US regulators have told banks not to increase dividends or buy back shares until political and economic uncertainty surrounding the industry dissipates, in a move that will delay by months the return of capital to shareholders.

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said “five,” Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. “The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”

That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a “stimulus” does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a “jobs bill” does not mean there will be more jobs.

What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars that the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ.

That was called “pump priming.” To get a pump going, people put a little water into it, so that the pump will start pumping out a lot of water. In other words, government money alone was never supposed to restore the economy by itself. It was supposed to get the private sector spending, lending, investing and employing.

The question is: Is that what has actually happened?

The stimulus spending started back in 2008, during the Bush administration, and has continued under the Obama administration, so it has had plenty of time to show what it can do.

After the Bush administration’s stimulus spending in 2008, business spending on equipment and software fell– not rose– by 28 percent. Spending on durable goods fell 22 percent.

What about the banks? Four months after the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) poured billions of dollars into the banks, the biggest recipients of that money made 23 percent fewer loans than before. A year later, the credit extended by American banks as a whole was down– not up– by more than $20 billion.

Spending in general was down. The velocity of circulation of money fell faster than it had in half a century.

Just two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported, “U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942.” You can call it a stimulus, if you want to, just as you can call a tail a leg. But the actual effect of what is called a “stimulus” has been more like that of a sedative.

Why aren’t the banks lending, with all that money sitting there gathering dust?

You don’t lend when politicians are making it more doubtful whether you are going to get your money back– either on time or at all. From the White House to Capitol Hill, politicians are coming up with all sorts of bright ideas for borrowers not to have to pay back what they borrowed and for lenders not to be able to foreclose on people who are months behind on their mortgage payments.

President Obama keeps telling us that he is “creating jobs.” But more and more Americans have no jobs. The unemployment rate has declined slightly, but only because many people have stopped looking for jobs. You are only counted as unemployed if you are still looking for a job.

If all the unemployed people were to decide that it is hopeless and stop looking for work, the unemployment statistics would drop like a rock. But that would hardly be a solution.

What is going on, that nothing seems to work?

None of this is new. What is going on is what went on during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Money circulated more slowly during the 1930s than during the 1920s. Banks lent out a smaller proportion of the money they had on hand during the 1930s than they did in the 1920s. Anti-business rhetoric and anti-business policies did not create business confidence then, any more than it does now. Economists have estimated that the New Deal prolonged the depression by several years.

This is not another Great Depression, at least not yet, and the economy may recover on its own, if the government will let it. But Obama today, like FDR in the 1930s, cannot leave the economy alone. Both have felt a need to come up with one bright idea after another, to “do something.”

The theory is that, if one thing doesn’t work, it is just a matter of trying another. But, in an atmosphere where nobody knows what the federal government is going to come up with next, people tend to hang on to their money until they have some idea of what the rules of the game are going to be.

A woman with a petition went among the crowds attending a state fair, asking people to sign her petition demanding the banning of dihydroxymonoxide. She said it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears.

She collected hundreds of signatures to ban dihydroxymonoxide — a fancy chemical name for water. A couple of comedians were behind this ploy. But there is nothing funny about its implications. It is one of the grim and dangerous signs of our times.

This little episode revealed how conditioned we have become, responding like Pavlov’s dog when we hear a certain sound– in this case, the sound of some politically correct crusade.

People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities. In a high-tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators.

Educational institutions created to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them have instead been turned into indoctrination centers to promote whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today’s intelligentsia.

Many conservatives have protested against the specifics of the things with which students are being indoctrinated. But that is not where the most lasting harm is done. Many, if not most, of the leading conservatives of our times were on the left in their youth. These have included Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and the whole neoconservative movement.

The experiences of life can help people outgrow whatever they were indoctrinated with. What may persist, however, is the lazy habit of hearing one side of an issue and being galvanized into action without hearing the other side– and, more fundamentally, not having developed any mental skills that would enable you to systematically test one set of beliefs against another.

It was once the proud declaration of many educators that “We are here to teach you how to think, not what to think.” But far too many of our teachers and professors today are teaching their students what to think, about everything from global warming to the new trinity of “race, class and gender.”

Even if all the conclusions with which they indoctrinate their students were 100 percent correct, that would still not be equipping students with the mental skills to weigh opposing views for themselves, in order to be prepared for new and unforeseeable issues that will arise over their lifetimes, after they leave the schools and colleges.

Many of today’s “educators” not only supply students with conclusions, they promote the idea that students should spring into action because of these prepackaged conclusions– in other words, vent their feelings and go galloping off on crusades, without either a knowledge of what is said by those on the other side or the intellectual discipline to know how to analyze opposing arguments.

When we see children in elementary schools out carrying signs in demonstrations, we are seeing the kind of mindless groupthink that causes adults to sign petitions they don’t understand or– worse yet– follow leaders they don’t understand, whether to the White House, the Kremlin or Jonestown.

A philosopher once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of one’s own ignorance. That is the knowledge that too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach our young people.

It takes a certain amount of knowledge just to understand the extent of one’s own ignorance. But our “educators” have given assignments to children who are not yet a decade old to write letters to members of Congress, or to Presidents, spouting off on issues ranging from nuclear weapons to medical care.

Will Rogers once said that it was not ignorance that was so bad but “all the things we know that ain’t so.” But our classroom indoctrinators are getting students to think that they know after hearing only one side of an issue. It is artificial stupidity.

Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let’s ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let’s call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab’s and Dr. Jones’ services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, “Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay.” You’re right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress’ use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

By Lucy Farndon
Last updated at 11:11 AM on 09th March 2010 

London will become the most highly taxed financial centre in the world when the new 50 per cent income tax rate for those earning £150,000 or more comes into force next month.

Taxes will be higher than for financial workers living in the other key centres of New York, Paris, Frankfurt, Geneva, Zurich, Dubai and Hong Kong, KPMG calculated.

The findings will raise fears that Labour’s levies are driving businesses and bankers overseas and threatening Britain’s competitiveness.

Exodus: There are fears that Labour’s new 50 per cent income tax rate for those earning £150,000 or more, will drive businesses and bankers overseas

Warning: Tullett Prebon chief executive Terry Smith says slapping further taxes on workers will only hinder the economy

Terry Smith, chief executive of broker Tullett Prebon, warned yesterday that increasing taxes on workers and companies would only hinder the economic recovery.

He also accused Labour of ‘criminal negligence’ by racking up a budget deficit in the boom times rather than saving money for a rainy day.

‘The UK economy is an utter disaster on any number of fronts,’ Mr Smith said.

Tullett announced last December that it will help employees move abroad if they want to avoid the top rate of tax, and Mr Smith said workers are already looking at relocating.

Graeme Leach of the Institute of Directors said: ‘The 50 per cent rate is a policy that should never have been announced. The indirect impact on entrepreneurial aspiration, business confidence and foreign investment is likely to be significant.

‘We suspect that little or no money will be raised and we urge the next government to reverse the increase as soon as possible.’

Labour’s windfall tax on city bonuses has also led to anger in the City. That imposes a 50 per cent one-off charge on the banks themselves for any bonus that they pay out in excess of £25,000.

However the banks have not changed their behaviour. They are still handing out multi-million pound packages, but are forcing shareholders to pay for the levy, rather than risk annoying their top traders by taking it out of the bonus pool.

Tax minister Stephen Timms denied last week that the higher rate would harm the UK.

He said: ‘It affects one per cent of the population. It is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear their share of responsibility during the consolidation.’

London today ranks sixth out of the eight key financial centres, in terms of the tax burden for high earners.

But when the new rate comes into force the UK jumps to the top of the list with the most onerous tax burden for any worker earning £500,000 or more.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256439/London-highly-taxed-finance-hub-world.html#ixzz0hmJwxjVb

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

At least 36 state legislatures are considering legislation that would allow citizens to opt out of a key component of President Obama’s health-care “reform” – an “individual mandate” requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

Both the House and Senate health-care bills require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The House bill establishes a fine based on percentage of a person’s income, while the Senate version creates a penalty as a flat fee or percentage of income, whichever is higher. Those refusing to get insurance could be found guilty of a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.

Join nearly 100 members of Congress and 13,000 Americans in rejecting federal government health-care mandates on patients, employers, individuals and states – sign on to the Declaration of Health Care Independence.

“The president’s proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured,” a White House plan released in February states.

States rejecting ‘individual mandate’

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, formal resolutions or bills have been filed in opposition to the individual mandate in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The National Conference of State Legislatures published this map showing states that have filed formal resolutions or bills in opposition to individual health-care mandates.

 

Also, as of March 4, Virginia became the first state to enact a new statute section titled, “Health insurance coverage not required.” In Arizona, voters will cast ballots on a constitutional amendment in November 2010 that would “preserve the freedom of all residents of the state to provide for their own health care.”

Lawmakers suggest approval of the legislation may spark a legal battle over states’ rights versus the federal government’s reach of power. The Boston Globe reported the measures could set the stage for “one of the greatest tests of federal power over the states since the civil rights era.”

“The administration is trying to shift from a government by social compact, agreement between elected officials and citizens, to a government where the leaders tell the subjects what to do,” Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, chief sponsor of the measure in his state, told the Globe. “That is not what the American Revolution was about.”

The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has sparked nationwide interest with its model “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act: How Your State Can Block Single-Payer and Protect Patients’ Rights.” ALEC warns that forcing patients to enroll in one-size-fits-all plans would cause massive increases in spending and force policymakers to ration care as a cost-containment measure.

Is mandatory insurance constitutional?

Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer told the New York Times in September 2009 that lawmakers in his state have proposed a state constitutional amendment to protect citizens from government interference in their private health decisions.

“All I’m trying to do is protect the individual’s right to make health-care decisions,” Emmer said. “I just don’t want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors.”

He said an amendment wouldn’t prohibit anyone from participating in a federal health program. It would simply prevent them from being forced to enroll.

“[T]ell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care,” Emmer said. “This is the essence of the debate.”

During the Democratic presidential primary, Obama took a jab at Hillary Clinton over the individual mandate.

“The main difference between my plan and Sen. Clinton’s plan,” he said, “is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the federal government has never mandated that Americans purchase any good or service. In 1994, the CBO studied the individual mandate in Clinton’s universal health-care plan and found that it was an unprecedented requirement.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” the CBO report stated. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Opponents say the individual mandate is unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government power to fine citizens for refusing to purchase goods and services. Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, explained in a Politico commentary why there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate.

“People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can’t fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause,” he wrote.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax. However, Klukowski contends that government health insurance cannot be considered an excise, capitation or income tax.

“It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything,” he explained. “It can’t be a capitation (or ‘direct’) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.”

He added, “All that’s left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government’s problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game.”

Likewise, the Congressional Research Service recently reported that determining whether an individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause “is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.”

Klukowski wrote that if Obama wants a plan that forces Americans to purchase insurance, he will need to “persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care.”

He added, “You might have better odds of getting struck by lightning.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and outspoken critic of the individual mandate, told CNS News that if Congress can force Americans to buy health care, or mandate the purchase of anything, “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

In a press release Monday, the Republican Senator from Mississippi says that the Obama Administration’s intent to scuttle future plans to send astronauts to the moon could cause “America to fall behind in scientific research and jeopardize billions of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in the international space station.”

The Constellation Program, which focused on a return mission to the lunar surface and a possible future mission to Mars,  was canceled by the White House in favor of Earth-science projects.

Wicker added while the President’s budget does not decrease funding for NASA, the redirection of funds favoring Earth-science studies could steer the money toward questionable climate change research.

The Senator also noted that the Obama Administration’s budget proposal represented  “a lot of directionless spending”.

March 9,2010

WASHINGTON – Members of the Senate Banking Committee drafting financial reform have “about reached a balance” on the controversial consumer watchdog proposal, Republican Senator Bob Corker said on Tuesday, indicating a bipartisan deal could be reached soon.

Corker, in an interview on CNBC Television, said the committee will work through “administrative issues” regarding the consumer watchdog plan on Tuesday and Wednesday.

He also said some key members of the committee have a meeting with Treasury Department officials on Tuesday.

Corker has crossed party lines to work with Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the committee, to reach a bipartisan deal after prior talks broke down.

A major sticking point has been the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which the Obama administration originally envisioned as an independent, stand-alone agency with broad powers to write and enforce rules.

The Senate Banking Committee has been working around-the-clock in recent days to reach a deal on housing the consumer watchdog in another body, possibly the Federal Reserve.

“I think we’ve about reached a balance that is an appropriate balance,” Corker said about the consumer watchdog.

“My sense is we’ve got that about right. And it’s an issue that if you get it out of balance can do tremendous damage to our financial industry.”

Corker said he hopes bipartisan legislation will be introduced “soon” that will include a strong resolution mechanism to unwind troubled financial firms, more oversight for derivatives markets, and enhanced capital requirements.

He said it will not include an overhaul of mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Corker said it is up to Dodd to determine the timing of the bill’s release but said he expects the Senate Banking Committee will be debating the bill before Congress recesses for Easter later this month.

(editing by Dave Zimmerman)

The newspaper, citing “people familiar with the matter,” said the service runs on TV set-top boxes using Google’s Android operating system.

It said it allows users to search content from Dish, which has some 14 million satellite TV subscribers, as well as Web video like YouTube and to personalize a lineup of shows.

The Journal said users can search by typing on a keyboard instead of using a remote control.

It said Google hopes to link the TV search service with its TV ad-brokering business, Google TV Ads. This would allow the Internet giant to target ads to individual households based on viewing and TV search data, the newspaper said.

The Journal said the test began last year and is limited to a very small number of Google employees and their families. It said the test could be “discontinued at any time.”

Google currently makes the vast majority of its revenue from online advertising.

Google last year dropped two other advertising initiatives, its Print Ads program, an attempt to auction off space in newspapers to bargain-seeking advertisers, and its radio advertising service.

[article appears at Breitbart]

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.

The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.

“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. “If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.

“It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”

Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. “We’ve all got Social Security cards,” he said. “They’re just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That’s all I’m saying.”

U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.

Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.

Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.

An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.

Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.

Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.

Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.

A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.

The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.

Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.

—Alistair MacDonald contributed to this article.

[article originally appears in The Wall St. Journal]