The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) says it's got evidence that the Department of Homeland Security has failed to properly evaluate the level of risk from airport body scanners.
In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the DHS, EPIC says it's obtained documents concerning the scanners' radiation risks, including agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs and the results of some radiation tests.
EPIC says that TSA staff have been concerned that a large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease. But the documents show that the TSA's response was simply to tell them: "Because TSA systems comply with federal regulations, the increased risk of developing radiation-induced cancer in later life is extremely small, no greater than other risks people routinely accept in their daily lives".
"One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters - safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure," says EPIC.
"Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST 'affirmed the safety' of full body scanners."
In fact, says EPIC, the documents show that NIST disputed this assertion and pointed out that the it had not actually tested the devices. Indeed, one NIST study actaully warns airport screeners to avoid standing next to full body scanners.
Further, says EPIC, the documents include a Johns Hopkins University study which revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the General Public Dose Limit.
EPIc has been fighting the use of body scanners in airports since July 2009, when it filed its suit calling for the program to be suspended.
http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/56899-tsa-ignored-warnings-on-cancer-cluster
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 28, 2011
Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, the TSA has been caught covering up a surge in cases of TSA workers developing cancer as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the latest FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
After Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.
The documents indicate how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”
“The Department, rather than acting on it, or explaining its position seems to have just dismissed. I don’t think that’s the way most other agencies would have acted in a similar situation if they were confronted with that question,” EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg said.
In an email sent to Heather Callahan (PDF), deputy federal security director at Boston Logan International Airport, union representatives express their concern about “TSA Boston’s growing number of TSOs working here that have thus far been diagnosed with cancer.”
Of course, if TSA workers who are merely standing near the scanners are already developing cancer, frequent flyers are also putting themselves in harm’s way by standing directly inside the radiation-firing machines.
http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surges-in-body-scanner-operators-tsa-launches-cover-up/
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Update: Wow Justice For Good
Emily Good, the woman arrested for filming police conduct a routine traffic stop from her own front yard won a victory in court Monday when charges against her were dropped. The judge, district attorney’s office, mayor, and local police chief all felt there was no legal basis to pursue the case.
Good, whose stated reason for filming the traffic stop was that “three white officers were stopping a young black male,” is not giving up her fight against what she considers police misconduct and might even sue the Rochester police department.
YNN reports on the details of Good’s courtroom victory:
It took less than a minute for a judge to dismiss an obstructing governmental administration charge against Good, saying there was no legal basis to move forward.
Good was arrested last month while videotaping a traffic stop outside her Rochester home. She was taken into custody after Good failed to go inside her home when ordered to by Rochester police officer Mario Masic.
Good says even though the charge has been dropped, her fight against police injustice is just beginning.
“I’m part of a community center, the Flying Squirrel Community Space,” said Good. “We’re having conversations on a regular basis right now about police accountability. We want to hear people’s stories of racial profiling. We’re working on sort of a place to document stories and maybe look at patterns.”
Engaging in conversations about racial profiling at the Flying Squirrel Community Space aren’t all Good plans to do, however. Good’s attorney Donald Thompson reportedly told WHEC she may sue officer Masic and the Rochester Police Department for violating her civil rights.
Thompson says says the lawsuit will claim a violation of Good’s civil rights under the guarantees of the First Amendment. He said they will either file it in state or federal court.
“There was no crime that she committed here,” says Thompson. “There was no basis to arrest her. There was no reason to forcibly take her from her property. It’s a violation of her civil rights.”
“It was pretty far over the line,” says Thompson. “That’s why it went national. It didn’t go national because this is something that happens every day, or it’s kind of run of the mill. It’s not. This is a pretty cut and dried violation."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/women-arrested-for-recording-police-from-front-yard-plans-to-sue-rochester-p-d/
Good, whose stated reason for filming the traffic stop was that “three white officers were stopping a young black male,” is not giving up her fight against what she considers police misconduct and might even sue the Rochester police department.
YNN reports on the details of Good’s courtroom victory:
It took less than a minute for a judge to dismiss an obstructing governmental administration charge against Good, saying there was no legal basis to move forward.
Good was arrested last month while videotaping a traffic stop outside her Rochester home. She was taken into custody after Good failed to go inside her home when ordered to by Rochester police officer Mario Masic.
Good says even though the charge has been dropped, her fight against police injustice is just beginning.
“I’m part of a community center, the Flying Squirrel Community Space,” said Good. “We’re having conversations on a regular basis right now about police accountability. We want to hear people’s stories of racial profiling. We’re working on sort of a place to document stories and maybe look at patterns.”
Engaging in conversations about racial profiling at the Flying Squirrel Community Space aren’t all Good plans to do, however. Good’s attorney Donald Thompson reportedly told WHEC she may sue officer Masic and the Rochester Police Department for violating her civil rights.
Thompson says says the lawsuit will claim a violation of Good’s civil rights under the guarantees of the First Amendment. He said they will either file it in state or federal court.
“There was no crime that she committed here,” says Thompson. “There was no basis to arrest her. There was no reason to forcibly take her from her property. It’s a violation of her civil rights.”
“It was pretty far over the line,” says Thompson. “That’s why it went national. It didn’t go national because this is something that happens every day, or it’s kind of run of the mill. It’s not. This is a pretty cut and dried violation."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/women-arrested-for-recording-police-from-front-yard-plans-to-sue-rochester-p-d/
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Video: Police Arrest Woman In Her Own Front Yard
Be aware people. At the same time our rights are being taken away the cops are getting smarter using the defense of "not feeling safe" as this woman video tapes them on her own property.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
I Told You People
Dishwashers harbour 'killer bugs'
For many householders, it is the most sparkling area of the kitchen. But the inside of people's dishwashers could be harbouring potentially lethal bugs, according to scientists.
The inside of the appliances, which four in ten homes in Britain own, are the perfect breeding ground for fungi associated with potentially deadly illnesses.
The moist and hot environment, combined with the alkaline water caused by the dishwasher tablets, means that the machines appear to have created a previously unknown and possibly serious threat to human health, the research paper has suggested.
The scientists studied 189 dishwashers in 101 different homes around the world. They found 62 per cent of dishwashers contained fungi on the rubber band in the door. More than half of these included the black yeasts Exophiala dermatitidis and E. phaeomuriformis which are known to be dangerous to human health.
Writing in the journal Fungal Biology, Dr Polona Zalar of the University of Ljubljana, said that "the potential hazard they represent should not be overlooked".
Her co-author Nina Gunde-Cimerman told The Daily Telegraph: "One thing that is not in the report is that we tested the dishes after they had been cleaned in these dishwashers and they were full of this black yeast, so too the cutlery that you put in your mouth. We just don't know how serious this could be."
Black yeasts are particularly dangerous for people with cystic fibrosis, as they are able to attack the lungs. They have also been found to occasionally cause fatal infections in healthy humans.
Both Exophiala species displayed remarkable tolerance to heat, high salt concentrations, aggressive detergents and to both acid and alkaline water.
This explains why the fungi survived even in high temperatures between 60 º to 80 º C, and despite the use of detergents and salt in the dishwasher.
This is the latest in a long line of health scares to raise concerns about everyday consumer goods. Which?, the consumer group, found that computer keyboards contained five times as many bugs as a lavatory on average. Meanwhile tests on shoppers’ bags, by the University of Arizona, revealed half contained traces of E.coli, the food poisoning bug that killed over 20 people in Europe over the last month.
Dishwasher manufacturers declined to comment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8589765/Dishwashers-harbour-killer-bugs.html
For many householders, it is the most sparkling area of the kitchen. But the inside of people's dishwashers could be harbouring potentially lethal bugs, according to scientists.
The inside of the appliances, which four in ten homes in Britain own, are the perfect breeding ground for fungi associated with potentially deadly illnesses.
The moist and hot environment, combined with the alkaline water caused by the dishwasher tablets, means that the machines appear to have created a previously unknown and possibly serious threat to human health, the research paper has suggested.
The scientists studied 189 dishwashers in 101 different homes around the world. They found 62 per cent of dishwashers contained fungi on the rubber band in the door. More than half of these included the black yeasts Exophiala dermatitidis and E. phaeomuriformis which are known to be dangerous to human health.
Writing in the journal Fungal Biology, Dr Polona Zalar of the University of Ljubljana, said that "the potential hazard they represent should not be overlooked".
Her co-author Nina Gunde-Cimerman told The Daily Telegraph: "One thing that is not in the report is that we tested the dishes after they had been cleaned in these dishwashers and they were full of this black yeast, so too the cutlery that you put in your mouth. We just don't know how serious this could be."
Black yeasts are particularly dangerous for people with cystic fibrosis, as they are able to attack the lungs. They have also been found to occasionally cause fatal infections in healthy humans.
Both Exophiala species displayed remarkable tolerance to heat, high salt concentrations, aggressive detergents and to both acid and alkaline water.
This explains why the fungi survived even in high temperatures between 60 º to 80 º C, and despite the use of detergents and salt in the dishwasher.
This is the latest in a long line of health scares to raise concerns about everyday consumer goods. Which?, the consumer group, found that computer keyboards contained five times as many bugs as a lavatory on average. Meanwhile tests on shoppers’ bags, by the University of Arizona, revealed half contained traces of E.coli, the food poisoning bug that killed over 20 people in Europe over the last month.
Dishwasher manufacturers declined to comment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8589765/Dishwashers-harbour-killer-bugs.html
Monday, June 20, 2011
Watch This Video
When will you finally decide to take some time to learn our history? When will you finally decide what side you are on? The time is coming people, when you will have to decide which side of the fence you stand on and why? When will you finally decide to do a little extra, hard work and take a stand for your country?
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Benjamin Netanyahu VS. Barack Hussein Obama
All you need to know:…
Contrasting two future world leaders, in their early twenties:
Benjamin Netanyahu:
Commando in Israeli Defence Force.
Led multiple hazard missions and raids, in the performance of his duties.
Degrees from Harvard and MIT.
Fellow students and soldiers remember him with respect.
In photo below appears squared away and ready to rock and roll.
Barack Hussein Obama:
Lifetime product of affirmative action.
Led multiple community organizing (read: agitation, class warfare, and ‘I'm gonna get my slice of the pie, uh-huh) missions.
Degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
Fellow students don't remember him even being there.
In photo below appears possibly high as a giraffe's ass, and ready to rock and roll.
Contrasting two future world leaders, in their early twenties:
Benjamin Netanyahu:
Commando in Israeli Defence Force.
Led multiple hazard missions and raids, in the performance of his duties.
Degrees from Harvard and MIT.
Fellow students and soldiers remember him with respect.
In photo below appears squared away and ready to rock and roll.
Barack Hussein Obama:
Lifetime product of affirmative action.
Led multiple community organizing (read: agitation, class warfare, and ‘I'm gonna get my slice of the pie, uh-huh) missions.
Degrees from Columbia and Harvard.
Fellow students don't remember him even being there.
In photo below appears possibly high as a giraffe's ass, and ready to rock and roll.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Kids Fined $500 for Operating Lemonade Stand
I for one sure hope the government keeps up with attitudes like this. What do you think these kids will grow up to think? Maybe, just maybe they will grow up thinking what a scam this government is turning in to and actually do something about it. In general maybe some of these kids will grow up and not be apathetic like most of their parents are.
This seems like a good time to quote Gawker:
What’s worse than a story about how a group of children were fined $500 by Montgomery County for operating a lemonade stand without a permit outside the site of this weekend’s US Open? How about the fact that they were going to donate their proceeds to a pediatric cancer-fighting charity?
See, officials in the Maryland County found it just flat out wrong that a group of kids would find the audacity to sell lemonade to golf patrons. According to WUSA-TV, a county inspector happened upon the kids’ stand near Congressional, the host course for the U.S. Open, and warned the kids and their parents to cease and desist. They didn’t. So the inspector handed them a $500 fine.
“This gentleman from the county is now telling us because we don’t have a vendors license, the kids won’t be allowed to sell their lemonade,” Carrie Marriott, one of the parents, told WUSA.
“Does every kid who sells lemonade now have to register with the county?” she asked the inspector. His response? The stand was too big to avoid scrutiny.
“Cute little kids making five or ten dollars is a little bit different than making hundreds. You’ve got coolers and coolers here,” he said.
As for the kids, they’re upset too.
“I don’t agree, I think the county is wrong,” said one. “We’re sending the money to charity,” said another.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kids-fined-500-for-operating-lemonade-stand-outside-u-s-open/
This seems like a good time to quote Gawker:
What’s worse than a story about how a group of children were fined $500 by Montgomery County for operating a lemonade stand without a permit outside the site of this weekend’s US Open? How about the fact that they were going to donate their proceeds to a pediatric cancer-fighting charity?
See, officials in the Maryland County found it just flat out wrong that a group of kids would find the audacity to sell lemonade to golf patrons. According to WUSA-TV, a county inspector happened upon the kids’ stand near Congressional, the host course for the U.S. Open, and warned the kids and their parents to cease and desist. They didn’t. So the inspector handed them a $500 fine.
“This gentleman from the county is now telling us because we don’t have a vendors license, the kids won’t be allowed to sell their lemonade,” Carrie Marriott, one of the parents, told WUSA.
“Does every kid who sells lemonade now have to register with the county?” she asked the inspector. His response? The stand was too big to avoid scrutiny.
“Cute little kids making five or ten dollars is a little bit different than making hundreds. You’ve got coolers and coolers here,” he said.
As for the kids, they’re upset too.
“I don’t agree, I think the county is wrong,” said one. “We’re sending the money to charity,” said another.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kids-fined-500-for-operating-lemonade-stand-outside-u-s-open/
Thursday, June 16, 2011
TSA “Security Exercise” Covers 3 States, 5000 Miles
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 15, 2011
If you’re still living under the delusion that the TSA is just restricted to airports then think again. A joint VIPR “security exercise” involving military personnel has Transportation Security Administration workers covering 5,000 miles and three states, illustrating once again how the TSA is turning into a literal occupying army for domestic repression in America.
The TSA, in alliance with a whole host of federal, state, local agencies as well as military personnel, is currently conducting a massive “security exercise” throughout Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.
“The participating teams are composed of a variety of TSA assets including federal air marshals, canine teams, inspectors and bomb appraisal officers. They will be joined by state and local law enforcement officials to supplement existing resources, provide detection and response capabilities. The exercise will utilize multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams,” reports the Marietta Times.
Although the exercise is couched in serious rhetoric about preparedness, it relates to “no specific threat” and the details are nebulous to say the least and seems to revolve around little else than testing out high-tech surveillance equipment and reminding Americans who their bosses are.
“In addition to using three helicopters for aerial inspection, the exercise made use of the Ohio Highway Patrol’s camera-equipped Cessna Caravan, which is capable of transmitting close-up, detailed real-time images of objects on the ground taken from more than five miles away,” reports the Charleston Gazette.
The exercise seems to be about little more than a show of force by the TSA in light of a massive resistance against their agenda, particularly in Texas where a recent bill that would have banned invasive TSA grope downs almost passed and is set to be up for debate again.
Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia admitted as much when he said the event was about letting, “people know we’re out here.”
As we have documented, TSA grope downs and body scans are now being rolled out on highways, street corners, train stations, bus depots, public buildings, at sports events, and even at local prom nights as part of the VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) takeover of the country.
The TSA has also announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a network of internal checkpoints and rolling out security procedures already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads and highways across the United States.
These internal checkpoints, run by Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the TSA, involve trucks being scanned with backscatter x-ray devices in the name of “safety” and “counter terrorism”.
Since the launch of the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” program, the DHS has also released promotional material which depicts would-be TSA agents conducting searches at public events, including a Buccaneers football game.
Homeland Security is also developing technology to be used at “security events” which purports to monitor “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint.
Forget the airports, the TSA has already spread its tentacles to invade almost every public facet of American society.
President Obama’s election campaign promise to create a domestic “security force,” that is “just as powerful, just as strong” as the US military is now coming to fruition as the TSA expands to turn American into a checkpoint-festooned hellhole where constant fearmongering about terror threats is the justification for the construction of a Sovietized police state.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-security-exercise-covers-3-states-5000-miles/
Infowars.com
June 15, 2011
If you’re still living under the delusion that the TSA is just restricted to airports then think again. A joint VIPR “security exercise” involving military personnel has Transportation Security Administration workers covering 5,000 miles and three states, illustrating once again how the TSA is turning into a literal occupying army for domestic repression in America.
The TSA, in alliance with a whole host of federal, state, local agencies as well as military personnel, is currently conducting a massive “security exercise” throughout Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.
“The participating teams are composed of a variety of TSA assets including federal air marshals, canine teams, inspectors and bomb appraisal officers. They will be joined by state and local law enforcement officials to supplement existing resources, provide detection and response capabilities. The exercise will utilize multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams,” reports the Marietta Times.
Although the exercise is couched in serious rhetoric about preparedness, it relates to “no specific threat” and the details are nebulous to say the least and seems to revolve around little else than testing out high-tech surveillance equipment and reminding Americans who their bosses are.
“In addition to using three helicopters for aerial inspection, the exercise made use of the Ohio Highway Patrol’s camera-equipped Cessna Caravan, which is capable of transmitting close-up, detailed real-time images of objects on the ground taken from more than five miles away,” reports the Charleston Gazette.
The exercise seems to be about little more than a show of force by the TSA in light of a massive resistance against their agenda, particularly in Texas where a recent bill that would have banned invasive TSA grope downs almost passed and is set to be up for debate again.
Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia admitted as much when he said the event was about letting, “people know we’re out here.”
As we have documented, TSA grope downs and body scans are now being rolled out on highways, street corners, train stations, bus depots, public buildings, at sports events, and even at local prom nights as part of the VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) takeover of the country.
The TSA has also announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a network of internal checkpoints and rolling out security procedures already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads and highways across the United States.
These internal checkpoints, run by Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the TSA, involve trucks being scanned with backscatter x-ray devices in the name of “safety” and “counter terrorism”.
Since the launch of the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” program, the DHS has also released promotional material which depicts would-be TSA agents conducting searches at public events, including a Buccaneers football game.
Homeland Security is also developing technology to be used at “security events” which purports to monitor “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint.
Forget the airports, the TSA has already spread its tentacles to invade almost every public facet of American society.
President Obama’s election campaign promise to create a domestic “security force,” that is “just as powerful, just as strong” as the US military is now coming to fruition as the TSA expands to turn American into a checkpoint-festooned hellhole where constant fearmongering about terror threats is the justification for the construction of a Sovietized police state.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-security-exercise-covers-3-states-5000-miles/
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Federal Budget vs. Household Budget: How Do They Compare?
By Dave Ramsey
Whenever the talking heads on TV start talking about the national economy, most of our eyes start to glaze over. The gigantic numbers that they throw out there are ridiculous; most Americans have no idea what those numbers mean in practical terms. So, I thought it’d be fun to turn those figures into something we can understand a little better—like a household budget.
The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt.
What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up:
If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!
What’s the first step to get out of debt? Stop overspending! But that means a family that is used to spending $96,500 a year has to learn how to live on $55,000. That’s a tough pill to swallow. Those kinds of spending cuts seriously hurt, but it’s the only way out of debt for John Q. Public.
If I ever got a call from a family that was spending $41,500 more than they made every year, you would definitely expect me to yell at them for their dumb behavior, right? Kids, no more McDonald’s four times a week. Snacks come from the grocery store now. And we’re not going to the movies for a while, so break out the board games and TV Guide. This family has a problem, so it’s time to amputate the lifestyle!
It works the same way for the government. You can’t borrow your way out of debt, whether you’re a typical American family or the entire U.S. government. At some point, you’ve got to say, “Enough is enough!” and make the hard cuts necessary to win over the long haul.
http://www.daveramsey.com/article/federal-budget-vs-household-budget-how-do-they-compare/lifeandmoney_budgeting/?ectid=1105cnlextra_4
Whenever the talking heads on TV start talking about the national economy, most of our eyes start to glaze over. The gigantic numbers that they throw out there are ridiculous; most Americans have no idea what those numbers mean in practical terms. So, I thought it’d be fun to turn those figures into something we can understand a little better—like a household budget.
The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt.
What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up:
If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!
What’s the first step to get out of debt? Stop overspending! But that means a family that is used to spending $96,500 a year has to learn how to live on $55,000. That’s a tough pill to swallow. Those kinds of spending cuts seriously hurt, but it’s the only way out of debt for John Q. Public.
If I ever got a call from a family that was spending $41,500 more than they made every year, you would definitely expect me to yell at them for their dumb behavior, right? Kids, no more McDonald’s four times a week. Snacks come from the grocery store now. And we’re not going to the movies for a while, so break out the board games and TV Guide. This family has a problem, so it’s time to amputate the lifestyle!
It works the same way for the government. You can’t borrow your way out of debt, whether you’re a typical American family or the entire U.S. government. At some point, you’ve got to say, “Enough is enough!” and make the hard cuts necessary to win over the long haul.
http://www.daveramsey.com/article/federal-budget-vs-household-budget-how-do-they-compare/lifeandmoney_budgeting/?ectid=1105cnlextra_4
CNBC's Fast Money: Gold to Reach $5,000 an Ounce Due to Supply Shortage: Report - CNBC
CNBC's Fast Money: Gold to Reach $5,000 an Ounce Due to Supply Shortage: Report - CNBC
An exhaustive report by Standard Chartered predicts that gold [GCCV1 1525.80 1.40 (+0.09%) ] will more than triple to $5,000 an ounce because of a lack of supply, not just because of a surge in demand that most bullion bugs cite in their bullish calls.
“There are very few large gold mines set to commence operation in the next five years,” said Standard’s analyst Yan Chen in a report Monday. “The limited new supply comes at a time when central banks have turned from being net sellers to significant net buyers of gold. The result, in our view, will be a gold market in deficit, even assuming flat growth in demand. With the supply-demand balance so out of kilter, we see the gold price potentially going to US$5,000/oz.”
The London-based firm is among the first to focus on the supply-side of the gold equation amid the many bullish forecasts out there on the metal. After analyzing 345 gold mines and 30 copper/base metal gold mines around the globe, the team estimates annual gold production will be just 3.6 percent over the next five years.
“They make a pretty compelling argument, especially when it comes to mine supply,” said Brian Kelly, head of Brian Kelly Capital and a ‘Fast Money’ trader. “Most analysis focuses on demand from China and India, which of course can disappear as quickly as it materialized.”
But that’s unlikely to happen over the next five years as central banks look to further diversify their holdings of U.S. dollars and as emerging countries buy more gold in the aftermath of the global paper currency crisis.
“Currently, only 1.8 percent of China’s foreign exchange reserves is in gold,” wrote Chen and the Standard team in the 68-page report. “If the country were to bring this proportion in line with the global average of 11 percent, it would have to buy 6,000 more tonnes of gold, equivalent to more than 2 years of gold production.”
The bold call is among the most bullish out there. In a Bank of America/Merrill Lynch survey of global money managers released Tuesday, just about a third of money managers felt gold was overvalued. However, that is the highest reading in that survey in more than a year.
Standard Chartered recommends that clients buy shares of smaller gold miners to get the most upside from its prediction but also said clients could buy physical gold and gold exchange-traded funds.
An exhaustive report by Standard Chartered predicts that gold [GCCV1 1525.80 1.40 (+0.09%) ] will more than triple to $5,000 an ounce because of a lack of supply, not just because of a surge in demand that most bullion bugs cite in their bullish calls.
“There are very few large gold mines set to commence operation in the next five years,” said Standard’s analyst Yan Chen in a report Monday. “The limited new supply comes at a time when central banks have turned from being net sellers to significant net buyers of gold. The result, in our view, will be a gold market in deficit, even assuming flat growth in demand. With the supply-demand balance so out of kilter, we see the gold price potentially going to US$5,000/oz.”
The London-based firm is among the first to focus on the supply-side of the gold equation amid the many bullish forecasts out there on the metal. After analyzing 345 gold mines and 30 copper/base metal gold mines around the globe, the team estimates annual gold production will be just 3.6 percent over the next five years.
“They make a pretty compelling argument, especially when it comes to mine supply,” said Brian Kelly, head of Brian Kelly Capital and a ‘Fast Money’ trader. “Most analysis focuses on demand from China and India, which of course can disappear as quickly as it materialized.”
But that’s unlikely to happen over the next five years as central banks look to further diversify their holdings of U.S. dollars and as emerging countries buy more gold in the aftermath of the global paper currency crisis.
“Currently, only 1.8 percent of China’s foreign exchange reserves is in gold,” wrote Chen and the Standard team in the 68-page report. “If the country were to bring this proportion in line with the global average of 11 percent, it would have to buy 6,000 more tonnes of gold, equivalent to more than 2 years of gold production.”
The bold call is among the most bullish out there. In a Bank of America/Merrill Lynch survey of global money managers released Tuesday, just about a third of money managers felt gold was overvalued. However, that is the highest reading in that survey in more than a year.
Standard Chartered recommends that clients buy shares of smaller gold miners to get the most upside from its prediction but also said clients could buy physical gold and gold exchange-traded funds.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
This Is What Happens When Big Biz and Big Brother Get Together
GM CEO calls for $1 gas tax hike
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- General Motors CEO Dan Akerson said his company and his industry would be helped, not hurt, if consumers paid higher gas taxes.
In an interview published in Tuesday's Detroit News, Akerson floated the idea of a $1 a gallon increase in the gas tax as a way to encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Greg Martin, spokesman for GM's Washington office, confirmed that the quotes reflect Akerson's and GM's view.
Akerson said that a higher gas tax, including an immediate 50-cent-a-gallon increase to take advantage of recent declines in gas prices, would probably make some of his Republican friends "puke." But he said it would do more to help the environment than the pending fuel economy rules.
Could driving tax replace the gas tax?
"There ought to be a discussion on the cost versus the benefits," Akerson told the paper. "What we are going to do is tax production here, and that will cost us jobs."
Martin acknowledged such a gas tax hike would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pass, and added that GM is not going to actively push for a gas tax hike as part of its legislative agenda.
"As a company we understand that's a decision that resides with Congress and policymakers," he said.
The current federal gas tax is only 18.4 cents a gallon.
GM has gained U.S. market share so far this year, even in the face of rising gas prices. It has the best selling compact car in the country, the Chevrolet Cruze, which was introduced to showrooms in November.
At his first annual meeting since the company's initial public offering, Akerson told shareholders GM has been able to weather the storm of high oil prices even better than it expected when it was making contingency plans last year.
"I maintain these are the right vehicles at the right time in our history," he said.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/companies/gm_gas_tax_hike/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- General Motors CEO Dan Akerson said his company and his industry would be helped, not hurt, if consumers paid higher gas taxes.
In an interview published in Tuesday's Detroit News, Akerson floated the idea of a $1 a gallon increase in the gas tax as a way to encourage buyers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Greg Martin, spokesman for GM's Washington office, confirmed that the quotes reflect Akerson's and GM's view.
Akerson said that a higher gas tax, including an immediate 50-cent-a-gallon increase to take advantage of recent declines in gas prices, would probably make some of his Republican friends "puke." But he said it would do more to help the environment than the pending fuel economy rules.
Could driving tax replace the gas tax?
"There ought to be a discussion on the cost versus the benefits," Akerson told the paper. "What we are going to do is tax production here, and that will cost us jobs."
Martin acknowledged such a gas tax hike would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pass, and added that GM is not going to actively push for a gas tax hike as part of its legislative agenda.
"As a company we understand that's a decision that resides with Congress and policymakers," he said.
The current federal gas tax is only 18.4 cents a gallon.
GM has gained U.S. market share so far this year, even in the face of rising gas prices. It has the best selling compact car in the country, the Chevrolet Cruze, which was introduced to showrooms in November.
At his first annual meeting since the company's initial public offering, Akerson told shareholders GM has been able to weather the storm of high oil prices even better than it expected when it was making contingency plans last year.
"I maintain these are the right vehicles at the right time in our history," he said.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/companies/gm_gas_tax_hike/index.htm
Atlas Shrugged Part Two Website
Atlas Shrugged ‘Part 2’ Hits the Web
New Atlas Shrugged Part 2 Movie Teaser Site Launched
Culver City, CA (PRWEB) June 08, 2011
Atlas Productions, LLC announced today the launch of its official Atlas Shrugged Part 2 Movie Website: AtlasShruggedPart2.com.
Producer Harmon Kaslow stated “The level of community involvement on the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Website was tremendous. Site traffic leading up to release day was consistently high - in the 300,000 pageviews per day range. On April 15, 2011, however, the day the movie was released, we amazingly served up over 1.6 million.”
“While this new site is a fun first stop for hardcore fans, what we’re really looking forward to is introducing a whole new level of interaction to the entire fan base with what we have in store. It’s a huge plus having the extra time to build something truly special to really connect with fans.” said Communications Director Scott DeSapio.
Producer John Aglialoro added, “It’s time to get focused on Part Two. We’re all very excited about the prospect of communicating more directly with the fan base this time around. It was incredible to witness the community enthusiasm for Part 1 and we can’t wait to fully engage with the fans for Part 2.”
The producers have set a tentative theatrical release date of Fall 2012.
Atlas Shrugged Part 1, a wholly independent film, opened in theaters on April 15, 2011. According to Box Office Mojo, the film stands at #61 of the top 100 money-making films released in 2011. Negotiations are under way with a major studio to release Atlas Shrugged Part 1 on video in the 4th Quarter of this year.
Ayn Rand’s 1100 page novel is being produced by Atlas Productions as a trilogy and follows the three part structure outlined in the book.
About Atlas Productions, LLC:
Atlas Productions, LLC. was formed by John Aglialoro as a motion picture studio to produce and distribute films including those based on Ayn Rand’s epic novel, Atlas Shrugged. For more information, visit http://www.AtlasShruggedPart2.com.
http://prweb.com/releases/AtlasShruggedMovie/Part2/prweb8551425.htm
New Atlas Shrugged Part 2 Movie Teaser Site Launched
Culver City, CA (PRWEB) June 08, 2011
Atlas Productions, LLC announced today the launch of its official Atlas Shrugged Part 2 Movie Website: AtlasShruggedPart2.com.
Producer Harmon Kaslow stated “The level of community involvement on the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Website was tremendous. Site traffic leading up to release day was consistently high - in the 300,000 pageviews per day range. On April 15, 2011, however, the day the movie was released, we amazingly served up over 1.6 million.”
“While this new site is a fun first stop for hardcore fans, what we’re really looking forward to is introducing a whole new level of interaction to the entire fan base with what we have in store. It’s a huge plus having the extra time to build something truly special to really connect with fans.” said Communications Director Scott DeSapio.
Producer John Aglialoro added, “It’s time to get focused on Part Two. We’re all very excited about the prospect of communicating more directly with the fan base this time around. It was incredible to witness the community enthusiasm for Part 1 and we can’t wait to fully engage with the fans for Part 2.”
The producers have set a tentative theatrical release date of Fall 2012.
Atlas Shrugged Part 1, a wholly independent film, opened in theaters on April 15, 2011. According to Box Office Mojo, the film stands at #61 of the top 100 money-making films released in 2011. Negotiations are under way with a major studio to release Atlas Shrugged Part 1 on video in the 4th Quarter of this year.
Ayn Rand’s 1100 page novel is being produced by Atlas Productions as a trilogy and follows the three part structure outlined in the book.
About Atlas Productions, LLC:
Atlas Productions, LLC. was formed by John Aglialoro as a motion picture studio to produce and distribute films including those based on Ayn Rand’s epic novel, Atlas Shrugged. For more information, visit http://www.AtlasShruggedPart2.com.
http://prweb.com/releases/AtlasShruggedMovie/Part2/prweb8551425.htm
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue
BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.
Boeing’s Interest, and Ours
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:
The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:
There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?
Public Sector Unionism
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEING IS A GREAT AMERICAN COMPANY. Recently it has built a second production line—its other is in Washington State—in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to its decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily)—has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is, South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The general counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act of intervention by the federal government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
The Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section 7 of the Wagner Act states:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Union officials such as William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of Labor.” But in fact it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union membership “as a condition of employment” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive” bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership—euphemistically referred to as “union security”—as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right to work as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of senators and congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 election, the new Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a presidential veto by President Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947—commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act—only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the Wagner Act. It begins:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. . . .
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and at the same time voluntary union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within a few weeks after starting on the job.
Boeing’s Interest, and Ours
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in America. Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can “suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so, or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:
The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism—or “union security”—as to the opposite idea that unions should be prohibited. And in a December 1918 address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this point explicitly:
There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade journal article: “Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.” And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with the ability of states to curb such compulsion with right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things. For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry GDP of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent—barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in ours as well. So in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And more importantly, with a view to what understanding of freedom?
Public Sector Unionism
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers whether they consent to this or not. Thus today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them even in the face of financial crisis. This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest long-term fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states except Nevada authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and un-constitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50 states should be granted the full freedom of association—which includes the freedom not to associate—in the area of union membership.
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Government To Lose Money On GM Investment
Now I'm no stock broker/dealer, investment advisor, BD agent or IA rep but I do know that special interest + Corporations + Government = Fascism. Now what kind of stock broker/dealer, investment advisor, BD agent or IA rep thought that UAW + GM + The Obama administration = Capitalism and thought that it would be a really good move for the government to "invest" in a "private" company? Not one I would let handle my money.
Govt to lose $14B of auto bailout funds
AP
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry.
In a report from the president's National Economic Council, officials said that figure is down from the 60 percent the Treasury Department originally estimated the government would lose following its $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.
"While we will not get back all of our investments in the industry, we will recover much more than most predicted, and far sooner," he wrote.
Obama will visit a Chrysler plant in Ohio Friday to tout highlight the company's success.
GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse in the final days of the Bush administration after Congress failed to approve an emergency loan package. The Bush administration gave the companies $17.4 billion in loans and required them to develop a restructuring plan by mid-February 2009.
Obama's administration pumped billions more into the carmakers later that spring but won concessions from industry stakeholders, allowing it to push GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy court in the summer of 2009.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_autos_2
Govt to lose $14B of auto bailout funds
AP
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry.
In a report from the president's National Economic Council, officials said that figure is down from the 60 percent the Treasury Department originally estimated the government would lose following its $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.
"While we will not get back all of our investments in the industry, we will recover much more than most predicted, and far sooner," he wrote.
Obama will visit a Chrysler plant in Ohio Friday to tout highlight the company's success.
GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse in the final days of the Bush administration after Congress failed to approve an emergency loan package. The Bush administration gave the companies $17.4 billion in loans and required them to develop a restructuring plan by mid-February 2009.
Obama's administration pumped billions more into the carmakers later that spring but won concessions from industry stakeholders, allowing it to push GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy court in the summer of 2009.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_autos_2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)