Category Archives: Government Intervention

04.25.13
by

Live Science: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Sandy Hook massacre and other tragedies, the recent Boston Marathon bombing has spawned several conspiracy theories. Some of the more cynical conspiracy theorists do it simply for attention and ratings, or to promote their books, DVDs and seminars promising to reveal the truth that no one else would dare.

These days most conspiracy theories are promoted by one or two (relatively) high-profile people. A man named Alex Jones was at the forefront of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook school attack last year — including the claim that the shooting didn’t really happen. This time around, former Fox News host Glenn Beck is among those leading the charge that a conspiracy is afoot in the Boston bombing case that left several dead and one suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in the hospital.

Beck is apparently not denying that the Boston bombings took place — the thousands of eyewitnesses, countless videos and forensic evidence is too overwhelming to be dismissed. No, instead the conspiracy seems to center around what Beck believes is the suspicious government handling of a Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was supposedly investigated (and cleared) of some connection to the Boston attack, but whose student visa had expired, and who may or may not be in the process of being deported back to Saudi Arabia.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.livescience.com/29038-why-boston-bombings-ignited-conpsiracies.html

04.25.13
by

Forbes: Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss

Recently, the CVS Caremark Corporation began requiring employees to disclose personal health information (including weight, blood pressure, and body fat levels) or else pay an annual $600 fine. Workers must make this information available to the company’s employee “Wellness Program” and sign a form stating that they’re doing so voluntarily.

CVS argues this will help workers “take more responsibility for improving their health.” At one level, this makes a certain sense. Because the company is paying for their employees’ health insurance, they naturally prefer healthier workers. But at a deeper level, CVS’ action demonstrates a growing problem with our current system of employer-provided health insurance. If our bosses must pay for our health care, they will inevitably seek greater control over our lifestyles.

Although most Americans take it for granted that they receive health insurance through the workplace, this is an artifact of federal tax rules from World War II. When the U.S. government imposed wartime wage controls, employers could no longer compete for workers by offering higher salaries. Instead, they competed by offering more generous fringe benefits such as health insurance. In 1943, the IRS ruled that employees did not have to pay tax on health benefits provided by employers; in 1954, the IRS made this permanent.

The federal government thus distorted the health insurance market in favor of employer-based plans. If a company paid $100 for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, the employee enjoyed the full benefit. But if the employee received that $100 as salary, he could only purchase $50-70 of insurance after taxes. Over time, this tax disparity helped employer-based health insurance dominate the private insurance market. In 2008, over 90% of non-elderly Americans with private insurance received it through their workplace.

Hence, government policy artificially injects the employer into the relationship between a patient and the health insurance system. Normally, what a worker ate or whether he smoked at home would be of no concern to his boss (unless it affected job performance). But U.S. government policy makes it the employer’s business.

To make matters worse, ObamaCare reinforces this status quo. ObamaCare requires large employers to offer health insurance to workers (or else pay a penalty). As a result, more people are discussing how best to link employment to healthy behavior. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently featured a pair of high-profile editorials debating the merits of allowing companies to discriminate against smokers, “for their own good.”

Furthermore, ObamaCare pays government grants to encourage companies to implement these “wellness programs.” Hence, employers who wouldn’t otherwise concern themselves with workers’ lifestyles now have an incentive to do so in order to collect federal funds.

—

This is very well written and informative article.  For those that wonder why employers are involved in health insurance (and not home owners insurance, car insurance, etc.) it was simply because of government intervention.  Salary freezes caused the creation of “benefit packages.”

What do you think about government intervention like price freezes and the constitutionality of them?  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/04/25/big-brother-has-a-new-face-and-its-your-boss/

04.24.13
by

Truthout: Ex-Bush Official Willing to Testify Bush, Cheney Knew Gitmo Prisoners Innocent

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once declared that individuals captured by the US military in the aftermath of 9/11 and shipped off to the Guantanamo Bay prison facility represented the “worst of the worst.”

During a radio interview in June 2005, Rumsfeld said the detainees at Guantanamo, “all of whom were captured on a battlefield,” are “terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama Bin Laden’s] body guards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th hijacker, 9/11 hijacker.”

But Rumsfeld knowingly lied, according to a former top Bush administration official.

And so did then Vice President Dick Cheney when he said, also in 2002 and in dozens of public statements thereafter, that Guantanamo prisoners “are the worst of a very bad lot” and “dangerous” and “devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort.”

Now, in a sworn declaration obtained exclusively by Truthout, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell during George W. Bush’s first term in office, said Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld knew the “vast majority” of prisoners captured in the so-called War on Terror were innocent and the administration refused to set them free once those facts were established because of the political repercussions that would have ensued.

“By late August 2002, I found that of the initial 742 detainees that had arrived at Guantanamo, the majority of them had never seen a US soldier in the process of their initial detention and their captivity had not been subjected to any meaningful review,” Wilkerson’s declaration says. “Secretary Powell was also trying to bring pressure to bear regarding a number of specific detentions because children as young as 12 and 13 and elderly as old as 92 or 93 had been shipped to Guantanamo. By that time, I also understood that the deliberate choice to send detainees to Guantanamo was an attempt to place them outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system.”

He added that it became “more and more clear many of the men were innocent, or at a minimum their guilt was impossible to determine let alone prove in any court of law, civilian or military.”

For Cheney and Rumsfeld, and “others,” Wilkerson said, “the primary issue was to gain more intelligence as quickly as possible, both on Al Qaeda and its current and future plans and operations but increasingly also, in 2002-2003, on contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and secret police forces in Iraq.”

“Their view was that innocent people languishing in Guantanamo for years was justified by the broader war on terror and the capture of the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks, or other acts of terrorism,” Wilkerson added. “Moreover, their detention was deemed acceptable if it led to a more complete and satisfactory intelligence picture with regard to Iraq, thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country.”

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/item/713:exbush-official-willing-to-testify-bush-cheney-knew-gitmo-prisoners-innocent

 

04.24.13
by

Daily Ticker: The Economic Argument Is Over — And Paul Krugman Won (Big Surprise, Some Keynesian Claims Victory)

For the past five years, a fierce war of words and policies has been fought in America and other economically challenged countries around the world.

On one side were economists and politicians who wanted to increase government spending to offset weakness in the private sector. This “stimulus” spending, economists like Paul Krugman argued, would help reduce unemployment and prop up economic growth until the private sector healed itself and began to spend again.

On the other side were economists and politicians who wanted to cut spending to reduce deficits and “restore confidence.” Government stimulus, these folks argued, would only increase debt loads, which were already alarmingly high. If governments did not cut spending, countries would soon cross a deadly debt-to-GDP threshold, after which growth would be permanently impaired. The countries would also be beset by hyper-inflation, as bond investors suddenly freaked out and demanded higher interest rates. Once government spending was cut, this theory went, deficits would shrink and “confidence” would return.

This debate has not just been academic.

Those in favor of economic stimulus won a brief victory in the depths of the financial crisis, with countries like the U.S. implementing stimulus packages. But the so-called “Austerians” fought back. And in the past several years, government policies in Europe and the U.S. have been shaped by the belief that governments had to cut spending or risk collapsing under the weight of staggering debts.

—

Of course Keynesians are claiming victory.  When the bill comes due on the national debt, inflation goes wild, and a dollar crisis happens, what will they claim then?  What do you think about this writers victory claim?

Click below for the full article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/economic-argument-over-paul-krugman-won-150247189.html

04.24.13
by

Marketwatch: Modified mortgages show ‘alarming’ default trend

Troubled homeowners who received modified mortgages through a federal program are seeing high default rates, a troubling trend that officials inadequately understand, according to an investigator’s report released Wednesday.

The oldest permanent modifications made through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, which launched in 2009, were redefaulting at a rate of 46.1% as of March 31, according to the report from the special inspector general overseeing the Treasury Department’s efforts to shore up the U.S. financial system. HAMP’s permanent modifications from 2010 have redefault rates ranging from 28.9% to 37.6%.

“The number of homeowners who have redefaulted on a HAMP permanent mortgage modification is increasing at an alarming rate,” the report said. “Treasury’s data shows that the longer a homeowner remains in HAMP, the more likely he or she is to redefault out of the program.”

Unfortunately, Treasury officials have an insufficient understanding of factors behind failures, according to the report.

“Better knowledge of the characteristics of the loan, the homeowners, the servicer, or the modification, more prone to redefault will increase Treasury’s understanding of the underlying problems that cause redefaults and provide Treasury an opportunity to address these issues proactively,” the inspector general said.

HAMP mortgages are modified to lower monthly payments by cutting interest rates and extending terms, among other actions. Servicers and borrowers receive incentive payments through the program.

Unsuccessful modifications have a “devastating effect,” according to the report.

“Redefaulted HAMP modifications on already struggling homeowners when any amounts previously modified suddenly come due,” according to the report. “When the homeowner cannot pay it, they lose their home to foreclosure.”

When Treasury launched HAMP, officials said the program could help 3 million to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure. However, as of March 31, only about 2 million HAMP modifications had been started, and 54% of these have been cancelled, according to the report.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/04/24/modified-mortgages-show-alarming-default-trend/

04.23.13
by

Yahoo News: Tsarnaev’s condition improves; brothers reportedly motivated by U.S. wars

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev informed investigators that he and his brother were not directed by a foreign terrorist organization. Instead, they were “self-radicalized” and motivated to kill, in part, by U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Washington Post reported.

The 19-year-old also acknowledged his role in the attack while being questioned by investigators in his hospital bed, the report said. Tsarnaev, who has a gunshot wound to the throat and was sedated, responded in writing. He also suffered gunshot wounds in the head, neck, legs and hand during a late-night shootout in Watertown, Mass.

Meanwhile, Tsarnaev’s condition is improving, the FBI said on Tuesday. The college student, who had been listed in serious condition at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center since his capture on Friday, is now in fair condition, the bureau said.

The update comes a day after Tsarnaev was charged with two federal counts of using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, injure and cause widespread damage at the marathon. Tsarnaev was informed of the charges and read his rights in his hospital room on Monday morning, and placed in the custody the U.S. Marshal Service. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Three people were killed and more than 200 others wounded when two powerful homemade bombs exploded near the race’s finish line. Dzhokhar and his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed by police as the two attempted to avoid capture, are suspected of planting those bombs.

Tamerlan was an ardent reader of jihadist websites and extremist propaganda, U.S. officials told the Associated Press, suggesting the brothers were motivated by an anti-American, radical version of Islam.

Meanwhile, U.S. investigators traveled to southern Russia on Tuesday to speak to the parents of the brothers, a U.S. Embassy official told the news service. Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, the mother of the suspects, and their father, Anzor, are in Dagestan, a predominantly Muslim province in Russia’s Caucasus.

After the bombings, Anzor said he believed the brothers were set up and called Dzhokhar a “true angel.” Maret Tsarnaeva, the brothers’ aunt, who lives in Toronto, also said she believes her nephews were framed.

Family members are not the only ones expressing doubt.

Many Twitter users have been expressing support for Dzhokhar using the hashtag #freejahar.

And just like the conspiracy theorists who claimed last week that the Boston Marathon attacks were staged, the support for Dzhokhar has been fervent despite his reported confession.

A Change.org petition to “guarantee Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the right to a fair trial,” addressed to President Barack Obama, has more than 6,000 supporters.

“We believe that within the chaos caused by the Boston Marathon explosion, two young men were wrongfully accused of something they did not do, and one of them has lost his life before even getting the opportunity of a proper trial,” Anita Temisheva, the user who launched the petition, wrote. “We do not wish to see blood of yet another innocent victim, someone who, by U.S. law, is innocent until proven guilty. It is vital to end this persecution, as all the conflicting information shown by the media, and footage from the incident, seen by people from all corners of the world, doesn’t manifest itself as enough evidence to condemn Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of this heinous crime.”

—-

Click below for the full article and a video as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tsarnaev-condition-motive-wars-193132367.html

04.23.13
by

Time: Tax-Free Internet Shopping Jeopardized by Bill

Tax-free shopping on the Internet could be in jeopardy under a bill making  its way through the Senate.

The bill would empower states to require online retailers to collect state  and local sales taxes for purchases made over the Internet. The sales taxes  would be sent to the states where a shopper lives.

Under current law, states can only require stores to collect sales taxes if  the store has a physical presence in the state. As a result, many online sales  are essentially tax-free, giving Internet retailers a big advantage over  brick-and-mortar stores.

The Senate voted 74 to 20 Monday to take up the bill. If that level of  support continues, the Senate could pass the bill as early as this week.

Supporters say the bill is about fairness for businesses and lost revenue for  states. Opponents say it would impose complicated regulations on retailers and  doesn’t have enough protections for small businesses. Businesses with less than  $1 million a year in online sales would be exempt.

“While local, community-based stores and shops compete for customers on many  levels, including service and selection, they cannot compete on sales tax,” said  Matthew Shay, president and CEO of the National Retail Federation. “Congress  needs to address this disparity.”

And, he added, “Despite what the opponents say this is not a new tax.”

In many states, shoppers are required to pay unpaid sales tax when they file  their state income tax returns. However, states complain that few people  comply.

“I do know about three people that comply with that,” said Sen. Mike Enzi,  R-Wyo., the bill’s main sponsor.

President Barack Obama supports the bill. His administration says it would  help restore needed funding for education, police and firefighters, roads and  bridges and health care.

—

What do you think about this idea and especially the bold/underline statement above?  Click below for the full article.

http://techland.time.com/2013/04/23/tax-free-internet-shopping-jeopardized-by-bill/#ixzz2RLDPJE86

04.23.13
by

Christian Science Monitor: Could chemical weapons in Syria force Obama’s hand?

President Obama may soon have to come to grips with what it means to issue a “red line” to a foreign government.

On Tuesday, Israeli military officials said they have evidence and are “nearly 100 percent certain” that forces of Syria‘s Bashar al-Assad regime have used chemical weapons – a step Mr. Obama said would be a game changer for the US in its policies toward Syria and the civil war raging there. Last August, Obama declared that any use or even “moving around” of Syria’s substantial chemical weapons stockpile would constitute a “red line” for the US – any crossing of which “would change my calculus … change my equation.”

With the closest US ally in the region now asserting that chemical weapons have been used, Obama will come under more pressure to demonstrate – possibly through the use of American force – that his “red line” was not a hollow threat, US foreign policy analysts say.

“If you make a flat statement like that and you don’t follow it up, then you undermine your credibility,” says Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official who is now a national security analyst at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington.

Obama has been reluctant to deepen US involvement in the Syria war, limiting US assistance to food and supplies for refugees and internally displaced Syrian civilians, and to nonlethal material for the rebel fighters the US supports. But use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad’s forces could prompt a more interventionist approach, some analysts say: for example, direct measures by US forces to destroy or safeguard Assad’s chemical weapons. Obama could also cite a crossed red line as justification for arming the rebels or taking other, more robust measures to protect Syrian civilians.

—

Click below for the full article.  What do you think about foreign aid to other nations or aiding them in wars?  Do you think it is constitutional or ethical for the United States to police the world?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0423/Could-chemical-weapons-in-Syria-force-Obama-s-hand

04.22.13
by

Reuters: House Republican blocks consumer watchdog from testifying

A Republican lawmaker escalated a partisan fight over the new consumer protection watchdog on Monday, saying the bureau’s leader was not welcome to appear before a congressional panel that oversees financial regulators.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a Republican who leads the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray could not appear before the panel because he has not been confirmed to his position by the U.S. Senate.

Lawmakers have battled over the bureau since it was created in 2010. President Barack Obama appointed Cordray in January 2012 to lead the consumer watchdog on a temporary basis, but Senate Republicans have refused to confirm him for a full term until Democrats agree to change the bureau’s structure.

The bureau’s critics argue a recent court ruling proves that Cordray’s position is invalid, though Democrats and the consumer watchdog dispute that conclusion because the case did not deal directly with him.

Cordray is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on Tuesday to present a semi-annual report on the bureau’s activities, but Hensarling said he would not be asked to deliver the report to the House panel.

“The Committee on Financial Services stands ready to accept the testimony of the director of the CFPB on the semi-annual report as soon as an individual validly holds this position,” Hensarling said in letters to Cordray and to bureau general counsel Meredith Fuchs.

The CFPB, formed after the 2007-2009 crisis to protect Americans from financial scams, oversees mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

Obama used a controversial maneuver known as a “recess appointment” to install Cordray temporarily while most lawmakers were out of Washington, after Senate Republicans refused to confirm him to a full term. They say the bureau should be run by a bipartisan board and not a single director.

Republicans said Cordray’s appointment, as well as three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, was invalid because lawmakers were not technically on recess at the time.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-financial-regulation-consumerbureau-idUSBRE93L1DM20130423