La Pro Express 12-16-2010

Transcript

COMPLIMENTARY A MULTIWAVE PUBLICATION THE LOS ANGELES PROfESSIONAL ExPRESS LAProfessionalExpress.com Issue No. 1—15  Thursday, December 16, 2010 IRAN BLAMES WEST FOR SUICIDE BOMBINGS 39 PEOPLE KILLED AND 50 INJURED IN SUICIDE BOMBINGS AT SHIITE MOSQUE IN CHABAHAR, IRAN Two suicide bombers blew themselves up near a mosque in southeastern Iran on Wednesday, killing at least 39 people and injuring more than 50 people at a Shiite mourning ceremony. Among the dead in the blasts near the Imam Husayn mosque in Chabahar was a newborn baby. Irani authorities almost immediately blamed “the West” and a for the double bombings that threaten to dangerously heighten the tensions between religious groups in Iran. The deadly attack struck at Shiites, the ethnic group ruling Iran, on Ashoura, one of the Shiites’ holiest religious festivals. A Sunni terror group, the Baloushi separatist “Jundallah” (soldiers of God) reportedly claimed responsibility for the deadliest bombings in Iran’s recent history. Since its founding in 2003, Jundallah has perpetrated several terror attacks and daring kidnappings of Iranian officials. Its last major attack, killing 27 people, occurred in the same Iranian province in July this year. The Sunni planners timed their attack to coincide with Ashoura, a festival commemorating the death of Imam Husayn in the epic battle of Kerbala. This battle split the Muslim community into two hostile camps. Shiites view Husayn, the grandson of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and his offspring as his only rightful heirs. Sunnis, who form the majority of Muslims worldwide, back Husayn’s adversaries in that fateful battle and view Shiites as heretics. Iranian state media instinctively blamed Western intelligence agencies and a “Zionist cabal” for the attacks, and documents published by WikiLeaks may suggest why. Meir Dagan, chief of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, urged the Americans to topple the mullahs in Tehran in an August 2007 meeting with then U.S. undersecretary of state Nicolas Burns. Ethnic strife was one Iranian “weak spot” Dagan identified. “Dagan said that more should be done to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (e.g., Azeris, Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime,” the cable filed by the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv reads. Encouraging ethnic unrest was part of a strategy based on “five pillars” to try and halt Iran’s menacing nuclear program, which included sanctions and diplomatic pressure at the UN. However, Israel’s chief strategist urged more attention on regime change, asserting that more could be done to develop the identities of ethnic minorities in Iran. He said he was sure that Israel and the U.S. could “change the ruling regime in Iran, and its attitude towards backing terror regimes.” However, most think it is unlikely that the Mossad is behind the terror attack in Iran’s largest and poorest province. “Only someone with a good working relationship with Pakistan could pull something like this off in Baluchistan. It may even have been the Pakistanis themselves. They are playing a double game with Teheran just as with the U.S.,” says one Iran expert. By Edgar Tenenbaum | Staff Writer [email protected] Civilians pull dead bodies from a mourning procession after two suicide bombs detonate. Courtesy IRNA. WASHINGTON ORDERS ANOTHER FREE LUNCH This week Washington displayed the kind of bipartisanship that will bankrupt our country and wreck our currency. Coming at a time when both parties say they want to address our long-term fiscal imbalances, the compromise extension of the Bush era tax cuts should be a wake-up call to anyone who somehow expected the American leadership to ever have an “adult conversation” about the country’s long term economic health. The administration and Congress are prepared to take the bold political move of not raising some taxes while significantly lowering others and greatly expanding Federal benefits. The entire cost of the $900 billion package will be financed entirely by adding to the national debt. Talk about tough love. While other countries consider ways to live within their means, Washington is intent on devising ever more creative ways to delay the day of reckoning. While Democrats wanted more government spending, they were unwilling to vote for broad-based middle class tax increases to pay for it. Instead they want what Democrats have always wanted: higher taxes on the “rich.” Republicans want lower taxes, but as has become typical, they were unwilling to cut government spending to enable it. By running up the deficit both sides get what they want without any political sacrifice. Sure, they break their campaign promise to cut the deficit, but the political fallout that results will be far less costly than voting for the tax hikes or spending cuts. In truth however, there are no real tax cuts in this proposal. The true burden of government is not measured by how much it taxes but how much it spends. Since this deal ensures that government will be more expensive next year than it was this year, American citizens will have to shoulder the added cost. Just because Congress has decided to deliver the bill with debt rather than current taxes does not mean that the spending will not be paid for. The only thing the plan accomplishes is to alter the means by which government spending is financed. If we had a truly independent Federal Reserve (one that was not willing to buy all the excess government debt) these larger deficits would make much more of an immediate and discernable impact on the financial markets and the economy. A glut of government debt should lead to much higher interest rates. Higher government borrowing also tends to divert savings and investment capital that would otherwise flow into the jobs-creating private sector. However, with the Fed engaging in quantitative easing, Ben Bernanke’s “Sixty Minutes” denial notwithstanding, the money needed to buy the additional debt is simply printed. As such, the nasty side effects have been avoided in the short term. Instead we are set up for more inflation and a weaker dollar down the road. Those who understand the implications of the “inflation tax” have already moved savings and investments out of U.S. dollars, expecting that the value of their savings and investments would diminish as a result of the inflation the Fed creates. In addition, working Americans will see the real values of their paychecks fall, as consumer price increases outpace the gains in after tax incomes. As a result, this plan will do nothing to help our economy. The benefits of holding taxes low will be more than mitigated by damage done by larger deficits. In fact, despite the Fed’s efforts to artificially suppress interest rates, the fear of larger deficits is already driving rates up. Many on Wall Street have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that rates are rising because this new fiscal stimulus will spur economic growth, which in turn will make further quantitative easing unnecessary. In truth, the only thing this plan will stimulate is larger deficits, meaning the Fed will be forced to do more, not less QE in an effort to restrain rates. It is the fear of additional QE that has really spooked the bond market. Sure, Fed buying might initially boost treasury prices, but as the additional dollars created to buy the bonds work their way into the economy, rising consumer prices erode the present value of the bonds. Unfortunately, nothing in the plan addresses the fundamental economic imbalances that underlie our economy and that brought us to the brink of ruin in the first place. What we really need are massive cuts in government spending so we can have true tax relief. In addition, we need to remove the government-imposed barriers which make our economy uncompetitive, and which are preventing market forces from correcting the imbalances. By expanding government and increasing debt, the plan puts us farther than we have ever been from a real recovery. By Peter Schiff | President and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Schiff is an American businessman, author, and financial commentator. LA(id) Realationship Advice From our Dearest Sex Advisor Dearest Dear Sex Advisor, When should I start feeling bad about being “The Other Woman?” This has happened to me on more than one occasion, and I am not sure what to do about it. Consternatedly, Mistress in Distress Dear Mistress in Distress, You should always feel bad about being the other woman, especially if you are a man. You deserve better than that. My doppelganger invites me to a gang bang and my synapses fire as the light hits my rods and cones, I feel the trouble in my bones. I predickt and aneurgasm. I look into the mirror and all I see is cobwebs I look into the mirror and all I see are fragments "Honey, what is your credit sore?" I inquire. "I've only had one outbreak," was her proud response. I have thin ethicks, and talk sick words, arguing about all we've lost and profound. WE MUST RECTIFY THIS DEFECATION DEFICIT BEFORE THERE IS A RESOUNDING SCATASTROPHE! We sat around for hours as she bemoaned the terrible rear-entry level jobs that were available for a rescent college vaguate. Then we analyzed the stars. There is a leak in my pipe dream and I suddenly feel like I've been squirted back into reality like the frantic, desperate conclusion to someone's laborious arm pumping, flailing around like a sperm cell with a dizzy spell. Oh well. Flaccidly, Vitus Hearn In Technocolor: MALAYSIAN PARLIAMENT BANS OPPOSITION PARTY CANDIDATES Malaysia's ruling coalition won a parliamentary vote Thursday to ban its archrival Anwar Ibrahim from the legislature for six months. The opposition leader was accused of making false statements in Parliament by claiming that the government's program to promote multiracial unity in this Muslimmajority country was inspired by a 1999 Israeli election campaign. Lawmakers are expected to endorse another proposal later Thursday to suspend three of Anwar's top allies for six months because of protocol infractions. The move would erode the opposition's representation to less than one-third of the 222-member Parliament for the first time since March 2008 general elections. That could allow Prime Minister Najib Razak's National Front coalition to make changes to the constitution and election constituency boundaries before the next polls, which some expect next year. Anwar and dozens of other opposition legislators stormed out of Parliament's lower house during Thursday's vote. Some held posters denouncing the lower house as "a kangaroo court" because they claimed Anwar was unfairly targeted. Anwar and his colleagues who face suspension would be barred from parliamentary debates and votes through June, but they can continue other political work, such as addressing rallies. The opposition has already launched efforts to convince the public that the government is abusing its legislative majority. The three opposition lawmakers face suspension for leaking information about a parliamentary investigation into Anwar's remarks about Israel, which he made in March. Political activity has intensified amid rampant rumors that Najib will call for national polls next year, even though they are not due until mid-2013. Najib might seek to capitalize on internal bickering in Anwar's three-party alliance, which made spectacular gains in 2008 elections but has since lost some of its luster. Anwar has also been distracted by an ongoing trial on charges that he sodomized a male former aide in 2008. He faces a 20-year prison sentence if convicted of the accusation, which he insists was fabricated to stem his political ascent. The government denies any conspiracy. By Yuri Isacov | Staff Writer [email protected] COMPLIMENTARY A MULTIWAVE PUBLICATION THE LOS ANGELES PROfESSIONAL ExPRESS LAProfessionalExpress.com Issue No. 1—15  Thursday, December 16, 2010 OBAMACARE STRICKIN: MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE APPEALS TO CIRCUIT, SUPREME COURTS CERTAIN AFTER FEDERAL JUDGE HOLDS FED’S MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE UNLAWFUL RICHMOND, VA— On December 13, 2010, United States District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson laid out the crux of the contest; whether the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requiring all U.S. citizens except persons meeting certain criteria to “maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage for each month beginning in 2014” or else pay a penalty on their ensuing tax return, is a valid federal legislative enactment under the United States Constitution. Early in his opinion the judge tips his hat, “No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product.” Virginia v. Sebelius, the subject case decided by Judge Hudson is one of many filed by Republican state attorney generals or governors seeking to invalidate certain of the Act’s provisions. The defendant’s name, Sebelius, refers to Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who is the named in the lawsuit because the United States possesses sovereign immunity. Later today in Pensacola, Florida, twenty states will be represented by attorney generals and governors in a case similar to Virginia seeking to decree parts of the Act to be unconstitutional. Congress’s authority to legislate is largely captured in the Tax Clause and the frequently famous Commerce Clause (both, U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8). The former simply states that Congress “shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes.” The latter grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” These grants of authority also limit Congress’s authority; all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are expressly reserved by the states under the 10th Amendment, lest such powers abridge a right guaranteed to individuals (freedom of speech, association and religion, due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.). To some, Judge Hudson’s decision, invalidating the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, brought no surprises—The Huffington Post noted that in his 2007 memoir Quest for Justice, His Honor credits his spot on the federal bench to twenty years of service to the Republican Party. Former President George W. Bush appointed Judge Hudson to the bench in 2002 for a life term. Standing in apposite to state court judges who largely reach the bench through election, a life term for federal district court judges purportedly insulates the same from political influence. Not so, argues Bloomberg columnist Ann Woolner. Two other federal judges who reviewed the Act before Judge Hudson validated its constitutionality; perhaps not surprisingly, their honors were both appointed by Democratic presidents. Still others think that Judge Hudson’s decision went beyond the pale of partisanship, into impropriety. Judge Hudson’s annual financial disclosures since 2003 reveal that the judge received dividends totaling between $32,000.00 and $108,000 from Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm. (Per federal rules, Judges need only report ranges of income). Worse yet, Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general who brought the suit before Judge Hudson on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, retained Campaign Solutions just this year for his own race and paid $9,000 to the company for services rendered. In His Honors defense, perhaps Judge Hudson did not know that Cuccinelli retained the firm in which he solely possessed stock especially when the AG did so for seemingly nominal services. After all, Judge Hudson’s opinion in Virginia expressly states, “This case does not turn on the wisdom of Congress or the public policy implications of [the Act]. The Court’s attention is focused solely on the constitutionality of the enactment.” The Court errs on the side of safety and invalidates the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision because the Provision is not substantially similar to laws that the Supreme Court has historically deemed to be constitutional: Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended the Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. . . . Because an individual’s personal decision to purchase—or decline to purchase—health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historic reach of the Commerce Clause . . . [t]he Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. Analyzed at greater depth, however, the Judge’s opinion seems to stop short of the more robust analyses likely to take place at the 4th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court, where different results may be yielded. University of Southern California Gould School of Law constitutional scholar and Dorothy W. Nelson Professor of Law Michael Shapiro assures The Los Angeles Professional Express that omitting to purchase health insurance is in fact an economic activity which affects interstate commerce. For a mindexpanding interview with the professor that may make Judge Hudson’s opinion seem purblind, tune into the next issue of the Pro Express. Downtrodden President Obama gains boost in polls following extension of unemployment benefits and Bush tax cuts under compromise with GOP-led House. Below, United States Circuit Court Map segregated by circuits. A circuit court is the court to which a district or federal trial court decision is appealed. It is the final appeal guaranteed as of right in the federal judiciary. Next, a challenger must apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for a grant of certiorari. Four justices must vote in favor of granting a case cert before it will be heard by By Zein Obagi, Esq. the highest court, a rule also known as the “rule of four.” ARTS— “For Sale” | Photo by Kristina Sorensen | © 2010 Question and Answer Q: How does mandatory health insurance differ from mandatory auto insurance? www.kristinasorensen.com RON PAUL TO CHAIR MONETARY SUBCOMMITTEE IN HOUSE? Rep. Ron Paul (R), before the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 9, 2009. Reports state that Paul will be the next Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes. Gold and silver are anathema to governments. This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange. Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. . . . On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition. The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. . . . . The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government. The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anticounterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing governmentsanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency. The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals. Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many A: States typically require their drivers to carry auto insurance; under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the federal government seeks to impose a health insurance requirement under congress’s constitutionally limited powers. states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver. In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.