Big Nobody

Iran is a large country, but from a military point of view they are a big nobody. They are surrounded by nuclear powers, they have no air force, no navy, and they are even incapable of producing as much gasoline as they need. Iranian officials are relegated to grudgingly hoping that “the Zionist regime will collapse”, which is the real meaning of Ahmadinejad’s infamous phrase frequently mistranslated as “we will wipe Israel off the map”.

It is understandable that Iran wants to gain the international respect they deserve as a country of 75 million people. But according to U.S. intelligence reports there are no indications whatsoever that Iran is actively working on creating or obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Israel Can Do What She Wants – But Leave America Out of It

If Israel believes that Iran might one day become a nuclear power and that such a development would be against her interests, Ron Paul would not stop Israel from doing whatever she deemed necessary to defend herself. Israeli assassination squads are already operating within Iran, and several Iranian nuclear scientists found themselves torn apart by mysterious explosions over the past few years. Ron Paul did not interfere. In fact, he would not even prevent Israel from initiating a devastating nuclear attack on Iran.

However, neither would Ron Paul allow American lives to be sacrificed for Israeli interests. If Israeli officials knew that American kids will not throw themselves into the line of fire whenever Israel feels threatened by the boastful words of some wannabe dictator, Israel will act more responsibly when dealing with her neighbors – and grow much stronger for it.

Ron Paul Will Allow Israel to Blossom

Like it or not, Ron Paul is the most pro-Israel candidate out there. His wise policies – not by design, but by pure logical consequence – will permit Israel to grow and blossom as a truly free, independent and powerful state.

This article does not claim to represent Ron Paul’s official position on Israel and Iran. It’s just a summary of how we – as his grassroots supporters – interpret his statements on the issue. Please post a comment if you believe we misinterpreted Ron Paul’s position.

Nothing Is Loathsome As a Bully

2011-12-18T17:18:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: Mitchell Wilson

My articles usually focus on questions of economic policy and not my personal feelings, but I must declare that Nothing Is Loathsome As a Bully. It broke my heart to read about how Mitchell Wilson, an 11 year old who was battling muscular dystrophy was bullied to death. My G-d be with him and his bereaved family. I hope that this serves as a wake up call to the parents and schools who have failed to teach their children basic decency and compassion, especially for those weaker than themselves.

Why The UN Is Worthless

2011-12-18T17:04:00.000-08:00

In principle I support the concept of international legal bodies as a means of promoting peace and order. But, in practice, the United Nations and many other international legal bodies have shown such appalling bias that they have completely negated their credibility. Approximately 40% (223) of the human rights condemnations issued by the United Nations have been directed against Israel, while only 10 condemnations were levied against North Korea, a nation that allowed over 1,000,000 of its people to starve to death and to the best of knowledge, no condemnations have been directed against China whose one part state still maintains slave labor labor camps, engages in forced abortions, religious repressions and the systematic abuse of its minority (Tibetan and Uighur) populations. Check out this interesting video that explores this mind boggling hypocrisy of the United Nations.

When Labor Unions Become A Public Burden...

2011-12-18T16:51:00.000-08:00

In principle, I am supportive of labor unions. They were instrumental in improving the wages and working conditions for millions of Americans. In the private sector, a dynamic give-and-take occurs between unions and businesses, as seen in recent negotiations between automobile worker unions and the major auto markers. Faced with the clear reality that the domestic auto industry would go under if they did not become more globally competitive, the unions made major wage, pension and work rule concessions. Conversely, during industry wide booms, when labor markets tighten, unions can and should push for an increased share of the profits. But, this salubrious dynamic is entirely absent from unions that have embedded themselves into corrupt political systems. A recent Chicago Tribune Investigation documented how working with the Chicago Democratic Machine, politically connected unions heads were able to loot Illinois's already broken pension system. For example, Dennis Gannon, the former president of the Chicago Federation of Labor earned $55,474 a year, but now sucks $158,258 a year off the public pension system. So, before you indiscriminately go to bat for unions, I urge you to make a distinction between private and the public unions that partake in Chicago's tradition of graft and outright corruption.

Yes, this is corrupt.

Pension rigging this egregious demands three investigations — and an Illinois Truth Commission.

September 25, 2011

As Chicago's 1991 municipal elections approached, Mayor Richard M. Daley was consolidating power for his first re-election campaign. In Springfield, two state senators — Daley's brother John and his political ally Jeremiah Joyce — introduced a "shell bill," an empty vessel into which lawmakers later would stuff an astonishing public pension giveaway to Chicago union officials.

That pension giveaway was among more than 100 provisions eventually added to the shell bill, but never debated by either chamber of the General Assembly. Instead, 10 members of a bicameral "conference committee" that evidently never held a meeting shaped the legislation to achieve their political goals. By the time the heavily larded bill was ready for passage by the two chambers, another Chicago Democrat, state Sen. Emil Jones, assured his colleagues that the bill wasn't controversial. "These provisions incorporated within this bill have been agreed to by the (city) administration and the pension system and the laborers," Jones told his Senate colleagues the day the bill passed in January 1991. "The people in the city of Chicago came together and agreed."

That wasn't true. As with most Illinois sweetheart deals, only the insiders who would benefit from this looting of city pension funds "came together and agreed." Nobody consulted "the people in the city" who, as taxpayers, would foot the exorbitant cost of this legislation for decades to come. Nor did anyone ask rank-and-file union members who someday would rely on city pension funds.

Twenty years later, as the Tribune and WGN-TV reported last week, 23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds, thanks to the 1991 law. More union officials evidently are in the pipeline to receive the lavish benefits included in that legislation.

Sure enough, two days after the pension changes passed the Legislature — departing Gov. James Thompson signed it into law — the city's unions lined up to endorse Mayor Daley's re-election campaign. He would serve another 20 years with organized labor's support and acquiescence.

Always, though, the mayor would owe a debt for the 1991 legislation to his brother John, his pal Joyce and the 10 members of that conference committee: Senate Democrats John D'Arco, Emil Jones and Phil Rock; Senate Republicans John Friedland and Calvin Schuneman; House Democrats Ralph Capparelli, John Cullerton and Sam Wolf; and House Republicans Gene Hoffman and Terry Parke.

Only Cullerton, now president of the Illinois Senate, is in the Legislature today.

Pensions and political gain

That is the essence, but by no means the extent, of the cronyism that binds Illinois public officials and public employee union leaders. The officials — in Chicago, its suburban collar, downstate and in state government — have exploited public pension funds as huge pools of money that enable them to wieldpower. Many of those public officials have arranged enormous pension benefits for themselves and their peers in electoral politics from the executive, legislative and judicial branches. But buying labor peace, and labor union political support, also has been high on their priority list.

This is yet another classic saga of how Illinois power brokers take from the many to line the pockets of a chosen few. Legislators awarding free tuition at state universities to the children of their contributors, school boards inflating superintendents' late-career salaries to raise their pension calculations, politicians awarding one another pensions for part-time jobs — like those three traditional scams, this pension-rigging for union officials fits the definition of "corrupt": contaminated, morally unsound, debased, venal.

Calculating labor leaders' city pensions on their union salaries means Liberato "Al" Naimoli, president of Cement Workers Union Local 76, draws an annual city pension of $157,752 for a city job that paid him $15,264 a year. Then there's Dennis Gannon, former president of the Chicago Federation of Labor. He resigned from his city job, which topped out at $55,474, in 1993. But, because an accommodating Chicago City Hall rehired him for one day in 1994, he's drawing a city pension of $158,258.

Was this legal?

If you haven't read the Wednesday and Thursday news stories in which the Tribune's Jason Grottoexplained how city and state lawmakers enabled these outrages, you'll find them at chicagotribune.com/pensions. Fascinating reads, don't miss them.

rotto's stories may expose the tip of a deep and wide iceberg. There are indications that this pathology — taxpayer-funded pensions based on huge union salaries — extends well beyond 23 labor leaders from Chicago. We hope members of the affected unions note that, on average, these privileged few have accrued pension benefits nearly three times what typical retired city workers receive. Those workers ought to be furious that their leaders are raiding their funds. Just as taxpayers should be furious about union bosses depleting city pension coffers that are underfunded by $20 billion or more.

We on the Tribune editorial board don't practice criminal law; perhaps every action described in Grotto's stories was, and is, legal.

That said, the exposés suggest three avenues for investigators: FBI agents can assess whether any pensioner fraudulently claimed benefits in asserting his eligibility to qualify for this deal. The conduct of city pension fund officials — and of other city officials who directed payments into those funds — also is open to scrutiny. Separately, the office of Chicago's inspector general has authority to explore the use, and potential misuse, of city funds. And the U.S. Department of Labor has responsibility to help protect union pension funds. Any improper claim on those funds not only diminishes what remains for other retirees; withdrawn assets also deprive the funds of future growth possibilities.

For Mayor Emanuel …

Chicago's current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, didn't cause this pension debacle, but he can begin to address it. City Hall needs to reform policies that permit labor leaders to take essentially indefinite leaves of absence from city jobs, one factor permitting big city pensions for the long-departed. He also should be asking why nobody in city government, or at the pension funds, blew a loud whistle over these egregious practices.

But Emanuel is correct that Illinois needs thorough, rather than scattershot, pension reforms. To that end:

In Springfield, House Republican Leader Tom Cross plans to push for a repeal of the 1991 law that allowed this particular abuse. Cross also says he will explore strengthening enforcement of provisions against fraudulently claiming eligibility for public pensions.

And Cullerton, who says the pension law he helped pass is a relic from a bygone era, has instructed his staff to draft legislation "that would address the concerns that have been the focus of these media reports." Cullerton says the Legislature should address the problems in the fall veto session or in January.

Let's make that the fall veto session, Senator.

We hope House Speaker Michael Madigan will aggressively contribute. He was in full control of his chamber in, yes, 1991, when this noxious bill was approved.

… and for Illinois:

Citizens awakened to pension scandals at many levels of governance in this state deserve an Illinois Truth Commission to investigate all that's wrong and how lawmakers can correct it. Nobody will fight this idea more than the lawmakers, who have incredibly sweet pension deals themselves, and who have awarded generous deals to others. (Question from Illinois Pensions 101: Why do legislators give fantastic pension perks to judges? Answer: A lot of the actions legislators take wind up being challenged and then … evaluated by judges.)

At every turn, we the people are learning about insider deals and, yes, corruption. We realize that suggesting formation of an investigative panel risks a customary Illinois fate: Public officials here love to bury their problems in committees. But a group headed by, say, a former federal judge or prosecutor could unearth the many special deals that suffuse Illinois pension laws. A model here might be the so-called CLEAR Commission, which has been streamlining and updating the state's criminal code. Its distinguished members have done good work while largely avoiding politics.

A Truth Commission, then, could cast light on these rampant abuses by pols and union leaders of rank-and-file workers and Illinois taxpayers. Then the rest of us taxpayers can apply whatever heat is necessary to enact significant reforms.

Another Ron Paul Prophecy (Comes True)

2011-12-11T21:59:00.000-08:00

In 2008 Ron Paul offered a clear prediction that beyond rhetoric, Obama would offer no real change. Rather, an Obama Administration would maintain the same broken monetary, military and social policy status quo.

No, You Are The Special Interest!

2011-12-10T21:23:00.000-08:00

Who of good conscience doesn't find the $4 Billion tax break for the oil industry, $3 Billion tax break for corporate jets and $126 Million tax break for the horse racing industry obscene examples of corporate welfare? However, since they only account for 8% of the tax breaks, from the point of deficit reduction, they are largely meaningless. A great article in The Washington Post demonstrated that by far the most costly tax credits are directed towards households, which in 2011 had a negative fiscal impact of over $1 Trillion. For example, the cost of the exclusion of employer contributions for medical insurance premiums grew to $173.7 Billion, mortgage interest write-offs amounted to $88.8 billion and the 401K provision was worth $62.9 Billion. The author correctly points out what many (so called) fiscal conservatives like Grover Norquist fail to see: indirect government spending via tax credits holds the same negative fiscal impact as direct expenditures. The only real difference is that politically "stealth spending" is always easier, because it allows politicians to take credit for expanding government benefits, while also reducing taxes; a temptation that few Democrats or Republicans can resist. But, if we are too tackle our spiraling national debt and avoid the development of hazardous market distortions (housing bubble, college debt bubble, etc.) we must begin to wind down the regiment of tax credits to corporations and households alike. We can no longer afford a system in one man or group is expected to pay for another's special interest.

Ever-increasing tax breaks for U.S. families eclipse benefits for special interests

List of 10 most costly tax breaks in 2011.

By Lori Montgomery, Published: September 17

As President Obama and congressional Republicans argue over how to rewrite the U.S. tax code, the debate has revolved around “loopholes” for corporate jets and ending “carve-outs” for well-heeled special interests. But if the goal is debt reduction, that’s not where the money is. Broad tax breaks granted to millions of families at all income levels dwarf the corporate giveaways. Over the past two years, largely because of these popular benefits in the federal income tax code, the government has reached a rare milestone in tax collection — it has given away nearly as much as it takes in.

The number of tax breaks has nearly doubled since the last major tax overhaul 25 years ago, with lawmakers adding new benefits for children, college tuition, retirement savings and investment. At the same time, some long-standing breaks have exploded in value, such as the deduction for mortgage interest and the tax-free treatment of health-insurance premiums paid by employers.

All told, federal taxpayers last year received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks while paying $1.09 trillion in income taxes, according to government estimates.

Only about 8 percent of those benefits went to corporations. (The write-off for corporate jets equals about .03 percent of the total.) The bulk went to private households, primarily upper-middle-class families that Obama has vowed to protect from new taxes.

“The big money is in the middle-class subsidies,” said Syracuse University economist Leonard Burman, former director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “You’re not going to balance the budget by eliminating ethanol credits. You have to go after things that really matter to a lot of people.”

These tax breaks weave an invisible web of government benefits that now costs nearly as much as the Pentagon and all other federal agencies combined. But “tax expenditures,” as they are known in Washington, get no routine oversight. Congress and the Treasury Department both track them but use different rules to count them and estimate their value. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxationlists more than 300 breaks, while Treasury tallies 172.

No one regularly assesses whether tax expenditures accomplish the goals they were created to serve. Yet, with the rise of an ideology within the Republican Party that shuns big government and vilifies taxes, they have become virtually untouchable.

For those reasons, the tax code is a popular venue for both parties to pursue costly policy goals.

Edward Kleinbard, a University of Southern California law professor who served until recently as chief of staff to the Joint Committee on Taxation, says tax breaks are now the dominant instrument for creating new spending programs. Policymakers can give taxpayers a government benefit and get credit for lowering their tax bills — a combination lawmakers find “irresistible,” Kleinbard said, because they can portray themselves as tax cutters rather than big spenders.

Every president since Ronald Reagan has learned that lesson. In 1997, after a Republican Congress refused to increase spending for federal student loans, President Bill Clinton turned to the tax code to create a slew of higher-education credits. Initially worth around $10 billion a year to the nation’s college students, those benefits have been expanded to more than $20 billion annually.

Similarly, when President George W. Bush wanted to help victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he turned to the tax code. He backed the Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act, which wiped out two years of tax liability for survivors and created a continuing exemption for annuities paid to families of public-safety officers killed in the line of duty. Estimated 10-year price tag: $360 million.

In 2009, when Obama wanted to boost the flagging economy, he offered a massive new tax break as the centerpiece of his stimulus package. The Making Work Pay credit put about $60 billion a year in people’s pockets in 2009 and 2010, including $18 billion in “refundable” payments to low-income families whose tax bills were so small that the government had to write them checks to make sure they received the full value.

This week, Obama is expected to offer an outline for revising the tax code to weed out special tax breaks. At the same time, he is pressing Congress to create several more.His $447 billion jobs package includes a $4,000 credit for hiring people who have been out of work more than six months and a $5,000 credit for hiring returning war veterans.

Administration officials say targeted tax cuts are an easy way to quickly put money in people’s pockets. But they also acknowledged the political reality that lawmakers are more inclined to support a plan that cuts taxes than one that increases spending.

Once a tax break is ensconced in the code, it is hard to dislodge. Beneficiaries become fierce defenders, as do anti-tax conservatives, who view the end of a tax break as an impermissible hike in overall tax collections. About 95 percent of Republicans in Congress, and a few Democrats, have signed a pledge circulated by GOP strategist Grover Norquist vowing to “oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

The pledge, which Norquist has been circulating for 25 years, promotes “a nonsensical debate that says we’re not going to talk about spending in the tax code like we talk about other spending said Eugene Steuerle, an architect of the 1986 tax overhaul while working in the Reagan Treasury Department and now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “Spending in the tax code is granted a superior status, and if you get rid of it, it’s called a tax increase.”

Simply limiting the cost of a tax break can be politically perilous. Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, recently issued what it called a “comprehensive list of Obama tax hikes.” Among the items: The reversal of a 2003 Internal Revenue Serviceruling that allowed people to use pretax health spending accounts to pay for over-the-counter drugs. The group has dubbed the change the “medicine cabinet tax.”

Even temporary tax breaks have proved remarkably resilient. Congress routinely passes a “tax extender” bill that renews a host of expiring provisions worth about $30 billion a year. One of the most expensive: a break for residents of states that levy no income tax, including Texas and Florida. Congress has agreed to let them deduct sales taxes instead, at an annual cost to the Treasury of about $1.8 billion.

Congress generally renews the breaks for a year or two, preserving the illusion that they are temporary. But of dozens of breaks created since 1986, lawmakers have permitted just 18 major ones to expire, according to a recent Joint Committee report. Half were stimulus measures enacted by Bush and Obama during the recent recession.

Making Work Pay is among the fallen. But before it expired in December, Congress replaced it with a more generous provision that reduced payroll taxes by two percentage points this year. The payroll tax holiday will put an estimated $80 billion in workers’ pockets — a perk that comes on top of the breaks that reduce their income tax bills.

Combined with traditional rate cuts in 2001, proliferating tax breaks have left people at all income levels paying a shrinking share of their earnings in income taxes, the primary federal revenue source. Nearly half of all households no longer pay any income tax. Meanwhile, a middle-income family of four paid just 4.7 percent of its income, on average, to the IRS last year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — the third-lowest percentage in 50 years.

If policymakers hope to raise enough cash from tax loopholes to help tame the nation’s debt, tax experts say individual taxpayers will have to pay more.

Even the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, while infamous for providing disproportionate benefits to the rich, showered far more money in absolute terms on the middle class. The legislation doubled Clinton’s child credit, wiped out the marriage penalty for joint filers and expanded refundable credits. Of the approximately $4 trillion that would be lost if the Bush cuts stayed in place through the next decade, only about $800 billion would go to the wealthiest households making more than $250,000 a year, according to government estimates.

Georgetown University law professor John Buckley recently estimated that 95 percent of the revenue lost to tax expenditures is concentrated in 10 categories that aid families and advance popular policy goals. The “special-interest stuff,” he said, such as write-offs for corporate jets, is minuscule by comparison — “unless we’re all special,” he said.

In the mid-1980s, Reagan administration officials and a Democratic Congress also confronted a tax code eroded by multiplying tax breaks. They concluded that costly breaks, such as a credit that encouraged people to shelter income in unprofitable investments, were keeping tax rates artificially high for everyone.

The resulting overhaul was the most extensive in U.S. history. It repealed or modified dozens of tax expenditures, trimming their overall cost by nearly 40 percent. The resulting savings were not directed to deficit reduction, but used to lower rates across the board, pushing the top rate down from 50 percent to 28 percent.

Huge breaks survived, however. People could still get health insurance from their employers without being taxed, a benefit that originated with wage controls during World War II. And while taxpayers could no longer deduct interest on credit cards, they kept the break for mortgage interest. Policymakers did not want to hurt the real estate and construction industries, and they theorized that the break would continue to encourage people to buy homes.

Burman, then a junior staffer at the Treasury Department, said he warned that it would also encourage people to shoulder ever-larger mortgages. When the housing bubble burst in 2006, he said, “instead of getting into trouble with Visa and MasterCard, people lost their homes.”

The breaks for health insurance and mortgage interest are the most valuable tax expenditures on the books, worth a combined $260 billion this year. They have soared in value, helped along by the increasing size of mortgages and the cost of health insurance.

But a recent effort to cap the value of the health-care exclusion was abandoned amid complaints from labor union officials, who have for years traded wage increases for richer health benefits. Democrats instead enacted a tax on insurers that sell high-cost policies, a provision some lobbyists predict will be further watered down before it is scheduled to take effect in 2013.

Meanwhile, top tax aides said the new debt-reduction “supercommittee” on Capitol Hill could look at capping the mortgage deduction or disallowing it for second homes. Neither is likely, however, and no one has expressed interest in ending the deduction for the vast majority of homeowners.

Caps on spending

After 1986, the tax code emerged leaner and more efficient. But as Norquist began circulating his anti-tax pledge to protect the changes, Congress decided to tackle rising budget deficits by imposing strict caps on spending.

With no place else to go, lawmakers — particularly Democrats — latched onto the tax code as a vehicle for new initiatives.

Buckley, who served until last year as chief Democratic tax counsel on the House Ways and Means Committee, said it started in 1986 with the low-income housing credit for developers and investors. As Reagan’s budget cutters were slashing direct spending on housing, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) won bipartisan support for the credit, which quickly became a primary source of financing for housing construction and rehabilitation.

The trend accelerated under Clinton, who found Republican lawmakers far more willing to finance his priorities in the form of tax cuts than as new spending. While Clinton ended traditional welfare programs, he shifted chunks of the social safety net to the tax code, creating an array of benefits for families, including a new credit for every child younger than 17.

“Politically, it was easier to get tax cuts dedicated to a purpose than to get spending dedicated to the same purpose,” said former Obama economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers, who also served as Clinton’s Treasury secretary.

The child credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, a break for the working poor enacted in 1975, are now two of the federal government’s biggest anti-poverty measures, far larger than the modern welfare program, or even food stamps.

For Clinton, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 had another advantage. It let him make good on a pledge to cut taxes for the middle class without enacting a more expensive rate reduction, said Eric Toder, who served in Clinton’s Treasury Department and is now co-director of the Tax Policy Center. Other Democrats took note.

“If you look at the [Al] Gore campaign or the Obama proposals, just about all their tax cuts are increased tax expenditures,” Toder said. “They really viewed this as the way to give tax cuts to the middle class.”

Rather than tackling these breaks one by one, experts such as Kleinbard and Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a senior Reagan White House adviser, last week counseled Congress to eliminate or cap all tax breaks for everyone.

Obama has advanced a similar idea that would limit itemized deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year. But lawmakers have repeatedly rejected it, fearful of antagonizing the industries and charities that benefit, as well as taxpayers themselves.

Kleinbard calls tax expenditures “the sacred tax cows.” But to tame the debt, he said, at least some of them must be led to slaughter. “There’s just no other way to make the numbers work.”

A Call For True Fiscal Conservatism (or Why Taxes Must Be Raise For ALL Americans)

2011-12-10T19:51:00.000-08:00

As a fiscal conservative, my ideal is a government that imposes a modest tax burden that is sufficient to match or exceed public expenditures. But, if we are unable to stem the expansion of the size and scope of the state, true fiscal conservatives must accept the need for increased government revenue. And with the federal government so deep in a fiscal abyss, any responsible politician has to accept the need for significant revenue increases. The problem is that our political elites is now divided between Republicans who cannot publicly acknowledge this reality and Democrats who by and large treat the issue of tax hikes as a cheap political tool.

In the last year, diatribes against the "rich" who "do not pay their fair share" have become increasingly common. In principle, I am not opposed to increasing taxes on the wealthy, however when we look at the evidence, it becomes clear that this is little more than catharsis, employed by politicians to rile and rally their base. To start off with, the top 10% of income earners enjoy 45% of national wealth, but pay approximately 70% of all taxes. So, the numbers do not support the premise that the wealthy do not pay their "fair share" of taxes. But, the pertinent question remains: will substantially raising taxes on top earners address our pressing fiscal crisis, or is this another example of cheap political grandstanding?

The New York Times published an article extolling the need to raise taxes on the wealthy as a means to address the $15.47 Trillion Dollar National Debt, noting that rescinding the Bush Tax Cuts on those earning more than a million dollars would generate an estimated $700 Billion in revenue over the course of 10 years. At a first glance this sounds impressive, however when we crunch the numbers we see that this would only equal a 4.25% reduction in the $1.645 Trillion yearly federal deficit and would not even begin to pay down the debt. However if we were to allow the Bush Tax Cut to expire for All Americans, including the middle class and poor, over a decade, revenues would increase by $3.7 Trillion. On a yearly basis this would equal $370 billion, which would come to a 22.5% reduction in the deficit

What are the policy implication of these figures? First, calls to squeeze the rich may be emotionally appealing to the economically illiterate, but from the point of debt reduction, it is largely meaningless. Those serious about using revenue generation as an element in a debt reduction plan would call for the repeal of the Bush Tax cuts for All Americans, including the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal taxes.. To reiterate our previous point, rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts for just the wealthy would only generate $70 billion per year in additional revenue, but when we include all Americans it surges to $370 billion. Thus we arrive at the first fundamental problem: any candidate who called for broad tax hikes on the middle class would lose almost conservatives and liberal support.

The second policy implication is that the growth in debt is mostly driven by excessive spending, not by revenue short falls. Case in point, rolling back all of the Bush Tax cuts would only reduce the deficit by $370 billion (22.5%), which means that to achieve a balanced budget, the remaining 1.275 Trillion (77.5%), would have to be come from sharp spending cuts. But, the Obama Administration is only willing to cut $1.1 trillion over the next decade ($110 billion a year), which may sound impressive, but it allows for a yearly deficit of 1.165 Trillion! And most Republican proposals are scarcely better.

Thus we arrive at the second fundamental problem: any candidate proposing sufficient spending cuts would be reduced to a pariah among media elites and most voters. Those who promoted military cuts would incur the wrath of neo-conservatives and those who called for significant entitlement reforms would be vilified by liberals. The only remedy is aggressive spending cuts and only then the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts, because few politicians would resist the temptation of directing increased revenues towards expanding their programs of choice, rather than true deficit reduction. Tax hikes will be a necessary element of any serious debt reduction plan, but until we cease electing so many Democrats and Republicans of such low moral and intellectual caliber, we can expect tax hikes to be continue their role as a cheap political tool.

Defending The Freedom Of Association

2011-12-05T00:56:00.001-08:00

In contrast to some of my conservative compatriots I do support the right of gays to marry, or more specifically, I affirm the Freedom of: Association, Conscience, Contract and Institutional Autonomy.

The Freedom of Association dictates that an individual has a right to association or not associate with individuals of their choice and the Freedom of Conscience and Contract allows them to define the terms, rights and responsibilities of their relationship and enshrine it in a legally binding agreement. And the Freedom of Institutional Autonomy maximizes the rights of private institutions to run their affairs as they see fit without undue government interference. Even those who believe that homosexuality is a grave sin and offensive should respect the rights of two individuals of the same sex to freely associate, form a marriage contract and also respect the rights of any house of worship to choose to conduct the ceremony.

But, supporters of gay marriage should also be careful about infringing on the rights of others, as was recently the case when a gay couple initiated a law suit against an Illinois bed & breakfast for refusing to host their civil ceremony. Even those who find the choice of the owner "offensive" or "bigoted" should respect his right to (decline to) Freely Associate with the couple, based on his right to (not) Form A Contract with them that violates his Freedom of Conscience and Institutional Autonomy, i.e. his right to run his business as he sees fit. Given the nature of a free market, I am confident that the couple could find another bed and breakfast that would gladly host their ceremony, either out of moral convictions or desire for profit. And in the highly unlikely event that such a bed and breakfast did not exist, the couple and other like minded individuals and organizations would be free to open one of their own and run it as they saw fit.

Let's defend the Freedom of Association in all its forms, even when others exercise it in a manner that we find offensive. Because if we do not defend the rights of "perverts" and "bigots," we undermine freedom and may one day find that it's our choices that are being restricted.

Same-sex couple denied ceremony at B and B might act

Case could draw a line between personal and religious freedoms.

September 16, 2011|By Rex W. Huppke, Tribune reporter

Not long after ink from the governor's signature had dried on Illinois' civil unions law, Todd and Mark Wathen began preparations for a June ceremony.

The couple wanted to hold the event somewhere quaint in central Illinois, a place that would be convenient to family in Kentucky and Indiana and to their home in Mattoon. They reached out to two bed and breakfast establishments — and in each case the owners told the Wathens they were not willing to host a civil union.

The Beall Mansion in Alton told the Wathens via email that it "will just be doing traditional weddings." The owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton wrote in an email to the couple: "We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois. We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate."

"After all this happened, I just didn't even want to talk about the wedding," said Todd Wathen. "It took an event we had looked forward to for years and ruined it."

The Wathens wound up holding a ceremony in their backyard shortly after the law took effect in June, but they did not let the matter with Beall Mansion and Timber Creek rest.

The couple filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which investigated and found "substantial evidence" that a civil rights violation had been committed.

The August finding allows the Wathens 90 days to file a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission or take civil action in Circuit Court. The Wathens' attorney, Betty Tsamis of Chicago, told the Tribune that her clients have chosen the latter path and will file lawsuits against both businesses as early as next week.

This action, should it proceed, could bring to the courtroom a debate over the boundary lines between religious freedom and discrimination in Illinois.

Steven Amjad, an attorney representing Timber Creek, said the state constitution guarantees religious freedoms.

"These are business owners that have strong religious convictions. The Legislature has created this (conflict), and the courts will have to sort this out," he said.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor of political science and law at Northwestern University, said the question is whether the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act — which protects religious freedoms from government intrusion — can trump the state's Human Rights Act, which includes the protection of people based on sexual orientation.

"The hotels seem pretty clearly in violation of the Human Rights Act," Koppelman said. "And if you're going to say that somebody is exempted from the human rights law under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that would mean that people could discriminate based on religious views. It's a slippery slope."

As civil union and same-sex marriage laws have been enacted in states across the country, similar legal cases have surfaced. In Vermont, for example, a lesbian couple has sued a bed and breakfast for having a "no-gay reception policy."

"This issue is coming up in many different places," said Jennifer Pizer, legal director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles.

"Some people talk about religious freedom being an absolute freedom, but the limits start to come into play when people wish to act in certain ways in furtherance of their beliefs," Pizer said. "The Supreme Court has said before that freedom of belief is absolute, but the freedom to act cannot be."

A similarly themed case recently played out in Illinois when Catholic Charities fought the state over whether the organization discriminated against same-sex couples by not allowing them to adopt foster children.

Attorneys for Catholic Charities said the state's civil unions bill — formally known as the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act — provides exceptions for religious groups that don't recognize civil unions. Attorneys for the state said those exceptions apply only to clergy who do not want to officiate civil unions.

In August, a judge sidestepped the religious freedom issue while ruling that the state could sever its contracts with Catholic Charities. That ruling is likely to be appealed.

Illinois attorney Jason Craddock, a member of the Alliance Defense Fund, a national Christian legal organization that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, also is representing Timber Creek. Craddock said cases such as this one involving the Wathens are critical for people of faith who believe their First Amendment freedom of religion is inviolable.

"I believe strongly that liberty of conscience, particularly religious liberty of conscience, is what our nation was built on and is something that goes deep to our souls," Craddock said. "Increasingly it's being pitted against the asserted rights of homosexuals. Now it's going beyond just asking for tolerance. Now we're getting into a situation where government is telling people of faith, 'You can't live out your faith if it happens to disagree with this particular group.'"

Tsamis said the case isn't about stifling a person's religious freedom but about making sure that a public business does not discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

"For the religious right, they view this as a very important case strategically," Tsamis said. "They'reinvesting a lot into making sure that the Wathens lose. Our goal is to simply make sure these people are complying with the law.

"This isn't about the money. This is about the principle. A business cannot violate someone's civil rights because of who that person is."

Pizer, the UCLA professor, said this case and others like it mirror litigation that surfaced during the civil rights era in the wake of laws mandating desegregation.

"For each generation or each new issue of inclusion, there can be questions about what the law means and what the law requires of people," she said. "Sometimes, there's a simple resistance to the concept. But it also can be sometimes a matter of honest confusion.

"For example, some of what's going on now is that people believe — honestly, sincerely believe — that their religious views do trump the civil rights law and give them a legal defense. They believe they're not breaking the law."

But the courts generally have not agreed with that thinking, Pizer said: "You do have a constitutional right, but it's not a free pass to avoid all the laws. People have thought that, but the Supreme Court has often said, 'No.'"

The owners of the Beall Mansion referred calls to their attorney, John Hopkins, of Edwardsville, who said he had no additional comments to make until the Wathens formally proceed with their case. Jim Walder, co-owner of Timber Creek, wrote the following statement in an email:

"Todd Wathen's inquiry came months before the civil-union law went into effect and we had not yet thought through the implications of how that law might impact our business. After considering the issue, we decided that we would continue to host wedding ceremonies for marriages, but that we would not expand our services to include civil unions of any kind."

The Wathens met in Kentucky in 2003 and moved to Illinois in 2006. They say they decided to take legal action against the two businesses because they don't want others to have similar experiences.

"I'm a white male in my early 40s and I'd never experienced discrimination in my life," said Mark Wathen. "When I came up against this I was like: 'Whoa. This is not the 1960s.'"

Todd Wathen added, "We just didn't feel like we could sit back and let this happen."

rhuppke@tribune.com

Unfunded Liabilities, Or Why Ron Paul Is The Most Moderate Candidate

2011-12-05T00:27:00.000-08:00

The popular notion is that Dr. Ron Paul is an "extremist" for wanting to slash a trillion dollars off the federal budget and to significantly reform social security and other entitlement programs. But, a serious study of the the Unfunded Liabilities (that difference between financial promises via social security, medicare, pension plans, etc. and projected funds) that the United States faces, demonstrates that Dr. Paul is the most moderate candidate. The real radicals are the Democrats and Republicans that defend the completely unsustainable fiscal status quo that has led us to over $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Updated 6/13/2011 7:31 PM |

1409 |

Reprints & Permissions

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

STORY: Government's mountain of debt

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $528,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."

Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.

"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.

USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.

The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.

African-Americans Voting With Their Feet

2011-12-04T23:10:00.001-08:00

An interesting report on NPR, Opportunity, Affordability Lure More Blacks South discussed the growing number of African-Americans moving away from northern cities towards the south. So, in a sense these families, who are mostly middle class and educated, are voting with their feet for the conservative policies that have allowed the south to attract greater industry and opportunity, while still maintaining a lower cost of living. We can only hope that they will have the insight not to help recreate the policies that contributed to the exodus of jobs and families from Chicago and Illinois.

Culture and the Welfare State

2011-12-04T18:07:00.003-08:00

Most discussions of the welfare state are one dimensional and fail to take into account the powerful cultural factors that largely determine the success or failure of government institutions. For example, when I express my misgivings about the chances of success for of a single player health care plan in the United States, many of my progressives compatriots will respond "it works in Sweden and Finland, so why not here?!?" Indeed, the social welfare programs of the said nations are relatively successful, but this occurs in the context of homogeneous, educated populations with a culture that fosters an unusually high level of civic mindedness and very low levels of corruption. Welfare states only function when a large majority of the population possesses sufficient cultural and moral capital to not abuse the system. But, in more corrupt countries, like Pakistan and India, endemic corruption makes it challenging for the state to even perform its most basic functions, like building roads and schools. An Indian friend of mine related to me how every year the state government would send funds to his father's village the maintain roads which had not even been built, because for years local and state officials colluded to pilfer the funds. In such a cultural and moral environment, administering a semi-functional welfare state is all but impossible.

Sadly, there are examples closer to home. A recent Wall Street Journal article discussed how 9 out of the 10 zip codes for workers collecting disability payments are in Puerto Rico. This is a serious issue because the SSDI funds are projected to run out by 2018.There are many things I love about Latin American culture (music, literature, strong sense of family and friendship) but its civic and political traditions are not among them. From the Rio Grande to the Magallanes, with a few minor exceptions, similar political vices abound.With great effort cultures can change, but in our environment of cultural relativism and political correctness, discussing problems in the majority culture is challenging and in minority cultures is strictly verboten. This will certainly inhibit our ability to develop wise policies in an increasingly diverse nation.

Puerto Rico Disability Claims Probed

By DAMIAN PALETTA

The Social Security Administration's inspector general is investigating a case of potentially widespread disability fraud in Puerto Rico, two people familiar with the matter said, part of the agency's stepped-up efforts to tackle abuses in the financially struggling program.

United Press International

Inspector General Patrick O'Carroll testifying before Congress in July.

The inspector general, Patrick O'Carroll, told an audience at an Aug. 30 disability-examiners conference that the investigation was tied to a pharmaceutical plant that recently closed in Puerto Rico, with 300 employees losing their jobs.

Shortly after the layoff, 290 of the 300 former employees applied for Social Security disability benefits and they all used the same doctor, who lived far from the plant, Mr. O'Carroll told the audience. Mr. O'Carroll didn't identify the doctor, whose identity couldn't be learned.

Jonathan Lasher, an assistant inspector general at the agency, wouldn't comment on the case, but said, "The office of the inspector general is continuing to pursue any number of fraud allegations in Puerto Rico related to the Social Security disability program."

The investigation comes as part of a stepped-up presence in the U.S. commonwealth by the inspector general's office following a March article in The Wall Street Journal that showed how much easier it is to win Social Security disability benefits on the Caribbean island compared with any of the 50 U.S. states.

In 2010, the Social Security Administration awarded benefits in 63.4% of its initial decisions in Puerto Rico, compared with much lower rates elsewhere. In Arizona, for example, benefits were awarded in initial applications in 35.6% of the cases. Nine of the 10 top U.S. zip codes for workers collecting Social Security disability benefits are in Puerto Rico, according to government data.

Enlarge Image

A spokesman for the Social Security Administration said in light of "statistical trends" in Puerto Rico it has asked the inspector general's office to "make sure that these trends do not reflect an increase in fraud."

The Social Security Disability Insurance program, known as SSDI, was created in the 1950s and is used to provide financial and health-care assistance for Americans who can no longer work because of mental or physical illness or injury. It can help Americans with a range of ailments, including cancer, severe depression and chronic back pain.

The cost of the SSDI program has more than doubled in the last decade and it is projected to run out of reserves in 2017 or 2018 if changes aren't made. About 10.2 million people collected $124 billion in 2010.

Experts attribute the program's economic strains to persistently high unemployment rates and an aging population that is more prone to meeting the government's definition of having disabilities.

The system's structure has also drawn critics who charge the awarding of benefits to the needy relies too heavily on accidental factors, such as where someone applies or which judge is assigned to determine an appeal.

Doctors also play a central role in the process, as their recommendation holds large sway with examiners and judges who make decisions.

Even though SSDI is a federal program funded by payroll taxes, initial decisions about whether someone qualifies are made by state officials because of the way the program is designed. Officials in the Puerto Rican government promised full cooperation with the probe.

"We strongly support the effort to investigate this case and any incident of abuse, and will partner with federal officials to eliminate fraud in not only the disability program, but in other federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid," Lorenzo Gonzalez, Puerto Rico's secretary of health, said in a written statement. "As with any other federal investigation involving fraud with a federal program, if a physician is found to be performing unlawfully, we will move swiftly at the local level through the state licensing board to take whatever action is needed to halt the abuse."

Mr. Gonzalez said these incidents "are not unique to Puerto Rico" and show the need for "standardized, clear cut guidelines" in determining how benefits are awarded.

Puerto Rico's unemployment rate was 15.5% in July, higher than the 9.1% national average.

Social Security Administration officials have said areas with elevated unemployment rates can translate into more applications for disability benefits.

People who are on SSDI for a set period of time can also qualify for Medicare benefits, which is one of the most attractive features of the program.

Many people remain on SSDI for years, and experts estimate that the program's benefits cost the government roughly $300,000 per beneficiary over the course of a lifetime.

Tavis Smiley Elected President!

2011-12-04T18:02:00.000-08:00

'
;'
During an appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time, Tavis Smiley took political correctness to new heights by refusing to acknowledge that women are treated better. In response to Bill Maher's clear examples, Mr. Smiley engages in mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious: for whatever problems American Culture may have, at least in the treatment of women it's far superior to Islamic Culture. If ever there is an election for President of Fantasyland, Tavis Smiley would get my write in!

Corruption in Cook County

2011-12-04T17:46:00.000-08:00

Pictured Above: Young Lady Training to be a Cook County Politician

The University of Illinois at Chicago published a well documented report on corruption in Cook County. It's a shocking, must read that will make you wonder what's wrong with the people of Chicago and Cook County for permitting this rotten regimen of corruption to continue unabated.

Chicago Freedom And Reason Forum

On The Clash of Cultures (Part II)

On the Clash of Cultures (Part I)

Occupy Wall Street: Half Right

Debt And National Sovereignty

German proposal seeks EU commissioner with sweeping powers to directly control Greece’s budget

By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, January 28, 11:34 AM

Adult Medicine

Adult Medicine

Peter the Great Saves Russia From the Hipsters

In Mayor Rahmulan Emanuel's Chicago...

Two say they got paid to protest, back closing Chicago schools

The Unintended Consequences of the Chicago Residential Landlord And Tenant Ordinance

The Rule Of Law in Chicago & Mexico

Media, The Great Hysteria Maker

Book Review: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

The Middle Path To Understanding (And Addressing) The Racial Achievement Gap

A Classical Liberal (Libertarian) Approach To Fighting Racism

Rembetiko, Music of My Heart

Return Of The Worthy Poor?

Is Intellect (In Politicians) Overrated?

On Kenyan Birthers

On Green Conservatism

Translation of Obama's Biography Into Farsi

What is Liberalism? What is Conservatism?

True Respect For Diversity

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

Nothing Is Loathsome As a Bully

Why The UN Is Worthless

When Labor Unions Become A Public Burden...

Yes, this is corrupt.

Pension rigging this egregious demands three investigations — and an Illinois Truth Commission.

Another Ron Paul Prophecy (Comes True)

No, You Are The Special Interest!

Ever-increasing tax breaks for U.S. families eclipse benefits for special interests

A Call For True Fiscal Conservatism (or Why Taxes Must Be Raise For ALL Americans)

Defending The Freedom Of Association

Same-sex couple denied ceremony at B and B might act

Case could draw a line between personal and religious freedoms.

Unfunded Liabilities, Or Why Ron Paul Is The Most Moderate Candidate

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

STORY: Government's mountain of debt

African-Americans Voting With Their Feet

Culture and the Welfare State

Puerto Rico Disability Claims Probed

Puerto Rico Disability Claims Probed

By DAMIAN PALETTA

Tavis Smiley Elected President!

Corruption in Cook County