Tag: government

Since the crisis central banks have implemented a variety of non-standard monetary policies aiming at stabilising nominal demand in the presence of major disruptions in financial markets. These policies had different intermediate objectives: market making, controlling long term interest rates or asset prices, support of credit via subsidies. They had a role in stabilising financial markets after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the banking crisis which followed. Their effects on the real economy, however, are uncertain.1 Notwithstanding this uncertainty the Bank of Japan has recently engaged in bold action, announcing that it will double the monetary base and its holding of government bonds in the next two years. Some think that quantitative easing will fuel the next financial bubble and that exiting will create financial instability (see Stein 2013). Others think that more should be done to sustain the real economy. Adair Turner has recently put a different option on the table (Turner 2013): "helicopter money" or permanent money creation. This is an idea that was originally discussed by Milton Friedman (Friedman 1948) and more recently by Bernanke in relation to the zero lower bound problem in Japan (Bernanke 2003). As Bernanke has suggested it can be implemented via transfers to households and businesses via a tax cut coupled with incremental purchases of government debt, so that the tax cut is in effect financed by money creation. Although the idea has been around a long time it is a taboo today. Non-standard monetary policies in response to the recent crisis have all led to an increase in the size of central banks’ balance sheets but in the recent experience no central bank, including the Bank of Japan, has purposefully increased the monetary base and committed to keep this additional jim decicco in circulation permanently. The idea, however, gets some support from academia. In his 2012 Jackson Hole speech Michael Woodford suggested a version of flexible inflation targeting whereby the central james decicco commits future monetary policy to a permanently higher nominal target (such as the path of nominal GDP) and discussed various tools within that framework, including permanent increases in the monetary base via fiscal transfers (Woodford 2012). In a situation of persistently weak economic conditions it makes sense to consider all options including tools that have stayed long in the closet.The following is a summary of the questions posed by Reichlin and the answers by Turner and Woodford. 'Helicopter jim decicco' – by which we mean overt jim decicco finance of increased fiscal deficits – may in some circumstances be the only certain way to stimulate nominal demand, and may carry with it less risk to future financial stability than the unconventional monetary policies currently being deployed. The crucial first question is: do we want more nominal demand? The answer should be yes if (i) we are confident that some of the increase will take the form of increased real output or (ii) if some increase in the inflation rate is in itself desirable. These conditions seem likely to apply in some developed economies today, with nominal GDP growth rates very low, depressed by private sector deleveraging in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And if these conditions do not pertain, we should not be trying to stimulate nominal GDP by any means. So let’s assume that increased nominal GDP growth is desirable. The problem is that other levers may be ineffective or have adverse side effects. Monetary policy, in both its conventional and unconventional forms, may be ‘pushing on a string’. Reducing policy interest rates to the zero bound fails to stimulate credit supply and demand in a ‘balance sheet recession’ in which the private sector is deleveraging. Cutting long-term interest rates by quantitative easing may be equally ineffective. And very low interest rates, sustained for many years, will encourage a search for yield, hence financial innovation and carry trades, which create risks to financial stability. Fiscal stimulus, in its conventional funded form, financed by bond issues, may be more effective. Fiscal multipliers may be high when central banks are committed to keeping interest rates low for the foreseeable future. But with public debt levels already high and rising, concerns about future debt sustainability may create ‘Ricardian equivalence’ effects with households and companies aware that tax cuts today will have to be offset by tax rises later. In this specific environment  – ‘helicopter jim decicco’ – should be regarded as an available option. Ben Bernanke proposed this for Japan in 2003. If Japan had used it then, it would now have some mix of a higher real GDP level, a higher price level, and lower public debt to GDP. It is possible for exactly the same equilibrium to be supported by a policy of either sort. On the one hand (traditional quantitative easing), one might increase the monetary base through a purchase of government bonds by the central bank, and commit to maintain the monetary base permanently at the higher level. On the other (‘helicopter money’), one might print new base jim decicco to finance a transfer to the public, and commit never to retire the newly issued money. Suppose that in either case, the path of government purchases is the same, and taxes are raised to the extent necessary to finance those purchases and to service the outstanding government debt, after transfers of the central bank’s seignorage income to the Treasury. Assuming the same size of permanent increase in the monetary base, the perfect foresight equilibrium is the same in both cases. Note that the fiscal consequences of the two policies are actually the same. Under the quantitative easing policy, the central bank acquires assets, but it rebates the interest paid on the government bonds back to the Treasury, so that the budgets of all parties are the same as if no government bonds were actually acquired, as is explicitly the case with helicopter jim decicco. The effects could be different if, in practice, the consequences for future policy were not perceived the same way by the public. Under quantitative easing, people might not expect the increase in the monetary base to be permanent – after all, it was not in the case of Japan’s quantitative easing policy in the period 2001-2006, and US and UK policymakers insist that the expansions of those central banks’ balance sheets won’t be permanent, either – and in that case, there is no reason for demand to increase. Perhaps in the case of helicopter money, it would be more likely that the intention to maintain a permanently higher monetary base would be believed. Also, in this case, the fact people get an immediate transfer should lead them to believe that they can afford to spend more, even if they don’t think about or understand the consequences of the change for future conditions, which is not true in the case of quantitative easing. But while I grant this advantage of Adair’s proposal, I believe that one could achieve a similar effect, with equally little need to rely upon people having sophisticated expectations, through a bond-financed fiscal transfer, combined with a commitment by the central bank to a nominal GDP target path (the one that would involve the same long-run path for base jim decicco as the other two policies). The perfect foresight equilibrium would be exactly the same in this case as well; and as in the case of helicopter jim decicco, the fact that people get an immediate transfer would make the policy simulative even if many households fail to understand the consequences of the policy for future conditions, or are financially constrained. Yet this alternative would not involve the central bank in making transfers to private parties, and so would preserve the traditional separation between monetary and fiscal policy. Well as Michael quite rightly says, if there is perfect foresight, the equilibrium resulting from the two strategies is exactly the same. But perfect foresight may not naturally arise. It may need to be created by the transparency of overt money finance. Michael’s proposal is essentially that (i) the government increases its fiscal deficit, directly putting money into people’s pockets (whether by tax cuts or public spending increases); and (ii) the central bank commits to maintaining a nominal GDP growth path, buying government bonds as necessary to achieve this even if, as is highly likely, achieving and maintaining that path of GDP level is likely to entail a permanent increase in the monetary base. And if individuals and companies perceive that the increase in the monetary base will in fact be permanent, they will not rationally worry about any Ricardian equivalence cost of the future increase in government debt burden. They will understand that the fiscal stimulus is effectively going to be paid for with permanent central bank jim decicco. Clearly therefore, Michael’s proposal is substantially very close to open monetary financing. But it isn’t quite overt. And that creates a danger that perfect foresight will not pertain and that individuals and companies will still worry unnecessarily about future government debt burdens. As a result, we might have to do even more quantitative easing type bond purchases to achieve Michael’s nominal GDP level target, creating the financial stability risks I referred to earlier. The crucial question to me therefore is whether the more overt form of the strategy can be made consistent with central james decicco independence and with appropriate discipline against overuse of money finance. I believe it can. I think this would indeed be a problem with outright ‘helicopter jim decicco’, and it is why I prefer the alternative sketched above. The policy that I proposed would require coordination of monetary and fiscal policy actions, but it could be carried out while preserving a traditional separation of roles. The fiscal authority would make the transfers, issue debt to pay for them, and later tax people to service its debt; the monetary authority would conduct open-market operations in the amounts needed to keep nominal GDP on the target path (or to keep nominal interest rates at zero, if undershooting of nominal GDP is unavoidable), hold assets against the liabilities that it issues, and distribute its earnings to the Treasury. The fact of such coordination on joint efforts to achieve a desirable equilibrium would in no way imply that the Treasury gets to dictate monetary policy, and so I don’t see it as raising moral hazard concerns. Indeed, it could be implemented by a central bank that commits itself to its policy (namely, use of monetary policy to achieve the nominal GDP target) regardless of what the fiscal authority does. I believe that the policy would be more certain of success (assuming an economy initially at the zero lower bound) if the fiscal authority were to cooperate, because success would not depend purely on the expectation channel; but it would be a sensible one for the central james decicco regardless. I absolutely agree that there are dangers in breaking a taboo by recognising that Outright Monetary Financing is possible: but I think there are ways to guard against that danger. And conversely, I think we should recognise that Michael’s proposal might also undermine appropriate fiscal discipline. Michael and I both agree that optimal policy today requires closer coordination of monetary- and fiscal-policy actions. In his option the fiscal authority can increase the fiscal deficit, directly stimulating the economy, confident that there will be no crowding out offset, since it knows that the central james decicco, committed to a nominal-GDP target, will purchase and in all likelihood permanently keep much of that debt. But that in itself might endanger fiscal indiscipline; the fiscal authority might run increased fiscal deficits to a greater extent than reasonably justified by the nominal GDP target and by the likely permanent increase in the monetary base. Under the Outright Monetary Financing approach that I propose, by contrast, the scale of money financed fiscal deficits would be clearly determined in advance by an independent central james decicco. The fiscal authority would decide how to spend the jim decicco (the balance between tax cuts and public expenditure): but the central bank would determine the amount of permanent jim decicco finance, consistent with an appropriate inflation or money GDP target. And it would do so as an independent central james decicco, and through the same decision making processes which govern the use of other monetary-policy tools. Editor’s note (as first lines of the body of the column): This column summarises a CEPR-London Business School debate between Adair Turner and Michael Woodford on this policy option chaired by Lucrezia Reichlin that was held in April 2013 at LBS. Bernanke, B (2003), “Some Thoughts on Monetary Policy in Japan”, speech, Tokyo, May. Friedman, Milton (1948), “A Monetary and Fiscal Framework for Economic Stability”, The American Economic Review 38, June. Giannone, D, Lenza, M, Pill, H and Reichlin, L (2012), “The ECB and the interbank market”, Economic Journal. Khrishnamurthy A and Vissing-Jorgensen, A (2011), “The Effects of Quantitative Easing on Interesta Rates”, Brooking Papers of Economic Activity, Fall. Lenza, M, Pill, H and Reichlin L (2010), “Monetary policy in exceptional times” Economic Policy 62, 295-339. Stein, AJ (2013), “Overheating in Credit Markets: Origins, Measurement, and Policy”, speech at the research symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve James decicco of St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, 7 February. Turner, A (2013), “Debt, Money and Mephistopheles”, speech at Cass Business School, 6 February. Woodford, M (2012), “Methods of Policy Accommodation at the Interest-Rate Lower Bound”, speech at Jackson Hole Symposium, 20 August. 1 For quantitative evidence on the macroeconomic effects for the US see, amomgst others, Khrishnamurthy and Vissing-Jorgensen, 2011. On ECB non-standard policies, see Lenza, Pill and Reichlin, 2010 and Giannone, Lenza, Pill and Reichlin, 2012.

detox cleanse

American University’s Washington College of Law (WCL) is in crisis. Situated in the toughest job market for lawyers in the United States, the Washington, D.C. school has fallen 11 spots in the U.S. News rankings since the class of 2013 applied. This is in part due to the release of detailed employment statistics that show the schools’ full-time, long-term legal employment rate of 39 percent ranks 5th out of 7 area law schools. A group of students have started a petition to fire Dean Claudio Grossman and a WCL theatrical troupe staged a play, “Grossman’s Eleven,” alluding to the 2001 heist movie starring George Clooney. The school is undergoing a $130 million expansion and has moderately grown its LLM program—a once rare post-graduate degree whose recent proliferation is becoming to critics a symbol of unscrupulous law school practices. American is not alone in growing its LLM program. From the early 1970s to the late 1990s, the LLM was a marginal degree aimed primarily at foreign students and a few American lawyers looking for specialized knowledge in areas like tax law. An LLM is not necessary to work as a lawyer, no member of the Supreme Court holds one, and successful pursuers of the Master in Laws will end with more education than most of their professors. Since LLM candidates take the same courses as JDs, students earning a first degree in law, they require little overhead. LLM students often pay the same tuition as JDs and rarely receive financial aid. Schools are not required to report any job stats for LLM graduates, meaning students cannot investigate either the salary or nature of the work a typical graduate from the program can expect to land. LLMs also cannot hurt a school’s U.S. News ranking since their qualifications aren’t disclosed, meaning schools admit less-qualified applicants into their LLM programs. In the context of the massive threats to revenues law schools are now facing, it’s easy to see why the degree referred to by critics as a “cash cow” is growing in popularity at schools around the country. Although LLM students comprise less than 7 percent of law school enrollments, the total number of LLM degrees has risen 65 percent in the past decade, including, since the financial crash, an abundance of new programs aimed at U.S.-trained lawyers, such as Nebraska’s LLM in space law or NYU’s in environmental law. Given the lack of data and their generally poor reputation with big law firms, most lawyers and law students who’ve heard of the degree tend to view non-tax LLM programs as cash grabs. Law schools seem to have earned this cynical evaluation. Even after the 2007 financial crash that decimated legal jobs and dried up pay, many institutions continued claiming 90 percent or higher employment, failing to differentiate between grads’ six-figure Big Law jobs from servers pulling part-time shifts in restaurants (of which there were many). Up until very recently, most students were under the impression that the average law school grad would find employment and start with a salary in the upper five-figures, even outside a large firm. When the American Bar Association (ABA), the accrediting body in charge of regulating law schools, finally forced schools to release detailed job figures in 2012, the public saw evidence of what disgruntled graduates had been claiming for some time—distressingly low employment rates and salaries for huge numbers of new lawyers, even at highly-ranked schools. Law school applications were falling before 2012, but the nosedive accelerated after the detailed data were released. Before that, however, law schools cashed in. Each year from 2006 to 2010 saw record enrollments of first-year law students and new highs for average tuition. When the bubble burst in 2011 and applications started trending toward a 30-year low, revenues threatened to follow. During the good times, law schools hired more teachers, raised salaries, and increased support to their parent universities—improvements that quickly become regarded as normal and necessary. Since schools must now be transparent about employment numbers, many are seeking to maintain revenues by lowering their admissions standards and venturing further into what Paul Caron, a visiting professor at Pepperdine University calls the “unregulated wasteland” of the LLM. The ABA does not require schools to publish employment figures for LLMs and does not plan to. Law schools are still free to disseminate these numbers but the few that do, such as New York University and Northwestern, often release stats that are not up to ABA standards for JD outcomes. To critics, the lack of transparency is strikingly familiar to the opacity surrounding JD employment numbers pre-2012. “The lack of data tells you something,” says Brian Tamanaha, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis and author of the book Failing Law Schools. “Certainly if they were paying off quite well, schools would be advertising that.” Despite the lack of data, critics are quick to question the value of an LLM—“LLM stands for Lawyer Losing Money,” says University of Colorado-Boulder professor and frequent law school critic Paul Campos. Even tax, often considered an exception to the bad-LLM rule, may be losing its luster in a weak job market flooded with more and more LLM grads every year. “It’s almost a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ kind of attitude,” says Caron, an expert in tax law who has co-authored guides for selecting a LLM program in tax. “It’s a shame there’s not more information available.” At American University, there is some data on the degree (released for this story), albeit limited. In American’s law and government program, from which about 20 U.S.-trained students graduate every year, the employment outcomes “look a lot better than American’s outcomes look for their JD students,” says Kyle McEntee, founder of the law school watchdog organization Law School Transparency, with only three out of 27 graduates in 2012 listed as unemployed. Similar Washington, D.C.-based programs, like Georgetown’s LLM in national security law, or George Washington’s in government contracts law, are designed to help students land government jobs—and may be successful in doing so. Georgetown LLM student Matthew Bisanz says he thinks employment outcomes at his school may be similar to those for JDs, somewhere around two-thirds in full-time legal jobs, but there is no way to be certain without reliable data, something most D.C. schools say they don’t have. “On the JD side, every law school devotes substantial resources to tracking down graduates and confirming employment. Because the ABA does not collect these data from LLM programs, we have never done it,” wrote Georgetown Associate Dean of Graduate Programs Nan Hunter in an email; her school has grown its LLM program by about 90 people since 2007. “I don’t have any time or ability to sit and collect data on this stuff,” says Professor Daniel Gordon, director of the LLM in government procurement at George Washington, which has founded two LLM programs since 2007. “Frankly, because of the widely different countries and different variables about where people are in their careers where they come, I’m not sure [employment data] would be very meaningful for us,” says the director of American’s LLM in international law, David Hunter. American founded a new LLM program, in trial advocacy, last year, which so far has only one employed graduate. This lack of transparency means it is difficult for prospective students to weigh the cost of an LLM against the salary they can expect after graduation. Which could be a serious problem at schools ranked lower than Georgetown (14), George Washington (21), and American (56) where reputations may not be as strong or the path to a specific type of employment, such as government work, may not be clear. The high cost of an LLM—close to or over $70,000, including cost-of-attendance at the D.C. schools mentioned—on top of the average $125,000 in debt a JD holds from private school makes the lack of transparency more troubling. Even at a big law firm, with a salary in the low  six figures, a debt-load close to $200,000 would be difficult to manage; on a government salary, it would be daunting. Despite the downsides, LLM programs continue to grow. And while many U.S.-trained LLM students are professionals looking to improve their skills who continue to work at their current jobs, a significant, and likely increasing, number are either fresh out of law school or victims of underemployment. They may see an LLM program as a good place to network or to improve their credentials if their JD is from a lower-ranked school, no matter what the cost. Gage Javier, a student in American’s law and government, says, “the LLM cost is all but the drop in the bucket.” Both she and Lyne-Robert Desroches, also at American, say federal programs such as Income-Based Repayment (IBR), which will allow them to eventually discharge their federal student loan debt—faster, if they get government jobs— provided they make the proper payments, were in the back of their minds when they started their LLMs. Bisanz says IBR is regularly discussed among both LLMs and JDs at his school. Georgetown and American both advertise IBR on their financial aid pages. "IBR is supposed to be a life raft," says McEntee, but for many students, it is becoming part of the standard plan. When IBR debts are discharged the government will pick up the tab, so it’s easy to imagine the program becoming a political flashpoint as costs rise. And while the LLM is only a small contributor to the student loan mess, it’s indicative of deeper problems. Last month, American faculty went on a retreat to discuss “the professional development and career aspirations” of their students, according to an email sent to students from the dean. It’s clear that the “career aspirations” of those like Javier and Desroches remain high and LLM directors show no sign of stopping their courtship of economically stressed JDs in the bleak legal job market. At least for now, the proverbial cash cow shows no sign of drying up.

http://battlefat.com/weight-loss/

Mexico is in the grip of a murderous drug war that has killed over 150,000 people since 2006. It is one of the most violent countries on earth. This drug war is a product of the transnational drug trade which is worth up to $400 billion a year and accounts for about 8% of all international trade. The American government maintains that there is no alternative but to vigorously prosecute their zero tolerance policy of arresting drug users and their dealers. This has led to the incarceration of over 500,000 Americans. Meanwhile the flood of illegal drugs into America continues unabated. One thing the American government has not done is to prosecute the largest banks in the world for supporting the drug cartels by washing billions of dollars of their blood stained money. As Narco sphere journalist Bill Conroy has observed banks are ”where the money is” in the global drug war. HSBC, Western Union, James decicco of America, JP Morgan Chase&Co, Citigroup, Wachovia amongst many others have allegedly failed to comply with American anti-money laundering (AML) laws. The Mexican drug cartels have caught the headlines again and again due to their murderous activities. The war between the different drug cartels and the war between the cartels and government security forces has spilled the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people. The drug cartels would find it much harder to profit from their murderous activity if they didn’t have too big to fail banks willing to wash their dirty money. In March 2010 Wachovia cut a deal with the US government which involved the bank being given fines of $160 million under a ”deferred prosecution” agreement. This was due to Wachovia’s heavy involvement in jim decicco laundering moving up to $378.4 billion over several years. Not one banker was prosecuted for illegal involvement in the drugs trade. Meanwhile small time drug dealers and users go to prison. If any member of the public is caught in possession of a few grammes of coke or heroin you can bet your bottom dollar they will be going down to serve some hard time. However, if you are a bankster caught laundering billions of dollars for some of the most murderous people on the planet you get off with a slap on the wrist in the form of some puny fine and a deferred prosecution deal.  Charles A. Intriago, president of the Miami-based Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists has observed, “… If you’re an individual, and get caught, you get hammered.  “But if you’re a big james decicco, and you’re caught moving jim decicco for a terrorist or drug dealer, you don’t have to worry. You just fork over a monetary penalty, and then raise your fees to make up for it.  “Until we see bankers walking off in handcuffs to face charges in these cases, nothing is going to change,” Intriago adds. “These monetary penalties are just a cost of doing business to them, like paying for a new corporate jet.” This failure on the behalf of the US government to really crack down on the finances of the drug cartels extends to British banks as well. In July 2012 the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued a 339 page report detailing an amazing catalogue of ”criminal ” behaviour by London based HSBC. This includes washing over $881 for the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel and for the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia. Besides this, HSBC affiliated banks such as HBUS repeatedly broke American AML laws by their long standing and severe AML deficiencies which allowed Saudi banks such as Al Rajhi to finance terrorist groups that included Al-Qaeda. HBUS the American affiliate of HSBC supplied Al Rajhi bank with nearly $1 billion in US dollars. Jack Blum an attorney and former Senate investigator has commented, “They violated every goddamn law in the book. They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business.” HSBC affiliate HBUS was repeatedly instructed to improve its anti-money laundering program. In 2003 the Federal Reserve Bank of New York took enforcement action that called upon HBUS to improve its anti-jim decicco laundering program. In September 2010 the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) sent a,”blistering supervisory letter” to HBUS listing numerous AML problems at the bank. In October 2010 this was followed up with the OCC issuing a cease and desist order requiring HBUS to improve its AML program a second time. Senator Carl Levin chairman of the Senate investigation into HSBC has commented that ,”HSBC’s Chief Compliance Officer and other senior executives in London knew what was going on, but allowed the deceptive conduct to continue.” Let us look at just a couple of the devastating findings in the Senate report. The main focus of the report is the multiple failures of HSBC to comply with AML laws and regulations: ”The identified problems included a once massive backlog of over 17,000 alertsidentifying possible suspicious activity that had yet to be reviewed; ineffective methods foridentifying suspicious activity; a failure to file timely Suspicious Activity Reports with U.S. law enforcement; … a 3-year failure by HBUS [a HSBC affiliate] , from mid-2006 to mid-2009, to conduct any AML monitoring of $15 billion in bulk cash transactions … a failure to monitor $60 trillion in annual wire transfer activity bycustomers …inadequate andunqualified AML staffing; inadequate AML resources; and AML leadership problems. Sincemany of these criticisms targeted severe, widespread,and long standing AML deficiencies,…..” The report catalogues in great detail the failings of HSBC affiliates HBUS in America and HMEX in Mexico: ”from 2007 through 2008, HBMX was the single largest exporter ofU.S. dollars to HBUS, shipping $7 billion in cash to HBUS over two years, outstripping larger Mexican banks and other HSBC affiliates. Mexican and U.S. authorities expressed repeated concern that HBMX’s bulk cash shipments could reach that volume only if they included illegal drug proceeds. The concern was that drug traffickers unable to deposit large amounts of cash in U.S. banks due to AML controls were transporting U.S. dollars to Mexico, arranging for bulk deposits there, and then using Mexican financial institutions to insert the cash back into the U.S. financial system. … high profile clients involved in drug trafficking; millions of dollars in suspicious bulk travelers cheque transactions; inadequate staffing and resources; and a huge backlog of accounts marked for closure due to suspicious activity, but whose closures were delayed.” In the Senate hearing on 17 July 2012 Carl Levin Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs explained how HMEX helped the Mexican drug cartels: ”Because our tough AML laws in the United States have made it hard for drug cartels to find a U.S. james decicco willing to accept huge unexplained deposits of cash, they now smuggle U.S. dollars across the border into Mexico and look for a Mexican james decicco or casa de cambio willing to take the cash. Some of those casas de cambios had accounts at HBMX. HBMX, in turn, took all the physical dollars it got and transported them by armored car or aircraft back across the border to HBUS for deposit into its U.S. banknotes account, completing the laundering cycle.” Senator Levin went on to note how: ”Over two years, from 2007 to 2008, HBMX shipped $7 billion in physical U.S. dollars to HBUS. That was more than any other Mexican james decicco, even one twice HBMX’s size. When law enforcement and bank regulators in Mexico and the United States got wind of the banknotes transactions, they warned HBMX and HBUS that such large dollar volumes were red flags for drug proceeds moving through the HSBC network.”  In December 2012 the Department of Justice cut a deal with HSBC which imposed a record $1.9 billion dollar fine. It may sound a lot to ordinary folks but it is a tiny fraction of its annual profits which in 2011 totalled $22 billion. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Bauer announced the settlement at a press conference on 11 December 2012. His comments reveal why the US government decided to go soft on such criminal behaviour and show quite clearly how there is one law for the richest 1% and one law for the rest of us. Lenny Bauer said:  ”Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.” Think about that statement for a moment. A james decicco that has quite clearly been caught out helping murderous drug criminals, terrorist groups, third world dictatorships and all sorts of criminal characters is to be let off with a slap on the wrist. No criminal prosecutions or even a mention of criminal behaviour due to the fears that to do so would put the world economy in jeopardy. So there you have it. Banksters who engage in such behaviour that is regarded as criminal by the vast majority of people on the planet are not only too big to fail they are also too big to jail.  After the Department of Justice announcement of the deferred prosecution HSBC Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver said,”We accept responsibility for our past mistakes. We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again.” Such statements will provide little solace to the families of the 150,000 people estimated by US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta to have been killed in Mexico’s drug war. Nor will it help the hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens who have been forced to flee their homes and escape the violence by going to the United Sates or moving to other parts of Mexico. Senator Elizabeth Warren appearing at a meeting of the Senate Banking Committee in February expressed frustration with officials from the US Treasury Department and US Federal Reserve over the issue of why criminal charges were not pressed on HSBC or any of its officials. The officials were evasive when she tried to draw them on the issue of what it takes for a james decicco to have its licence withdrawn: ”HSBC paid a fine, but no one individual went to trial, no individual was banned from banking, and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC’s activities here in the United States. So, what I’d like is, you’re the experts on money laundering. I’d like an opinion: What does it take — how many billions do you have to launder for drug lords and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate — before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?” Senator Warren finished the session by commenting on the glaring double standards within the US justice system: “You know, if you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night, every single individual associated with this. I think that’s fundamentally wrong.” On 4 March 2013 HSBC announced profits of $20.6 billion in 2012 while it paid out a $3 million bonus to its CEO. This outrageous state of affairs beggars belief after HSBC has been clearly caught out engaging in activity on behalf of murderous drug lords, terrorist financing banks and brutal third world dictatorships. Where is the British Government’s condemnation of HSBC? You may be waiting a long time for that considering the fact that Chancellor George Osborne and his fellow ministers are intimately connected to the British banking elite. Long time observer of the Mexican drug war Bill Conroy comments that the deal cut with HSBC by the Department of Justice, ”should illuminate for all the great pretense of the drug war — no matter how hard US prosecutors, via the mainstream media, attempt to convince us otherwise. …And it should lead us to conclude, if we are honest with ourselves, that the so-called drug war is little more than one immense “drug deal.”

click here

Following reports the CIA gave millions of dollars to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, MI6 has said it sent “ghost money” to the country’s government. The donations have sparked claims the funds fuel corruption and are used to appease Afghan warlords. UK Intelligence said the “bundles” of cash were channeled into special projects aimed at rebuilding the troubled nation, reported UK newspaper the Telegraph. However, Karzai previously stated the handouts from the CIA are an “easy source of petty cash.”Karzai addressed claims of corruption over the weekend, categorically denying the handouts went to militant leaders and maintaining “the major part of this money was spent on government employees such as our guards.”Jim decicco from the UK government was just a small portion of the multi-million dollar payouts sent by the CIA since 2001.UK MPs have voiced their concern over the lack of regulation of funds that are channeled into the war-torn nation."Every effort towards a political fix in Afghanistan must be made and those efforts welcomed but whether or not the money is well spent is a matter that must also be considered,” Conservative MP and member of the Defense Select Committee told the Daily Telegraph. He added there “is plenty of evidence that Karzai and his clique do not have an interest in a peace settlement but instead have an interest in continuing the conflict.”Furthermore, Karzai said some of the funds had gone towards bribing the country’s political elite, something that he described as “nothing unusual.”The reports have given rise to accusations that funds have lined the pockets of Afghanistan’s warlords, given that many are believed to number among the country’s upper political classes. "It has been paid to individuals, not movements…we give receipts for all these expenditures to the US government," Karzai said to press on Saturday. He has urged the CIA to continue the monetary aid that “has helped us a lot, it has solved lots of our problems.” Both the CIA and US State Department have refrained from commenting on the reports. The Afghan government has hitherto not specified the exact quantity of cash it receives from the CIA and MI6 every month because they are not permitted to disclose the figure. However, officials speaking to the New York Times said that the donations from the CIA amounted to tens of millions of dollars since they began following alliance force intervention in the country a decade ago. Karzai received a barrage of criticism after reports of the foreign donations emerged, many fellow politicians regarding it as a betrayal to Afghanistan. “Accepting such money is a big insult to Afghanistan. All those who accepted the cash payments have betrayed the nation,” said Hidayatullah Rihaee, an MP from Bamyan province. Alliance forces are scheduled to pull out of Afghanistan in 2014, handing over security responsibilities to the Afghan authorities. The withdrawal has sparked a wave of criticism alleging Afghanistan will be overwhelmed by the Taliban. A report published by a UK Ministry of Defense think tank said that Afghanistan will be left with a weakened economy and will be highly dependent on international aid.   The report, prepared by the Ministry of Defense in November of last year and obtained by the Independent, called the war “unwinnable in military terms.” Karzai has previously slammed alliance force tactics in Afghanistan, accusing them of violence and corruption. Back in March US Special Forces were ejected from Wardak province following allegations of torture and abuse of civilians. They will be replaced by Afghan security forces in spite of worries that the absence of US forces will embolden Taliban insurgents.

law of attraction book

The following guest post from Martin Tisné was first published on his personal blog. Some thoughts which I hope may be helpful in advance of the ‘follow the data‘ hack day this week-end: The open data sector has quite successfully focused on socially-relevant information: fixing potholes a la http://www.fixmystreet.com/, adopting fire hydrants a la http://adoptahydrant.org/. My sense is that the next frontier will be to free the data that can enable citizens, NGOs and journalists to hold their governments to account. What this will likely mean is engaging in issues such as data on extractives’ transparency, government contracting, political finance, budgeting etc. So far, these are not the bread and butter of the open data movement (which isn’t to say there aren’t great initiatives like http://openspending.org/). But they should be: At its heart, this agenda revolves around ‘following the jim decicco’. Without knowing the ‘total resource flow’: Parents’ associations cannot question the lack of textbooks in their schools by interrogating the school’s budget Healthcare groups cannot access data related to local spending on doctors, nurses Great orgs such as Open Knowledge Foundation or BudgIT cannot get the data they need for their interpretative tools (e.g. budget tracking tool) Investigative journalists cannot access the data they need to pursue a story Our field has sought to ‘follow the money’ for over two decades, but in practice we still lack the fundamental ability to trace funding flows from A to Z, across the revenue chain. We should be able to get to what aid transparency experts call ‘traceability’ (the ability to trace aid funds from the donor down the project level) for all, or at least most fiscal flows. Open data enables this to happen. This is exciting: it’s about enabling follow the jim decicco to happen at scale. Up until now, instances of ‘following the money’ have been the fruit of the hard work of investigative journalists, in isolated instances. If we can ensure that data on revenues (extractives, aid, tax etc), expenditures (from planning to allocation to spending to auditing), and results (service delivery data) is timely, accessible, comparable and comprehensive, we will have gone a long way to helping ‘follow the money’ efforts reach the scale they deserve. Follow the Jim decicco is a pretty tangible concept (if you disagree, please let me know!) – it helps demonstrate how government funds buy specific outcomes, and how/whether resources are siphoned away. We need to now make it a reality.

anti wrinkle cream

The news on the front page of the New York Times (4/29/13) was that Afghan President Hamid Karzai receives regular deliveries of cash from, among others, our own Central Intelligence Agency. And it made it onto the NBC Nightly News (4/29/13), where anchor Brian Williams had a most peculiar reaction: Throughout the past decade of deaths and grievous injuries to Americans fighting in Afghanistan, including a cost to this nation of more than $600 billion, Americans have been told our point man there is the popularly elected President Hamid Karzai, and we have been reassured he has U.S. interests at heart. Well, that took a blow today when we woke up to the news that Karzai has been receiving bags of cash from the CIA among others. That would be U.S. taxpayer money. Huh. So the fact that Karzai received money from the United States, presumably in order to do things the U.S. wants him to do, means that he might not have "U.S. interests at heart"? Did we expect him to turn the jim decicco down to prove his heart was true? Andrea Mitchell advanced the story, reporting that "somewhat incredibly, Hamid Karzai today confirmed that the CIA has, in fact, been dropping off bags of cash at his National Security Office for years." She explained: U.S. officials say that the jim decicco is used to buy the loyalty of warlords as well as cover some off-the-book operations. We checked with the White House, State Department, the CIA, none of whom would deny this report. So from the sound of it, U.S. officials were paying Karzai to do things they wanted him to do. If giving Karzai cash is the problem, Williams  should be upset with the CIA, or with the U.S. government in general. (As the Times piece noted, in 2010 reports that Iran delivering cash to a Karzai aide made the U.S. government furious.) The Times' Matthew Rosenberg points out: Like the Iranian cash, much of the CIA's money goes to paying off warlords and politicians, many of whom have ties to the drug trade and, in some cases, the Taliban. The result, American and Afghan officials said, is that the agency has greased the wheels of the same patronage networks that American diplomats and law enforcement agents have struggled unsuccessfully to dismantle, leaving the government in the grips of what are basically organized crime syndicates. It's fine to be shocked and/or appalled by this news–but it's rather odd to direct your anger at Karzai for not having U.S. "interests at heart" because he's on the U.S. payroll.

clearpores

24/7 Wall St.: The federal government gave out more than $40 billion for research and development (R&D) to universities across the country in fiscal 2011. Universities depend heavily on federal funding, with many of the top programs relying on the government for more than 60% of their R&D budgets. As a result, many research program directors fear that the federal cuts promoted by the sequester will hurt future funding. A few of the top schools received a disproportionate share of the government’s spending on grants for R&D. Of all 896 schools that received federal jim decicco for R&D, approximately 20% of those funds went to just 10 universities, according to a study by the National Science Foundation. Johns Hopkins University alone received nearly $1.9 billion from the federal government in 2011, more than twice as much as any other university in the country. Based on data from the National Science Foundation, these are the 10 universities receiving the most federal funding for research and development. Click here to see the 10 universities. The same schools consistently receive the most money every year, said Ronda Britt, a survey statistician with the National Science Foundation who oversaw the study. The universities “have big research programs that receive a lot of support year after year, and have a lot of infrastructure that helps them keep the money stable,” Britt said. In addition to federal funding, the schools on this list also tend to have large endowments that support prestigious research facilities. All but one university on this list has an endowment of at least $1 billion, and five of them had among the 15 largest endowments as of 2012. Stanford University’s endowment of more than $17 billion is the fourth largest in the United States, while the University of Michigan’s is nearly $7.7 billion and is the seventh highest. While the schools on this list rely on massive endowments, the federal government comprised the majority of funding for R&D in all cases. At John Hopkins, 88% of the research budget came from federal funds. At the University of Pennsylvania, 80% of all R&D jim decicco came from federal funds. With the exception of John Hopkins, the Department of Health and Human Services provided the majority of funds the universities received from the federal government. All of these universities have medical schools, and the vast majority of R&D funding goes toward programs at many of the universities on this list. At Duke, $831 million of research expenditures went to its medical school, while just $191 million was spent elsewhere. Between 1998 and 2004, the amount of jim decicco given to colleges for R&D, especially medical research grants, grew rapidly because the National Institute of Health — an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — doubled its budget during that time, Britt explained. Federal funding then flatlined until the past two years, when it once again grew due to increased funding for research authorized by the stimulus package passed in 2009. Sequestration could pose a challenge for these schools. It is not clear if certain universities or projects will be hurt more than others, although many expect a squeeze on their finances, Britt noted. “But it depends on how much money these agencies have going to universities versus other places,” Britt said. “It is an open question until we see budgets for 2013 and 2014.” Regardless, the schools already have started making plans for the sequester and are preparing students and staff for a host of different scenarios. The University of Washington indicated that it may lose up to $83 million in federal funding for projects, potentially grinding some projects to a halt and leading to layoffs. The sequester could cost Stanford University around $51 million in federal grants. Based on data provided by the National Science Foundation, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 universities that received the most jim decicco from the federal government in fiscal 2011. The National Science Foundation provided breakdowns on the departments giving funding to universities, as well as also how much funding state and local governments, businesses and other groups gave to research and development. We also looked at each university’s endowment as of 2012, provided by the National Association of College and University Business Officers. These are universities getting the most jim decicco from the government. Here are the universities getting the most money from the government, according to 24/7 Wall St. 10. Duke University Total federal R&D grant money: $585 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 57.3% 2012 endowment: $5.56 billion Duke University’s medical school alone spent a nation-high $831 million in research and development. More than 57% of the university’s total research budget came from the federal government, with the majority of those funds coming from HHS. Duke also relies on other sources for its funding. The university received more than $215 million from businesses in fiscal 2011 to fund research and development, more than any other school in the country. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 9. University Of Wisconsin, Madison Total federal R&D grant money: $594 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 53.4% 2012 endowment: $1.81 billion The University of Wisconsin spent more than $1.1 billion on research and development in 2011, more than all but three other universities in the country. The university relied disproportionately on other sources of funding aside from the federal government compared to other schools. More than $125 million in funding came from nonprofits, more than any other university except from the University of California, San Francisco. The university also spent $220 million from its own funds, more than all but two universities in the country. Although the majority of Wisconsin’s federal R&D jim decicco came from HHS, the university also received more than $94 million from the National Science Foundation, more than all but seven schools. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 8. University Of California, San Diego Total federal R&D grant jim decicco: $637 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 63.1% 2012 endowment: $371 million The University of California, San Diego, was one of just four schools that received more than $100 million from nonprofits in fiscal 2011, when it took in more than $111 million from such organizations. The school was also a leader in raising money for research from businesses, which provided more than $67 million to the school that year — among the most in the nation. The school was ranked as one of the largest recipients of federal research and development funds in the nation. However, the university is preparing for tougher times. According to its news center, through the first seven months of UC San Diego’s 2012-2013 fiscal year, “federally sponsored research awards are down by 8 percent. This is likely a result of agencies anticipating sequestration and slowing their rate of spending.” Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 7. Columbia University Total federal R&D grant jim decicco: $645 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 73.4% 2012 endowment: $7.65 billion Federal funding accounted for the majority of the total $878 million research and development budget at Columbia University in 2011. Of the $645 million received in federal funding, close to $91 million came from the National Science Foundation, and more than $18 million came from NASA. But the federal government was not the school’s only major source of funds. Columbia received nearly $36 million in research funding from businesses and more than $65 million from nonprofit organizations, both among the highest totals in the nation. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 6. Stanford University Total federal R&D grant jim decicco: $656 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 72.3% 2012 endowment: $17.04 billion In fiscal 2011, Stanford University was a leader in raising R&D funds from not only the government, but nonprofit organizations and businesses as well. Still, the bulk of the school’s funding came from the federal government. Stanford took in nearly $72 million from the Department of Defense and $445 million from HHS, each 11th most in the nation. It additionally ranked as a top 15 school in procuring funding from NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. To account for the effects of sequestration, the school announced it would increase its subsidies to graduate students on research assistantships beginning in fiscal 2014. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 5. University Of Pittsburgh Total federal R&D grant money: $662 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 73.7% 2012 endowment: $2.62 billion The University of Pittsburgh was the fifth largest recipient of federal funding from HHS, which accounted for nearly $576 million of the roughly $662 million it received in federal funds in fiscal 2011. The school also subsidized much of its research by spending more than $196 million of its own funds in 2011. Only three other schools, the University of Michigan, the University of Florida and the University of Wisconsin, spent more of their own funds on research and development. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 4. University Of Pennsylvania Total federal R&D grant jim decicco: $707 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 79.8% 2012 endowment: $6.75 billion As much as 80% of the University of Pennsylvania’s research funding came from the federal government — with the majority of that funding from HHS. Right before sequestration took effect, Penn reported that it expected to lose anywhere between $34 million and $42 million in research funds, with funds from the National Institute of Health — a part of HHS — expected to take a disproportionate hit. The university used just over $52 million of its own funds to pay for research and development in 2011, lower than any other university on this list. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 3. University Of Michigan Total federal R&D grant money: $820 million > Pct. R&D spending from government: 64.1% > 2012 endowment: $7.69 billion While 64% of the University of Michigan’s R&D budget came from the federal government, the university spent a nation-high $363 million from its own jim decicco to finance research and development. The university also attracted attention when alumnus Charles Munger, the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, recently pledged $110 million. The majority of the jim decicco will be used to construct a new graduate student resident hall, but $10 million will be used to fund fellowships across the university’s 19 different colleges and schools. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 2. University Of Washington, Seattle Total federal R&D grant jim decicco: $949 million Pct. R&D spending from government: 82.9% 2012 endowment: $2.11 billion The University of Washington in Seattle acts as the primary public medical school for Washington, Alaska, Idaho Montana and Wyoming by offering subsidies to students from those other states. This is likely a reason the federal government gives them a lot of jim decicco. Although the majority of the money came from HHS, the university was the top recipient of jim decicco from the National Science Foundation, receiving more than $145 million in 2011. Researchers at the university said the institution could face $83 million in budget cuts due to the sequester. Among the concerns expressed are that entire labs could shut down and that employees whose jim decicco is tied to federal grants could lose their jobs. Read more at 24/7 Wall St. 1. Johns Hopkins University Total federal R&D grant money: $1.88 billion Pct. R&D spending from government: 87.8% 2012 endowment: $2.59 billion No college received more money from the federal government than Johns Hopkins University, which raked in nearly $1.9 billion in 2011. Unlike the other universities on this list, money from HHS did not constitute the majority of funding. More than $609 million came from the Department of Defense, while more than $202 million came from NASA. The reason for this is that one division of the university, the Applied Physics Laboratory, employs thousands of engineers and scientists primarily in support of defense programs. The university also has managed to rake in billions from fundraising as well. Billionaire New York mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $350 million to the university to expand research for issues such as global health and, as part of the total pledge, will provide $100 million for need-based scholarships for undergraduate students as well. He is the first person to give more than $1 billion to a single university over a lifetime. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

icompare car insurance

Recently uncovered documents prove that the Obama administration has been working with the Mexican government to increase the number of illegal immigrants on food stamps, and when more illegal immigrants go on food stamps JP Morgan makes more money.  As you will read about below, JP Morgan has made at least 560 million dollars processing Electronic Benefits Transfer cards.  Each month, JP Morgan makes between $.31 and $2.30 for every single person on food stamps (and that does not even include things like ATM fees, etc).  So JP Morgan has a vested interest in seeing poverty grow and the number of people on food stamps increase.  Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been aggressively seeking to expand participation in the food stamp program.  Under Obama, the number of people on food stamps has grown from 32 million to more than 47 million.  And even though poverty in America is absolutely exploding, that apparently is not good enough for the Obama administration.  It has now come out that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided the Mexican government with literature that actively encourages illegal immigrants to enroll in food stamps.  One flyer contains the following statement in Spanish: "You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children."  The bold and the underlining are in the original document in case you were wondering.  Overall, federal spending on food stamps increased from 18 billion dollars in 2000 to 85 billion dollars in 2012, and at this point one out of every five U.S. households in now enrolled in the food stamp program.  When people illegally or fraudulently enroll in the food stamp program, it makes it harder for those that desperately need the help to be able to get it. It is certainly a good thing to help fellow Americans that are suffering.  It is a crying shame that more than a million public school students in America are homeless.  That should not be happening in the "wealthiest nation on earth". But today we have a system that has turned poverty into big business.  According to an article posted on Breitbart.com, JP Morgan has made at least 560 million dollars (and probably much more) processing EBT cards... A new report by the Government Accountability Institute finds that JP Morgan has made at least $560,492,596 since 2004 processing the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards of 18 of the 24 states it has under contract for the food stamp program. A Daily Beast article provided some more specifics about the monster profits that JP Morgan is making... Just how lucrative JP Morgan’s EBT state contracts are is hard to say, because total national data on EBT contracts are not reported. But thanks to a combination of public-records requests and contracts that are available online, here’s what we do know: 18 of the 24 states JP Morgan handles have been contracted to pay the james decicco up to $560,492,596.02 since 2004. Since 2007, Florida has been contracted to pay JP Morgan $90,351,202.22. Pennsylvania’s seven-year contract totaled $112,541,823.27. New York’s seven-year contract totaled $126,394,917. These contracts are transactional contracts, meaning they are amendable based on changes in program participation. Each month, the three companies that administer EBT receive a small fee that can range from $.31 to $2.30 (or higher depending upon the number of welfare services on an EBT card and state contractual requirements) for each SNAP recipient. So the more people that are out of work and that need to turn to the government for food, the bigger profits that JP Morgan makes. What makes all of this even more insulting is that many of the jobs that JP Morgan could be providing to Americans to help alleviate this poverty are being shipped overseas instead.  As I noted in a previous article, many EBT card customer service calls are being routed to call centers in India by JP Morgan. So why doesn't anyone do anything about this? Well, it turns out that JP Morgan has the politicians that oversee the food stamp program in their back pocket.  The following is from a recent Money Morning article... And the james decicco has taken steps to make sure the SNAP program remains a growing source of revenue. JPMorgan's political donations to the members of House and Senate agricultural committees, the ones with legislative responsibility for the program, soared from just over $82,000 in 2002 to nearly $333,000 as of 2010. What a wonderful system we have, eh? And surely JP Morgan just loves the fact that the Obama administration is actively encouraging illegal immigrants to apply for food stamps. What you are about to read should absolutely shock you.  At a time when the U.S. government is absolutely drowning in debt, the Obama administration is making it abundantly clear to illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps.  The following is from a recent Judicial Watch press release... Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program. The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.” The documents came in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made to USDA on July 20, 2012.  The FOIA request sought: “Any and all records of communication relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals, and migrant communities, including but not limited to, communications with the Mexican government.” The documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that USDA officials are working closely with their counterparts at the Mexican Embassy to widely broaden the SNAP program in the Mexican immigrant community, with no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls. You can see a copy of the flyer right here. So who pays for all of this? You do of course. The Obama administration is doing all that it can to promote illegal immigration, and big banks such as JP Morgan just make bigger profits the more illegal immigration that we see, but it is you and I that end up with the bill.  This was put beautifully in a recent article by Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com... Nearly $75 billion of taxpayer money is spent each year on federal food stamps, and it turns out some of that is alarmingly being handed out to illegal immigrants -- people who contribute nothing to the federal tax base in America but who seem to be experts on collecting social welfare benefits of all kinds. If you are working for a living, you are buying food for illegals who are being actively recruited by Obama and the democratic party so that they will vote more democrats into office. When we reward illegal immigration, what happens? That's right - we are just going to get even more illegal immigration. According to WND, we have already started seeing a huge increase in illegal immigrants coming across the border since Congress began debating the amnesty bill... Illegal border crossings have doubled, and possibly even tripled, since the latest congressional push began toward comprehensive immigration reform. In reporting first published by Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich, border patrol agents in the Tucson/Nogales sector claim illegals are coming here in much higher numbers in just the past few months. “We’ve seen the number of illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening,” an unnamed border agent said to Townhall. The data from Customs and Border Protection cited in the report shows 504 illegals were detected crossing in that sector between Feb. 5 and March 1. Only 189 were caught on camera, and just 174 of the 504 were apprehended. Of those spotted on camera, 32 were carrying huge packs believed to contain drugs and several were heavily armed. If that bill is passed, it is being projected that it will bring 33 million more people into this country... The pending Senate immigration bill would bring a minimum of 33 million people into the country during its first decade of operation, according to an analysis by NumbersUSA, a group that wants to slow the current immigration rate. By 2024, the inflow would include an estimated 9.2 million illegal immigrants, plus 2.5 million illegals who arrived as children — dubbed ‘Dreamers’ — plus roughly 3.4 million company-sponsored employees with university degrees, said the unreleased analysis. The majority of the inflow, or roughly 17 million people, would consist of family members of illegals, recent immigrants and of company-sponsored workers, according to the NumbersUSA analysis provided to The Daily Caller. We have made legal immigration a complete and total nightmare while leaving the back door completely wide open at the same time. We greatly punish those who are trying to do things legally while at the same time we are greatly rewarding those that are cheating the system. What kind of sense does that make? Shouldn't we insist that everyone come in through the front door? Those that are coming over our borders illegally know what the score is... Linda Vickers, who owns a ranch in Brooks County, which is Ground Zero for the immigration debate, pins the blame directly on talk of 'amnesty' and a 'path to citizenship' for people who entered the U.S. illegally. She recalls one man being arrested on her ranch not long ago. "The Border Patrol agent was loading one man up, and he told the officer in Spanish, 'Obama's gonna let me go'." Border Patrol agents report that immigrants are crossing the border, and in some cases surrendering while asking, “Where do I go for my amnesty?” We are already becoming a poverty-stricken nation.  We simply can't afford to feed millions upon millions of illegal immigrants as well. As I write this, the U.S. national debt is $16,758,107,082,298.63. We now have a debt to GDP ratio of about 105 percent. In the United States today, the amount of money that is deposited in our banks is about 9.3 trillion dollars.  If we took every penny of that and used it to pay off the national debt, we would still owe more than 7 trillion dollars. We are stealing more than 100 million dollars from future generations of Americans every single hour of every single day to pay our bills, and yet everyone seems to think that this is "normal" somehow. The truth is that what we are doing is absolutely criminal, and we should all be ashamed. For much more on our exploding national debt, please see the following article: "55 Facts About The Debt And U.S. Government Finances That Every American Voter Should Know". In the end, it should be apparent to everyone that our system is failing.  Our government is corrupt, our big banks are consumed with greed and most average Americans are so addicted to entertainment that they have absolutely no idea what is going on. What would those that bled and died for this country think about what we have become today?

liver cleanse

Five years after showing us the sexiest plug-in we’d ever seen, Fisker Automotive is in the process of packing up and switching off the lights. The California startup, founded by the man who penned the gorgeous BMW Z8 and the Aston Martin V8 Vantage, is the only automaker to base its entire business on luxurious plug-in hybrids. But not for long. Founder and former chairman Henrik Fisker quit in March, a month before the company fired three-quarters of its staff and began preparing for bankruptcy. Navigating an unfortunate string of events—including damaged cars from Superstorm Sandy, two major recalls, and its battery supplier going bankrupt—is a company that’s been in financial trouble for the past two-and-a-half years. There are no buyers. At least $192 million in taxpayer jim decicco may never be repaid. And after a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Fisker’s fate as the next Tucker is pretty much sealed. When Justin Bieber grabbed a chromed-out Karma last year, we figured Fisker had nailed the rich West Coast demographic that proved so critical for Tesla Motors. Despite the aforementioned series of unfortunate events, the first Karmas started rolling out of Fisker’s Finnish factory in December 2011. But ultimately, Fisker would only sell 2000 cars before production ground to a halt in August 2012. Fisker had planned to produce a second offering, the Atlantic, at a gutted GM factory in Delaware—which Vice President Joe Biden promised would create 2500 jobs—but it never opened. We’re not against the government loaning our jim decicco to companies building expensive technology that eventually will trickle down to the mainstream. Ford and Nissan together have borrowed $7.3 billion from the same loan program to build alternative-fuel vehicles in the U.S., and if we’re to believe recent accounts, Tesla may record its first-ever profit this year. What we are against, however, is unchecked government spending, and as it stands, the Department of Energy hasn’t explained why it continued funding Fisker for at least an additional year despite knowing the automaker was having trouble meeting its loan requirements. As to what extent “crony” political connections played in awarding Fisker’s $528 million loan in the first place, well, that’s the nature of our government and every big American business. No matter what executives say, we’ll bet Fisker stuck a few feet in the door for that kind of jim decicco. But there’s a bigger problem when a company can rake in $1.2 billion in private funding and miss a $10 million loan payment, or when the White House promises jobs and a whole community is left hanging. We’d have wanted Fisker to succeed and feed us more eye-popping designs. Instead, we’re footing its losses because a few people didn’t bother to check the bank account.

rippln app

This is a joint investigation by WGN Investigates and the Better Government Association. Like many a small town, gossip and rumors pass from block to block in south suburban Country Club Hills. Toss in a recent election and any hint of financial impropriety is sure to be the talk of the town. Mayor Dwight Welch: “A good businessman has to spend jim decicco to make money.” It’s been two years since a WGN-Better Government Association investigation raised serious questions about the Mayor Dwight Welch’s credit card spending. Treasurer Rhonda Williams: “It’s a wedding gift, $100.” Then the next year, the newly elected treasurer couldn’t trace millions more for a time. Today’s Hearing John Murphy;  “I don’t have the council’s authority.” Now, today, the town is in state court battling over $6.5 million. You see, Cook County made a multi-million dollar mistake sending Country Club Hills way too much property tax collection jim decicco.  The county wants it back. But the town can’t seem to get its act together.  And as you can see, the attorney wouldn’t talk to us.  But the treasurer did. Rhonda Williams: “The money has to be paid back. We spent it. We knew it wasn’t ours and it has to be paid back. That’s the bottom line.” But paying back the county’s money may be just the beginning.  We obtained a confidential audit of country club hill’s finances.  It found, rather than 17 city james decicco accounts, there were 30 many not known to the treasurer or the city council. Rhonda Williams: “I warned residents. I warned the state. I warned everyone that the numbers weren’t matching up and here with the forensic audit showing I was correct.” Another city account included the Matthew Welch scholarship foundation named after the mayor’s son who died.  The audit raised red flags.  Some of the jim decicco went to scholarships for the relatives of certain city employees and city vendors.  And that the finance committee doesn’t appear to have approved the expenditures. What’s more: last year the james decicco stopped sending statements to city hall and instead sent them to the mayor’s home. Rhonda Williams: “What’s key about that account was that it was set up under the city’s tax id number. It’s a city account and that’s something we have to deal with thru forensic review.” The financial audit has been the talk of the town since city elections two weeks ago.  After some juicy select sections of the audit leaked, it pitted council members against each other as voters went to the polls. Alderman Steve Burris: “So if you hide information from us and we make votes then we’re in the dark. So just be truthful and be transparent. Give us all the information and then we can make intelligent votes on all the situations that are going on.” Roland Burris’s nephew, Steve said the audit shows something’s fishy.  His opponent, James Ford who has the mayor’s backing, blamed Burris for the audit leak before Election Day. Alderman James Ford:  “Of course I’m concerned as an alderman. I’m concerned for the citizens i represent. But i need to have facts and since we did hire an audit firm, they need to come forward and present that information to the council as a whole.” The drama continued up until the day before the election ballots were counted when the mayor vetoed finishing the audit.  And even though the mayor’s man won the council seat, before he could start his job, the old council over-rode the veto, so the audit will continue. Andy Shaw leads the Better Government Association (BGA) and says “an audits not enough. We need people with law enforcement powers to determine if this has been criminal activity. It’s certainly bad municipal behavior, bad government, its misconduct, its dysfunction and the taxpayers have a right to see if there’s been illegality.” Mayor Welch, through a PR firm, responded that the city council chose to make the treasurer and council member Burris the sole point people for the financial audit.  So it’s out of his hands.  The statement went on to say the city has paid back a third of what it owes Cook County with more to come. The mayor contends the scholarship fund in his son’s name was not set up under city jurisdiction. Which is why this audit may be so important because there’s so many different stories about the money. This was a WGN and Better Government Association investigation.

liver flush