Update no.581

Update from the Heartland

No.581

28.1.13 – 3.2.13

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- President Obama signed into law the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 [PL 113-002; H.R.152; Senate: 62-36-0-2(0); House: 241-180-0-11(3); 127 Stat. xxx; 29.1.2013], which also absorbed: Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 [H.R.219] [579].  To quote the late Senator Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we’re talkin’ about real money.”

-- The Senate Judiciary Committee began its hearings on gun-related violence and the Feinstein proposed S.150 bill [580], the new so-called assault weapons ban and presumably the newly introduced S.2 bill noted below.  Former Representative Gabrielle Dee “Gabby” Giffords of Arizona [473] offered up an emotional admonition for stricter gun-control laws.

-- Congress passed the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 [H.R.325] [580] to temporarily suspend the US$16.4T national debt limit, lifting the threat of a government default until early August.  President Obama is expected to sign the bill next week.

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out a low-level strike mission against the military research centre in Jamraya, near Damascus, Syria, near dawn on Wednesday, 30.January.  As is so often the case, the IAF used a mixed flight of F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) and F-16I Sufa (Storm) fighters, reminiscent of the IAF long-range raid on the giant Yarmouk factory on southwest outskirts of Khartoum, Sudan, on 23.October.2012, and the al-Kibar nuclear facility in NE part of Syria on 6.June.2007 [302].

After the President’s press conference and gun violence proposal [579], Majority Leader Senator Harry Mason Reid of Nevada introduced S.2, provisionally titled: Sandy Hook Elementary School Violence Reduction Act.  The bill apparently offers legislative backing to the President’s 23-initiatives and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee along with Senator Feinstein’s companion bill, S.150 [580].  The text of either bill is not yet available to the public that I can determine.  The Senate Judiciary Committee began their hearings this week.  I make no claim to following all the testimony, but a goodly chunk of the Press snippets are more emotional than substantive.  I shall remain guardedly optimistic that our indomitable Congress will eventually turn to and address the root cause of mass gun violence events before they proceed with the legislative process.  Semper Vigilans.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (née Gilligan) announced the administration’s latest attempt at another compromise to reconcile the concerns of religious organizations that object to requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119; 23.March.2010] [432] to cover contraceptives for women.  Churches and religious organizations that object to providing birth control coverage on religious grounds would not have to pay for it.

            I appreciate the administration’s effort to find a solution – an accommodation.  However, I struggle with the balance between religious freedom of organizations and the rights of individual citizens.  Contraception is certainly not a right; yet, it is a private choice, like the myriad of medical or lifestyle choices that are protected by a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  The private choices of employees should be protected just as any citizen’s choice should be.  In this instance, religious organizations seek to dominate the lives (and private choices) of all their believers, their employees, and anyone within their sphere of influence.  Organizations, whether corporations, governments or religions, do not have the right to enter our private lives and freedom of choice.  If religious organizations do not believe in contraception or any other private choices, then let the persuasion of their arguments convince the individual rather than the oppression of their prohibition.  Just because contraception services may be available under PPACA, there is no requirement for anyone to avail themselves of those services.  Prohibition is not the path.

A month ago, the Supreme Court denied the appeal in the case of Sherley v. Sebelius [DC CCA no. 11–5241 (2012)], thus affirming the appeals and district court rulings, and rejecting the claim of Doctors James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher (both investigators in the field of adult stem cell research) that the President and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had exceeded their authority in violation of public law.  The issue at hand was President Obama’s Executive Order 13,505 – “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells” [11.March.2009] that revoked President Bush’s Executive Order 13,435 – “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways”  [20.June.2007], thus enabling federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research            [454].  Congress first passed the so-called Dickey-Wicker Amendment {Title I; § 128 [110 Stat. 26, 34], imbedded in the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, [PL 104-099; 26.January.1996] [454].  The rider amendment to subsequent Health and Human Services (HHS) appropriations legislation ostensibly prohibits federal funding from being used for embryonic stem cell research.  The three-judge DC Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed on the path of the law but agreed on the conclusion.  In her concurring opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown summarized the dilemma before the bar, “Given the weighty interests at stake in this encounter between science and ethics, relying on an increasingly Delphic, decade-old single paragraph rider on an appropriations bill hardly seems adequate.”  As noted above, the Supremes refused the opportunity to weigh in on the controversial topic.

            Despite the law involved in the Sherley case, the arena of embryonic stem cell research is far too important to be batted around in court rooms.  I believe the court got it right, and Judge Brown struck directly at the central societal challenge beyond the law.  As with so many difficult societal questions, we are caught up in the ideological conflict of one side or the other attempting to dominate the other by imposing its will on the other by force of law.  If we are the intelligent, informed and articulate culture we believe we are, surely we can conduct a vigorous public debate to arrive at an appropriate and mutually acceptable (or unacceptable depending on one’s perspective) solution. 

            Medical visionaries and science fiction authors have illuminated the potential of genetic manipulation to slow the aging process, cure certain illnesses or biological damage, and a myriad of other human maladies.  In my Anod series of science fiction novels, cellular reproduction is adjusted to ensure the DNA code remains intact and in some cases is selectively enhanced to improve human performance.  The advancement of biological science is going to occur.  I want the federal government intimately involved in this critical arena of genetic research: 1.) to ensure essential technology remains in the public domain, and 2.) to ensure adequate regulation for minimal risk to humanity.  There are a plethora of reasons why the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is a foolish, emotional statement rather than a constructive contribution to the advancement of science.  Hopefully, the Sherley case will alter the political landscape sufficiently to have a productive debate, leading to reasonable solutions.

News from the economic front:

-- After the European Central Bank (ECB) encouraged reinvestment in the crisis-hit countries, nearly €100B of private funds flowed back into the eurozone’s periphery late last year – an encouraging change.

-- In another sign of the times, the city of Dijon, Burgundy, France, sold off half of its prized municipal wine cellar to raise revenue.  The historic sale of 3,500 bottles garnered €151,620, including a bottle of 1999 Burgundy that went for €4,800 to a Chinese buyer.

-- U.S. authorities are pressing the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) for a settlement in the LIBOR interest-rate-rigging scandal that would require the big British bank to plead guilty to criminal charges in addition to paying a penalty.  RBS executives are resisting any guilty plea, apparently fearful they could lose clients and increase their exposure to costly litigation.

Fm 552/575:

So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:

·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]

·      Bank of America [U.S.]

·      BTMU [Japan]

·      Citibank [U.S.]

·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland]

·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]

·      Lloyds TSB [UK]

·      HSBC [UK]

·      HBOS [UK]

·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.]

·      Rabobank [Netherlands]

·      RBC [Canada]

·      RBS [UK] – resisting a guilty plea [581]

·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]

·      West LB [Germany]

·      Norinchuckin [Japan]

I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.

-- The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cut its key, lending rate by 0.25% to 7.75%, and lowered its growth estimate for FY2013 to 5.5% from 5.8%.  RBI also said it would cut the banks’ minimum cash requirement by 0.25% to 4.0% of deposits.

-- According to the Financial Times, banks of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) rolled at least three-quarters of all loans to local governments that were due to mature by the end of 2012 – a reflection of the challenge facing the PRC in working down its debt load.  Local governments apparently borrowed heavily from banks to fuel the PRC’s stimulus efforts during the global financial crisis and are now struggling to generate the revenue to pay them back.  Banks extended roughly 4T renminbi (Rmb) [US$642B] in loans plus interest that local governments were to have paid them by the end of last year.

-- The Commerce Department reported the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased in 4Q2012 – the first time in three and a half years – as businesses pared back inventories and government spending fell sharply, while lawmakers struggled to reach a deal on tax hikes and budget cuts.

-- The Federal Reserve’s Free Market Committee said it would continue purchasing US$85B each month of long-term Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities.

-- Russell Wasendorf Sr. [552] was sentenced to the maximum 50 years in jail after pleading guilty and admitting to orchestrating a US$215M fraud at Peregrine Financial Group as well as misleading regulators for almost 20 years.

-- The PRC’s official Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) declined to 50.4 in January from 50.6 in December – a measure of industrial activity. 

-- Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem of the Netherlands announced that the government has nationalized SNS Reaal at a cost to Dutch taxpayers of €3.7B.  SNS Reaal is the fourth-largest systemically important bank in the Netherlands and has been desperately searching for private capital to compensate for heavy losses in its real estate holdings, especially in the Spanish market.

-- The Labor Department reported American employers added 157,000 jobs in January compared to a revised 196,000 jobs the previous month. The unemployment rate edged up to 7.9% from 7.8% in December.  Dysfunction in Congress over the fiscal budget and higher tax rates that kicked in last month could further dampen consumer confidence and hiring early this year.

Comments and contributions from Update no.580:

Comment to the Blog:

“The long history of the debt limit merely gives us a starting point of Congress’s evasion of the budget issue. Given that this is Year 96 of this discussion, perhaps the whole issue is moot if we have had this discussion through good times and bad, war and peace, and we still have the issue but we still have a nation. Congress has never missed a paycheck through all of this, and I doubt they will lose any money personally this time either. Maybe we should take another look at whether this is an economic issue or a long-running political red herring. After all, one reason we have the budget specifics that we have today is that unemployed people and sick people with no health insurance cannot pay into the system.

“I am glad that General Allen has been cleared. That may be a sign of mercy for future scapegoats.

“The Psychology Today article strikes me as pure speculation by someone with serious issues around sex. Impotence as an achievement? I don’t think so. I put more weight on your assertion of Victorian morality as an important force disrupting marriages and sexuality.

“The Jane Brody article/blog post from the New York Times is more sensible and realistic. Even though it proposes a great deal of work, that work would most likely improve the odds for most marriages.

“I would rather women did not serve in combat, but then I would rather nobody serve in combat. I suspect your other correspondent has not served in that capacity; he talks about people being ‘allowed’ in combat as if it were like a pilot’s license or something people do for pleasure or status. His example of the NFL is particularly inappropriate.

“The ongoing issue of Senatorial refusal to consider Presidential appointments has devolved from petty bickering to a real disruption of governmental processes. That particular issue gets little attention compared to other gridlock problems, but has come to deserve a spotlight.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: debt limit.  Well said.  The debt limit debate is simply a distraction – a slight of hand, a smoke screen – from the budget task and the real spending reduction issue.

            Re: Congress.  Most representatives and senators make far more money by their influence, largesse and corruption than they would ever make by their salary.

            Re: General Allen.  None of the Petraeus scandal should have EVER been made public.  There was NEVER a breech of national security – the only State interest.  There was no proper public interest . . . well other than the oh so typical salacious appetite. 

            Re: de Botton article.  Agreed.

            Re: Brody article.  Spot on.  If only . . .

            Re: women in combat.  I respect your opinion, and thank you for sharing it.  We are all entitled to our opinions.  Like you, I would rather no American have to endure combat, but as long as there are bad men in the world, I am afraid it is a burden our citizens must bear.  Women are either equal or they are not.  If they are, then they should have the right to serve in combat as long as they are qualified, capable and volunteer.  Then again, men are not often given the option of volunteering. 

            Re: advice and consent of the Senate.  Like virtually everything else in Congress, and perhaps in American politics in general, the constitutional process has been bastardized by severe parochialism.  Some of the senators seem to believe Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, means they should approve ministers to their liking.  They conveniently forget the advice and consent directive is in Article II (Executive) NOT Article I (Legislative).  They are the President’s choices.  While “advice and consent” is not defined, the Framers believed it was a check against nepotism, cronyism and corruption.  I do not agree with Chuck Hagel on many topics, but he is President Obama’s choice, not mine; he is qualified; he should be confirmed quickly.

Another contribution:

“Lots of info, Cap!

“One thing I think is not getting enough attention is an obscure but extremely important aspect of Obama's proposed ‘universal background check,’ very likely to be overlooked in the emotional scurrying around to pass some reasonable sounding law on the road to the complete gun control desired by the Left.

“I understand that the new proposal, with that harmless sounding name like so many dubious federal intrusions, removes the present requirement that the FBI discard (NOT retain) the information on applicants.  The insidious purpose, of course, is not discussed in the media coverage we see on the subject, and I'm not so sure our elected officials even realize the problem.  The underlying purpose is to at last get a federal government list of gun owners or applicants for gun purchases, specifically forbidden by the previous law for obvious (to some) privacy and constitutional reasons (although often violated by the FBI, I'm told).

“Could you please comment on this?”

My reply:

            There are many elements to your query.  I’ll hit a few of the obvious ones to extend the debate.

            The only federal legislation I am aware of so far is the Feinstein bill – S.150, provisionally titled: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 [580].  {CAP NOTE: S.2 above introduced this week, after I wrote this response.} For reasons I know not, the draft text of the bill has not been made public as yet.  My assumption is the “new” universal background check will be contained in that legislation.  Until we can see and judge the specific language of whatever bill(s) may evolve, I am afraid we do have much substance to argue.  If you have information about other proposed legislation, I would like to see it.

            I have heard rumors of data retention regarding firearm background checks, but I have not seen the language in legislation.

            There is an inherent distrust of government for a host of reasons, not least of which is the repeated, consistent and egregious excess and zealotry of the government with misapplication of information they already have.  I am not too keen on giving the government more information, which they will be tempted to abuse for whatever reason they wish.

            If the government cannot handle mental health data regarding certain troubled citizens, then it sure as hell cannot handle private gun ownership data.  We have far too many examples.  Further, the government is notorious for attempting to extend many laws beyond their original intent. 

            The firearm(s) each citizen owns is just as private as his social security number, taxpayer identification number, health records, school records, et cetera ad infinitum. 

            I am not particularly interested in expanding background checks, including data retention, until there are stringent safeguards for private information in the hands of the government.  In fact, I will argue that we should abandon any background checks until those safeguards are in place and enforced.

 . . . round two:

“We might not see the entire bill at all until after its been voted on.   Wasn’t it Feinstein's fellow Californian, Pelosi, who said ‘we have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill?’   exactly.......  That UN treaty is similarly lacking on details made public.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

Yes, Her Holiness Empress Nancy did say that, and I believe that is precisely her intent.  I have enough faith in the system that she will not be successful.  We will get something eventually.  Semper Vigilans.”

 . . . round three:

“I wish more voters were thinkers like my sons and my brother's friend.

“One of the insidious troubles with the lack of fair and complete media coverage of the so-called ‘universal background check’ debate is that the dangerous parts that we hope will bring about its defeat will never be pointed out, resulting in another round of whining about the evil power of the NRA, etc., (instead of balanced coverage of the portions that reveal the not-so-secret agenda of the leftists.  We may win this round, but I'm afraid the public will be convinced by the liberal media that it happened for the wrong reasons, and the leftists will move one more notch closer to prevailing.

“I cannot stand the CNN interviewer, whose name I will not repeat, but in the last interview of New York Mayor Koch before he died yesterday, the liberal old man stated one thing correctly:  he said essentially that it's a waste of time debating incremental gun control when a constitutional amendment would be required to obtain the result desired.  I suppose that debate is also coming in our lifetime, unless the Obama-packed Supreme Court does the job for us.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            If residents in more than a few states can find it so easy to pass a state constitutional amendment denying equal rights to a minority of its citizens they do not approve, I have no doubt they can pass another state constitutional amendment denying any other right not to their liking.

            The Supremes have demonstrated their willingness to support federalism’s imposition upon an individual’s freedom of choice.  We have but to look at the vast expansion of the Commerce Clause to see what could potentially happen regarding the 2nd Amendment.  The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 [108 Stat. 1796, 1997], buried 200 pages deep in parent legislation, is a perfect example of excessive reach by the federales.  To my knowledge, the Ban was never tested before the Supremes and before its expiry in 2004.  If it had been, I believe it most likely would have been sustained.  I would urge all freedom-loving Americans to exert their influence on Congress to oppose the S.150 bill or any derivative and avoid the Supremes.

Supplemental:

Subject:  Re: FW: Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing - Hartford, CT - 1/28/2013

From:  "rclgclapp"

Date:  Sat, February 2, 2013 9:17 pm

To:  "Drew and Ronielle Clapp"

Cc:  "cap@parlier.com" (less)

"Ron"

"Russell P. Grant Jr."

Thank you, son.  This is one of the best statements I have ever heard on the subject!  

As a native born citizen, I wish I could be as informed and eloquent as this wise legal immigrant.

--Roger Clifford Clapp

Sometimes immigrants understand this Grand Republic better than native-born citizens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU&sns=em

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)