Latest Politics Articles

US Secretary of the Treasury Beijing

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:43:32 +0300

Thank you very much Mr Ambassador. Thank you very much for all your kindness and hospitality during our visit. The ambassador and I have been spending a great deal of time together, as we have called upon the economic and political leaders of your great country.

Let me say that we have had a series of very good meetings, very important meetings and, to me, very encouraging meetings. So, let me begin by thanking my hosts for inviting me to Beijing and my colleagues from the Treasury Department to discuss issues of mutual interest to our two countries. (6) I've been to China many times in the past in a private capacity, as a businessman. This is my first opportunity to be here in my new capacity as a representative of the United States government. I want to state how much I appreciate the hospitality, the warmth and the friendship that have been extended to us, to me and to the Treasury delegation, throughout the course of our discussions. I'm honored this afternoon to have the opportunity to continue those discussions with the premier, with Premier Wen. In all of these discussions I have found the Chinese leaders open, frank and encouraging of the close ties and the close working relationship between our two countries.

When President Bush visited China and met with President Jiang Zemin, President Bush said, and I want to quote him here because I think his quote sets the foundation for this relationship. He said, "China and the United States, both with significant influence in the world, should step up dialogue and cooperation, properly handle their differences, and work together to move the constructive and cooperative relations between us further forward." Our talks this week are fully in keeping with the spirit of President Bush's comments.

It's been our view for some time that the best international economic system', the best for China, and the best for the United States, and the best for the whole trading world is one based on the principle of free trade, open markets, free capital flows, and market-based exchange rates, among the major economies. China is now clearly one of the major economies of the world. It's with these principles in mind, these ideas in mind, that I am here to discuss our economic relationship with the Chinese leaders and to encourage China to continue to take advantage of its strong growth to accelerate progress in all of these areas. The growth which China has enjoyed makes it easier to move further in the direction of open markets and floating exchange rates and free capital flows and to advance these ideas within the economy of China for the benefit of the Chinese people. Another area that is important is the free flow of capital. The free flow of capital is a fundamental component of our global system of international trade and international finance. While I applaud and welcome the recent policy changes that allow for greater capital mobility, it's in China's interest to accelerate these efforts. For example, it would be beneficial to expand the qualified institutional investor programs, to increase both portfolio inflows and portfolio outflows. It would also be advantageous to liberalize the long-term debt transactions, and overall to create open capital markets. As we talked to the Chinese economic leaders, we emphasized over and over the necessity to develop open capital markets. They really are the key to the success of a market-based economy. Finally, let me turn to the subject of exchange rates, because the subject of exchange rates has also been much in discussion among us. The establishment of flexible exchange rates, of a flexible exchange rate regime, would benefit both our nations as well as our regional and global trading partners. Market-determined floating currencies are really the key to a well-functioning international financial system. For the world's major traders, only freely floating currencies bring the accuracy and the efficiency necessary for the proper pricing account settlement in capital flows. That's really our central point, that floating rates, market-based, flexible exchanges create the signals for a well-functioning flow of resources on a global basis. There's ultimately no substitute for that. We've learned over the years that rigidities of all kinds, including rigidities in exchange rate mechanisms; tend to distort the proper functioning of markets. Open competitive markets with little or no interference are essential. They are really needed to insure that people and investment capital can seek out the best ideas and opportunities. How do economies grow? How do they prosper? They grow and prosper by bringing people with ideas together with people with capital. Then, we can see those ideas flower in the marketplace, with new products and new services.

Embrace debate as a critical component of democracy

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:12:05 +0300

dfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d ddfhyhy h hfc f hf hf fj gjgkh kjf rd hk ffd fhfch g fhstrdyrdhfchgxtdvhfdrfddz d d

Tale of 2 Journalists; Roxana Saberi and Sam Dodson

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:37:46 +0300

I have recently written separate commentaries on two jailed journalists. One, Roxana Saberi, has received a great deal of attention from the mainstream media and her case has been widely reported on and disseminated across the globe. The other case is that of Sam Dodson. His case has gotten virtually no attention from the mainstream media. As he languishes in a jail cell refusing to eat his plight has only been discussed on few liberty oriented blogs. I begin to wonder why this should be and thought an examination of the differences between the two cases might shed some light on this phenomenon.

It was interesting to note, as I researched these cases, that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that last year there were 125 journalists jailed worldwide as of their census of Dec. 1st, 2008. Yet one must wonder exactly how accurate their count is in these times when the Internet provides a means for anyone to become a journalist. The CPJ itself makes an interesting statement on its website that the United States will hold journalists in jail for a few days without charge and then release them. These journalists apparently are not counted in the census, so the true scope of the problem is clearly unknown and severely under reported. I suppose Roxana Saberi and Sam Dodson could count themselves lucky to be getting any attention considering how much attention the other 123 journalists are getting.

That said, why is it that Roxana Saberi gets so much attention while Sam Dodson’s case seems to be followed by only a few – shall we say – lesser known news outlets? Well, perhaps it’s because Ms. Saberi’s case is taking place in Iran whereas Mr. Dodson’s case is playing out in these United States of America, in New Hampshire to be exact. It is always easier to point out the imperfections in one’s neighbor than it is to see the same faults in one’s self. In the same manner, I suppose it’s always easier to see the tyranny and injustice in another’s government than it is to see the same in one’s own.

Roxana Saberi’s case is unusual on many facets. For one thing, she is a dual citizen, so even though she was born in America, the Iranians may feel that perhaps they have more jurisdiction over her since she’s been living there for six years now. Why someone would want to subject themselves to the dictates of two such different arcane and arbitrary sets of law is anyone’s guess, but I imagine Ms. Sebari felt it would help her better perform her work. In any case, her citizenship status has helped to spark international attention. Still, one might wonder, would such attention have been given to her had the United States of America arrested her? Before you claim that such a thing could not possibly happen in this nation keep in mind that many huge laws have been passed since Sept. 11th, 2001, such as The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, which empower the executive branch of our government to ignore human rights and do exactly what is being done to Ms. Saberi. In fact, the last I heard, as of January 2009, a journalist named Ibrahim Jassam is still being held without charges by the US military.

Even the Iranians seem able to do better than that. Ms. Saberi was charged with espionage and tried in an Iranian court of law. This is exciting stuff, the kind of story novels are written about. Granted, the trial was held behind closed doors and in secret, for national security reasons we are told. Of course, the US is not to be outdone by Iran and has created provisions so that the same thing may be done here simply by the executive branch of our illustrious government accusing someone of being an enemy combatant in the war on terror. But at least Ms. Saberi was charged, tried and sentenced which is more than the US has done in several cases when imprisoning journalists, recently holding one without trial for six years.

Please don’t get me wrong, I think what is happening with Ms. Saberi is a terrible, criminal act and that the Iranian authorities should be held accountable for their actions. I’m just trying to put a little perspective on it. It seems to me there is far too much hypocrisy in this world. Ms. Saberi was arrested on unrelated charges constituting a victimless crime and is now sentenced to have eight years of her life stolen from her. Indeed, her life could be forfeit for she has gone on a hunger strike in support of her claim that she is innocent. There is much outrage and support expressed for her.

I am glad to see that the plight of jailed journalists is finally getting coverage, yet the same type of thing can and has happened under US auspices and I continue to wonder just how much attention this matter would have been given if the US was holding Ms. Saberi. Would we see the same level of outrage and support had she been arrested for a seatbelt violation and was then accused of being a spy, handed over to federal authorities, labeled an enemy combatant, held for a time without charges, possibly tortured, tried in a secret military proceeding and finally sentenced? Such a thing is a possibility because government personnel are not held accountable when they ignore their own rules that were supposed to protect individuals from exactly this type of tyranny.

The case of Sam Dodson is a good example. His case may not be as glamorous as Ms. Sebari’s. He may not have been accused of spying for a foreign government or tried for espionage, but the implications of his case are far more important, in my opinion. His case is one based on the power of civil disobedience in an attempt to expose the inherent violence in the system. He has purposely decided to take a principled stance to hold the authorities accountable for following their own rules and regulations.

Mr. Dodson was arrested for refusing to remove a video camera from an area in a building supposedly owned by the public. He did this because he felt the order was unlawful due to the fact that not only was it unconstitutional, but the written order posted on the wall of the building was unsigned. Mr. Dodson was quickly and harshly subdued and arrested for trying to assert his individual rights and for asking the policing authorities involved to do their correct job by enforcing the law as written in the constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

Mr. Dodson is still being held in jail because he refuses to give up his rights. He refuses to help his jailors any more than he is required to. He refuses to give them his correct name because it is not required of him. The judge in the case admitted as much in a recent decision when he wrote Sam would not reveal information “as expected” of suspects, not “as required.” He has already graciously cooperated by allowing his person to be fingerprinted and his picture to be taken, as required by law. The authorities know who he is, where he lives, what he does, etc. and yet they continue to hold him simply because he has decided to exercise his right to remain silent, simply because they can’t coerce him into confirming their suspicions with his own voice, hence waiving his fifth amendment rights.

The judge in this case has declared that Mr. Dodson will be held indefinitely until such a time as he provides his name as “expected” of him. His sixth amendment rights have been violated because he refuses to obey a request that doesn’t have to be obeyed. He will continue to languish in jail until he succumbs to the dictates of the authoritarian judge or until a higher court rules on a writ of habeas corpus that has been filed. He was arrested for a victimless crime and continues to be held for trying to hold the individuals who support the system accountable for their actions. He has effectively been given a life sentence for refusing to do something that is not required of him. Indeed, he feels so strongly about seeing to it the authorities respect the rights of the individual that he has engaged in a hunger strike to protest his continued imprisonment. If things continue as they are and in the worst case scenario, Mr. Dodson’s life could be forfeit in an attempt to preserve the respect for individual rights as codified in the Constitution that government officials claim to regard so highly and take an oath to uphold.

Ironically, Mr. Dodson was originally arrested for an activity which if allowed in Iran may have prevented Ms. Saberi’s incarceration. There is no reason judicial proceedings should be secret. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed and that there are victims or intended victims involved then that evidence should be presented for all to see. Allowing independent press agents to video record in public courtrooms ensures that actions taken against any defendant, not just journalists, are justifiable and in accordance with the rules set forth by the system itself. In fact, the very insistence of secrecy should in and of itself make one suspicious of the activity undertaken.

In the US constitution, the idea behind the judicial branch of government was to ensure the protection of individuals against unwarranted and intrusive authoritarian government. It was supposed to serve the populace. Unfortunately, it is not succeeding in fulfilling its role. The decisions being made on a daily basis show that the courts are now more concerned with maintaining the façade of government legitimacy than they are with protecting individual rights. We see this as judges refuse to explain to juries that it is their duty to judge the law as well as the defendant. We see this as judges continue to uphold victimless crimes and collect fines for the state. We see this as judges in courts everywhere consistently change the rules as they see fit and as is convenient for the state. Courts worldwide have become nothing more than tools of government to elicit obedience from the populace rather than a protection for the individual against a much more powerful state apparatus. It’s a shame that it takes such events to shine a light on the corruption of the system. It’s a pity that more judges and officials aren’t principled enough to prevent such occurrences in the first place.

Forget North Korea - Stimulus Spending Creating New National Security Issue

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:39:39 +0300

Missing in the shrill debate between massive spending programs versus mortgaging our grandchildren's future is what all of that new debt means to our national sovereignty, according to a retired Naval Intelligence expert and commercial banker.

"The North Korean threat, while of great concern, is not as problematic as the media suggests, said retired Navy intelligence expert Mike Green, author of espionage novel Path of Thunder, a September 2009 release from Peacemaker Productions (www.pathofthunder.com). "Yes, Kim Jong Il has demonstrated nuclear capabilities, but he knows the outcome of a nuclear exchange with the United States. So, North Korea will surely continue to rattle sabers and make threats, hoping for more tribute, but will fall short of ‘pushing the button'. And we are already addressing the containment of his sales of weapons and technology."

Green believes that US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner's new direction with China represents a portentous change in our relationship."We are leveraging of our national sovereignty."

"A few weeks ago, Mr. Geitner visited China on a mission to obtain Chinese funding of unbridled deficit spending," Green said. "As our primary creditor already, China has been asked to significantly increase its nearly one trillion dollar investment, taking a long term role in the capitalization of our deficit - at a time when China has publicly expressed reservations about where we are headed with our spending. China's assumption of strategic investment risks on that scale ultimately makes them our de-facto partner, not just our primary creditor. "

"No decision maker in China believes in the ‘American Dream,'" Green said. "So the $64,000 question is: ‘What's in it for China?' "The risk to us is that China inevitably gets either real or implied oversight over our national budgeting process, and I believe that is exactly what China wants."

China already has considerable leverage over the United States because of its primary creditor role, Green added.

"We are China's largest client for manufactured goods, and the Obama administration will most likely insist that we need each other," he said. "We simply have an expanding symbiotic relationship."

"It's not that simple. Down the road a few years when another emerging market, India perhaps, becomes the darling investment for China, the dump of Treasuries into the global markets would be catastrophic for our economy - we would need to raise interest rates to unsustainable levels in order to attract investors, and without them our government would collapse. Then who would be in control?"

Green also fears China would be able to influence US budgetary spending decisions.

"What's preventing from China whispering in our ear, ‘You really don't need that new generation of aircraft carriers? We think you can't afford it. Besides, our new aircraft carriers will take up the slack.'"

A huge percentage of our industrial capacity has already moved to China, so another of Green's concerns is that as the US systematically dismantles much of what's left, we risk losing our ability of produce much of anything anymore, including strategic defense systems.

"There is an epic irony here." Green says in conclusion."The federal government was established for two primary purposes - national defense and a common currency to facilitate commerce between the states. It is stunning to consider that those two fundamentals are being marginalized for the sake of all else that the federal government is doing now. Simply put: We've lost our way- we need to get back to basics."

Governors Palin, Sanford: The Dynamics of Workplace Priorities

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:08:15 +0300

Introduction

I listened to chatter over the airwaves. Talkshow host Armstrong William led a merry discussion on South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford. Armstrong could not contain himself: “How does Governor Sanford get rid of his Love Jones?” It was a question that was not easily answered. Listeners from South Carolina appeared irritated with this line of questioning. Many felt the governor had abandoned his wife, children, and the people of South Carolina.

At the same time, Governor Sarah Palin was busy steering clear of another ethics charge in her own state. Some people may view these circumstances as petty politics. However, the governors’ situations have turned the spotlight on the difficulty of managing work ambition with one’s own family priorities. Therefore, a deeper inspection will reveal how work priorities can bear down on an individual’s personal and family life.

Background

On June 24th, Governor Sanford arranged a press conference where he confessed a year-long affair with an Argentine woman. He was missing for more than six days from his office. At his press conference, political pundits argued Governor Sanford was attempting to save his job, not his family life. He is married and has four sons. Instead of a low-profile strategy, Governor Sanford actively engaged the media, describing his mistress as his “soul mate.” Clearly, he had lost his mind. His wife Jenny stated, “I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal.”

On July 3, 2009, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin surprised America as she announced her resignation as governor in July. This news created a shockwave in political circles. Was Palin run off or plotting a crafty strategy for the White House in 2012? Regardless of her specific motivation, a reasonable person could understand the priorities issues that Governor Palin faced as a wife, mother, and political figure. Many political analysts view her as a politically ambitious person.

Alaska columnist Michael Carey noted the popularity of Governor Palin as a media juggernaut: “She’s gone from being our governor or a public figure in Alaska to being a national celebrity.” However, her political savvy has left her family exposed to public ridicule. Her family has endured through vicious rumors and negative press. When the stakes gets higher for these public figures in their professional life, it challenges the rest of their life.

The Major Issue

Many individuals in their careers fail to recognize the impacts of their work obligations on the priorities of their overall life. Making these priority decisions is difficult for most working adults. Yes, some people appear to handle this reality better than others. Many people believe that they can have it both ways - get what they want without giving up anything that matters to them. Bill Kemp, author of Peter’s Boat, notes, “Driven by the satisfaction of doing ‘the right thing,’ we enter these mazes that do not offer us a places to consider our personal needs or reflect on what appropriate limits we should place o our behavior.” Therefore, there needs to be a tradeoff between “living for today” and “living for tomorrow” if individuals are to achieve family balance. In fact, we cannot be truly satisfied as long as we have our souls torn in different places. Biblically speaking, this reality is summed up by the verse, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other . . .” Some folks appear to be happy on the outside yet torn to pieces on the inside by the demons of competing priorities. Consequently, the long-term effects of some tradeoffs can impact your health, marriage, and other relationships.

Conclusion

Living a life in the spotlight is difficult, and America has witnessed this fact play out in the lives of many famous people such as Governors Sanford and Palin. This article demonstrates how individuals need to consider the consequences of their work life on their personal and family life. As in the case of these public figures, the pressures of life can offer many distractions. Consequently, it is important during the rat race to keep priorities in order lest one finds himself spinning in circles. Working adults should not cave in to the external pressures of others and squander precious time and opportunity. The concept of priorities involves making the appropriate choices on how the family spends its resources (especially time). Failing to accomplish this task will continue to produce confusion, misunderstanding, and lack of communication in your families. You don’t have to settle for anything less than the best. Let’s hope that it is not too late.

'Yes We Can' Only Works With Truly New Ideas

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:03:40 +0300

While the "Yes We Can" momentum of President Barack Obama's administration has produced public policy and political victories for the new chief executive at a record pace, it's not likely to last unless the president and his team adopt some new rules.

That's the opinion of one expert, who believes that even though Obama is adopting different policies than his predecessor, he is still using the same flawed decision-making backbone - and eventually - it will lead to decisions that are just as flawed.

Samuel Odunsi, author of Deep Thinking the Human Condition: New Ideas We Can't Do Without from Human Rethink (www.humanrethink.com) believes that the current academic infrastructure that is used as the basis for all current research and data on world affairs is flawed at the core. The academic world's motives don't revolve as much around solving problems as they do around the perpetuation of the power base it currently enjoys, according to Odunsi.

As a result, our leaders find themselves in a repeating loop of questions without answers and problems with unattainable solutions.

"Persistent underdevelopment in the Third World and persistent poverty in the developed countries - two problems Obama promised to address - exist only because of the shortcomings of the institution whose job it is to address these issues - academia ," Odunsi said. "If the designated problem solver had been doing his job, these troubles will not exist today. The dilemma is that we all rely on the conclusions of the academics that serve as society's conceptual back office. If the conclusions of our conceptual back office are wrong, we, too, are wrong. Our conceptual back office has misled us all. That is the reason why these crises cannot be solved."

This same flawed leadership explains much of the divisions between the political left and right in the U.S., Odunsi added.

"The divisions are superficial. Both sides depend on the same fundamental premises held by the academics," he said. "This is why the political right cannot change additional minds and continues to be co-opted by the political left. The end result is that the persistent underdevelopment in the Third World and persistent poverty in the West - problems that CAN be systematically solved, have not been solved. The concrete answers, known as canon among those in the field and those attempting to address the problems in the trenches, are never heard."

The key element that separates the problems from the solutions is the fact that rich countries are separated from the poor by virtue of culture, Odunsi explained.

"To see this logic, all we have to do is look back to how the United States was settled and grown," he said. "We had no universities or academic experts to feed leaders data and guide policy decisions. The policy was simply, ‘Go West, young man.' We populated the land and made it up as we went along. But now that we are rich and prosperous, the world looks to us for answers, and we look to our academics, who say, ‘Don't do it the way we did it - use these theories that have never been applied, instead.' If Obama is to have a chance at solving these problems, and many others, he and his team need to begin trusting those in the field, and turn their backs on the academic world who misguide our policy-makers.'"

Is the President's Economic Plan Just Stimulating Conversation?

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:22:53 +0300

Somewhere, somehow 600,000 jobs are going to be created and/or saved by the end of summer. In fact, the White House announced recently that 150,000 jobs have been saved in the last few months. Maybe it was yours; maybe it was mine. The problem is that all this job saving is a little difficult to pin down.

President Obama announced recently that this summer will see a ramping up of spending from the $787 billion stimulus fund and create or save 600,000 jobs. According to the Associated Press, the President spoke to his cabinet about "modest progress" in the economy. In particular he cited that fewer jobs were lost last month than expected. There have also been some admissions from this administration that their original economic forecasts made at the end of last year were too optimistic.

"At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable," said Vice President Joe Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession.

By the White House's earlier estimates the nation's unemployment rate should be about 8 percent, not the 25-year-high 9.4 percent. It seems everything is on the rise these days from the President's un-approval rating for how he is handling the economy to gas prices to the national deficit.

But the Obama administration is trying to make things better. According to Recovery.gov, in the next 100 days the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will save or create jobs in the following areas
* Department of Health and Human Services -- Enable 1,129 health centers in 50 states and eight territories to provide expanded service to approximately 300,000 patients
* Department of the Interior -- Begin work on 107 national parks
* Department of Transportation -- Begin work on rehabilitation and improvement projects at 98 airports and at more than 1,500 highway locations throughout the country
* Department of Education -- Fund 135,000 education jobs, including teachers, principals and support staff
* Department of Veterans Affairs -- Begin improvements at 90 veterans medical centers across 38 states
* Department of Justice -- Hire or keep on the job approximately 5,000 law enforcement officers
* Department of Agriculture -- Start 200 new waste and water systems in rural America

The government will also be flush with money in the weeks ahead as ten banks have been given permission by the Treasury Department to repay money they received from the government bailout of the banking industry. According to the Associated Press, $68 billion of the nearly $200 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program funds will be returned from banks such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and American Express.

There are other signs that the economy is slowly starting to improve. Granted most of the good news is really in the category of less-bad-news, but job losses are down, the economy is sinking at a lower rate and consumer confidence is starting to return. What is nearly impossible to track is if the improvement is a result of government intervention or just a part of the economic cycle.

Obama and Bernanke Weigh in on the Economy

Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:39:23 +0300

In separate speeches both President Obama and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke gave assessments of the nation's economic health. The venues may have been different, but their views are essentially the same: the economy is starting to show tiny signs of recovery, but the road back to prosperity is still a long one.

In a speech to students and faculty at Georgetown University, President Obama said, "we are beginning to see glimmers of hope." According to the Associated Press, Obama stressed that America still has a long way to go on the road to economic recovery. The president credited his bold economic agenda for putting the country on the right path.

Unfortunately, the numbers that came out this week weren't helping Obama make his case. The AP reports that March had a drop in retail sales, as well as sharp declines in both wholesale and energy prices. The specter of both inflation and deflation hang in the shadows.

After a five week rally, the stock market reacted negatively to this news. Analysts don't seem to think this week's dip is a sign of bad things to come. In fact, Goldman Sachs reported far better than expected earnings. The company hopes to raise $5 billion in stock to begin repaying the $10 billion loan from the government last year.

Making Biblical references, Obama took the opportunity to stress the importance of rebuilding the American economy in a new way. "We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand," he said. "We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest, where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad."

The president cited changes in financial regulations and more focus on clean energy and education as some of the initiatives his administration is taking to change America's economic landscape.

In a speech at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Bernanke pointed to recent signs of improvement in home and auto sales, home building and consumer spending. However, he was willing only to call these indicators "tentative signs" of recovery.

Bernanke's main focus seemed to be to stress the importance of stabilizing the financial markets, and in particular the Fed's efforts in that area. Those efforts have called for unprecedented amounts of money to be pumped into the system to lower interest rates and get credit flowing again.

Obama also defended the government's expensive efforts to help the banking industry. "The truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth," Obama said.

The road to recovery still looks bumpy, but Obama and Bernanke say the view on the horizon is going to be better in many ways. And Texas may be on the forefront of that changing economic landscape, as sectors such as construction and retail shrink but energy and education continue to grow.

New Legislation to Regulate Credit Card Companies

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:45:48 +0300

A bill will soon become law that curtails certain practices of the credit card companies. The irony is that banks were told this month to raise more capital, then Congress decides to impede one of the banking industries more lucrative businesses. That is not to say that banks should be allowed to run amuck with interest rates and fees. However, it will most likely be the 42 percent of Americans who pay their complete balances on time every month who will end up paying for this new law.

President Obama is expected to sign into law a bill passed by Congress that overhauls the credit card industry. According to the Associated Press, the bill will do the following:

-Credit card companies cannot charge retroactive rate increases unless the cardholder is at least 60 days behind in paying the bill.

-If a rate increase is enacted because a cardholder has fallen behind on payments, lenders must restore the lower rate after six months if the cardholder has paid monthly bills on time.

-Credit card companies must post credit card agreements on the Internet.

-Potential cardholders under 21 to prove to the credit card companies that they can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off their debt if they default.

-Cardholders cannot be charged over-the-limit fees unless they elect to be allowed to go over a limit.

-Credit card companies must say how much time it would take and how much money in interest would be paid if only the minimum monthly payments are made.

-Gift cards must be valid for five years.

-Credit card companies cannot charge fees when cardholders pay the bill by phone or on the Internet.

-Credit card companies cannot eliminate the interest-free period for cardholders who move from paying the full balance monthly to carrying a balance.

-Credit card companies must give cardholders a reasonable time to pay the bill before it is considered late.

-Credit card companies must give cardholders 45 days notice before raising interest rates on new purchases, even if the customer is late or delinquent in paying the account.

"Those who manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems," Edward L. Yingling, CEO of the American Bankers Association, told the New York Times. In other words, banks will recoup losses from higher interest rates and late fees by reviving annual fees, putting restrictions on reward programs and eliminating the grace period for charging interest on purchases.

It is the fine print on the credit card bill that has gotten many Americans into trouble with their credit. Research shows that the majority of credit card companies stipulate that rates can increase to any amount for any period of time if the cardholder is deemed a credit risk at any point.

"This is America and we don't begrudge a company's success when that success is based on honest dealings with consumers," President Obama said recently. "We need reform to restore some sense of balance." In this time of job loss and financial uncertainty, it is the credit card balances that may trump finding a true balance of fairness in the credit card business.

Getting Back To "Boring Banking"

Fri, 29 May 2009 11:51:36 +0300

These days it seems like bank is a four-letter word and bonus-getting bankers are bad guys, as evil as any comic book villain. All the hullaballoo about the banks passing the government "stress test" makes the average American want to say, "Who cares?"

Well, unfortunately we all have a stake these days in how the banking industry is faring, and not just because our tax dollars have funded billion dollar bailouts. The health of the banking industry is a direct reflection on the health of the economy, and we all pay the price or reap the benefits to a degree.

The stress test given to 19 of the country's biggest banks was conducted by the Federal Reserve to indicate the solvency and future viability of the various banks. Overall, the results were more positive than negative. Bank of America was told that it would need an additional $33.9 billion in capital to weather any future economic storms. Banks are likely to raise the needed capital through asset sales, future earnings, as well as raising capital from private investors.

In fact, the Associated Press reported that "10 of the nation's 19 largest banks need a total of about $75 billion in new capital to withstand losses if the recession worsened. The Federal Reserve's findings show the financial system, like the overall economy, is healing but not yet healed."

While it wasn't great news, it wasn't exactly bad news. In the days since the test results were announced, and even as early news leaked about the government findings, the stock market has continued to slowly climb. Investors seem to be tentatively sticking their heads up from the foxholes as some smoke clears from the battlefields of this recession.

But in many ways it also means the battle rages on for the average American. Banks in need of raising money will likely find ways to get some of those funds out of the little guy through higher fees on bank accounts and credit cards, as well as interest rate hikes. In theory, the stress test results are supposed to reassure everyone and thus get credit flowing. The banks that "passed" the test, like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and American Express Co., will hopefully be more willing to extend credit than they have in the past year.

Or as Justin Fox put it recently in his "The Curious Capitalist" column for Time magazine, it's time for banks to get back to "boring" banking. He contends that the current financial mess was caused by so called shadow banks that got away from well established banking practices and instead engaged in "bad mortgage loans, collateralized debt obligations and all manner of other lunkheaded lending decisions."

What's left of the banking industry now are the stalwart, FDIC insured banks that have earned money the boring way for decades. Fox contends that the rise of other financial institutions, like investment banks, hedge funds and banks focused solely on mortgage loans, took business away from the banks. Eventually banks like Citigroup and many others began to get into shadow banking to compete with companies like Goldman Sachs. The rest is painful history. It may take some time, and we will all certainly continue to pay the price for all that shadowy prosperity of the past, but banks are hopefully on the road to a boring recovery. Boring is good news for the little guy.