Nov 22, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From The Washington Times:Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan shook financial markets [Friday] with a warning that foreign nations may tire of financing the huge U.S. trade and budget deficits.
The dollar, stocks and bonds all plunged after he told the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt, Germany, that the U.S. currency will keep dropping and interest rates will have to rise considerably to keep attracting the foreign funds needed to finance the deficits.
The U.S. budget deficit last year reached a record $413 billion and is projected to stay above $300 billion a year unless budget policies are changed. The trade deficit is running at $600 billion a year -- nearly 6 percent of the nation's economic output.
"Given the size of the U.S. current-account deficit, a diminished appetite for adding to dollar balances must occur at some point" among foreign investors who have accumulated trillions of dollars in claims against the U.S. government and residents by financing the debt, Mr. Greenspan said.
Private investors from around the world already pulled back in a big way when the dollar started falling precipitously a year ago, forcing central banks — primarily those of China and Japan — to step in to keep propping up the dollar and financing the deficits.
History shows that most countries have a preference for keeping their investments at home and will not continue to underwrite spending in the United States indefinitely, he said.
While the United States has detected only "limited" resistance in trying to finance the deficits so far, the Fed chairman warned against "complacency" because odds dictate that the unprecedented torrent of cash coming in from overseas will not continue.
Stocks fell after Mr. Greenspan's warning, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average ending down nearly 116 points at 10,456.91. [Fed chief shakes markets]
Nov 22, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
In South Carolina, Governor Mark Sanford and the house leadership have been pushing for the "Put Parents in Charge" act--one of the largest "school choice" measures in the country that is based on educational tax credits.
It appears that the measure has sufficient support to pass the house when the legislature reconvenes in January and the proponents of school choice are engaged in a pitched battle against the teachers unions to sway public opinion and the senate between now and then.
If South Carolina does begin secede from the public education system--through the individual choices of one parent at a time--what impact would that have on other states?
For an overview of the "Put Parents in Charge" proposal, visit: http://www.scresponsiblegov.org/content.asp?catID=8090
For the statement of Governor Mark Sanford, visit: http://www.scgovernor.com/interior.asp?SiteContentId=6&pressid=75&NavId=54&ParentId=0
" 'This proposal is a significant step forward on the education front for two reasons,' Gov. Sanford said. 'First, it's giving parents more choices to determine for themselves what's in the best interests of their own kids. Second, it brings a real market pressure to bear on the current system--something that's been proven to help improve performance at public schools where similar choice measures have been implemented. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone out there who doesn't believe that a parent engaging in their kid's education is a central component in producing better results in the classroom. We're all about giving parents in South Carolina both the opportunity and the financial incentive to do just that--and to make what's ultimately a much more important investment in the lives of their kids.'
" 'We are standing up for the rights of parents to make choices based on the individual needs of their children and refuting the long-held belief in education that one size fits all,' said Rep. Lewis Vaughn. 'Parents in South Carolina deserve the right to seek out alternatives when their children's needs aren't being met by the current system.' "Nov 21, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Jerusalem Post:
Outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked to step down after telling President George W. Bush he wanted more power to confront Israel over the peace process, according to London's Sunday Telegraph. At the same time, the Sunday Times reported that secretary of state-designate Condoleezza Rice is convinced Yasser Arafat's death has created a unique opportunity and she believes the revival of the peace process leading to a Palestinian state will be her top priority. Powell was widely rumored to be ready to resign after four years of conflict with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
However, the Telegraph quoted "friends" as saying he changed his mind because he saw the chance of progress on the peace process and wanted to see through the Iraqi elections. He was reported to have made an unsuccessful pitch to remain in office for at least one more year during British Prime Minister Tony Blair's visit to Washington earlier this month. The paper noted that while Powell's departure was announced on November 15, his letter of resignation was dated November 11, the day of his meeting with Bush.
White House officials were quoted as saying that Powell was not asked to stay on. Briefing reporters later, Powell said he and Bush had had "fulsome discussions," diplomatic code for disagreements. "The clincher came over the Mideast peace process," a recently-retired State Department official reportedly said. "Powell thought he could use the credit he had banked as the president's ‘good cop' in foreign policy to rein in [Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon and get the peace process going. He was wrong."
Comments LGF:
And there we see the willful blindness of the State Department in all its glory, as the unnamed official places the blame for the failure of the "peace process" on Ariel Sharon, rather than where it really belongs—on the genocidal hatred and rejectionism of the Arab world.
For further reading:Nov 21, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From Caroline B. Glick:The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists. To understand why this is the case, we must look into the agreement and understand what is motivating the various parties to accede to its conditions.
The agreement stipulates that the European-3 will provide Iran with light water reactor fuel, enhanced trade relations and more nuclear reactors. In exchange, the Iranians agree that for the duration of the negotiations toward implementing the agreement -- including a European push for Iranian ascension to the World Trade Organization -- it will not develop centrifuges and will not enrich uranium. At the same time, the Europeans accepted Iran's claim that it has the legal right to complete the entire nuclear fuel cycle -- meaning, it has the legal right to enrich uranium. ...
Iran's interest in making the deal is clear. The IAEA governing board is set to meet next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program. By agreeing to the deal with the Europeans, Iran has effectively foreclosed the option, favored by the US, of transferring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for discussions that could lead to sanctions on Iran.
Aside from that, all along, Iran has been gaming the system. It has pushed to the limits all feasible interpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, to enable it to reach the cusp of nuclear weapons development without breaking its ties or diminishing its leverage over the Europeans as well as the Russians and Chinese. In so doing, it has isolated the US and Israel -- which have both gone on record that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons -- from the rest of the international community, which is ready to enable Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities. ["H-hour has arrived", Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs]
Nov 19, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From CNN: Sudan factions pledge to end war: 'Strongest warning' urged.The move to conclude a two-year peace process for the south of the African nation came after U.N. chief Kofi Annan called on the council to issue its "strongest warning" to forces fighting in Sudan to sign a peace deal before the end of the year.
In addition to finding an end to the civil war in Sudan's south, the council is meeting in Nairobi to end a humanitarian crisis in the western region of Darfur.
Nearly two million people have died, largely through war-induced hunger and disease, in a conflict between Sudan's Arab north and its Christian and traditionalist south.
The Darfur crisis began in February 2003, when non-Arab rebel groups took up arms to fight for more power and resources. The government responded by backing Arab militias, who have driven millions of villagers from their homes.
The United Nations has called Darfur one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters, and Washington has labeled it genocide.
Nov 18, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
The Canadian government has decided to halt its ban on FoxNews in Canada (i.e., the CRTC finally granted permission for private Canadian broadcasters to offer FoxNews to Canadians):
[...] Even though Fox News hosts have at times mocked Canadians -- calling the former prime minister a bum -- the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said Thursday it has found "there is substantial demand in Canada for Fox News." [...] The CRTC said it received 531 statements supporting Fox and only 82 opposed to allowing the channel to broadcast here. The Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association had asked the CRTC to permit it to import both Fox and the NFL Network for digital tiers. [...]
The network will bring a different world view for Canadians who like their public affairs spicy, says Michael Hennessy, president of the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association. "We think it's great in terms of diversity (of opinion) . . . it's controversial, which is always an excellent thing in the areas of news and public affairs," said Hennessy. [...]
One of Fox News's highest profile personalities, Bill O'Reilly, has called former Prime Minister Jean Chretien "a bum" and denounced Canada's medicare program as "socialist." O'Reilly told The Canadian Press that he was referring to newspaper staff, not Canadians in general. ["Fox News Coming to Canada", CNEWS]
From The Washington Times:
