FOXNews.com: Edwards escapes ... but only under the law

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Edwards escapes ... but only under the law May 31st 2012, 23:08 The acquittal on one count, involving alleged illegal contributions in 2003, and hung jury on five others, is a partial victory for John Edwards. At least under the law. That being said, the moral defeat is indelible for Mr. Edwards. When he was involved in this conduct he was trying to be president of the United States. Had he succeeded, did he believe this information would never come out? When he tried to become the VP nominee, same question. I can forgive -- and have forgiven -- Mr. Edwards -- he has suffered and apologized and gone through tremendous grief in losing his wonderful wife. He has my sympathy. But he must know that the verdict of history -- that he pursued the presidency, competing against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- knowing about his private conduct -- cannot and should not be kind. The judgment that the information on his conduct, relationship, and fatherhood of a child would not ultimately come out and be publicly known, is beyond poor. It is unfathomable. And for me, the verdict is not surprising -- this is and always was a difficult case for the government to win. But the question remains for Mr. Edwards: given your self-absorption in your race for the presidency, is there a reasonable basis to believe one of your primary motivations for raising this money was to get elected president? I hope the government doesn't proceed to re-try the case. Mr. Edwards and his children have suffered enough. Now I hope that Mr. Edwards some day will explain to fellow Democrats:  D did you really believe when you ran for president in 2007-08, that your conduct would remain a secret? If so, why? If not, why did you insist on staying in the race?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Give the Law of the Sea Convention a fair hearing before deciding

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Give the Law of the Sea Convention a fair hearing before deciding May 31st 2012, 18:00 Before the first witness testified in the opening 2012 Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) hearing on the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), news and blogosphere outlets witnessed a flurry of opinion pieces summarily praising or condemning the Convention. One could forgive the American public if they concluded from those posts before the Memorial Day break that the views of the relevant decision makers were already unalterably committed, and that nothing was to be gained from the coming hearings and deliberations. That perception will only reinforce the widely shared view that legislators too-often vote on bills they have never read and do not understand. The LOS Convention was presented to the Senate in 1994, along with the closely related implementation agreement which modifies that part of the convention dealing with mining deep seabed mineral resources beyond any nation's jurisdiction.  Under Article II of the Constitution, two-thirds of the Senators present must vote for ratification before the U.S. can become a party. The SFRC voted in 2004 and again in 2007 to recommend ratification (technically "accession" in this case) to the full Senate; however, the committee's recommendations did not reach a vote by the full Senate on either occasion. In accordance with Senate rules, the committee's recommendation was recommitted to the committee at the expiration of the congressional term, where it has sat without action for the past five years. Is nothing to be gained by new hearings and deliberations? While it is true that the Convention has been subject to hearings by the SFRC twice before; most recently in 2007, the membership of the Senate and its committees has changed significantly in the intervening five years, as has the global economic, energy, environmental and security climate.  That climate has changed even more dramatically in the 30 years since the LOSC or "LOST" as it is called by some was completed and opened for signature.  A fresh set of eyes and a new round of witnesses might well identify and be able to address considerations that were overlooked in 2004 and 2007 or that have changed since then. Those who appreciate the crucial need for public order on the oceans will find much to like in the LOSC, yet some still wonder whether those benefits come at too high a cost. LOSC opponents argue that the empirical record demonstrates that the Convention supporters' faith in international law and international organizations to protect US rights and interests in the oceans is at best unwarranted.  For their part, the LOSC advocates criticize the opponents for excessive reliance on force to protect those rights and interests.  Somewhere between those two views lies a group who believe that the national interest is best served by a combination of international law and effective and responsible international organizations and the judicious use of all instruments of national power, and they find themselves genuinely undecided as to whether the LOSC strikes an appropriate balance.  So, what stands in the way of a fresh and searching examination of the treaty's merits; one that might help address those uncertainties? Several factors, none of which should come as a surprise. Timing—opening the hearings in the fourth year of the president's tenure and just months before the national elections—militates against a reasoned discussion and debate. If the two presidential candidates take significantly divergent positions on the Convention the prospects for constructive hearings focused on merits instead of party affiliation will be diminished.  It doesn't help that the Convention's proponents charged in their opening volleys that the Convention's opponents are spreading "misinformation" and are driven by "ideology," "mythology" or a "willful misreading" of the Convention, rather than by their principles, values and a careful weighing of perceived national interests.  Opponents of the Convention, and even the undecided third group, might also be justified in questioning the sincerity of the Administration, particularly when it argues that acceding to the Convention will help us meet our urgent economic and energy security needs by enabling the US to exploit vast oil and gas deposits on the extended continental shelf.  After all, it took intervention by a federal court to end the administration's moratorium on deep water oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, the Administration intervened to block a key oil transport pipeline and at least one senior official in the administration vowed to "crucify" the oil and gas industry. Assuming that attention can somehow be redirected to the Convention's merits, any decision on ratification must be grounded in present and reasonably foreseeable future conditions, not conditions or political positions extant in 2005 or 1982. Pundits who purport to channel President Reagan and his views in 1983 should instead be asking themselves what is in the best interests of the United States in 2012 and the years ahead. The decision to ratify a treaty presents a policy choice. Few choices in life, public policy or foreign relations are wholly favorable or unfavorable. As former Secretary Condoleezza Rice reminded us, we must not let our desire for the perfect blind us to the good.  The question the Senate must answer is whether, on balance, it is in the US interest to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. Respect for our Constitutional treaty process—to say nothing of our civic responsibility—cautions that we should reserve judgment until the Convention has been given a full and fair hearing on the merits. To properly assess the Convention's merits, we have a right to expect that the Senate and the experts it calls to testify in this latest round of hearings will examine and debate some of the following issues: • What role, if any, should intervening changes in the geostrategic environment (including changed national security, energy, economic and environmental factors) play in deciding whether ratification of this 1982 convention will serve the national interest? • What changes can we expect in the geostrategic environment in the next 5-10 years and even beyond, and how should that affect today's decision? • What role, if any, should the president's National Ocean Policy, with its ecosystem-based management and "bottom-up" approach to coastal and marine spatial planning, play in our decision regarding the LOS Convention? • What role, if any, should changing Arctic conditions play in assessing national interests vis-à-vis the LOS Convention? How will our status with respect to the LOSC affect our role on the Arctic Council? • What conclusions can be drawn about the meaning and effect of the Convention from state practice and tribunal decisions, both before and after its entry into force in 1994? • Do the proposed 2007 Senate declarations and understandings (which are largely based on Secretary of State Warren Christopher's 1994 analysis of the Convention) accurately reflect the present U.S. position? Are they consistent with the understandings of other states and relevant international organizations and tribunals? If not, does that pose a risk to U.S. interests? • Are claims that the U.S. will be able—as a non-party—to enjoy the Convention's navigation and overflight rights as a matter of customary law theoretically and empirically sound? Will customary law extend those same navigation rights to the growing fleet of U.S. unmanned aerial, surface and subsurface vehicles? • And, finally, does the Convention include any "deal breakers"—fatal flaws that the U.S. simply cannot accept no matter what how significant the potential benefits of accession? Supplementing the existing record with answers to these questions will improve the prospects for a responsible decision by the Senate; one consistent with our national interests and in accord with the contemporary geostrategic environment.  Let us hope, therefore, that the next round of hearings relies less on carefully-scripted and conclusory statements of support or opposition by government and industry leaders and more on a searching analysis of the Convention's 320 articles, 9 annexes and 2 implementation agreements. Craig H. Allen is the Judson Falknor Professor of Law at the University of Washington and the author of Counterproliferation Operations and the Rule of Law, an extensive examination and defense of the Proliferation Security Initiative. The views expressed are the author's alone

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Honoring members of the US Merchant Marine

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Honoring members of the US Merchant Marine May 31st 2012, 14:00 Each year Americans rightly take time to honor many things, our nation's independence, our famous presidents and our veterans. But lesser known to some is the observance of Maritime Day, which was first declared by Congress in 1933 to recognize the important contributions of those serving the U.S. Merchant Marine and is celebrated every May.  To mark the occasion, President Obama issued a statement this month honoring US merchant mariners, noting that "for 237 years, the men and women of the United States Merchant Marine have risen to meet our country's call. They have strengthened our economy and our security in times of calm and conflict, connecting our service members to the supplies they need and transporting our exports into the global marketplace. On National Maritime Day, we pay tribute to all those who have served and sacrificed on our waterways and around the world."  Some might ask, why is our industry and those who serve it given this unique honor? Is it because the U.S. Merchant Marine was founded during the American Revolution in June of 1775 – predating the founding of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard? Or because merchant mariners have made key and often unheralded contributions to our nation's security and prosperity since 1775?  Members of the US Merchant Marine are honored because they have helped protect our nation's economic and security interests for more than 200 years. As the president pointed out, civilian merchant mariners play an essential role as part of our national defense strategy – transporting US exports and U.S. government cargoes during times of peace, while providing strategic sealift and readiness to ensure that essential equipment, supplies and food aid are delivered safely and cost-effectively during times war and natural disaster.  The US Merchant Marine fleet is able to support America's national security and economic interests in large part due to the Maritime Security Program. That program ensures the maintenance of a modern U.S.-flag fleet engaged in the foreign trade that provides military access to vessels and vessel capacity, as well as a total global, intermodal transportation network. This network not only includes vessels, but logistics management services, infrastructure, terminals facilities and U.S. citizen merchant mariners to crew U.S. government reserve vessels.  Recently, the brave men and women of the US Merchant Marine provided critical support as the 'Fourth Arm of Defense,' safely and cost-effectively delivering ground forces and essential supplies during times of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S.-flag commercial fleet was responsible for delivering over 90 percent of all military cargo to Afghanistan and Iraq. Earlier this month, civilian merchant mariners were part of an historic voyage as they helped deliver the last piece of military cargo to leave Iraq as part of the U.S.'s withdrawal of military activities– a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (or MRAP). The U.S.-flag vessel Ocean Crescent, which is commercially managed by Louisiana-based Intermarine, LLC, delivered this last MRAP to Beaumont, Texas, on May 7, where it was then transported to the First Cavalry Division Museum at Fort Hood.  "They have delivered the goods when and where needed in every theater of operations and across every ocean in the biggest, the most difficult and dangerous transportation job ever undertaken." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt As our troops return home or are assigned to other missions, US merchant mariners will continue to always be there to support our nation's security interests, providing critical sealift readiness and capability whenever and wherever needed.  The US-flag commercial fleet also has delivered and continues to deliver vital U.S. food aid across the globe to safe and hostile harbors. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that there are more than 95 million people with too little to eat and that at least 12 million metric tons of commodities are needed each year to fill food gaps in the 70 most food insecure countries. The US-flag maritime industry and its civilian merchant mariners are proud of their role, delivering this critical food aid support around the globe on U.S.-flagged vessels.  We should always be reminded of one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's last public statements – in which he was addressing the role US merchant mariners in World War II, "They have delivered the goods when and where needed in every theater of operations and across every ocean in the biggest, the most difficult and dangerous transportation job ever undertaken."  This was true when his words were spoken on September 19, 1944 and it is still true today. U.S. merchant mariners stand ready to serve and deliver no matter the destination. James Henry is the chairman of USA Maritime

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Can Romney herd the big cats still prowling inside the GOP tent?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Can Romney herd the big cats still prowling inside the GOP tent? May 31st 2012, 18:00 The candidate who started the GOP primary season with the most money and as the favorite to win – as the man who came in second in the '08 race – is now the winner. Mitt Romney this week claimed victory by winning the last of the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the win. But it took a long strange trip to confirm the conventional pre-primary wisdom that Romney will represent the party against President Obama. For example, during the primary season, Tea Party candidates regularly surged past Romney to the lead in the polls. But Tea Party energy, which revived the GOP in 2010, was not strong enough to deny Romney the nomination. And incredibly, the top three Republicans to reach the primary finish line – Romney, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – all pre-date the Tea Party and have strong GOP establishment credentials. The Republican establishment candidates -- Romney, Santorum and Gingrich -- had to take hard right turns on major issues ranging from immigration, to their refusal to raise taxes by even $1. They turned down any tax hike on the richest Americans even if they could be assured of $10 in spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Despite public fatigue with war they all called for more American military intervention in world trouble spots from Libya to Iran. The most dramatic hard right turn came from Romney as he tried to disown his Massachusetts health care plan, which is the model for President Obama's national health care plan -- the very one loathed by the Tea Party. Yet Romney, the ultimate winner, had trouble wooing Republican voters who identified themselves as strong conservatives. He did consistently win between 25 percent and 30 percent of the vote. That means he regularly lost 70 percent of the vote. That deficit was glaring in southern states, the heart of the modern Republican Party base where Romney overwhelmingly lost the nomination contests. Even as he faced fewer opponents towards the end of the primary season Romney consistently struggled to get more than 50 percent of the vote. He won by a mere plurality in the GOP primaries in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. The big question going forward is how the Tea Party and establishment wings of the GOP can unite around Romney to achieve their one common goal – ousting President Obama from the White House. It will be tricky. Note that none of Romney's opponents is on the list of possible running mates. This will not be a new version of Ronald Reagan embracing George H. W. Bush as his running mate in 1980 after a tough primary fight. Nor will this year's GOP ticket feature the healing gesture of Sen. Bob Dole joining forces with party loyalist Jack Kemp. The self-inflicted wounds of this primary reflect the deep, structural divide within the Republican party. It can be seen in the recent defeat of establishment GOP leaders like Sen. Richard Lugar. It is on display in the on-going fight in Texas for the GOP senate nomination. Tea Party candidate – and Sarah Palin favorite – Ted Cruz is now in a run-off against Gov. Perry's establishment choice, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. At the GOP convention in Tampa the challenge will be to keep the divide from becoming the media story. The problem is that all of Romney's challengers want a prime time speaking slot to advance their own brand of Republicanism and their political fortunes. Santorum, for example, wants a good speaking slot. But he didn't endorse Romney until the 13th paragraph in a late-night E-mail last month. And it is hard to forget that not so long ago Santorum, who defeated Romney in ten states on the basis of his strong evangelical conservatism, called Romney "the worst possible Republican" to run against Obama. He repeatedly accused Romney of being untruthful and misrepresenting his own record. The same calculation attaches to Gingrich. His Super PAC ran ads that called Romney "greedy, ruthless corporate raider who slashed jobs for profit." Gingrich himself accused Bain of "undermining capitalism" and "killing jobs." Even Gov. Perry will be a hard pick for a prime time speech during the convention. It was the Texan who first attacked Romney for "vulture capitalism." Perry also pointed out that Romney did not have a good record of job creation as governor of Massachusetts. He even said that liberal Democrat Michael Dukakis had a better record of job creation. Now the same line of attack is coming from the Obama campaign. It will be hard for Perry to speak in defense of Romney. The other primary also-rans are also looking for Romney to give them a prime time television spot to speak at the GOP convention. But how will that look? For example, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has said that Romney is a "big government candidate." And then there is Texas Rep. Ron Paul. His supporters continue to collect delegates by arguing that party supporters are still free to change their minds at the convention. They are the most likely source of a big protest against Romney at the convention if Romney's team denies Paul a major piece of prime time television real estate. And finally there is Donald Trump and the "Birther" wing of the party. Will Trump want to speak in Tampa? For a man bloodied during the primary fight, Romney is surprisingly even with Obama, in most polls. But as he moves on to the general election, he will still have to deal with divisions inside the GOP. Well, congratulations are due to Mitt Romney. Now, he'll need more good luck herding the big cats still prowling inside the Republican camp. Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate." Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Will Obama run on the politics of fear or hope?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Will Obama run on the politics of fear or hope? May 31st 2012, 15:49 Within 24 hours over the holiday weekend, Democrats could read two starkly different messaging strategies for President Obama's reelection campaign. On Monday, May 28, Memorial Day, John Heilemann's New York magazine article was headlined:  "For Obama & Co., this time it's all about fear." The day before, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote a column headlined:  "Obama Should Seize the High Ground." Heilemann wrote: "Though the Obamans certainly hit John McCain hard four years ago running more negative ads than any campaign in history, what they intend to do to Romney is more savage. They will pummel him for being a vulture-vampire capitalist at Bain Capital. They will pound him for being a miserable failure as governor of Massachusetts. They will mash him for being a water-carrier of Paul Ryan's Social Darwinist fiscal program. … 'He's the '50s, he is retro, he is backward, and we are forward, that's the basic construct,' says a top Obama strategist. 'If you're a woman, you're Hispanic, you're young, or you've gotten left out, you look at Romney and say, 'This "f--king guy is gonna take us back to the way it always was, and guess what? I've never been a part of that. … ' "Thus to a very real degree, 2008's candidate of hope stands poised to become 2012's candidate of fear. For many Democrats, this is fine and dandy, for they believe that in the Romney-Republican agenda there is plenty to be scared of." The day before, Friedman wrote: "I wonder how Barack Obama would do it if he ran for president as himself. How would he do if he ran for reelection on all the things he's accomplished but rarely speaks about? … Is there anyone in America today who doesn't either have a pre-existing medical condition or know someone who does and can't get health insurance as a result? Yet two years after Obama's healthcare bill became law, how many Americans understand that once it is fully implemented no American with a pre-existing condition will ever be denied coverage? "Obama didn't just save the auto industry from bankruptcy. Two years later, he also got all the top U.S. automakers to increase mileage for their vehicle fleets to 54.6 miles per gallon by 2025, from 27.5 mpg today. As Popular Mechanics put it, this 'is the largest mandatory fuel economy increase in history.' Did you know Obama did that?" So which strategy is best? Virtually every major national poll in the last several weeks has Obama and Romney somewhere in the mid-40s, in a statistical dead heat, with about 10 percent undecided. So for those who want Obama to win, the only relevant question should be: What is the message that is most likely to win over these 10 percent? Friedman supplies the answer. "Had Obama gone to the country with more near-term stimulus married to Simpson-Bowles [the Deficit Reduction Commission proposals], he would have owned the left, independents and center-right. It would have split the Republicans and provided a real alternative to the radical Paul Ryan-Romney plan. "In sum, Obama's campaign right now feels as though it were made in a test tube by political consultants. It's not the Obama we admire. Rather than pounding the country with 'I have a plan' — a rebuilding stimulus plus Simpson-Bowles — which would be an Obama message of hope, leadership and unity that would put him on higher ground that Romney can't reach because of the radical GOP base, Obama is selling poll-tested wedge issues. I don't think it's a winner for him or America." The irony should be obvious: Those of us, such as Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker and this writer and many other Democrats who believe President Obama has a positive story to tell, are excoriated, including personal attacks with motives questioned, by those strident Obama supporters who prefer a negative campaign against Romney rather than defending the president's record. Keep your eyes on that undecided 10 percent in the middle, who will decide the election. Which message can best win them over — the positive message of hope, explaining the good things Barack Obama has accomplished, or the negative message, trying to scare people about how extreme Mitt Romney is?  Lanny Davis is the principal in the Washington law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which also specializes in legal crisis management, served as President Clinton's special counsel from 1996-98 and as a member of President George W. Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (2006-07). He currently serves as Special Counsel to Dilworth Paxson. He is the author of the book "Scandal:  How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America" and the forthcoming book, "Crisis Tales – Five Rules for Handling Scandal in Business, Politics and Life," to be published by Simon & Schuster.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Bloomberg's Nanny State begs the question – what's next, exercise police?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Bloomberg's Nanny State begs the question – what's next, exercise police? May 31st 2012, 17:30 New York City proposes to make it illegal to sell containers of soft drinks, sweetened coffee, and some fruit juices that are larger than 16 ounces. Give me a break. This infringes on my right to make my own contract with a merchant. It also doesn't work. Americans have gotten fatter since the government launched its "war" on obesity. Mayor Bloomberg has already pointlessly and intrusively banned trans fats, required restaurants to post dietary information, and outlawed food donations to homeless people because "the city can't access their salt, fat or fiber content." The Food Police say that they just want to help us make good decisions. But no, they want much more than that. Government is force. Politicians want to force us to make good decisions.  Where does it stop? Why not replace hot dogs with Tofu Dogs and red meat with turkey? Once government pays for our health care, won't they soon require exercise police to come into our homes to make us do pushups?  In a free society, I should be able to determine my own diet.  Mayor Bloomberg indulges the fatal conceit that politicians can and should force us to become thin. I say, No They Can't! And they shouldn't try. John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Has Nanny State once again gone too far?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Has Nanny State once again gone too far? May 31st 2012, 11:00 New York City Mayor Bloomberg wants to institute a first-in-the-nation ban on the sale of super-sized sodas and other sugary drinks as part of his anti-obesity campaign. It follows his other campaigns that include a proposed 'fat tax' on soda, banning trans-fats and smoking. Do you agree with Bloomberg's war on what we eat and drink? This is a non-scientific viewer question.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What to expect from Friday's jobs report

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What to expect from Friday's jobs report May 31st 2012, 11:45 Friday, forecasters expect the Labor Department to report the economy added 150,000 jobs in May—better than the 115,000 in April but well below the 229,000 monthly pace for the first quarter. Economic growth and jobs creation are slowing, and that may take unemployment higher in the months ahead. Initial estimates indicate the economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual pace in the first quarter, down from 3.0 percent the prior period, but a good deal of recent growth was momentum in consumer spending, as households took on more long-term debt to finance autos and higher education, and business inventory investments, as many firms miscalculated sales and overstocked. Consumers cannot continue to increase debt in the manner of the boom years of the 2000s, and inventory purchases will moderate—auto purchases have likely peaked or reached a plateau, and don't look for universities to recruit any more reluctant students taking shelter from a tough jobs market. The word is out—borrowing for graduate education often does not pay off! Consumers and investors are more cautious as the crisis in Greece threatens a prolonged recession in Europe, and the Chinese economy faces new challenges. Retail sales in April inched up only 0.1 percent, and forecasters are expecting only modest 0.3 percent increase for May. Investors are crowding into Treasuries and consumer staples, which pay modest dividends but tend to lose less value in a recession. Second quarter economic growth is likely to be less than two percent, and fewer than 200,000 jobs should be added each month. New jobs created will hardly be enough to replace all those lost during the Great Recession and provide opportunities for new graduates looking for work. During the recent recovery, the most effective jobs program has been to convince adults they don't want or need a job. Virtually, the entire reduction in the unemployment rate from 10 to 8.1 percent has been from adults quitting the labor force. The percentage of adults participating in the labor force—those employed, self employed, or unemployed but looking for work—has declined significantly. If the adult participation rate was the same today as when Barak Obama became president, unemployment would be 11 percent. Adding adults on the sidelines, who say they would reenter the labor market if conditions improved, and part-time workers, who would prefer full-time positions, the unemployment rate becomes 14.5 percent. Factoring in college graduates in low skill positions, like counter work at Starbucks, and unemployment is much higher still. Longer term, the economy must grow 3 percent annually to keep unemployment steady, because advances in technology permit labor productivity to increase 2 percent each year and population growth pushes up the labor force about 1 percent. If conditions are mediocre and businesses cautious about productivity growth can slip—equipment and computers are kept beyond their economically useful lives. Then unemployment can be kept steady with 2 percent growth but that is a recipe for stagnation and decline, as other economies—read China, India and Korea—invest in new products and methods and increasingly own the intellectual capital that once powered high American standards of living and supported the middle class. Also, the economy growing at 2 percent is like an airplane flying at low altitude. The plane can keep going, but the slightest unexpected obstacle and the plane ditches. Moreover, the quality of jobs growth is poor, and young people can't start meaningful careers. The economy must add 13.3 million jobs over the next three years—370,000 jobs each month—to bring unemployment down to 6 percent. GDP would have to increase at a 4 to 5 percent pace—that is possible after a long deep recession but for chronically weak demand for U.S. made goods and services. Economists agree weak demand is holding down economic growth, and the $620 billion trade deficit is the biggest problem. Oil and trade with China account for nearly the entire trade gap, and each dollar sent abroad to purchase oil and Chinese goods that do not return to purchase U.S. exports are demand for American made goods. Cutting the trade deficit in half would increase GDP, including multiplier effects, by some $500 billion, create 5 million jobs. Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter@pmorici1.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: The secret kill list

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

The secret kill list May 31st 2012, 11:57 The leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill. This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world -- and some of his killers have killed Americans. We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own -- and not the military after congressional authorization -- to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn't want to talk about this, but he doesn't deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod -- the president's campaign manager -- has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct? Can the president legally do this? In a word: No. The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days. The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no circumstances may he use civilian agents for non-judicial killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force to protect themselves, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet. Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our e-mails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers' arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability. Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is " It is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Children were first victims of Syrian regime crackdown

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Children were first victims of Syrian regime crackdown May 30th 2012, 20:21 Children were the first victims of the Syrian regime's crackdown that began in March 2011. In the city of Daraa, schoolchildren were detained and tortured for scrawling graffiti expressing opposition to President Bashar al-Assad. By February 2012, Syrian forces had killed 500 children, according to Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief. "They've gone for the children -- for whatever purposes -- in large numbers," Pillay told the UN Human Rights Council, as she appealed once again for the UN Security Council to refer Assad to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Last weekend's massacre of at least 49 children among the more than 120 killed in Houla was part of the same pattern of targeting youngsters that has been central to Assad's murderous response to any dissent from his rule. The coordinated decision of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States to expel Syrian diplomats expresses their genuine revulsion at the Houla massacre and Assad's adamant denial of responsibility, but such punitive diplomacy is not enough. World powers have wrestled, to no avail, with the task of identifying and implementing the best course of action to turn off the Assad regime's killing machine. More than 10,000 are dead, countless others imprisoned and tortured, and there is no end to the carnage in sight. If Assad possesses any ounce of humanity in his heart or mind, the U.S., European Union, UN, Arab League and Turkey, among others, have not been able to pinpoint it. In word and deed, Assad has consistently refused to discuss with anyone, in sincerity, an end to Syria's internal conflict. The ferocity of the Assad regime's assault has only intensified since former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan claimed that Assad had accepted his six-point cease-fire plan. The plan, endorsed by the UN Security Council, authorized the dispatch of 300 international monitors to supervise implementation of the cease-fire. Had Assad truly been committed to the cease-fire, he would have implemented the first of the Annan plan's six points by withdrawing his forces from Syrian cities and stopping the killings before any UN monitors arrived. Tragically for the Syrian people -- and now especially for the slain children in Houla -- the UN presence has helped legitimize Assad's continued rule by force. Since the UN monitors arrived, Assad held questionable parliamentary elections and stepped up the violent crackdown, while continuing to receive support from Iran and arms shipments from Russia. The UN should admit failure, remove the powerless international monitors, and regroup to devise a new approach. What is needed now, first and foremost, is concerted, stepped-up pressure on Russia, as well as on China, to stop defending Assad. They should end all support for the regime, stop blocking meaningful UN Security Council resolutions, and join in the international sanctions. And last summer's call by the U.S., European Union, and other nations on Assad to step down must be forcefully reasserted. Images of small bodies wrapped in white sheets laid to rest in mass graves in Houla, and of playful Syrian children still fortunate to be alive, should move any genuinely caring world leader. Assad's removal is essential to saving Syria's children and achieving peace in the country. Kenneth Bandler is the American Jewish Committee's director of media relations

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Arrest mother in Texas honor killing

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Arrest mother in Texas honor killing May 30th 2012, 18:00 On January 1, 2008, two American teenager sisters, 17 year-old Amina Said, and 18 year-old Sarah Said, were shot to death by their Egyptian father, Yaser Said, in Irving, Texas. After a lifetime of being physically and sexually abused by their father, the girls had finally decided to run away. Sarah had rejected an arranged marriage with a much-older friend of her father's whom she had never met. Both Amina and Sarah had boyfriends—and thus, their father viewed them as "whores" who had disobeyed the rules and who therefore deserved to die. Yaser fled after the murder and has yet to be found. The FBI briefly included him on their Most Wanted List for an Honor Killing but within days, they dropped the "honor killing" charge. At the time, I was told that political pressure, mainly brought to bear by CAIR, (the Muslim Brotherhood in America), was responsible. Perhaps, fears of being charged with "Islamophobia" stayed the hand of local law enforcement and of the FBI. Based on my own academic studies in Middle East Quarterly, there is no doubt that this was an classic honor killing. Now, their great-aunt, Jill Abplanalp, has launched a petition on Change.org imploring the authorities to arrest Patricia "Tissie" Said, the mother of Amina and Sarah. She has also written to me and to many Texas law enforcement officers about this matter. She wants "justice" for the murdered girls. She wants their mother, "Tissie," tried as an accomplice she seems to be. But Jill is afraid that authorities will never revisit the case due to the kind of pressure they have experienced in the past. Texas-born Patricia ("Tissie") Said, the mother of the two girls, should long ago have been charged as an accomplice in their honor killing. She is the one who tricked them, first by running away with them—and then by luring them back home in a series of phone calls.  Tissie assured her frightened and savvy daughters that their father would not kill them, that it could all be straightened out, and that she, their mother, needed them by her side when she visited the grave of their grandmother to place flowers on it. In an e-mail sent to Jill, dated April 30, 2012, Detective Joe Hennig, the police officer in charge of the investigation, was sympathetic to the fact that Jill is "having a hard time dealing with their deaths." He said he was "truly sorry for her loss," but that there is "not enough evidence" to make such an arrest. "She (Tissie) may be guilty of making some bad decisions or having bad judgment…but there are no criminal charges that can be filed against her." I disagree. According to great aunt Jill, there are three witnesses who can testify that, although Tissie ran away with her daughters, she did so in order to spy on them for Yaser; that all along, Tissie had planned to return to her husband—which she did. She knew that Yaser planned to kill his daughters. And nevertheless, upon her return, she started calling her daughters persistently. Detective Hennig insists that they have "no proof" that "Tissie" knew Yaser would kill them. The three witnesses disagree: the two boys who ran away with the girls and their great aunt in Kansas (to whom they ran). They saw "Tissie" in action. They heard "Tissie" say that "if she took Amina and Sarah back to Texas that Yaser would definitely kill them." More important, when I asked Jill for physical evidence, such as phone records of Tissie's persistent calls, great aunt Jill assured me that they exist. She writes: "Amina had a cell phone that her boyfriend had gotten her, which her father, Yaser did not know about. The calls are on his bill. Yes, he has phone records." - Jill Abplanalp "Amina had a cell phone that her boyfriend had gotten her, which her father, Yaser did not know about. The calls are on his bill. Yes, he has phone records." Jill also tells me that shortly before the murders, "Tissie" had Amina withdraw her last savings out of the bank and give it to her mother. Jill says that there is a receipt for this suspicious bank transaction. I have not seen any of this evidence but if it exists—The Irving police should seriously review it. Here are two things I do know: First, fears of being seen as "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam" led to a bench rather than a jury trial in Ohio in the 1999 murder of Methel Dayem case—and to a conviction of "not guilty."  In 2009, such fears led to charging Faleh-al Maleki in Arizona with second degree murder, as opposed to first degree murder—and he ran over his daughter, Nur, with a two-ton Cherokee Jeep. Second, European law enforcement is far more evolved in terms of how it understands and prosecutes honor killings. In Europe, honor killings are recognized as collaborative conspiracies that involve multiple family members, including mothers and sisters. In 2006, Danish authorities convicted nine members of a clan for the honor murder of Gazala Khan.  In 2009, a German court sentenced a father to life-in-prison for having ordered his son to murder his sister.  On May 17, 2012, five siblings, including two sisters, were sentenced in Germany for the honor killing of their 18-year-old Kurdish-Yazidi-sister. In New York State, "Accomplice liability is established when one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, and the defendant," acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof . . . solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct" (PL §20.00). Thus, in order to be liable as an accomplice one must act with the same intent or purpose as the principal. (see People v. Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140, 144-45 [1990]). Intent may be established by the act itself, or inferred from both conduct and circumstances surrounding a particular offense (see People v. Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977])." I do not know the law in Texas. But surely, there is one for accomplices. I call upon the Irving Police Department and Greg Abbot, the Attorney General of Texas, to look into this matter. Great Aunt Jill cannot live with herself until she has obtained "justice" for her nieces who were American citizens but who have, so far, not been protected by American law. Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is an emerita professor of Psychology and the author of fourteen books, including "Women and Madness" and "Woman's Inhumanity to Woman." She may be reached through her website at: www.phyllis-chesler.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Time to talk back to Facebook and and ask it to protect our kids

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Time to talk back to Facebook and and ask it to protect our kids May 30th 2012, 17:00 I love watching "Mad Men" with my 16-year-old daughter. To me it's a window into my parents' and grandparents' world, a fascinating comparison to today. To her it's like watching life in a parallel universe. She's outraged at depictions of parents smoking in front of their children and, when one character was in a car accident, she was dumbfounded as to why the driver's kids were in the front seat without seatbelts.  To ask my teenager what modern practices might look reckless to her grandchildren would ruin this precious hour we have once a week. Yet, I ask myself that question frequently as I see technology transform our children's lives.  The average child spends more time today with media than they do in school or with their family. More than 5 million kids under the age of 13 have joined Facebook; by the time my daughter is 18 she will have sent at least a half million texts.  As a parent I find all this technology use by kids daunting; most adults are just trying to keep up.  Remember that sweet baby picture you once posted to Facebook? That single, innocent photo share drew the outline of what will become your child's digital footprint. As kids make their way online, they routinely share personal information and opinions, "check in" wherever they go, and populate their "timelines," oblivious to the fact they're being watched.  The average child spends more time today with media than they do in school or with their family. By the time my daughter is 18 she will have sent at least a half million texts.  - The impulse-enabling nature of social media platforms, coupled with kids' lack of emotional maturity, can be combustible.  Adolescent psychologist Erik Erikson wrote about the importance of the teen years being a time for identity exploration and experimentation. But this important developmental phase is dramatically twisted when identity experimentation appears permanently and publicly on one's digital record. Forget for a moment about the cyber-bullies, ID thieves, data brokers, etc., who might access your child's social profile. When technology companies claim to "own" our kids' personal information, it's clear how distorted the issues of identity and privacy have become.  In the 1990s, the Children's Television Act passed Congress unanimously. This was bipartisan recognition that television programming had become increasingly commercial, and that with all the time our kids spent in front of the television, we had a collective responsibility to offer them educational programming with limited commercials. We are now at the same crossroads with digital media.  If technology leaders can pioneer facial recognition and geo-locators, can't they come up with "eraser" buttons? Why do they need to track and target my kids with ads? By optimizing the online experience for children while they are young, technology giants could build brand loyalty early and keep them free of all the unsavory aspects that currently trap them in a vicious cycle of exploitation.  Unlike the years "Mad Men" depicts, today we are aware of the necessity of car seats, seatbelts, sunblock, and understand the risks associated with cigarettes. As a society we've evolved and now recognize our kids deserve special treatment by regulators. Why should the digital media world be any different?  Technology companies must take responsibility for their contributions to culture and seize the opportunity to be part of the solution, so we can give our kids the safe, healthy childhoods they deserve. James Steyer, founder & CEO of Common Sense Media, and author of "Talking Back To Facebook."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Obama's futile Iran strategy

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Obama's futile Iran strategy May 30th 2012, 12:34 Now what? In an honest world, that's the question American negotiators would be asking themselves after Iran rejected any meaningful change to its nuclear program. But desperation rules out honesty, so the White House is almost certainly asking itself a very different question. Something like, how do we keep the illusion of progress going until after the election? Pulling off that trick won't be easy, because most people didn't buy the illusion in the first place. The idea that Iran could be persuaded through many carrots and a few sticks to stop its quest for nukes never made sense. Starting with its Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran has not been a rational actor, nor showed any evidence it wants to be seen that way. Its agenda of dominance and martyrdom, at home and abroad, is a secret only to those whose eyes are closed. The idea that Iran could be persuaded through many carrots and a few sticks to stop its quest for nukes never made sense. - Unfortunately, they include the president of the United States. That President Obama's blindness is shared by European leaders only confirms that it emerges from weakness and wishfulness. Given the short list of alternatives, it was not entirely unreasonable to give diplomacy a final try. What remains unreasonable, and dishonest, is the spin that the talks were on the verge of a breakthrough and that Iran was ready to make a deal. The non-stop leaks to left-leaning news organizations had the opposite effect — they confirmed that Obama wants a deal too much. If it was obvious here, it must have been doubly so to Iranians. In that case, we can be assured they will permit the suckers to keep bidding against themselves. Having ruled out real compromise, and even demanding that evidence of weaponization be produced before they allow in inspectors, the mullahs' men have raised their bar. They assume Obama will respond by lowering his. They are correct. By keeping up the charade that the talks are significant, and scheduling another round in Moscow, of all places, the president tips his hand. Beyond trying to forestall an Israeli attack, he uses the negotiations as an excuse for not making a difficult decision about American security. The talks have become not a means, but the end. There is no need to coin a new word for this. Appeasement fits just fine. Historic examples are often explained as if they happened in a single moment. Thus, it's as though Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" speech, when he returned to London after ceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, marked both the start and end of his capitulation. In fact, Chamberlain and others had been giving ground to Hitler for years, including the annexation of Austria. Every time Hitler raised his demands, Chamberlain lowered his. Every time Hitler issued an ultimatum, he got rewarded. Continual appeasement only delayed a reckoning, and gave Hitler the time to expand German might and planning. Indeed, within six months of Chamberlain's "peace for our time" boast, Hitler had gobbled up all of Czechoslovakia and then turned to Poland. The Iran of today is not the Germany of 1938. But in one key respect, it could be more dangerous. A nuclear-armed Iran will trigger a nuke race in the region, and might well provoke a nuclear war. That, at least, is the prediction of some American and Israeli intelligence experts. That frightening scenario will not disappear because of wishing and hoping. Obama, for now, shares Iran's goal of stalling an Israeli strike. The results would be unpredictable, including the impact on his campaign. He might succeed, if only because Iran is eager to pocket the concession of time as it doggedly enriches more uranium to higher grades. But sooner or later, this president, or the next one, will have to answer the question: Now what? History shows that, when dealing with madmen, later is usually worse than sooner. To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post on other topics including, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and his communications director's resignation, click here.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Could Spain's bank woes sink the euro?

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Could Spain's bank woes sink the euro? May 30th 2012, 12:10 Spain has announced it will pour €19 billion into troubled real estate lender Bankia, SA. Even with the €20 billion in aid already dispensed to financial institutions, this may not avert a run on Spanish banks and economic collapse. Much larger than Greece, Spain could prove beyond Germany and other northern countries' capacity to rescue, and its collapse would spell the end of the euro. Spain's economic crisis did not result from government overspending. Prior to the Great Recession, Madrid's budget was consistently in surplus, and Spain's debt to GDP ratio is only 70 percent—lower than Germany or France. During the boom years, wealthy northern Europeans rushed to purchase second homes and vacation in Spain's sunny climate, instigating a rush of foreign funds into its banks to finance dwellings and hotels.  After the 2008 global crisis, land values fell, and banks were stuck with non-performing real estate loans. Faced with similar challenges, the United States had tools that neither Spain nor the EU possess. The Federal Reserve pumped some $2 trillion into US banks and financial institutions—including purchases of many non-performing and high-risk loans. The ECB has extended long-term credit to banks against mortgages and business loans deemed secure, but it cannot bail out banks with too many non-performing loans. The ECB can lend money to national central banks, which extend credit to commercial banks against their loans, but if those loans fail, national central banks assume liability. Unlike the Fed and ECB, those can't print money, and their central governments must either tax citizens or borrow euro on international capital markets to make up losses. Madrid's current bank bailout has undertaken an exercise similar to the US Treasury's TARP—selling bonds to finance bank bailouts; however, the ECB does not stand ready, as the Federal Reserve did for the Treasury, to print money to buy any bonds Madrid can't sell. The ECB should remain reluctant to acquire powers similar to the Federal Reserve, because it lacks authority the US central bank shares with the Comptroller of the Currency to regulate banks. The European Banking Authority has very limited powers, and bank supervision remains in the hands of national governments, subject to whims of national politicians and elections. Investors, recognizing that guaranteeing Spanish banks is an enormous burden for Madrid to shoulder without a central bank that can print euros, have driven up Madrid's borrowing rates. This has forced draconian spending cuts and deepened the Spanish recession. A terrible negative feedback cycle has been unleashed—a contracting economy lessens Madrid's tax revenues, this engenders further investor doubt and even higher interest rates, higher borrowing costs require more spending cuts, and those further worsen economic contraction. Depositors, fearing bank failures or a Spanish pullout from the euro and conversion of their accounts into less valuable peseta, could force Madrid to alter strategy by withdrawing funds. To discourage bank runs, the Eurozone has no analog to the FDIC, which is backed up by the US Treasury's capacity to tax and sell bonds, and ultimately the Federal Reserve's ability to print money.  Instead, national agencies back up deposits, and Madrid's ability to stand behind Spanish banks with €663 billion in real estate loans is highly uncertain. Throughout the European sovereign debt crisis, much has been made of Brussels' lack of taxing, spending and borrowing powers. However, monetary union also requires that the ECB, like the Federal Reserve, be charged with guaranteeing the solvency and regulating banks, and that a continental deposit insurance system—backed by taxing authority in Brussels and the ECB's capacity to print money—be established. Those won't come in time to save Spain. It may simply have to dump the euro, so that it can print its own money and solve its problems much as the United States did in the wake of the financial crisis. Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter@pmorici1.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »