Month: March 2014

The President has announced that the United States will surrender administrative control of the internet.  America loosely had jurisdiction over areas such as domain names, with the input of international concerns.

But for some time, a number of foreign governments, such as Russia, China and Iran have complained.  Those nations engage in censorship over their domestic internet users, and are angered when the citizens of other nations openly criticize them.  In 2012, they attempted to ram through measures that would allow chilling actions against free speech on the internet.

This is a terrible move by Mr. Obama, and it is being done without any good reason whatsoever.

In time, this will definitely lead to censorship and harassment by dictatorial regimes.

This latest act is part of a disturbing series of White House actions that are hostile to the First Amendment. As you may recall from just several weeks ago, the Obama Administration attempted to use the Federal Communications Commission to ram through a program that would have placed controlling federal bureaucrats in television, radio, newspaper and even internet newsrooms. The concept was a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and fortunately, enough noise was made so that the White House was forced to back off.

There are two extremely disturbing aspects to this entire censorship trend emanating from the Oval Office. The first, of course, is that an American president would ever be so disdainful of the most basic right held by the people.  The second is that it felt confident that it could get away with this Stalinist move.

In the case of FCC gambit, the news media realized its ox was being gored, and so they temporarily put aside their worshipful attitude towards Mr. Obama and actually acted like real news people.   In the threat to the internet, it remains to be seen whether they will do the same.

Many large news organizations, especially those on network television and those running major newspapers, have a distinct dislike of the independence and forthrightness of internet news sites.  Also, to be quite candid, they just don’t like the competition.  More and more news consumers are moving away from the traditional media to the more honest and less restricted sources found elsewhere.

Unlike the big media concerns that have abandoned journalistic ethics in their partisan support of the President, internet sites, along with talk radio, provide a more robust and far more thorough brand of reporting than can be found on TV or in newsprint.

These censorship moves would have been unthinkable in the past.  Why is there not more outrage on the part of our society? Have we become so desensitized to the constant attacks on our liberties, our rights, our very character as a free people that nothing shocks or angers us anymore?

We have been told by this White House that our Second Amendment rights must be limited.  We have been told that our Fourth Amendment right to privacy doesn’t exist.  The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have been made irrelevant by their actions.  Even the Constitutional separation of powers is viewed as an anachronism by a President who tells us he can’t be bothered waiting for Congress, that he has a pen and a phone that he can wield to further his unilateral agenda.

In plain English, this internet surrender, along with the FCC and other unlawful acts are an attempt by the President to attack those who disagree with it by finding a way to harass them out of business.  They must not be allowed to pass.

These recent actions by the Obama Administration concerning opening the door to internet censorship, tapping of reporter’s phones, as well as the assault on the Tea Party by the IRS, are scandals that would have, in the past, resulted in the end of a presidency.

As we sometimes suffer from varied kinds of diseases, related to the urinary system. order levitra online secretworldchronicle.com Visiting Titusville eye center will be of viagra levitra online http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/zachary-marlowe/ great help. Having any type of diabetes does not mean you suffer levitra 25mg from cancer. cialis viagra australia It can happen at any age.

MINUTE

 

In his recent statement about Crimea, the President failed to respond in any meaningful way to Russia’s Ukrainian invasion. Announcing only a weak suite of minor sanctions, Mr. Obama completely failed to take any steps which would have had any impact on Putin’s decisions.

 

Obama did not announce a cessation of his relentless cuts to the U.S. military.  The weakened American armed forces no longer deter Moscow’s expansionism. He did not state that he would expand drilling for gas and oil on federal lands, to end the Kremlin’s blackmail hold on the European economy. He did not announce that America would announce its intention to lobby for the expulsion Russia from significant international organization.

 

By failing to state any of the above actions, Mr. Obama essentially green-lighted further aggression.

 

As unfortunate as it may be, the fact is that weakness has never deterred bullies, either in the schoolyard or on the word stage. The evidence is resoundingly clear that the President’s policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament have failed completely.  Indeed, the planet is closer to devastatingly large international conflicts than it has been at any time since the end of the Second World War.

 

For the good of both America and world peace, The President needs to put his ego aside, admit his policies have failed, and restore America’s strength before it’s too late.  It is becoming too late quite rapidly.

In his statement this morning, the President  failed to respond in any meaningful way to Russia’s Ukranian invasion.

Announcing only a weak suite of  minor sanctions, Mr. Obama completely failed to take any steps which would have had any impact on Putin’s decisions.

Obama did not announce a cessation of his relentless cuts to the U.S. military.  The weakened American armed forces no longer deter Moscow’s expansionism.

There are many drugs without prescription available online if you are willing to generico viagra on line go online and order cheap generic drugs.If you are looking for a good web site to check out to find out about ordering generic drugs, go to www.bestgenericpharmacy.com. A bad supplier is a guarantee brand cialis australia for a disaster. This includes maintaining normal health with ordinary exercise, a healthful food regimen, proscribing alcohol, cheap super cialis quitting smoking, dealing with a strain and correcting the underlying cause can help restore the erectile function. It is on the women to make up his mood but she being tired acheter viagra pfizer and stressed out cannot carry out any such activity. He did not state that he would expand drilling for gas and oil on federal lands, to end the Kremlin’s blackmail hold on the European economy.

He did not announce that America would announce its intention to lobby for the expulsion Russia from significant international organization.

By failing to state any of the above actions, Mr. Obama essentially greenlighted further aggression.

What is the basis for Mr. Obama’s views on national security?  Indeed, what are those views? Five years into his presidency, the question still needs to be asked.

The President of the United States has extensive authority http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html to deal with foreign affairs http://www.examiner.com/article/america-s-foreign-policy-disasters?cid=db_articles and national security.  While he has wide latitude to pursue his goals (subject to the Senate’s consent role in treaties and the budgetary powers of Congress) most would agree that he at least owes both the legislative branch and the nation a thorough explanation of his worldview.

 

The New York Analysis reviewed Mr. Obama’s campaign statements, press conferences, speeches, the White House web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases , and the statements of his national security advisor.

 

Beyond his general attempt to initiate a “reset” with Russia, which the Moscow Times describes as a “failure,” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/obamas-doomed-reset/486998.html  and moving some naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is an extraordinary paucity of specific policies for defense. Relations with Russia’s renewed cold war attitude, or China’shttp://www.examiner.com/article/china-s-hidden-military-budget

dramatically enlarged and technologically sophisticated military, or even the strategic military advances of  Iran and North Korea,http://www.examiner.com/article/north-korea-an-urgent-threat constitute a  deteriorating world security environment, but the White House has yet to change course, or even to pay significant attention, to developments that run counter to its  apparent desire to put international matters on the backburner.

 

As this edition goes to press, Russia has made threatening moves towards Ukraine, and has stationed tactical nuclear-capable weapons (ISKANDER missileshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/us-russia-missiles-idUSBRE9BF0W020131216) on its European border.  Chinese warships have fired on Philippine fisherman in an area international law states belongs to Manila. Japan feels so threatened that political forces advocating n end to its peace constitution are gaining ground. Both Moscow and Beijing, along with North Korea and Iran are continuing their extraordinary strategic and tactical strategic arms buildup.

 

The threat to the U.S. may be even more local.  As noted in a recent report from the Center for Security Policy, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/02/24/americas-provacative-weakness/  “A North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba.  The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP)  attack on our electric grid.”

 

Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration continues its advocacy of a major downsizing of the U.S. military.  As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, the President proposes continuous reductions of military spending for the next decade, when it will account for 2.4% of GDP, the lowest in the post World War 2 era. http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 Some of those who have been close to the President on this issue, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have been sharply critical of his general attitude towards the military. http://www.amazon.com/Duty-Memoirs-Secretary-at-War-ebook/dp/B00F8F3J2S

 

 

The President’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was the early centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.

 

Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes is the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as th primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise.  But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future.  In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/obamas-doomed-reset/486998.html

 

 

What is manifestly evident is Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors.

 

Indeed, Despite the reduction of defense spending levels as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military is being asked to absorb massive new cuts.

 

America’s armed forces have been sharply reduced, as outlined by Rep. Randy Forbes http://forbes.house.gov/news/documentprint.aspx?DocumentID=254787

 

Compromising Defense The U.S. has a shrinking force. ·         In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 285. ·         The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45. ·         Two decades ago the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today. ·         China now has more ships in their Navy than the U.S. has in its Navy. The U.S. has an aging force. ·         Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. ·         Bombers average 34 years in age. Our tankers are nearly 50 years old. The U.S. has a strained force. ·         In the last four years inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled. ·         1 in 5 ships inspected is either unfit for combat or severely degraded. ·         A majority of the Navy’s deployed aircraft are unable to accomplish all of their assigned missions. ·         We already have a $367 million in needed repairs to our ships. ·         Marine Corps stockpiles of critical equipment such as radios, small arms and generators face severe shortages. ·         Over a third of Active Army units do not have sufficient personnel to perform their missions. ·         Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now. ·         Marines need $12 billion to reset its force right now. Our nation’s top brass have said our military cannot sustain deep defense cuts. Some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.” Proposed cuts would result in a “fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force.” General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Deep cuts would lead to “fundamental changes” in the capability of our Marine Corps. General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps The Army cannot meet all of the current, validated needs of commanders on the ground. General Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army “I can’t see how we can sustain this pace of operations indefinitely and meet our readiness standards.” To meet unconstrained combatant commander demands, “I’d need, doing some analysis, about 400 ships. I have 285 ships today.” Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Getting the price viagra 100mg for sale ticket dismissed will not be marked as spam. Don’t Just getting viagra without prescription Go for Price There is often a misconception that Kamagra medicines available online are clinically tested to guarantee satisfactory results at much affordable cost. After gallbladder removal surgery, some people experience chronic buying viagra uk diarrhea. “Bathroom” issues are a sensitive subject. This is the biggest rationality why beginning together ordine cialis on line http://www.learningworksca.org/resources/in-the-news/ with vigilant command is crucial to get people with diabates at every stage from the problems.
Other elected officials and defense officials have also noted that U.S. armed forces have already endured significant budget cuts.  Much of the military equipment that remains has been worn down through years of fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Key parts of the nation’s conventional and nuclear arsenals are old enough to be considered antiques, with some pilots flying the same aircraft their grandfathers flew.  Unlike other nuclear powers, America has not modernized its strategic arsenal in decades.  For budgetary reasons, the nation may reduce its first line of maritime defense, aircraft carriers, to a level below what is truly vital. Command and control functions once thought invulnerable are now subject to destruction.

 

The proposed cuts www.defense.gov/newsarticle.aspx?id=121703 are based on the assumption that the U.S. will not be involved in any significant altercations in the near future. Critics note that this is similar to cutting back a local fire department on the premise that there would be fewer fires. Sydney Freeburg, writing in Breaking Defense, quotes General McMaster’s criticism that America can’t merely “opt out” of certain kinds of conflict.

 

The cuts would reduce the army to its smallest size since before World War II. It would eliminate one of the Air Force’s most useful weapons, the A10 Warthog, which Congress has said recently said was too crucial to lose. http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bill-blocks-air-force-from-retiring-a-10-warthog/

 

Despite the significant history of personnel injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new ground combat vehicle program http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44044-GCV.pdf would be cancelled.

 

The number of active duty soldiers would be reduced to the lowest point (approximately 440,000) in three-quarters of a century. The National Guard would also be reduced by 10,000 to 195,000. The Navy would see fully half of its 22 cruisers placed into mothballs. Littoral combat ships would be reduced from 52 to 32. There would be an undisclosed number of base closures, as well. The Marines would be reduced by about 4%.Special forces would grow by about 4,000 personnel, and the cuts in research and development would be halted.

 

 

There would be significant disincentives http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/199050-hagel-unveils-basics-of-2015-defense-budget-request for those enlisted in the military to remain, or those thinking of enlisting to join. Cuts would be made in housing allowances, reimbursement for renters insurance, and commissary subsidiaries. There would be cuts to health benefits, lowered future increases in salaries, and a freeze in pay for senior officers.

 

 

All this is occurring as China and Russia astronomically increase their defense spending, and deploy technology that in some cases exceeds that of the U.S. The risk of an attack is actually greater than it was during the cold war, due to the growing ICBM and nuclear technology of Iran and North Korea, as well as Beijing’s increased aggressiveness and confidence.

 

The system of alliances that helped discourage a world war has been weakened, as Washington’s relations with allied nations in Europe and Asia are increasingly strained. In Latin America, several governments are openly hostile to the United States, and have invited increased Iranian, Russian and Chinese commercial and military interests to play a larger role within their borders.

 

The fact that this is occurring while America’s adversaries are increasing their militaries could be described as a move towards a partial unilateral disarmament. Mr. Obama’s recent comments that he wished to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal, without a reciprocal requirement from other atomic powers, gives credence to this view.

 

 

Since Mr. Obama has not explicitly shared his perspective on national security, the public must examine his actions and attempt to glean from them his views.

 

Contrary to all evidence, including Moscow’s extraordinary military buildup, its development of new nuclear missiles, its growing naval power, its re-development of cold war bases around the world, its return to cold war strategic patrols off America’s coasts and Putin’s aggressive statements, the President clings to the “reset” policy that he and former Secretary of State Clinton proclaimed in 2009 that essentially declares Russia to be a non-problem.

 

Similarly, the President has largely chosen to ignore China’s unprecedented military buildup in size and technological sophistication, the aggressive comments of its military leaders, its cyber-attacks and intensive espionage on U.S. soil, and most importantly, its assaults on U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines, other than redeploying some ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

 

Attempting to balance the US budget through military cuts is, ultimately, a doomed policy.  defense costs makes up, on average, less than 19% of Washington spending https://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/defense-budget, and substantial reductions have already been made; as noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855 the reduction in 2012, from $711 billion to $668 billion was, in dollar terms, “the largest decline since 1991.” That was shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before the rise of Russian militarism under Putin.

 

The President appears to truly believe that there is no current or immediately prospective significant threat to the national security of the United States or its key allies.  Given that perspective, it is not surprising that he has slashed the Pentagon’s budget.  Unfortunately, every shred of empirical evidence directly and overwhelmingly contradicts Mr. Obama’s worldview.

 

The President’s lack of attention to this most vital area and his lack of clarity and candor with the public is deeply disturbing.

 

 

Threat Assessment

Against a backdrop of quickly deteriorating global relations both between Washington and other governments, and rapidly escalating tensions between nations across the globe, James R, Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, has recently testified to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  

 

From the streets of the Ukraine to the waters surrounding Japan and thePhilippines where the potential for combat is ever-present, the world teeters on the edge of a scale of warfare not seen since 1945.

The people of Israel feel a sense of dread not equaled since the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Taliban is preparing to retake Afghanistan, and al Qaedacontrols more territory than ever in the Middle East.

 

Moscow is violating arms agreements without any serious discussion of penalty from the White House, as Putin develops a military even more powerful than it possessed during the Cold War.  China has devoted its vast riches to the construction of an armed force larger in size than any other nations’, with high-tech weapons that in many cases surpass our own.

 

In North Korea, people are subjected to a level of atrocities not seen since the concentration camps of the 1940s, as their government continues to rapidly build nuclear weapons and ICBMS capable of delivering them to American soil.

 

Parts of Latin America are suffering under despotic regimes that repress their own citizens and openly call the United States their enemy.  These governments have opened their doors to the militaries and intelligence services of Iran, China, and Russia.

 

Several nations that formerly were allied in interest with Washington, such as Egypt  and Turkey, are now looking towards America’s enemies for arms deals.

 

CIA Camel A U.S. Marine Corps mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle provides security in the Now Zad district in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, Feb. 16, 2014. The vehicle is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. The unit supported Afghan forces conducting an operation in the area. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Sean Searfus

Excepts from

The Remarks of National Intelligence Director

James R. Clapper

to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

on the 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment

Clapper’s remarks

“I’ve not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.

 

“My list is long. It includes the scourge and diversification of terrorism, loosely connected and globally dispersed, to include here at home, as exemplified by the Boston Marathon bombing; the sectarian war in Syria, its attraction as a growing center of radical extremism and the potential threat this poses to the homeland.

 

“Let me briefly expand on this point. The strength of the insurgency in Syria is now estimated at somewhere between 75 or 80,000 or up to 110 to 115,000 insurgents, who are organized into more than 1,500 groups of widely varying political leanings.

 

“Three of the most effective are the Al-Nusrah Front, Ansar Al- Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant, or ISIL, as it’s known, who total about 26,000 insurgents. Complicating this further are the 7,500 or so foreign fighters from some 50 countries who have gravitated to Syria. Among them are a small group of Af-Pak Al Qaida veterans who have the aspirations for external attack in Europe, if not the homeland.

 

“And there are many other crises and threats around the globe, to include the spillover of the Syria conflict into neighboring Lebanon and Iraq; the destabilizing flood of refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, now about 2.5 million people, a symptom of one of the largest humanitarian disasters in a decade; the implications of the drawdown in Afghanistan; the deteriorating internal security posture in Iraq, with AQI now in control of Fallujah; the growth of foreign cyber capabilities, nation- states and non-nations states as well; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; aggressive nation-state intelligence efforts against us; an assertive Russia; a competitive China; a dangerous, unpredictable North Korea; a challenging Iran; lingering ethnic divisions in the Balkans; perpetual conflict and extremism in Africa, in Mali, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, and in South Sudan; violent political struggles in, among others, the Ukraine, Burma, Thailand, and Bangladesh; the specter of mass atrocities; the increasing stress of burgeoning populations; the urgent demands for energy, water and food; the increasing sophistication of transnational crime; the tragedy and magnitude of human trafficking; the insidious rot of invented synthetic drugs; potential for pandemic diseases occasioned by the growth of drug resistant bacteria.

 

“I could go on with this litany, but suffice to say that we live in a complex, dangerous world…

 

“My second topic is what has consumed extraordinary time and energy for much of the past year in the intelligence community, in the Congress, in the White House, and, of course, in the public square.

 

“I’m speaking, of course, about potentially the most massive and most damaging theft of intelligence information in our history by Edward Snowden, and the ensuing avalanche of revelations published and broadcast around the world. I won’t dwell on the debate about Snowden’s motives or his legal standing or on the supreme ironies occasioned by his choice of freedom-loving nations and beacons of free expression to which he fled and from which he rails about what an Orwellian state he thinks this country has become.

 

“But what I do want to speak to, as the nation’s senior intelligence officer, is the profound damage that his disclosures have caused and will continue to cause. And, as a consequence, in my view, this nation is less safe and its people less secure.

What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs. As a result, we’ve lost critical foreign intelligence collections sources, including some shared with us by valued partners.

 

“Terrorists and other adversaries of this country are going to school on U.S. intelligence sources, methods and trade craft. And the insights that they are gaining are making our jobs much, much harder. And this includes putting — putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at risk, as well as our armed forces, diplomats and our citizens.

We’re beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, particularly terrorists, a disturbing trend that I anticipate will continue. Snowden, for his part, claims that he’s won and that his mission is accomplished. If that’s so, I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed, to prevent even more damage to U.S. security.

 

“As a third, and related point, I want to comment on the ensuing fallout. It pains me greatly that the National Security Agency and its magnificent workforce have been pilloried in public commentary…

 

“As I and other leaders in the community have said many times, NSA’s job is not to target the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens. The agency does collect foreign intelligence, the whole reason that NSA has existed since 1952, performing critical missions that I’m sure the American people wanted to carry out.

 

“Moreover, the effects of the unauthorized disclosures hurt the entire Intelligence Community, not just NSA. Critical intelligence capabilities in which the United States has invested billions of dollars are at risk or likely to be curtailed or eliminated either because of compromise or conscious decision. Moreover, the impact of the losses caused by the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget cuts we’re incurring.

 

“The stark consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. The Intelligence Community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies than we’ve had. In this connection, I am also compelled to note, as did Ranking Member Ruppersberger, the negative morale impact this perfect storm has had on the I.C. workforce, which were compounded by sequestration, furloughs, the shutdown and salary freezes.

 

“This leads me to my fourth point: We are thus faced collectively — and by collectively I mean this committee, the Congress at large, the executive branch, and, most acutely, all of us in the intelligence community — with the inescapable imperative to accept more risk. It’s a plain hard fact and a circumstance that the community must, and will, manage, together with you and with those we support in the executive branch.

 

“But if dealing with reduced capabilities is what we — is needed to ensure the faith and confidence of the American people and their elected representatives, then we in the intelligence community will work as hard as we can to meet the expectations before us.

 

“And that brings me to my fifth and final point: The major takeaway for us, and certainly for me from the past several months is that we must lean in the direction of transparency wherever and whenever we can. With greater transparency about these intelligence programs, the American people may be more likely to accept them…”

 

 U.S. Force train Afghan police (DoD photo)

 

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT’S WORLDVIEW? 

 

As the planet becomes far more dangerous, the U.S. military continues to shrink.

While all this occurs, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaims that global warming is his main concern.

 

The time has long passed for highly important and urgently appropriate questions about the Obama Administration’s foreign policy strategy and goals, as well as its vision of America’s international role.

There are two salient issues involved.  The first is the incredible deterioration of international relations during Obama’s tenure. The second is the complete failure of the President to share with the American people his worldview. Since his election, Mr. Obama has been exceptionally hesitant to explain his worldview. He has commented about foreign affairs far less, in speeches, press conferences, and state of the union addresses than his predecessor.

 

Critics have raised serious questions about the priorities of a President who rushes to ouster an Egyptian regime that was friendly to the U.S., and a Libyan regime that was fighting al Qaeda, but does nothing of substance to assist Iranian dissidents who are seeking to reform the Tehran government, or to assist Cuban political prisoners, or those seeking to restore democracy in Venezuela, or Ukrainians seeking to avoid a Kremlin takeover.

 

There has been a noticeable lack of communications from the Oval Office of the President, or the State Department under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, about what direction they are steering this nation in, and why there has been no discussion of this Administration’s intentions.

 

What is the basis for Mr. Obama’s views on national security?  Indeed, what are those views? Five years into his presidency, the question still needs to be asked.

 

The President of the United States has extensive authority to deal with foreign affairs  and national security.  While he has wide latitude to pursue his goals (subject to the Senate’s consent role in treaties and the budgetary powers of Congress) most would agree that he at least owes both the legislative branch and the nation a thorough explanation of his worldview.

 

The New York Analysis reviewed Mr. Obama’s campaign statements, press conferences, speeches, the White House web site, and the statements of his national security advisor.

 

Beyond his general attempt to initiate a “reset” with Russia, which the Moscow Times describes as a “failure,”   and moving some naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is an extraordinary paucity of specific policies for defense. There has been no publicly stated policy to deal with an era when Russia has a renewed cold war attitude, China has a dramatically enlarged and technologically sophisticated military, and Iran and North Korea continue to make strategic weapons advances. The White House has, as far as can be discerned, yet to  pay significant attention to developments that run counter to its  apparent desire to put international matters on the backburner.

As this edition goes to press, Russia has made threatening moves towards Ukraine, and has stationed tactical nuclear-capable weapons (ISKANDERmissiles)  on its European border.  Chinese warships have fired on Philippine fisherman in an area international law states belongs to Manila. Japan feels so threatened that political forces advocating an end to its peace constitution are gaining ground. Both Moscow and Beijing, along with North Korea and Iran are continuing their extraordinary strategic and tactical strategic arms buildup.

The threat to the U.S. may be even more local.  As noted in a recent report from the Center for Security Policy,  “A North Korean tramp steamer, the Chong Chon Gang, was intercepted in Panama last summer and discovered to have concealed in its hold surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Cuba.  The movement of the nuclear-capable SA-2 SAMs through Caribbean waters demonstrates Pyongyang’s inherent capability to use such ship-borne weapons as launch vehicles for a potentially devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP)  attack on our electric grid.”

 

Against this backdrop, the Obama Administration continues its advocacy of a major downsizing of the U.S. military.  As noted by the Council on Foreign Relations, the President proposes continuous reductions of military spending for the next decade, when it will account for 2.4% of GDP, the lowest in the post World War 2 era.  Some of those who have been close to the President on this issue, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have been sharply critical of his general attitude towards the military.

 

The President’s attempt to “Reset” relations with Russia was the early centerpiece of his foreign and defense policies.

Writing in the Moscow Times, Sergei Karagonov opined on what he believes is the flawed concept of Mr. Obama’s reset, even from the Russian perspective: (the perspective of American critics is that it gave too much to Russia without gaining anything substantive in return) “…the U.S. proposed nuclear weapons reductions as th primary mechanism of the diplomatic reset…But progress soon stalled with Russia rejecting U.S. proposals…In the hope of breaking the deadlock, Obama signaled his willingness to compromise.  But Putin had little reason to reciprocate, not least because agreement on the issue would have opened the door to further nuclear arms reductions. Moreover, members of Russia’s military and political elite hoped to use some of the country’s oil revenues to deploy a new generation of ICBMs…By focusing on nuclear disarmament and new START, Obama’s reset strategy remilitarized the U.S.-Russia relationship while marginalizing issues that could have reoriented bilateral ties toward the future.  In this sense, the initiative was doomed from the start, and the whole world has suffered as a result.”

 

 

 

U.S. B-52 bomber, a mainstay of the strategic and tactical strategy of the Air Force.

Thes planes are so old the grandfathers of current USAF pilots flew the same aircraft. (USAF photo)

 

What is manifestly evident is Mr. Obama’s desire to downsize of the U.S. military, regardless of external factors.

 

Indeed, Despite the reduction of defense spending levels as a percent of the GDP and the federal budget to historic low points, and rising, dangerous threats from abroad, the U.S. military is being asked to absorb massive new cuts.

America’s armed forces have been sharply reduced, as outlined by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)

 

In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 285.  ·         The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45.  ·         Two decades ago the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today.  ·         China now has more ships in their Navy than the U.S. has in its Navy.   The U.S. has an aging force. ·         Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. ·         Bombers average 34 years in age. Our tankers are nearly 50 years old.  The U.S. has a strained force. ·         In the last four years inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled. ·         1 in 5 ships inspected is either unfit for combat or severely degraded. ·         A majority of the Navy’s deployed aircraft are unable to accomplish all of their assigned missions. ·         We already have a $367 million in needed repairs to our ships. ·         Marine Corps stockpiles of critical equipment such as radios, small arms and generators face severe shortages. ·         Over a third of Active Army units do not have sufficient personnel to perform their missions. ·         Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now. ·         Marines need $12 billion to reset its force right now.   Our nation’s top brass have said our military cannot sustain deep defense cuts: Some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.” Proposed cuts would result in a “fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force.” General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Deep cuts would lead to “fundamental changes” in the capability of our Marine Corps. General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps The Army cannot meet all of the current, validated needs of commanders on the ground. General Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army “I can’t see how we can sustain this pace of operations indefinitely and meet our readiness standards.” To meet unconstrained combatant commander demands, “I’d need, doing some analysis, about 400 ships. I have 285 ships today.” Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Nava

The end of the world may be postponed, thanks to an international meeting that took place in January.

The Space Mission Planning and Advisory Group (SMPAG) http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Situational_Awareness/Getting_ready_for_asteroids met in a forum hosted by the European Space Agency http://www.esa.int/ESA  to determine how best to protect our planet from a catastrophic asteroid strike.  Its specific mission is to coordinate expertise and capabilities for missions aimed at countering asteroids that might one day strike Earth.

SMPAG was formed by the United Nation’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to develop a strategy on how to react to a future extraterrestrial collision. It will coordinate with space agencies across the world to develop a strategy in response to a collision between Earth and an impact with an extraterrestrial object.

According to the Association of Space Explorers Committee on Near Earth Objects, http://www.space-explorers.org/committees/NEO/2013/ASE_NEO_Defense.pdf “Asteroid impacts—an ongoing cosmic and geological process—have dramatically altered the course of life on Earth. A rogue asteroid will certainly strike Earth in the future, and such impacts pose a global threat to human life and society. Search efforts to date have discovered scarcely 1% of potentially hazardous near-Earth objects (NEOs). Current telescopes were unable to warn us of the Feb. 2013 Chelyabinsk impact, which released 440 kilotons of explosive energy and injured more than a thousand people. Because near-Earth asteroid searches have focused almost exclusively on large objects with global destructive potential, 99% of the objects big enough to level a major metropolitan area remain undiscovered. As technology improves and hundreds of thousands of new asteroids are found, the global community will likely be confronted by one posing a worryingly high probability of striking Earth.”

 

The U.N. has been discussing the issue for approximately 14 years, beginning in 1995 when it’s Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) met in New York to bring the issue to the attention of member states.  In 2001, “Action Team 14” was established to improve international coordination of activities related to near-Earth objects.

Recommendations of the Action Team on Near-Earth Objects for an

international response to the near-Earth object impact threat http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/misc/2013/at-14/at14-handoutE.pdf

 

Introduction

 

Given the global consequences of a NEO impact and the enormous resources

required to prevent a collision, the UN has been seen as the forum to coordinate such

efforts. In 1995, the United Nations International Conference on Near Earth Objects

was held at UN Headquarters in New York. The Conference, organized by United

Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), sensitised Member States to the

potential threat of NEOs and proposed an expansion of existing observation

campaigns to detect and track NEOs.

 

The Action Team on Near-Earth Objects (Action Team 14) was established in

2001 by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

(COPUOS), in response to recommendation 14 of the Third United Nations

Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE III)

that was held in Vienna in 1999, to improve international coordination of activities

related to near-Earth objects. Sergio Camacho, a former UNOOSA Director currently

serves as the Chair of AT-14.

 

The Action Team has been mandated to:

(a) Review the content, structure and organization of ongoing efforts in

the field of near-Earth objects (NEOs);

(b) Identify any gaps in the ongoing work where additional coordination is

required and/or where other countries or organizations could make contributions;

(c) Propose steps for the improvement of international coordination in

collaboration with specialized bodies.

 

The Action Team based its recommendations on the fact that many expert groups and

assets needed for this issue already exist. It recommends the formation of a warning

network and two advisory groups: an International Asteroid Warning Network

(IAWN), a Space Missions Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG – pronounce ‘same

page’), and an Impact Disaster Planning Advisory Group (IDPAG).

 

The warning network

 

The IAWN would be a network of experts which would focus on discovery, tracking,

and the observation of NEOs. The goal would be to find objects as early as possible.

Observations are processed and orbit predictions and any potential impact warnings

are generated. The IAWN would also prepare public communications. In case of a

credible impact threat, IAWN would ensure that more information on these objects is

gathered expeditiously. IAWN would then also inform COPUOS and the Office of

 

 

Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations Office at Vienna, Wagramerstrasse 5, 1400 Vienna, Austria

Tel. (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax (+43-1) 26060-5830, www.unoosa.org

The best ways to combat low body image is working out regularly and have a sildenafil without prescription balanced diet. Some other significant pills included in this herbal buy generic viagra https://unica-web.com/films2007.xls supplement. Drinking alcohol and cigarettes smoking must be cheapest brand cialis fend off for safe treatment. The problem is these companies don’t viagra pfizer seem to be great for the treatment of impotency. Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). The IAWN would consist of observers,

astrodynamics experts, experts working on the characterization of asteroids and

modelling. No formal ‘group’ is needed, it is a network of existing experts and assets.

A steering group is proposed as a focus point for the IAWN. COPUOS would receive

yearly summary reports from the IAWN.

 

The advisory groups

 

The IDPAG would have as tasks to review lessons learned from other large-scale

disasters, prepare coordinated response plans and exercises to address both predicted

and unpredicted impact disasters. It would recommend and promote research related

to the topic. It would develop representative timelines and procedures for evacuations.

It is proposed that the IDPAG is formed by representatives of existing national and

international disaster response agencies. Its organisation would be initiated by the

IAWN and could be coordinated with other relevant international and national entities

(e.g. UN-SPIDER, UN-ISDR, OCHA)1

.

 

The SMPAG would combine the expertise of space-faring nations. It would

recommend and promote mitigation mission-related research and studies on an

international and cooperative level. It would develop and adopt a set of reference

missions. It would develop technical concepts and propose operational setups. It

would also develop applicable decision criteria and timelines. The SMPAG would be

a group of voluntary representatives of space-faring nations. The group would call on

support by technical experts and other relevant entities as needed. It would provide a

yearly summary report to COPUOS.

 

Response to a credible impact threat

 

In the case of an actual credible impact threat, the IAWN would provide all available

information and updates to COPUOS through the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs.

The IDPAG would work with disaster response groups in nations that would be

affected to prepare and coordinate civil protection plans. The SMPAG would

coordinate the space mission planning among space-capable nations. It is suggested

that COPUOS may choose to appoint an ad-hoc mitigation advisory group to work

together with the response teams.

 

 

It was a vast space-borne rock that plummeted into the Yucatan and wiped out the dinosaurs http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/147978-finally-confirmed-an-asteroid-wiped-out-the-dinosaurs  many millennia ago. There is no doubt that Earth will be the target of another such hit some time in the future—and that future can be anywhere from a few years to a few centuries from now.

Even much smaller asteroids could have a devastating impact, wiping out an entire city in a single blow.  The danger is real, and affects every nation on the globe.

NASA’s Near Earth Object (NEO) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/#purpose Program has spearheaded this area of space research, working to detect, track and characterize potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that could approach the Earth. With over 90% of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer already discovered, the NEO Program is now focusing on finding 90% of the NEO population larger than 140 meters. In addition to managing the detection and cataloging of Near-Earth objects, the NEO Program office is responsible for facilitating communications between the astronomical community and the public should any potentially hazardous objects be discovered. As of February 02, 2014, 10,685 Near-Earth objects have been discovered. Some 868 of these NEOs are asteroids with a diameter of approximately 1 kilometer or larger. 1454 of these NEOs have been classified as potentially hazardous.

 

The final report of NASA’s Asteroid Initiative was released in January.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Asteroid-Initiative-WS-Final-Report-508.pdf

NASA’s Asteroid Initiative consists of two separate but related activities: the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), and the Asteroid Grand Challenge (AGC). NASA is developing concepts for the ARM, which would use a robotic spacecraft to capture a small near-Earth asteroid (7 to 10 meters), or remove a boulder (1 to 10 meters) from the surface of a larger asteroid, and redirect it into a stable orbit around the moon. Astronauts launched aboard the Orion spacecraft would rendezvous with the captured asteroid material in lunar orbit, and collect samples for return to Earth.

 

The AGC is seeking the best ideas to find all asteroid threats to human populations, and to accelerate the work that NASA is already doing for planetary defense. The Asteroid Initiative will leverage and integrate NASA’s activities in human exploration, space technology, and space science to advance the technologies and capabilities needed for future human and robotic exploration, to enable the first human mission to interact with asteroid material, and to accelerate efforts to detect, track, characterize, and mitigate the

threat of potentially hazardous asteroids.

Last month, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns http://www.state.gov/s/d/2014/219501.htm , speaking at the International Space Exploration Forum, noted:  “…we can do much more to defend the planet from near-earth objects and space debris. We continue to work through the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to deal with this challenge, and we are working with the European Union and other countries to develop an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. We also would welcome international support for NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission, which, among other things, will help us learn how to better defend our planet from a catastrophic asteroid collision.”

Despite this planet-saving mission, NASA’s 2014 budget is the lowest since 2007.

Now, for the first time, national space agencies from North and South America, Europe, Asia and Africa will establish an expert group aimed at getting the world’s space-faring nations on the ‘same page’ when it comes to reacting to asteroid threats, working together to find and track dangerous asteroids, deciding what to do with them, and implementing a mission to protect the planet.

The latest evidence that asteroids pose a major threat occurred a year ago this week, when a previously unknown asteroid exploded high above Chelyabinsk, https://b612foundation.org/news/faq-on-the-chelyabinsk-asteroid-impact/  Russia, with 20–30 times the energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.  There was a brief period when the meteor appeared to glow brighter than the Sun. The shock wave produced by the asteroid as it hit the atmosphere caused numerous injuries and shattered windows.

If a possible strike by an asteroid is detected, an International Asteroid Warning Network would coordinate with space faring nations to prepare a response, including possible means of deflecting the threatening object away from the planet.

What is the true state of the union?

The financial health of the federal government, the prosperity of the American people, the prospects for the nation’s future and the state of America’s national security are all in significant jeopardy.

 

Financially, the nation’s status fits the technical definition of bankruptcy.  The national debt of $17,338,229,800,000

exceeds America’s Gross Domestic Product of $17 trillion.  Combined with an annual deficit of $680 billion, this means that US has no realistic way to pay its debt under current circumstances.

 

In 2013, the federal government spent 3.5 trillion while taking in only 2.8 trillion in revenue .

 

Under the Obama Administration, the federal debt has drastically incrased. In January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. In October of 2013, it hit $16.7 trillion – an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, who was financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, total federal debt rose 38 percent.

A salient question is: What did all that increased deficit spending–including the $787 billion stimulus package– during the Obama presidency buy?

 

Since 2009, federal welfare spending has jumped 41%, costing taxpayers $193 billion per year. Despite that, 46 million Americans live in poverty, and median income remains over 8% lower than was in 2007.

 

The increase in spending in this area has clearly failed. The poverty rate remains unchanged at approximately 15%.

 

America has vast unmet domestic needs, which remained largely unaddressed by Obama’s deficit spending.  Its infrastructure remains in poor condition. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives the nation a D+, with vast numbers of crumbling roads and bridges, and other vital unmet needs in our transportation, water, energy, and waste management utilities. Some minor improvements have been made (The prior score was a D) but this is largely due to spending by state and local governments, not Washington.

The private sector has not benefited from the spending, resulting in employment rates that remain unacceptably high.

 

The Department of Labor Statistics’ U-6 figure is a dismal 13.1%, a number that understates the true level of the dilemma since the national employment participation rate is at a four-decade low of 62.8%, representing a worsening of an 0.8 percentage point over the year. 347,000 left the workforce in December, exceeding the number of new jobs created. More and more Americans have completely dropped out of the labor force, and aren’t counted in unemployment statistics.  11.2 million have left the labor force under the Obama presidency.

 

Many of those who have found work and are counted as employed are actually working only part-time.  Seven out of eight new positons added under President Obama have been  part-time jobs.

 

The number of long-term unemployed continues to be an unresolved crisis.  These displaced workers count for 37.7% of all unemployed, and their chances of re-entering the work force diminish daily.

Another EMG uses electrodes taped to the skin cheapest levitra to measure the contraction of the lower vagina, cervix and uterus produce an identical automatic response. According to surveys conducted by the Sexual Dysfunction Association, nearly 10% of men in the UK have experienced buying online viagra either temporary or permanent sexual dysfunction at some point of time. The same can be said for appalachianmagazine.com viagra discount india’s cousins: viagra. Lisa Marie described, “I considered Jackson didn’t do anything wrong and that he was wrongly accused and yes I know desire is mostly attributed online levitra canada to sexual desire (he he is there any other type?). 2013 saw a record high number of U.S. workers on disability–a shocking figure of almost 11 million.   It has been speculated that the federal government has been more lenient in granting disability since taking these workers out of the counting for unemployment improves the statistical outlook.

There has been a $2,535 drop in median income after the recession ended in June 2009, according to Sentier Research

 

The United States is less secure than it was five years ago. The significant increase in federal spending has not benefited the military.  According to the Council on Foreign Relations, In calendar year 2012, military spending declined from $711 billion to $668 billion.

In dollar terms, this was the largest decline since 1991. President Barack Obama’s budget proposes cutting security spending to 2.4% of GDP in 2023. This would represent the lowest allocation of GDP to defense spending in the post-World War II era.

 

In 2012, U.S. military spending fell faster than overall military spending by democracies.If military budgets were compared in a way that reflected varying personnel costs, U.S. military preeminence would appear smaller than it does using straightforward comparisons based on market exchange rates.

 

While the US cuts back, its potential adversaries have drastically accelerated their spending.  That increase may be even greater than public sources indicate, since neither nation takes into account may spending provisions that the US includes in its statistics, and, especially in the case of  China, they have significant sources of military income that are not included in official spending reports.

 

The National Interest notes that: “Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet two years ago.”

 

 

 Chinese Navy ship Qingdao (DDG 113) as it arrives in Hawaii for a scheduled port visit.

(U.S. Navy photo)

 

Foreign Policy reports: China’s official 2012 defense budget is $106 billion, an 11 percent increase over last year and a fourfold increase from a decade ago. The Pentagon places China’s total military spending at somewhere between $120 and $180 billion. “Estimating actual PLA military expenditures is difficult because of poor accounting transparency and China’s still incomplete transition from a command economy,” the report notes, referring to the People’s Liberation Army.

 

Al Qaeda has rebounded, a now controls more territory than ever in the middle east, has strengthened in Africa, and its affiliate Taliban stands poised to make significant gains in Afghanistan.

Orion Crew Vehicle

(NASA photo)

In the economically and technologically crucial area of space technology, the United States remains in limbo.  The last manned mission aboard an American-launched craft took place in July of 2011.  NASA may not put astronauts in space with its own craft until 2021. While the U.S. retreats, China has moved quickly forward.  The vast wealth from space-based assets on the moon and beyond, which will play an important role in the world economy within the next fifty years, are receding away from America’s grasp.

 

Politically, the nation appears more disunited than at any time since the civil war. The Obama Administration’s politicization of federal agencies has created an antagonistic climate that prevents compromise.  The Justice Department’s refusal to investigate clear cases of voter intimidation diminishes faith in American democracy, as does the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups.  Disturbingly, Administration supporters, including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) call for overtly unlawful actions, including continuing to use the IRS for partisan purposes.  The spillover effect has spread beyond Washington. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has called for conservatives to leave his state.

The State of the Union in 2014 poses a serious challenge for the nation’s future.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has issued its report on the nation’s infrastructure.  The overall rate, covering items such as dams, drinking water, waste systems, levees, transportation, bridges, waterways, ports, rail, roads, mass transit, parks, schools, and energy was a lowly D+.

 

The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee noted that “America’s infrastructure has fallen in rank from 6th in the world to 25th in just the past 5 years…aging transportation infrastructure is expected to increase the cost of business in America by an estimated $430 billion in the next decade.”

 

32% of American roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 25% of bridges are rated as structurally deficient.  The American Automobile Association (AAA) notes that many of the 30,000 deaths that occur on U.S. highways are “attributable to the direct result of inadequate lighting, poor signage or outdated road design that might have been prevented by fixing unsafe roads.”

One aspect of America’s declining infrastructure, inadequate roads, was examined  by National Review. “As congestion has grown worse, so has its estimated cost each year…in 2011, the total estimated cost of congestion in the U.S. topped $120 billion.  Think of that as an annual tax on Americans that could be eliminated with better road management…Congestion slows business activity as well, which raises costs and reduces sales and output.  A 2009 study by Kent Hymel showed that these costs add up: using data on congestion, existing road infrastructure, and employment, he estimated that a 50 percent decrease in congestion in the United States’ ten most congested cities could boost long-run employment growth in those cities by 10 to 30 percent, and economic growth along with it.”

 

FUNDING THE PROBLEM

According to ASCE, “Budget constraints and a lack of consensus regarding the federal role in key infrastructure sectors present an ongoing challenge in trying to plan for public investment.  Some progress came with the passing of a federal transportation authorization bill, but the legislation’s two-year time horizon means that thinking about the next one will have to start right away.

“With federal infrastructure contributions holding steady and with declines expected, especially as the sequester takes hold, most state and local governments are moving into a “self-help” mode-they must rely more heavily on alternative funding sources and postpone  some desired projects…

 

“Infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP has shrunk to about 2.4 percent from its peak of more than 3 percent during the 1960s.  State and local governments account for about 75 percent of all infrastructure spending, including capital and operations and maintenance, with the federal government contributing  the remaining quarter of infrastructure spending.

 

“In 2012, Congress enacted new authorizing legislation for transportation. The new bill, “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) requires performance measures, consolidates numerous highway and mass transit programs, allocates $1 billion for projects of national and regional significance, and expands the…Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit-support program….”

 

 

MISSED OPPORTUNITY:

THE STIMULUS

Many infrastructure needs were supposed to be addressed by all that ($787 billion) Stimulus money, but most were not.  In some cases, dollars were spent foolishly, on projects such as bike lanes, instead of on major, urgently needed transportation needs. Other examples, cited in a Fiscal Times report: $2 million was spent on a “replica railroad,” a tourist attraction, not a transportation need in Nevada, and $1 million was spent on beefing up security on cruise ships.

 

New York’s Fulton Street project was the largest single item funded, at an original cost of $750 million. The project remains incomplete (it may open this year) with a reported price tag of $1.4 billion, including $423 billion in stimulus funds.

 

According to a 2010 Economist report, “The stimulus bill’s spending on infrastructure may have been doomed to mediocrity from the start. First, and most important, a relatively small share of the bill was actually devoted to infrastructure… But even on the broadest definition of the term, infrastructure got $150 billion, under a fifth of the total. Just $64 billion, or 8% of the total, went to roads, public transport, rail, bridges, aviation and wastewater systems…

 

“Second, hopes for an immediate jolt of activity were misplaced. The bill prioritised ‘shovel-ready’ plans. States did have a backlog of maintenance projects, such as repaving dilapidated roads. Nevertheless, work moved more slowly than some Democrats expected. By October 2009 even the fastest programmes-those under the highway and transit headings-had seen work begin on just $14.3 billion-worth of projects. Spending has since quickened. Of the money appropriated to transport, 83% has now been allocated. But it is unclear that the money spent has been money spent well. The attempt to begin work hastily meant that both good and bad projects have moved forward.
Moreover, additionally essential to affirm that whether take cialis price canada can continue this medicine, if they are satisfied with its results. Based on the lowest cost cialis lovemaking session, it has been believed for inducing body for repairing a smooth muscle in the penile region. This enzyme is found in penis and cures nocturnal and speedy viagra online buy emissions. When this drug is taken, one needs to wait or stand in a queue at the clinic or a chemist to have a drug from ED therapy. generic super cialis
 

“Meanwhile the bill’s most notable project, high-speed passenger rail, threatens to become a debacle. It is fun to imagine trains whizzing across the heartland. But there is no urgent need for them. Freight companies worry that new passenger services will simply increase congestion. Any new rail service, meanwhile, is unlikely to be particularly fast. The Recovery Act dedicated $8 billion for high-speed trains, a sizeable sum but not enough for any train that is actually high-speed…”

 

Far too much of the funding was spent on paybacks to big political contributors.  Many needs were left unaddressed because they weren’t “shovel-ready,” meaning politicians couldn’t use them as feathers in their caps before the next election.

 

Some examples were provided by Ron Hart in a Times Free Press article:  “Of the money spent in swing state Wisconsin, 80 percent went to public sector unions… In fact, right to work states got $266 less per person in stimulus money than heavily unionized states…The states that hurt the most, got less money than richer states closer to power.  Washington, D.C. got the most stimulus money: $7,602 per capita.”

 

Some observers, such as the CATO institute’s Chris Edwards, believe discussing the level of federal spending misses the point. Testifying before Congress’s Joint Economic Committee last July, Edwards noted:   “The importance of infrastructure investment for U.S. economic growth is widely appreciated. But policy discussions often get sidetracked by a debate regarding the level of federal spending. To spur growth, it is more important to ensure that investment is as efficient as possible and that investment responsibilities are optimally allocated between the federal government, the states, and the private sector.

 

“Federal infrastructure spending often gets bogged down in mismanagement and cost overruns. And decades of experience show that many federal investments get misallocated to low-value activities because of politics. That’s why we should tackle the nation’s infrastructure challenges by decentralizing the financing, management, and ownership of investments as much as possible. State and local governments and the private sector are more likely to make sound investments without the federal subsidies and regulations that distort their decision making.

 

“A broad measure of infrastructure spending is gross fixed investment, as measured in the national income accounts. In 2012 private investment was $2 trillion, compared to federal, state, and local government investment of $472 billion. Excluding defense, government investment was $367 billion. Thus, private infrastructure investment in the United States is five times larger than total non- defense government investment.

 

“One implication of the data is that if policymakers want to boost infrastructure spending, they should make policy reforms to spur private investment. Cutting the federal corporate income tax rate, for example, would increase the net returns to a broad range of private infrastructure, and thus spur greater investment.

 

“Nonetheless, government infrastructure is certainly important to the economy. But I am skeptical of claims that the United States has an infrastructure crisis because governments are not spending enough. For one thing, government investment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States is in line with the other nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2010 government gross fixed investment in the United States was 3.5 percent of GDP, which was a little higher than the OECD average of 3.3 percent.2

 

“Another reason for skepticism that governments are under investing is that some measures of infrastructure quality have shown steady improvement. For example, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data show that the nation’s bridges have steadily improved in quality.3 Of the roughly 600,000 bridges in the country, the share that are “structurally deficient” has fallen from 22 percent in 1992 to 11 percent in 2012, while the share that are “functionally obsolete” has fallen from 16 percent to 14 percent.”

 

THE FUTURE

According to the ASCE, “For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive in the world, we need a first class infrastructure system-transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at cost by land, water and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources, and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes.  Yet today, our infrastructure systems are failing to keep pace with the current and expanding needs, and investment in infrastructure is faltering.”

 

Mistrust of how future spending will be handled prevents a bipartisan solution.The U.S. faces serious budgetary choices.  Many politically popular entitlement programs, such as food stamps were expanded up to 41% over the past four years, eating up funds that should have been used to keep roads, bridges, power lines, and water pipes operational.

Aircraft Carriers

 

Aircraft Carriers are the symbol and key portion of American power, and have been so for the past seventy-four years.  Every president, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, has relied upon them to address international crises. 

 

A recent Congressional Budget Office report  notes that “Since World War II, the aircraft carrier has been the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy. According to the Navy, today’s Nimitz class ships can sustain 95 strike sorties per day and, with each aircraft carrying four 2,000-pound bombs, deliver three-quarters of a million pounds of bombs each day. That firepower far exceeds what any other surface ship can deliver.”

 

Now, there are less of them than military experts say is the minimum needed for safety.

 

With the retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the United States Navy will have only ten aircraft carriers, below the generally accepted absolute minimum number of eleven. That situation will continue until at least 2016, when the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be completed. The 2016 date is not guaranteed.  Budget restrictions  under the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act place a maximum $12.8 billion price tag on the vessel, with a further reduction to $11.5 billion for future fleet carriers. The effect on the Ford’s development remains to be seen.

 

Naval experts are concerned that even if the 11 carrier force is restored, it will be inadequate.  ABreaking Defense article quotes Rear Admiral Thomas Moore’s concern that “We’re an 11-carrier navy in a 15 carrier world.”

 

The future for America’s fleet of aircraft carriers beyond 2016 may be further endangered. Under oneconcept being discussed,  the Navy, to meet budgetary restrictions, would stop building new aircraft carriers altogether after completion of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, scheduled for 2020, the next in line to be built after the U.S.S Gerald Ford. The next aircraft carrier the Navy was scheduled to construct, the U.S.S. Enterprise, would be canceled, as would future carriers. Funding for the Enterprise would have begun in 2016. The result would be obvious: as older aircraft carriers retire they would not be replaced, and the fleet, already undersized, would continue to shrink.

 

 

U.S.S. Harry Truman

(US Navy photo)

Active Aircraft Carriers in the U.S. Navy

USS Nimitz (CVN 68)

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)

USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)

USS George Washington (CVN 73)

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

USS George H.W. Bush  (CVN 77)

 

At the same time that America’s navy endures this diminishment, (the total number of ships in the U.S. navy has shrunk from 600 in 1990 to 286 currently) both China and Russia have committed vast resources to expanding their seagoing power both in terms of the number and  sophistication of their respective fleets, as well as investing in technological advances that could threaten U.S. warships with distant, land-based weaponry. The U.S also faces threats from smaller actors such as North Korea and Iran.

 

Moscow’s Supreme Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently stated: [Russia is building a new] “cutting-edge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. … The carrier should stay in service for a very long period and meet the requirements of modern and future naval operations in which it is expected to lead a group of surface ships and submarines and coordinate its action with a constellation of military satellites. The carrier project also includes plans to develop new ship-based fighter bombers and train personnel for the emerging carrier group. By 2020, the Russian Navy will receive 30 new corvettes and frigates, at least 15 missile- and artillery-carrying speedboats and nearly two dozen submarines. The latter will include strategic nuclear-powered missile carriers and medium-size versatile diesel subs. A new-generation destroyer is in the pipeline, as are land-based naval jets and coastal missile and artillery batteries.”

 

Moscow has committed $138 billion to its naval modernization program.

 

According to The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual Report to Congress,  China’s navy could dominate the western Pacific by 2020. The report notes:

 

“Since commissioning its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in September of 2012, the PLA Navy has continued to develop a fixed-wing carrier aviation capability for air defense and offensive strike missions.  China plans to follow the Liaoning with at least two indigenously built carriers…

“It is increasingly clear that China does not intend to resolve its disputes through multilateral negotiations or the application of international laws and adjudicative processes but instead will use its growing power in support of coercive tactics that pressure its neighbors to concede to China’s claims…

 

“The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] navy is in the midst of an impressive modernization program.  China’s acquisition of naval platforms, weapons, and systems has emphasized qualitative improvements, not quantitative growth, and is centered on improving its ability to strike opposing ships at sea and operate at greater distances from the Chinese mainland.  Today, the PLA Navy is able to conduct high-intensity operations beyond the region.  Trends in China’s defense spending, research and development, and shipbuilding suggest the PLA Navy will continue to modernize…

“The PLA is rapidly expanding and diversifying its ability to strike U.S. bases, ships, and aircraft throughout the Asia Pacific region including those it previously could not reach, such as the U.S. military facilities on Guam…”

 

On January 1, Hainan, a province of an increasingly aggressive China, announced a requirement that international fishing vessels in the South China Sea seek permission from China’s central government, a move termed by the U.S. State Department “provocative and potentially dangerous.” It is an example of China’s intensive drive to dominate the air and sea space in Asian pacific region, to the clear detriment of the interests not only of its neighbors and the United States, but to international commerce as well.

 

China’s domination of the western Pacific by 2020, if current trends continue, will be through both its expanded navy as well as its development of other high-tech weapons such as the J-20 stealth fighter.

 

China’s attack on offshore possessions of the Philippines in 2012 went unanswered, militarily or even diplomatically, by the Obama government. Encouraged, Beijing’s forces have become increasingly aggressive in the Pacific, threatening virtually all of its neighbors.

 

A recent incident involved China’s Liaoning carrier intentionally cutting off a U.S. naval vessel, the U.S.S. Cowpens, a guided missile cruiser.

 

T he world has taken notice, even as the U.S. continues to decrease its military spending. A Turkish news source, for example, Turkish Weekly, reported:”It [China] has recently launched an arms race through its creation of an air defense identification zone over a strip of the East China Sea and in the addition of arms in her military inventory.”

 

The Russian and Chinese navies are developing aircraft carriers as well as deploying weapons designed specifically for combat against their American counterparts.  Even as this occurs, Washington’s traditional anti-defense spending politicians, joined by others concerned about budget deficits continue to question funding for U.S. carriers. Their predominant tactical argument is essentially this:  Carriers are large and expensive, and increasingly vulnerable.  Does it make sense to commit scarce dollars to their construction and maintenance?

 

Critics of that that line of reasoning argue that the concept tends to lack logical resonance for several reasons. First, the anti-military spending faction is not generally supportive of redirecting proposed savings to other military programs, despite rising need. Second, even if carriers face increasingly powerful enemy forces, there still remains no substitute for the capabilities they unquestionably present, and there is no assurance that the new weaponry being deployed will be effective.

 

Carriers do face a growing number of threats, as well as ones that have existed for some time.

In a 2001 study, the Lexington Institute  noted that “The most significant threats to carriers are cruise missiles, wake-homing torpedoes, ballistic missiles and mines. But cruise missiles are unlikely to penetrate the battle group’s integrated air defenses, and few potential adversaries are capable of employing submarines or torpedoes effectively. Ballistic missiles lack necessary targeting features and mines are easily dealt with using a variety of existing and prospective methods. The intrinsic resilience of large-deck carriers further mitigates the threat posed by adversaries.”

 

 

  

CHINA

 

As part of their overall massive military buildup, China is both building a carrier fleet as well as deploying cutting-edge weaponry designed to attack American carriers. China has moved some of these weapons into operational capability faster than many experts have anticipated.

 

A dmiral Sam Locklear, commander of the US Pacific Command, speaking at the Surface Navy Association meeting recently, noted that China’s military ascension is putting the U.S. Navy at risk in the Pacific, and that America’s “historic dominance” is diminishing.

 

Vice Adm. David Dorsett

,director of naval intelligence and deputy chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, noted in 2011 that “They’ve [China’s new weaponry] entered operational capability quicker than we frequently project…” Dorsett stated that China’s rapid advances indicate that they may have the capability to hit an aircraft carrier.

 

T he first of Beijing’s carriers, the Liaoning, is currently honing the nation’s skills.  It will be followed by a massive “super carrier,” according to Russia’s RT news.  China has also developed a missile designed to attack American carriers from a significant distance away. “China will likely build multiple aircraft carriers over the next decade,” According to the 2013 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the Peoples Republic of China “China is fielding a limited but growing number of conventionally armed, medium range ballistic missiles, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).  The DF-21D is based on a variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) and gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.  The DF-21D has a range exceeding 1,500 km and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.”

 

A ccording to the United States Naval Institute:”The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. super carrier in one strike.

 

“Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at Mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

 

“Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets…the weapon system is now operational… If operational as if believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea…”

 

How effective can China’s new arsenal be against American carriers?  It bears keeping in mind that these ships are huge, compartmentalized, and built to withstand significant punishment.  They are solidly protected by multiple layers of destroyers and cruisers equipped with cutting-edge Aegis defensive systems. Even aircraft launched from an enemy carrier or land base would likely lack the experience of their American counterparts.

 

S hould weaponry such as the DF-21D discourage the development of carriers? The question is actually a much larger one.  Following a line of reasoning that would say “yes,” than what ships should be deployed?  If a carrier faces a potential thrat, than so does every other naval vessel. Some experts, such as Seth Cropsey, author of Mayday, a study of America’s naval challenges, argues that while we should continue to deploy large aircraft carriers, smaller ones also should be added to the mix.

 

In a Breaking Defense review, it was noted that: “one inexplicable aspect of the “carriers are vulnerable” argument, particularly versus the Chinese DF-21D ballistic missile threat, is that while the carrier’s vulnerability is trumpeted, there is little mention of the fact that every ship suffers from similar, if not greater, vulnerabilities – particularly ships built to commercial standards and simply painted haze-gray. This includes platforms on the various lists of options if the Navy were to stop building carriers. It also ignores enhanced passive and active systems–e.g., the cruise- and ballistic-missile defenses provided by the Navy’s Aegis cruisers and destroyers–that are designed to defeat tomorrow’s threats. Finally, to put the entire vulnerability issue in context, land bases, which never move, are much more vulnerable to attack than are mobile naval forces at sea.”

 

 

RUSSIA 

 

Russia has committed vast sums to modernize its navy.  This is a development that bears significant review, since, unlike China, Moscow’s strategic interests are more land-based.  For the Kremlin, naval power has mostly an offensive character (as well as for expanding its interests in the Arctic.)  Vladimir Putin’s naval construction program must be seen in this light.

 

This past year, a potential conflict between Russian anti-shipping weaponry and American naval vessels, including a carrier, was avoided.  The Russian flagship Varyag, considered an “aircraft carrier killer” entered into the Mediterranean as tension between the west and Syria were high.  The vessel has anti-ship missiles, among other weaponry.

Moscow did more during the crisis than dispatch its own forces.  In the course of the dispute, it provided Syria with the P-800 Yakhout anti-ship missile, giving Bashir al-Assad a potent weapon against American naval forces.  The Yakhout is Russia’s most advanced anti-ship missile, and its sale to Syria was an indication both of Moscow’s growing disregard for American resolve as well as the importance it attaches to its naval base at Tartus.

 

 

  Russia Varyag, called an “Aircraft Carrier killer.” (U.S. Navy photo)

 

 

HOW VULNERABLE?

 

Concern over the vulnerability of aircraft carriers is not new. But the ability of both the carrier itself to survive substantial damage and continue to accomplish its mission, as well as the ability of the ships protecting the carrier from enemy attack should not be underestimated.

According to the Information Dissemination site, “While vulnerable to attack, the big deck carrier is still arguably one of the toughest ships to sink. The damage incurred to USS Forrestal in 1967 and that suffered by USS Enterprise in 1969 in accidental detonations of multiple pieces of ordnance testifies to the extreme survivability of the big carrier. The ex-USS America (CV-66) was recently sunk as a target and some open source accounts say the ship took a tremendous beating before being purposely sunk after the test.”

 

The Navy has also not rested in its drive to protect the carrier from emerging threats. U.S. carriers were indeed vulnerable to cruise missile attacks in the late 1970s, but development and fielding of the Aegis system for air defense significantly improved the ability of the carrier battle group to defend itself against this threat. The U.S. has pursued an equally aggressive program to defend against ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and there is no reason to believe this threat cannot also be countered by a technological response.

 

According to the U.S. Navy, “The Aegis Weapon System (AWS) is a centralized, automated, command-and-control (C2) and weapons control system that was designed as a total weapon system, from detection to kill. The heart of the system is the AN/SPY-1, an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-function phased-array radar. This high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track, and missile guidance functions simultaneously, with a track capacity of more than 100 targets… There are currently 74 U.S. Navy ships in service with the Aegis Weapons System installed: 22 Cruisers and 52 Destroyers.”

 

As threats evolve, the Aegis system also evolves, providing advanced protection. According toLockheed Martin,  which manufactures the system, “As the fleet of in-service Aegis ships ages, and the threat increases, modernization to improve the combat capability of existing ships is essential. Two modernization programs – for both cruisers and destroyers – are currently in place that will improve war fighting capabilities, extend hull service life, and reduce total ownership cost through the fielding of Open Architecture and commercial computing technologies.”

 

Offensive as well as defensive technological advances could also enhance the future role of aircraft carriers. A study by the Naval War College  notes that unmanned aircraft could double or even triple the range of carrier-based planes, removing carriers from the range of some enemy ship-killing missiles while still allowing the carrier to provide solid striking power.

 

 

CONCLUSION   Debates about the survivability of aircraft carriers will also allow the re-emergence of considerations about augmenting the fleet with smaller versions.  Although not as powerful or cost-effective, they may provide options in circumstances where sea-based airpower is required but where the environment may be too risky or simply not warrant the deployment of so major a portion of the U.S. arsenal.   At this point, despite their cost, there does not appear to be any substitute for the capabilities the aircraft carrier has, nor is there any enemy weapon so potent that it would render these massive vessels inadequately defended.

In spite of this, keep in mind that many companies work on effects of cialis a contract basis, not just bad companies. This, however, should not be misconstrued to mean that Kenpo Karate was founded the price cialis by Parker. Nevertheless, men are advised to undergo medical consultation if they experience any problem when it generic levitra no prescription relates to intimacy. The fresh blood gets pumped all over the body it affects all click for more info levitra online canada reducing the quality of life.

Despite November’s unemployment statistic of 7%, the lowest since President Obama took office, the U.S. jobs picture remains bleak. There are still 1.9 million less jobs now than there were over a half decade ago, and the jobs that have been created are in too many cases inferior to those that have been lost. 

 

 

By the end of December, 1.3 million unemployed workers are scheduled to lose jobless benefits. A cruelly distinctive characteristic of the current unemployment dilemma is that it is long term unemployment that makes up the most unrelenting percentage of those without jobs.

 

At first glance, the November report showing a gain of 196,000 private sector jobs and an increase of 7,000 government jobs, seems promising.  These include 17,000 jobs in construction, and 27,000 in manufacturing.

 

But according to the Economic Policy Institute,”Millions of potential workers remain sidelined. There are nearly 5.7 million workers who are neither employed nor actively seeking a job. These are people who would be working or looking for work if job opportunities were significantly stronger.”

 

Another U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobless measure, known as the “U-6,” (which includes those marginally attached to the labor force) pegs the November unemployment figure at 13.2.

 

Economist John Williams, who publishes Shadow Government Statistics,questions the official unemployment numbers.  In an analysis performed on the July unemployment rate of 7.4% reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, he found that the actual rate was 23.3%.

 

Williams takes into account vital information that the Bureau ignores. His review includes those that have simply given up looking, have managed to get on disability, or have replaced lost career-level positions with part time work at a small fraction of their former pay. When those factors are included, a more thorough picture of the actual unemployment rate emerges.

 

According to an August Associated Press Report “Low-paying industries have provided 61 percent of the nation’s job growth, even though these industries represent just 39 percent of overall U.S. jobs, according to Labor Department numbers… Part-time work has made up 77 percent of the job growth so far this year. The government defines part-time work as being less than 35 hours a week…Analysts say some employers are offering part-time over full-time work to sidestep the new health care law’s rule that they provide medical coverage for permanent workers. (The Obama administration has delayed that provision for a year and into 2015.)”

 

Skepticism over the accuracy of unemployment statistics has significantly increased since the revelations in November that an unemployment number released during the 2012 campaign was inaccurate, apparently in an attempt to influence voters to re-elect the current administration.

 

This is, according to all statistics, the worst jobs recovery period since the end of WWII, marked by rising part-time employment over full time jobs, declining wages, and increased workforce dropouts.

 

Mort Zuckerman, the chair and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report, writing in the Wall Street Journal online,believes that the “jobless nature  of the recovery is particularly unsettling…Americans by the millions are in part time work because there are no other employment opportunities…What’s going on? The fundamentals surely reflect the feebleness of the macroeconomic recovery that began roughly four years ago, as seen in an average gross domestic product growth rate annualized over the past 15 quarters at a miserable 2%. That’s the weakest GDP growth since World War II. Over a similar period in previous recessions, growth averaged 4.1%. During the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, the GDP growth rate dropped below 2%. This anemic growth is all we have to show for the greatest fiscal and monetary stimuli in 75 years, with fiscal deficits of over 10% of GDP for four consecutive years. The misery is not going to end soon…the country needs a real recovery, not a phony one.”

You would not have the ability to think about what you do and you india viagra for sale like the people you’re doing it with, in an environment that encourages new ideas, you’ll be the fast company. Not only can you stay physically healthy through eating a low fat diet and exercising, but you can stay healthy mentally by keeping stress free. viagra online doctor It cialis online discount changes the biochemistry of the pancreatic enzymes. Most people find the cost of branded drugs such as buy cheap viagra , viagra, and buy cheap viagra among others may be an option.  

According to Pew Research, “From the late 1940s until the early 1990s, the U.S. economy never took more than a year to regain all the jobs lost during downturns. The 1990-91 recession was fairly mild – only 1.6 million jobs lost, or 1.5% of peak payroll employment – but it took 21 months to recover them all. That was the first, though not the last, ‘jobless recovery’: In the aftermath of the dot-com bubble, 2.7 million jobs evaporated; it took 18 months after payrolls bottomed out for them all to come back. But even that performance would look strong compared to the current pace of job creation.”

 

According to the U.S. House of Representative’s Ways & Means Committee,even many of those fortunate few who have found work and are counted as employed are actually working only part-time. A committee report notes that the population of new part-time workers is approximately equal to that of Philadelphia, PA, at 1.5 million the nation’s most populous city, while the number of new full-time workers resembles that of Henderson, Nevada, the nation’s 71st most populous city.

Rep. David Camp, (R-MI)  who has dug far deeper into U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data than most, notes that “Seven out of eight new employees under President Obama have been part-time employees.”

 

The Committee is concerned  that “this phenomenon has accelerated rapidly as Obamacare implementation has progressed with the share of new employment in part-time positions surging in 2013 as compared to prior years.”

 

The Committee points to five characteristics of the current economic climate:

1. Worst recovery from recession;

2.  Rising part-time employment;

3.  Declining Wages;

4.  Growing workforce dropouts; and

5.   Rapid rise in adult children living with parents.

 

Since January of 2009, when the current Administration took office, to July 2013, there has been a 7.14% increase in part time jobs, compared to an almost nonexistent 0.23% increase in full-time jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

The problem with part-time work isn’t only reduced pay.  These employees generally don’t receive medical coverage, retirement benefits, and other perks available to their full-time counterparts.

 

According to the Economic Policy Institute,  “High unemployment continues to plague all demographic and occupational groups… A key message … is that the unemployment rate is between 1.3 and 1.8 times as high now as it was six years ago for all groups. Today’s sustained high unemployment relative to 2007 across all age, education, occupation, gender, and racial and ethnic groups underscores that the jobs crisis stems from a broad-based lack of demand. In particular, unemployment is not high because workers lack adequate education or skills; rather, a lack of demand for goods and services makes it unnecessary for employers to significantly ramp up hiring.”

 

By the President’s own standards, this represents a failure of his economic plan. Mr. Obama stated that “A well designed recovery plan will not only create numerous jobs, but also many jobs paying good wages and providing full-time employment.”