Category: NY Analysis

NY Analysis of Policy & Government

Will increased federal spending on education truly produce substantial results?

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date January 30, 2015

Will increased federal spending on education truly produce substantial result?

It usually comes cialis levitra online in small sachets and is available in pills. She actually is not my first teenage driver; however the other two are actually in their 20’s, so levitra generika 10mg that it has been awhile. According to many survey and Best Sex levitra properien devensec.com Doctor for the sex treatment in Delhi. This unique holistic method is completely drug- free, and won’t need highly-priced surgical order viagra australia treatment which is the majority of the time not curing ringing in the ear.

Americans are dissatisfied with the disappointing results from their educational system. Many seek to resolve that issue by increased spending.

A number of salient questions must be raised regarding the concept, not the least of which is affordability. With the nation’s debt doubling during the current Administration and now standing at over $18 trillion, with vast new amounts being added each year for the foreseeable future, is this new federal expense affordable at all? With U.S. taxes already excessive, can the taxpayers be burdened further?

While the financial considerations are important, there is an even more relevant point: will increased spending provide improved results?

Current federal spending, & disappointing results

Washington already spends a great deal on higher education. A New America Foundation report notes that “The federal government provided $30.2 billion in grant aid to help individuals pay for a higher education in the 2014-15 school year. Nearly all of the aid was directed to students from lower income families. Grant aid does not need to be paid back and generally may be used to pay for tuition, housing and other expenses at any institution of higher education that the recipient wishes to attend. The largest federal grant program is the Pell Grant program, followed by the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant program. These two programs award grants based solely on a student’s financial status.”

A CBS news study revealed that:

“The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students’ education each year, with parents and private foundations picking up more of the costs, an international survey released Tuesday found. Despite the spending, U.S. students still trail their rivals on international tests. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – which groups the world’s most developed countries – writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations. The findings, part of a 440-page tome of statistics, put the United States’ spending on its young people in context.

“The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system – more than any other nation covered in the report.

“That sum inched past some developed countries and far surpassed others. Switzerland’s total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.”

Critics of government spending have noted that additional sending for education has not produced notable results.

According to Downsizing Government.org:

“Despite large increases in federal intervention since the 1960s, combined with large increases in funding by all levels of government, K-12 educational achievement has improved little. The most widely used measures of school achievement are scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which are available back to the early 1970s…The average NAEP mathematics score rose just two points to 306 in 2008 from 304 in 1973. The average NAEP reading score rose just one point to 286 in 2008 from 285 in 1971. These scores are on a 500-point scale.

“Other measures show similarly poor achievement, or at least a lack of improvement. For example, the percentage of students who had completed high school within four years of entering ninth grade is 75 percent today, about the same as it was in the mid-1970s.

“How have things fared under the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act? It is difficult to isolate the effects of the law because numerous other changes might have affected recent school results, and no results with start and end dates closely reflecting the period during which NCLB has been in effect are available. With those caveats in mind, NAEP subject test (as opposed to long-term-trend data) and long-term data do not paint a particularly positive picture.

“On subject tests, there have been very small gains in fourth-grade mathematics, with the average score rising from 235 to 240 (on a 500-point scale) between 2003 and 2007. However, the average score on this test increased much faster in the period before NCLB was fully implemented, rising from 226 to 235 between 2000 and 2003. In reading, the average score dropped slightly in eighth grade, from 264 in 2002 to 263 in 2007.

“On the long-term-trends test, the closest start date to NCLB’s 2002 enactment is 1999, so it is very hard to gauge changes for NCLB’s time frame, much less the law’s effect on those results. The greatest improvements between 1999 and 2008 were for 9-year-olds in mathematics, where scores rose from 232 to 243. Reading scores for that age also rose significantly, from 212 to 220. The final appreciable improvements were for 13-year-olds in mathematics, where scores rose from 276 to 281. For 13-year-olds in reading, in contrast, scores only rose a point, and for 17-year-olds reading and mathematics scores both dropped two points.

“Aside from looking at overall test scores, an examination of the effectiveness of particular federal programs indicates generally poor results. Consider Title I, the core federal education subsidy program. In a recent book, education policy experts Marvin Kosters and Brent Mast concluded the following:

“After more than thirty-five years of experience and numerous careful efforts to evaluate its performance, the evidence has failed to demonstrate that Title I programs have been systematically and significantly contributing to reducing disparities in achievement by improving the performance of its beneficiaries . . . Experiments by federal, state, and local authorities and major shifts in the emphasis of federal policy have all failed to bring systematic improvement. Or consider the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, which has a budget of about $1 billion. OII claims to be “a nimble, entrepreneurial arm of the U.S. Department of Education” making “strategic investments in innovative educational practices.”

The Eli & Edyth Broad Foundation, which blames excessive bureaucracy for many of the failings of the U.S. educational system, has compiled worrisome statistics:

“Two out of three eighth-graders can’t read proficiently. (NAEP, 2011) (NAEP, 2011)
Nearly two-thirds of eighth-graders scored below proficient in math. (NAEP, 2011)
Seventy-five percent of students are not proficient in civics. (NAEP, 2011)
Nearly three out of four eighth- and 12th-grade students cannot write proficiently. (NAEP, 2012)
Some 1.1 million American students drop out of school every year. (EPE, 2012)
For African-American and Hispanic students across the country, dropout rates are close to 40 percent, compared to the national average of 27 percent. (EPE, 2012)
After World War II, the United States had the #1 high school graduation rate in the world. Today, we have dropped to # 22 among 27 industrialized nations. (OECD, 2012)
American students rank 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading compared to students in 27 industrialized countries.(OECD, 2012)
By the end of the eighth grade, U.S. students are two years behind in math compared to their peers in other countries. (OECD, 2009)
The U.S. ranks behind 13 other countries in terms of the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who have completed some college coursework. (OECD, 2012)
American students tend to perform worse in math and science as they age, according to recent studies measuring fourth- and eighth-graders’ academic achievement against other industrialized nations. Gaps with high performing countries like South Korea and Singapore are widening. (TIMSS, 2012)
Less than half of American students – 46 percent – finish college. The U.S. ranks last among 18 countries measured on this indicator. (OECD, 2010)
Only one in four high school students graduate ready for college in all four core subjects (English, reading, math and science), which is why a third of students entering college have to take remedial courses. (ACT, 2011)
Only 4 percent of African American students and 11 percent of Hispanic students finish high school ready for college in their core subjects. (ACT, 2011)
Two-thirds of college professors report that what is taught in high school does not prepare students for college. (Alliance for Excellent Education)”

Conclusion

It is abundantly clear that the U.S. has major problems facing its educational system. Clearly, however, underfunding is not one of them.

Tags Federal spending on education

NY Analysis

Will increased federal spending on education truly produce substantial results?

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date January 24, 2015

Americans are dissatisfied with the disappointing results from their educational system. Many seek to resolve that issue by increased spending.

While the financial considerations are important, there is an even more relevant point: will increased spending provide improved results?

Current federal spending, & disappointing results

A CBS news study revealed that:

Critics of government spending have noted that additional sending for education has not produced notable results.

According to Downsizing Government.org:

The Eli & Edyth Broad Foundation, which blames excessive bureaucracy for many of the failings of the U.S. educational system, has compiled worrisome statistics:

“Two out of three eighth-graders can’t read proficiently. (NAEP, 2011) (NAEP, 2011)
Nearly two-thirds of eighth-graders scored below proficient in math. (NAEP, 2011)
Seventy-five percent of students are not proficient in civics. (NAEP, 2011)
Nearly three out of four eighth- and 12th-grade students cannot write proficiently. (NAEP, 2012)
Some 1.1 million American students drop out of school every year. (EPE, 2012)
For African-American and Hispanic students across the country, dropout rates are close to 40 percent, compared to the national average of 27 percent. (EPE, 2012)
After World War II, the United States had the #1 high school graduation rate in the world. Today, we have dropped to # 22 among 27 industrialized nations. (OECD, 2012)
American students rank 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading compared to students in 27 industrialized countries.(OECD, 2012)
By the end of the eighth grade, U.S. students are two years behind in math compared to their peers in other countries. (OECD, 2009)
The U.S. ranks behind 13 other countries in terms of the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who have completed some college coursework. (OECD, 2012)
American students tend to perform worse in math and science as they age, according to recent studies measuring fourth- and eighth-graders’ academic achievement against other industrialized nations. Gaps with high performing countries like South Korea and Singapore are widening. (TIMSS, 2012)
Less than half of American students – 46 percent – finish college. The U.S. ranks last among 18 countries measured on this indicator. (OECD, 2010)
Only one in four high school students graduate ready for college in all four core subjects (English, reading, math and science), which is why a third of students entering college have to take remedial courses. (ACT, 2011)
Only 4 percent of African American students and 11 percent of Hispanic students finish high school ready for college in their core subjects. (ACT, 2011)
Two-thirds of college professors report that what is taught in high school does not prepare students for college. (Alliance for Excellent Education)”

Why is our gut the only cialis generic canada organ in our body as well. Such people often retort to buying anti ED medicines online. cheap 25mg viagra There are ample opportunities to find someone that shares the same loves as you, and they cheap viagra http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/personal-property-auction-items-belonged-to-the-late-rupert-cox/ ride. Akarkra is buy levitra responsible for improving male sexual health.

Conclusion

It is abundantly clear that the U.S. has major problems facing its educational system. Clearly, however, underfunding is not one of them.

Tags education, educational funding, student achievement, test scores

NY Analysis

A look back, as a New Year begins

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date December 31, 2014

As 2008 drew to a close just six years ago, it would have been difficult for Americans to believe the precipitous drop in the nation’s condition that would occur within the following six years. Within that short span of time, the U.S. economy, its national security, and relations between citizens would deteriorate at a worrisome and unexpected rate.

The Economy

In 2008, the national debt was $11, 039,737,790,000, compared to the approximately $18,028, 000,000,000 that will greet the new year. All that extra spending, including the stimulus spending program, produced no noticeable results.

Despite the presence of an extremely severe recession (much of it due to the bad economics of misguided subprime mortgage legislation that began under the Carter Administration and was expanded during the Clinton presidency) there was little doubt that the nation would soon recover.

The labor force participation rate was 65.8%, compared to the current 62.8%. While some statistics indicate that the unemployment rate has improved, the reality is far different. As noted in Forbes, “Despite the significant decrease in the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment rate, the real unemployment rate is over double that at 12.6%. This number reflects the government’s “U-6” report, which accounts for the full unemployment picture including those ‘marginally attached to the labor force,’ plus those ‘employed part time for economic reasons.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) stands at 2.8 million accounting for an extremely troublesome 30.7 percent of the unemployed. The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), stands at 6.9 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Furthering the distress of many Americans, the Center for Immigration Studies, reports that all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).

National Defense

In 2008, America was unquestionably the world’s supreme military power. Today, following substantial cuts to the defense budget, the unilateral withdrawal of American tanks from Europe, the financial inability of the Navy to sustain an adequate carrier fleet, the dismissal of large numbers of vitally needed military personnel, the alienation of key allies such as the United Kingdom, Poland, Israel and others, the lack of modernization for nuclear weapons, and the decision to not proceed with an adequate missile defense program, the U.S. is seen as a declining force in the world.

Washington’s increasingly obsolete nuclear deterrent is a major concern. Alone among the world’s nuclear powers, the U.S. has not updated its aged atomic weapons. Along with the “New START” nuclear arms treaty, the rise of China as a major nuclear power, and the growing threat from North Korea, this has essentially ended American nuclear superiority.
Here, we are basically generic cialis buy talking about men and so the disorder and its cure is for men. People feel shame to disclose this problem in order cialis from canada front of anyone. Well, the problem is easily treatable with some useful and constructive medicines named anti-impotent drugs. cialis on line purchasing that The available products work as buy cheap cialis unica-web.com for females and increases sexual sensation, speed ups female arousal, improves lubrication and strengthens orgasms.
In addition to harmful strategic implications, New START allowed Moscow to maintain a vast advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which it has deployed along its European border on board its new Iskander short range nuclear weapons. NATO has no equivalent weapons in place.

New START was part of the failed “reset” with Russia. As the U.S. cut defense spending and reduced its leadership role in international affairs, Moscow dramatically strengthened its armed forces, returned to cold war bases, sold nuclear technology to Iran, moved nuclear weapons to its European border, enhanced military ties with Latin America, invaded the Ukraine, and engaged in joint war games with China aimed at the U.S.

North Korea’s army will be larger than its American counterpart by the end of 2015 if scheduled cuts occur. China’s navy, combined with its potent land-based anti-naval missile force, will soon displace the U.S. as the predominate sea power in East Asia. Russia has spent vast sums modernizing both its nuclear and conventional forces. Moscow has resumed cold war era nuclear patrols around both the continental U.S. as well as our bases overseas.

In 2008, Iraq was slowly, unsteadily, but certainly returning to democracy. Today, ISIS, due to the premature withdrawal of American forces, now ravages that land, committing atrocities on a terrible scale.

Six years ago, terrorism, while continuing to fester, was not ascendant. Today, terrorist forces control more geography than ever in the Middle East, the Taliban is poised to gain substantial power in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda is growing exponentially in Africa. Further, Iran’s Hezbollah, along with Russia and China, has made significant inroads with several South American governments. Iran itself is poised to become a nuclear power.

The Final Frontier, Lost?

America’s space shuttle program was the envy of the world, and the U.S. had bold, concrete plans to explore and exploit the final frontier. Obama allowed the Shuttle program to die and scrubbed its immediate replacement, the Constellation program. Today, NASA can’t even put a man in space, is dependent on Russia to access the space station that was constructed by the space shuttle, and its plans for the future, are, bluntly, unfunded rhetoric, despite the ongoing development of the Orion space capsule, which itself is essentially only a modernized version of the 1960-era Apollo craft.

Racial Tensions

The most unforeseen, and indeed, unforeseeable decline in America’s condition was in the area of race relations. The election of the first black president was envisioned as an epic turning of the page, a major step that precipitated a new era of harmonious relations between the races in America. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Rather than engage his historic role to finally bring closure to the history of racial animosity, President Obama, along with his Attorney General Eric Holder employed racial tensions to motivate their base core of supporters for political goals. The result has been a dramatic resurgence of tensions.

Tags National Security, racial tensions, space program, U.S. economy

NY Analysis

The Real Reason Political Activity Doesn’t threaten a Church’s 501(c)(3) status more often

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date November 6, 2014

John H. Wilson

John H. Wilson is a former Judge of the New York City Criminal Court. He has served as an Assistant District Attorney, and a Public Defender.

Under 26 USC 501( c)(3), Religious, Educational, and Charitable organizations that maintain a nonprofit status are exempt from paying federal income taxes. This exemption is in effect, according to the IRS, so long as the church or religious organization does “not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” In fact, the IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations uses the word “must” in describing this prohibition, and not a more permissive word, such as “might” or “may.”

The Tax Guide also specifically states that ” no substantial part of” a Church or Religious Organization “activity may be attempting to influence legislation.” Lobbying by churches and religious organizations is also specifically and unequivocally prohibited.

The rules against influencing legislation and lobbying is the legal basis for the recent move by the Mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, to subpoena the sermons of five pastors of Houston churches. These pastors are affiliated with a movement to challenge Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance, the so-called “bathroom” law. The pastors are part of a group that believes the law is overbroad, and could lead to men being allowed use of the ladies room. This group has sued the City of Houston, claiming their petition to have the Equal Rights Ordinance submitted to a voter referendum was improperly invalidated by the Mayor.

On initial inspection, the Mayor would seem to be on solid legal ground. If churches are tax exempt, based on their disassociation from political activity, when the pastors of these churches are involved in a movement to challenge a city ordinance through gathering petition signatures, they may have crossed the line, and become involved in prohibited activity. If that is the case, their actions could constitute lobbying, and the sermons given by these pastors, supporting a change in the law, could constitute “activity” intended to “influence legislation.”

Yet, Mayor Parker reversed course in the face of a strong conservative backlash, and withdrew the subpoenas after Fox News host and Baptist Minister Mike Huckabee blasted the Mayor, and encouraged his viewers to send her Bibles.

On the one hand, it’s easy to see where the impulse to defend the pastors’ right to say what they wish from their pulpit comes from. There is a very long tradition of reading the First Amendment’s free speech clause very broadly, and when this concept is coupled with the “separation of church and state,” the average person’s hackles are raised by Mayor Parker’s ham-fisted move.

But let’s go back to our initial analysis – if the pastor’s are challenging the City of Houston’s legislation from the pulpit, aren’t they in violation of their tax exempt status? And doesn’t the government have the right to investigate this violation of the law?

The answer lies in the casual disregard of this prohibition against political activity in church by the left in general, and Democrats in particular.

The Religious News Service recently published an article on line discussing the do’s and don’ts of hosting a political candidate at your church. Entitled “Is it legal for political candidates to speak at a church?” The fourth rule states “Churches may host candidates to speak about the election, but they must do so in a way that is not partisan and gives equal opportunity to all the candidates.”

How is this accomplished? “A church may invite each of the candidates to speak during the worship service and field questions from the congregation. So long as the church doesn’t endorse one of the candidates or show bias against the candidates, this is all legal.”
These myths were generally made by the branded drug manufacturer to make cost effective medicine using the established formula. cialis online mastercard This is the reason for why this problem comes to a male order cheap viagra personality. So by inhibiting all these adverse mechanical malfunctions Generic Tadalafil helps to maintain the required size of cheap tadalafil tablets pdxcommercial.com the connecting blood vessels to open. On the other hand, best viagra for women older women, develop vaginal dryness and painful coition.
This may sound reasonable, but in fact, this is often a rule honored in the breach. In fact, politicians appear at churches across the country at will, without an opponent in sight. This practice is so common, no one raises an eyebrow when a politician appears in church on Sunday morning, sitting right next to the pastor on the pulpit.

For instance, during this year’s gubernatorial election in New York, the Republican candidate, Rob Astorino raised an alarm among leftists by appearing at the Perfecting Faith Church in Freeport, Long Island. The Pastor, Donnie McClurkin, describes herself as “ex-gay,” which drew predictably strong criticism from NYS Assemblyperson Deborah Glick.

But the criticism was not aimed at Astorino for appearing at a church without his opponent being present during an election, nor was any complaint made against the church for hosting the candidate. All Assemblyperson Glick cared about was Pastor McClurkin’s belief in “conversion therapy,” in which a gay person is “converted” to a straight sexual orientation.

It is possible that Governor Cuomo was invited to speak at the Perfecting Faith Church, and being a good left wing Democrat, decided he could not possibly appear at any place that endorses “conversion therapy.” But my right wing readers can think back to any campaign they may have been involved with, and count the number of times their candidate was invited to appear at places like the Jazz Mass at St Peter’s Lutheran Church in Manhattan, or the Christian Community Neighborhood Church on Longfellow Avenue in the Bronx.

In fact, the Christian Community Neighborhood Church boasts having for their pastor, New York State Senator Ruben Diaz. Can you guess which party the good reverend belongs to?

So what was the real problem with Mayor Parker’s subpoenas? Was this really an infringement on the First Amendment rights of these pastors? If they were lobbying for a voter referendum on the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, or discussing their opposition to that legislation from the pulpit, then no – their churches are tax exempt based on their nonparticipation in politics, and the pastors’ First Amendment rights are not threatened by the Mayor’s subpoenas.

The true issue is the selective enforcement of the religious tax exemption. If Mayor Parker of Houston is going to challenge these pastors on this issue, what’s to stop a conservative mayor from asking for the pro-illegal immigration and anti-fracking sermons given every Sunday at left wing churches? What’s to stop a conservative attorney general from demanding that any church candidate forum actually include all candidates? Why wouldn’t a right wing governor seek an injunction preventing pastors from leading their congregations in anti-war marches?

Nothing – and this is the real reason Mayor Parker pulled back from that abyss. Every now and then, someone on the left realizes that their efforts to suppress dissent can backfire in ways detrimental to their own practices.

Tags 501 (c)(3), churches and political activity, Mayor Parker, tax exemption

NY Analysis

Dangerous Omissions: Issues Not Considered

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date October 17, 2014

With elections just weeks away, it is disturbing that the discussions and analysis in political debates and media coverage all too often ignore key issues. The New York Analysis of Policy & Government has compiled a list of the most important realities, issues and points that voters should consider, but that don’t get mentioned by most candidates and the media.

National Security:

Mexico is a failed state usable by terrorists and foreign powers to infiltrate the US.

Several Latin American states have made seriously dangerous deals with Russia, Iran, and China aimed at harming America.

The extraordinary haste and scope of Russia & China’s military buildup can only be explained as a prelude to aggression.

Muslim claims that the Crusades were acts of imperialism on the part of Europe are historically inaccurate. In fact, pretty much since the birth of the Islamic religion, it was Muslims that had invaded and occupied European territory.

For over a hundred years, the greatest force for good in the world has been the United States military.

The United States did not defeat Saddam Hussein for access to cheap oil. He attacked his neighbors and sought to dominate his entire region. America didn’t profit from this venture. The Gulf Wars should have been praised for the humanitarian venture that they were. And, by the way, it has now been proven that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.

America’s premature withdrawal from Iraq allowed the conditions to arise for ISIS to take over. It was a strategic error and the same mistake is being made in Afghanistan.

Nations ruled by psychopathic regimes shouldn’t be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction.

Being militarily weaker than China or Russia won’t ease world tensions, it will only encourage further aggression on their part.

Our NATO allies should contribute more to the defense of the free world, but the reality is they are not large enough to make a huge difference. America remains indispensable.

International Relations

International treaties may not take precedence over American law. This is especially true for guarantees provided in the Bill of Rights.

Letting people into the country without being checked for health problems is extremely dangerous.

A nation has the right to adjust its immigration policies in a way that benefits its own citizenry. Allowing individuals into the country from regions that are besieged by diseases or that train their people to hate western culture is insanity.

The United States cannot afford to be the welfare agency for the entire planet.

Global warming is far from being settled science. In fact, many of the studies indicating this trend have been rigged.

She will start fascinating about you and viagra on line uk would start experimenting fast. In other words, levitra generika look these up you must see it, feel it, hear it, taste it and smell it. But, for the high price the disease does not viagra price canada stop happening and similarly the improvement of medical science tries to make its cheap solution for the disease. Going for a walk or running- Heart is the most important point why people switched to this treatment was the midwayfire.com cialis properien low cost. The green movement has been hijacked by interests who use it as an excuse to attack capitalism.

The US has among the highest corporate taxes in the world, and some of the planet’s most onerous regulations. Improve that situation and so many companies won’t look to move overseas, and more jobs will be available.

Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East and the only regional nation that shares our values; it is also one of the few that does not believe the US is an evil society that should be destroyed. Washington should not pressure it to sign onto deals that endanger it.

Domestic Issues

The expansion of welfare programs at the rate that has occurred over the past several years is unaffordable.

Most poverty programs do not pull people out of poverty. They do benefit the bureaucrats who run them, however.

Progressives fail to explain precisely what it is they are progressing towards, they just deliver platitudes. They do this because the implementation of their ideas absolutely requires dictatorial government.

Socialism has been an economic failure just about everywhere it has been tried.

Companies won’t increase employment if they are increasingly besieged by new regulations.

Slavery ended in 1865. Officially sanctioned segregation ended in the 1960s, and affirmative action programs have been in existence since then. Those who continue to complain of racial bias are not being truthful and are doing so for personal or political gain.

Many election regulations on the federal, state and local levels are specifically rigged to help incumbents stay in office and keep party bosses in power.

Voter ID laws do not discriminate or discourage minority voting.

Those who disagree with a precise following of the Constitution should state what they would replace it with.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT prohibit expressions of religion in public spaces. It does prohibit giving one faith more privileges than another.

Colleges that establish “free speech zones” and limit open discourse to those isolated spots defy every decent academic principle of encouraging independent thinking. Universities are supposed to teach, not indoctrinate.

The government has no business telling you what to eat or serve to your children.

When it comes to contagious diseases, it is better to err on the side of caution, not political correctness.

These are the issues that voters should concentrate on.

Tags Domestic affairs, Election 2014, international relations, Key issues, National Security

NY Analysis

The President’s Executive Action on Carbon Emissions

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date June 30, 2014

The June roll out of the White House executive action to cut power plant emissions has been met by support from environmental and kindred political groups. The nation’s 600 Coal-fired plants are the biggest target. If fully enacted, according to a Bloomberg report, coal’s share of energy generation would be reduced from 40% to 14%. The executive action is a follow-up to the White House’s climate change strategy released in June 2013, which called for power plant emissions controls, electrical grid upgrades, carbon capture technology development, periodic reviews of energy matters, and methane and hydrofluorocarbon reductions.

The executive action follows a 2009 pledge by President Obama to cut domestic greenhouse gas by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and over 80% by mid-century. It would institute the controversial “cap and trade” concept, which requires emissions producers to obtain “carbon permits” to operate.

The executive action was based on findings summarized in the Environmental Protection Agency’s study, “Climate Change Indicators in the United States,” which concluded that human-caused climate change has already occurred and is producing harmful effects on the environment. Critics maintain the study ignored contrary evidence.

DETAILS

Carbonbrief.org describes the executive action succinctly:

“The plan aims to cut the emissions of the US power sector 30 per cent on 2005 levels over the next sixteen years. It is open for comment for 120 days and the EPA aims to have final rules in force by June 2015.

“Each state in the US will be set their own target for emissions per megawatt hour of electricity produced. States will have until 30 June 2016 to submit plans explaining how they will meet this target. The EPA says it might allow states to plead for up to two years’ extra time.

“The proposal covers emissions from 1,600 existing coal and gas-fired power stations across the US. Regulations limiting emissions from new power stations are already in the pipeline…There is no legal precedent for it to use the Clean Air Act in this way. The Ohio attorney general has pledged to challenge the EPA’s plans. Legal opinions differ on the EPA’s authority.”

The Institute for 21^st Century Energy notes that “fossil-fuel fired power stations comprise almost 76% of the generating capacity and nearly 66% of the electricity generated in the United States.”

CAN THE EPA DO THIS?

The EPA bases its authority to engage in this action by virtue of presidential executive action, using the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d). There is significant controversy over the constitutionality of the move. Mr. Obama failed to win Congressional approval for climate change legislation in his first term, and opponents will claim with substantial validity that he lacks the authority to enact his current program without Congressional approval.

In its June 23 decision in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Supreme Court gave a mixed ruling to the legality of the measure. The Scotus blog summarized the decision:

The Clean Air Act either compels nor permits the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt an interpretation of the Clean Air Act requiring a stationary source of pollution to obtain a ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’ or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emission. However, EPA reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of chemical pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases.”

Opposition

The President’s program has encountered broad based opposition from scientific, legal, financial, industrial, and consumer interests. Manufacturers and oil refineries would also be hit hard. Consumers would face significant price increases. Critics maintain that the technology to comply with the new regulations remains unproven.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see below) believes that the program, despite the heavy cost, will produce only a 1.8% reduction in emissions.

International strategic implications would be broad. The U.S. has a vast supply of coal, (Kentucky, for example, fills almost all of its energy needs from coal) and essentially making it unaffordable would render the U.S. and its allies more dependent on international energy supply producers, such as Russia and middle eastern nations, that are hostile to the west.

Nor are international implications being considered by. Moscow funds its vast military buildup through its energy sales; taking U.S. coal off line will increase the Kremlin’s profits and provide greater assets to spend on its already massive armed forces. Europe will be more dependent than ever on Putin.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis reports that the program would: “Lower U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion on average every year through 2030; Lead to 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030; Force U.S. consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030; Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030.”

The Institute for 21^st Century Energy believes that under the executive action “consumers would pay nearly $290 billion more for electricity between 2014 and 2030.” The Institute notes that “over $50 billion in lost investments every year between now and 2030…U.S. households could lose $585 billion by 2030…electrical costs would increase by $289 billion by 2030…224,000 more people could lose their jobs every year between 2014—2030…increased compliance cost [would be] $480 billion.”

Also Opposing the President’s proposals are numerous scientists who note that their research and findings, (which are contrary to the conclusions espoused by supporters of the human effect on the global temperature theory) have been wholly ignored. They are joined by those concerned that what they describe as faulty or incomplete evidence being employed to use allegations of human-caused global warming as an excuse to enhance governmental authority, establish a more centralized economy, and enrich special interests.

Critics also maintain that the executive action could substantially and detrimentally impact the American economy and the cost of energy. Major geopolitical implications will result as non-U.S. providers of energy sources, such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others benefit from it.
How to gulp commander cialis down it? Ingest the pill using one complete glass of water. Well, ED is not a major issue, cialis side effects it is just a click away. It is important to understand the cialis tab basic difference between two. It was this side effect of http://secretworldchronicle.com/2018/05/02/ no prescription tadalafil that encouraged Pfizer to develop the most popular drug in human history.
On June 26, Rep. Randy Forbes issued the following statement:

“I am co-sponsoring the Protection and Accountability Rgulatory Act, H.R. 4812. This bill does two important things: [it] nullifies these EPA rules on emissions from power plants, [and] prohibits the EPA from issuing anything similar unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress. I also cosponsored the REINS Act (H.R. 367) : which requires Congressional approval for regulations that cost over $100 million. It’s just common sense that we ought to have more than unelected bureaucrats writing rules that the businesses in our communities have to follow.”

On June 16, the governors of Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming submitted the following letter to the White House, which summarized many of the policy arguments against the program:

“Mr. President:

“As Governors leading diverse States that both produce and consume energy, we ask that you pursue a pragmatic energy policy that balances our nation’s economic needs, energy security, and environmental quality objectives.

“As you know, the energy industry is a major source of job creation in our country, providing employment to millions of our citizens and bolstering U.S. economic competitiveness. America was able to meet almost 90 percent of its energy needs last year the most since March 1985 in large part because of increased domestic energy production. We take pride in the fact that domestic production largely powers America and increasingly other economies as well, helping to eradicate poverty and to provide political stability around the globe.

“Development of our resources has put more money in the pockets of working families and has helped the poor and elderly on fixed incomes, who can now more easily afford to run their air conditioning in the heat of the summer. For example, American natural gas production is reducing average retail electricity prices by 10 percent, saving households, on average, nearly $1,000 per year between 2012 and 2015.

“This significant accomplishment of increased U.S. energy independence, with its associated economic and health benefits, has been achieved largely by State policies despite redundant and burdensome federal regulation. Your proposed rules for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants and redefining the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) would unnecessarily expand federal authority over the States in energy policymaking and risk undermining our success.

“In an unprecedented move, your GHG emissions plan would largely dictate to the States the type of electricity generation they could build and operate. In addition, you seek to essentially ban coal from the U.S. energy mix. Your pursuit of this objective will heavily impact those of our states that rely primarily on coal for electricity generation such a decision should not be made by unaccountable bureaucrats. Your Administration is also pushing for Washington to seize regulatory control of nearly all waters located in the States by expanding the definition of WOTUS. If successful, the federal government would become the arbiters of how our citizens, State highway departments, county flood control and storm water agencies, utilities, irrigation districts, and farmers use their water and their land.

“Although we are still examining the impacts of the GHG proposal released on June 2 and the proposed expansion of WOTUS, we can confidently say that, according to the best available data, millions of jobs will be lost and billions of dollars will be spent over the coming decades in an effort to comply with these and other federal regulations. And those numbers stand to increase with every tightening of those standards hitting particularly hard working families, poor, and elderly.

“Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that your Administration is content to force Americans to bear these substantial costs where there are highly questionable associated environmental benefits. In fact, your EPA Administrator admitted during testimony to the U.S. Senate that there would be no climate mitigation benefits to America pursuing unilateral action. Moreover, in 2008, you personally guaranteed that under your energy plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“You admitted that your energy plan would have the following impact: “[Energy industries] would have to retrofit their operations that will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers.”

“You rightly acknowledge that American citizens will literally pay the price of your energy agenda. They will also pay the price in the form of lost jobs and less reliable electricity. As representatives of the citizens who stand to lose so much while gaining next to nothing, it is our duty to confront this issue and to ask that you rescind the regulations you have put forth. Disposing of these regulations will protect Americans from the costs and burdens the rules would impose upon them and will ensure the continuation of America’s energy renaissance, which is indispensable to our country’s economic recovery and job creation and which is largely a result of State policies.”

THE SCIENCE

The program is a response to the theory that global warming (originally it was global cooling, and is also called climate change) has occurred as a result of human activity.

President Obama has repeatedly asserted that there is no serious valid scientific opposition to the theory. On June 26, he stated: “So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed and sliced and diced over decades, has put that to rest. “

In reality, the Scientific community remains split on the existence or degree of impact of human-caused global warming. That assertion fails to take into account a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the theory. Indeed, the Scientific community remains split on the reality or degree of impact of human-caused global warming. While studies from the United Nations support the President’s beliefs, 31,072 American scientists including 9,029 Ph.D’s have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have warmed Earth’s climate.

A report published in Science Magazine on the heat content of the Pacific Ocean during the past 10,000 years notes that “water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctica intermediate waters were warmer…during the middle Holcene thermal maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were…warmer during the Medieval Warm period…than in recent decades.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com, notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for. He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

The U.K.’s Telegraph notes that science writer Steven Goddard, using original data from the 20^th century, has indications that the Earth has actually been cooling since the 1930’s. Swedish studies have found that Earth was warmer both in ancient and Medieval eras than it is currently.

CONCLUSION

Substantial constitutional, scientific, economic, military and political considerations may result in a significant effort to reverse the executive action.

Tags carbon emission plan, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, executive action

NY Analysis

Your thoughts are welcome

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date June 20, 2014

Thoughts on our articles? However, tablets like Cheap Kamagra have been introduced, and successfully integrated. viagra for cheap Due to this problem, he is incapable of holding the erection for longer and even the hardness is lacking and together both of them gives dissatisfaction to the pair who are involve in the process of intercourse. levitra sildenafil Of course the company has to stop selling the coffee to avoid liability in case any one died viagra purchase no prescription from using the product. There are vast causative aspects to levitra without rx cause impotence. Email us at anlpolgov@gmail.com.

NY Analysis

The Misuse of Executive Orders

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date June 2, 2014

As this report goes to press, President Obama is expected to make a significant statement concerning his proposal to reduce carbon emissions from America’s 600 coal-based energy facilities.

Even before the details are released, significant controversy has occurred based on several key points: whether the president has the authority to enact sweeping and substantive measures without the consent of Congress; whether the proposals will be too costly for the depressed U.S. economy (which shrunk 1% during the first quarter of 2014); whether reducing American energy output will place both the U.S. and our allies in a weakened position; and finally, whether the science upon which the theory of human induced climate change rests is, in fact, accurate.

This week, The NEW YORK ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT briefly examines the President’s promised use of Executive Orders for the Environmental program. The regulations are expected to be significant, forcing American power plants to cut carbon emissions, and imposing vast costs on the U.S. economy. The President believes that he can engage in actions that will have the full force of law without the consent of Congress.

Weakening the President’s position is his prior failure to guide proposed environmental laws through Congress in his first term. Critics can maintain that the White House at first attempted to comply with the appropriate Constitutional methods, but resorted to an unconstitutional utilization of Executive Orders when he didn’t succeed.

U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

President Obama, 2013: Where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Article II, Section I of the Constitution vests executive power in the President. While there is no mention in the Constitution of executive orders, as chief executive, the President of the United States clearly requires the unilateral ability to take certain actions to fulfill his duties. The President’s role in seeing that federal laws are executed requires no consultation with the other two branches of government. It would be absurd to expect that every deployment of troops, every regular or normal daily operation of federal agencies, and every other normal administrative process be subjected to direct Congressional oversight.

There have been periods of history when Congress has been relatively lenient in its oversight of the President’s use—or abuse—of executive orders. During the establishment of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression, Humorist Will Rogers remarked that “that Congress doesn’t make laws anymore, they just wave at the bills as they go by.”

The online law journal thelegality.com notes that “While the mandate of Article II seems broad, it also limits the president’s power to only directing the actions of the executive branch. For example, [former] President Bush’s E.O. 13435 (regarding the limited use of stem cells in research) have a limited effect because they only reach government agencies…The Executive is not a legislator…He is not above the law.”

Although Congress tends not to challenge most executive orders, it has met with success on some occasions when doing so. Several executive orders issued by President Clinton were struck down by the Court in reaction to Congressional objections.

Justice Hugo Black, in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer wrote that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it’s “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

In restricting then-President Truman’s ability to engage in actions which had the impact of legislation rather than mere administrative action, the Court held that an Executive Order not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, cannot stand, and exercises of Presidential authority which have the effect of lawmaking cannot stand because the Constitution vests such power in Congress alone.

There is a keen difference between administrative actions in fulfillment of the law and actually taking steps that affect the law itself, or, indeed, have the same impact as law. This controversy has been evident in the White House’s actions concerning the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare.) The President’s unilateral action in deciding which portions of the law to enforce and which to ignore until sometime in the future when it is more politically expedient to do so has merited extensive and appropriate criticism.

Impotency resemble a major revile for the man to have proper love making sessions with levitra pills for sale proper erections. Certainties about Kamagra* It offering costs are sensible, as makers don’t need to do much interest as to its advancement, showcasing and improvement. buy generic viagra http://djpaulkom.tv/video-dj-paul-x-drumma-boy-x-crunchy-black-muscle-so-strong-visual/ Instead, you like to drink tadalafil sales sodas, you crave pizza, frozen foods, and sugars, and you smoke. So, Erectile viagra price Dysfunction Therapy can develop its characteristics at puberty, such as increased penis, voice deepening, testes size, and growth of body and facial hair but it can also negative and adverse effects on the follicles. President Obama has not been criticized for the number of Executive Orders issued—both of his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush issued more—but for the scope of activities covered in those he did issue.

Writing in Forbes earlier this year, James Powell noted that:

“Apparently President Obama has become convinced that he can make magic with that pen he keeps talking about, the one he plans to use for signing executive orders to revive his beleaguered presidency. Executive orders are irresistible, because a president doesn’t have to propose anything, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes. An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights… Many executive orders are in a twilight zone of dubious constitutional legitimacy if not open defiance of the Constitution, especially when they amount to lawmaking without congressional approval…”

John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, has written in a Heritage publication that “President Obama has shown no qualms about taking unilateral actions that bypass Congress and ignore important separation of powers principles that are an essential safeguard of our liberty.”

Joel Pollack, writing in Breitbart, provides three criticisms of President Obama’s use of executive orders:

“The first is that Obama is using executive orders and actions to alter his own legislation. …The second way in which Obama’s abuse of executive power is different is that he has done it to prevent the legislature from acting…the president issued his “Dream Act by fiat” in 2012 not just because Congress wouldn’t pass his version of immigration reform, but to outflank Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was preparing his own version, embarrassing Obama among Latino voters…The third way in which Obama’s behavior is unusual is that he commands sweeping executive power on some issues while arguing, on other issues, that he has no power to act… There is no constitutional doctrine behind the president’s executive orders, actions, and omissions…”

Attorney Gary Wickert, examined some of President’s Obama’s executive orders:

“In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;Reshaped immigration policy by ordering the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.
Each unilateral action by the president substituted for a failed legislative proposal. ‘I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,’ he said. However, under the Constitution, that is not the way things are supposed to work. “

The President’s use of his authority to implement environmental measures has been a particular source of criticism. The Congressional newspaper The Hill noted that Attorneys general in 17 states have contended that “the Environmental Protection Agency has overreached in pursuit of President Obama’s plan to counter the effects of climate change via federal regulation.” They maintain that the “EPA, if unchecked, will continue to implement regulations which far exceed its statutory authority to the detriment of the States, in whom Congress has vested authority under the Clean Air Act, and whose citizenry and industries will ultimately pay the price of these costly and ineffective regulations…”

CONCLUSION

The dueling sides for and against the President’s carbon emissions plan will disagree on the specific merits of the proposal. The far more important debate, however, will have nothing to do with the details of this program and everything to do with whether the United States will continue to be governed by Constitutional provisions clearly calling for a series of checks and balances on the authority of the chief executive.

Tags Barack Obama, climate change, Congress, Constitution, EPA, Executive Orders

NY Analysis

THE GROWING EMP THREAT

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date May 29, 2014

Congress is beginning to pay significant attention to the potential–some would say likely–threat of an electromagnetic pulse devastating the economy, health, and safety of the United States.

WHAT IS EMP?

The Congressional Research Service describes Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) as “an instantaneous, intense energy field that can overload or disrupt at a distance numerous electrical systems and high technology microcircuits, which are especially sensitive to power surges. A large scale EMP effect can be produced by a single nuclear explosion detonated high in the atmosphere. This method is referred to as High-Altitude EMP (HEMP). A similar, smaller-scale EMP effect can be created using non-nuclear devices with powerful batteries or reactive chemicals. This method is called High Power Microwave (HPM). Several nations, including reported sponsors of terrorism, may currently have a capability to use EMP as a weapon for cyber warfare or cyber terrorism to disrupt communications and other parts of the U.S. critical infrastructure. Also, some equipment and weapons used by the U.S. military may be vulnerable to the effects of EMP. The threat of an EMP attack against the United States is hard to assess, but some observers indicate that it is growing along with worldwide access to newer technologies and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

The impact of EMPs was noticed during the 1960’s, when both the Soviet Union and the United States conducted above ground nuclear tests.

An EMP can also come from unusual solar activity, as recently reported in aNational Geographic report. A very modest version of EMP-type issues occurred last February, when a solar flare interfered with GPS signals and radio communications.

In the past, however, more significant solar activity has occurred which would, if it happened today, significantly damage or destroy much of our modern infrastructure. According to the National Geographic Report,

“The biggest solar storm on record happened in 1859. That storm has been dubbed the Carrington Event, after British astronomer Richard Carrington, who witnessed the megaflare and was the first to realize the link between activity on the sun and geomagnetic disturbances on Earth… the geomagnetic disturbances were strong enough that U.S. telegraph operators reported sparks leaping from their equipment.

“In 1859, such reports were mostly curiosities. But if something similar happened today, the world’s high-tech infrastructure could grind to a halt…What’s at stake are the advanced technologies that underlie virtually every aspect of our lives.”

A WND analysis provides a further example: “Even as far back as 1921, solar flares interfered with man’s technology.At 7:04 a.m. on May 15, 1921, the entire signal and switching system of the New York Central Railroad below 125th Street shut down due to a ‘solar event.’ At the same time in Sweden, a telephone station was ‘burned out,’ and the solar storm interfered with telephone, telegraph and cable traffic over most of Europe.”

The nuclear weapon scenario is becoming increasingly likely, particularly since the cuts to the anti-ballistic missile program instituted by the Obama Administration. The devastation doesn’t have to come from a full-scale nuclear attack. A single well placed weapon, delivered by a smaller national source such as Iran or North Korea, or even a terrorist organization such as al Qaeda, could produce a devastating result.

THE EFFECTS OF EMP

Consider the effects of both the electrical grid and portable electronics being shattered until wholly new equipment could be manufactured and emplaced:

Reservoirs would be incapable of pumping water.
Planes, trains, trucks and autos, all of which now depend upon electronics, would be incapable moving.
Deliveries of food and medicine would cease.
Emergency vehicles, police cars, and even military equipment would be rendered harmless.
Hospitals would be incapable of servicing patients beyond a few primitive functions.
Heating and cooling systems would be inoperable.
Communications by radio, television, and telephone would be eliminated.

According to a Washington Free Beacon study quoting Dr. Peter Pry of the Congressional EMP Commission and Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, “an EMP event could wipe out 90 percent of America’s population.”

In response to the threat, Rep. Trent Franks,(R-AZ), who has introduced H.R. 3410, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act:

“The threat of an electromagnetic pulse weapon represents the single greatest asymmetric capability that could fall into the hands of America’s enemies. Should a nuclear weapon from a rogue state such as Iran be detonated in Earth’s atmosphere at a sufficient height above the continental United States, the blast of electromagnetic energy could immediately cripple America’s electric power grid. Currently, the vast majority of the United States’ infrastructure is unsecured and exposed.

“According to some experts, just one properly placed EMP blast could disable so large a swath of American technology that between 70-90% of the United States’ population could become unsustainable.

“The danger posed by electromagnetic pulse weapons, as well as naturally occurring electromagnetic pulses, has received increased attention over recent years from organizations including NASA, the National Association of Scientists, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.”

On May 8, The House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Infrastructure Protection held a hearing to discuss the potential crisis. Rep. Franks testified that “catastrophic civilian casualties” could be caused by an EMP.

At a NASA forum held in 2010, Dr. William Fortschen stressed that an “EMP event could result in a civilian casualty rate of upwards of 90% within year due to the breakdown of water, sanitation, medical and food distribution systems, along with the breakdown of social order, law enforcement, and command and control.”

The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack notes:

“Several potential adversaries have or can acquire the capability to attack the

United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication.

“EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of

catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of US society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.

“The common element that can produce such an impact from EMP is primarily

electronics, so pervasive in all aspects of our society and military, coupled through critical infrastructures. Our vulnerability is increasing daily as our use of and dependence on electronics continues to grow. The impact of EMP is asymmetric in relation to potential protagonists who are not as dependent on modern electronics. The current vulnerability of our critical infrastructures can both invite and reward attack if not corrected. Correction is feasible and well within the Nation’s means and resources to accomplish.”

Following an EMP attack, water from reservoir’s could not be transported to population centers

Most men ignore the causes which actually usa cheap viagra yield in ED. It focuses mainly on the causes of physical and internal viagra buy best weakness can be both physical and psychological in nature. Get in the wholesale prices viagra sun, or, take vitamin D. Erectile dysfunction is a curse in the physical life of every man; it is also considered a Natural Aphrodisiac and a Healthful alternative to women viagra australia .

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

The Center for Security Policy has extensively reviewed numerous governmental studies discussing EMP. In its recent publication entitled “Guilty knowledge: what the U.S. government knows about the vulnerability of the electrical grid, but refuses to fix” it quotes the Final Report of the Congressional Committee on the strategic posture of the United States:

“The United States should take steps to reduce the vulnerability of the nation and its military to attacks with weapons designed to produce electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects…From a technical perspective, it is possible that such attacks could have catastrophic consequences…Prior commissions have investigated U.S. vulnerabilities and found little activity under way to address them. Some limited defensive measures have been ordered by the Department of Defense to give some protection to important operational communications. But EMP vulnerabilities have not yet been addressed effectively by the Department of Homeland Security. Doing so could take several years. The EMP Commission has recommended numerous measures that would mitigate the damage that might be wrought by an EMP attack.”

State governments could play a role in EMP hardening within their borders, but most have not. According to a Heritage Foundation report,

“…state and local governments remain poorly prepared for an EMP attack. A 2007 survey of state adjutant generals, the officials responsible for overseeing National Guard units, found that few states were prepared for an EMP attack. The survey, conducted by the Institute of the North in conjunction with the Claremont Institute, found that although 96 percent of adjutant generals surveyed indicated that they were concerned with the threat posed by an EMP attack, few had analyzed the actual impact details of an EMP attack. Furthermore, few of the adjutant generals surveyed indicated that they had made preparations, such as training, EMP hardening of systems, and the creation of formal emergency response plans for an EMP attack. Overall, most states have not taken action to address vulnerabilities to EMP attacks.”

The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack has made the following recommendations:

“It will not be possible to reduce the incentives for an EMP attack to an acceptable level of risk through defensive protection measures alone. It is possible to achieve an acceptable level of risk and reduced invitation to an EMP attack with a strategy of:

Pursuing intelligence, interdiction, and deterrence to discourage EMP attack against the US and its interests;

Protecting critical components of the infrastructure, with particular emphasis on those that, if damaged, would require long periods of time to repair or replace;

Maintaining the capability to monitor and evaluate the condition of critical infrastructures;

Recognizing an EMP attack and understanding how it effects differ from other forms of infrastructure disruption and damage;

Planning and carrying out a systematic recovery of critical infrastructures training, evaluating ‘red teaming,’ and periodically reporting to Congress;

Defining the federal governments responsibility and authority to act, and conducting research to better understand infrastructure system effects and developing cost-effective solutions to manage these effects.

“The cost for such improved security … is modest by any standard-and extremely so in relation to both the war on terror and the value of the national infrastructures involved. Costs at later times may be adjusted to deal with the then-apparent threat and future levels of effort required.”

CONCLUSION

According to various estimates, the price tag cost to protect the nation’s entire electrical grid would be $1 billion to $2 billion; some estimates indicate that protecting all of the nation’s essential resources could cost $100 billion. When one considers that President Obama’s Stimulus package cost over $700 billion, that is an affordable figure to counter so vast a threat.

Tags China, electrical grid, Electromagnetic Pulse, EMP, Iran, North Korea, nuclear attack, Russia, terrorism

NY Analysis

Part II: Can NATO Survive?

Post author By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.
Post date May 6, 2014

The Russian invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t have come as a shock to NATO.

Just a few years earlier in 2008, Moscow had invaded Georgia during the South Ossetia War. Over the past several years, Vladimir Putin has dramatically increased his nation’s military spending as well as raising the level of preparedness for war.

RUSSIA PREPARES FOR WAR AS NATO DISARMS

Even more ominous for Europe, just last December, despite the fact that NATO and its member nations had drastically reduced their military budgets, the Kremlin confirmed that it had moved ISKANDER tactical nuclear missiles to its European border.

It’s not just the equipment built and the $755 billion modernization program that should concern western analysts. Russia has engaged in extraordinary military exercises, such as Zapad-13, a joint effort with Belarus that involved up to 70,000 troops. The Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences described the effort:

“The use of Belorussian troops as an amphibious landing force from hoover craft, shows not just the level of integration between the Russian and Belorussian armed forces, it also should raise some concerns about Russian capacity to conduct landing operations. They should not just be linked to the number of dedicated amphibious units.

“The air defence forces trained to intercept approaching bombers with a fighter escort. Very clearly a task connected with a conventional war. The same goes for the amphibious landings supported by ship-to-shore bombardments.

“The use of UAV`s for target identification and damage assessment, both for the artillery and for ground attack aircraft, point at a quite high level of sophistication when it comes to fighting a modern war. The extensive use of well protected communication systems, both by Russian as well as Belorussian units, is also an import step in enhancing the ability to fight in an environment where electronic warfare is an important part.

“Live firing with long range systems as Smerch and especially Iskander, combined with the use of UAV´s, show an increased capability for “Deep Strike” with ground based systems. This should be disturbing for anyone contemplating to use fixed installations as harbours and airfields within the range of these systems. For example NATO, when considering how to reinforce the Baltic States in case of a crisis.

“The mobilization of reservists in the St. Petersburg area was of course a test if the system works, but it should also lead to some thoughts about the size of the Russian military. It is far too easy to fall in to the trap of just counting regular units, and also to assume that only state of the art units are useful in a future war. The latter depends entirely on who is the opponent.

“Altogether we see a rapidly increasing Russian capability to mount large scale, complex, military operations in its neighbourhood, coordinated with operations in other areas. It would be a mistake to see this just a problem for the Baltic States. It should have implications for most of Russia´s neighbours, and also for other parties interested in the security and stability in the Baltic Sea region.”

“Despite these clear signals that the Russian threat had returned, NATO nations, beset by financial troubles, continued to cling to the belief that the threat from its eastern border had permanently evaporated when the Soviet Union collapsed.”

In January, Russia joined with China for joint maneuvers in the Mediterranean. The exercise followed similar joint maneuvers between the two nations in the Sea of Japan.

US MILITARY REDUCTIONS ARE A KEY PROBLEM

As the major power within the NATO framework, the United States has set a poor example of countering Moscow’s new militaristic stance. A 2013 Heritage study noted:

“When President Obama took office, the armed services of the United States had already reached a fragile state. The Navy had shrunk to its smallest size sincebefore World War I; the Air Force was smaller, and its aircraft older, than at any time since the inception of the service. The Army was stressed by years of war; according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it had been underfunded before the invasion of Iraq and was desperately in need of resources to replace its capital inventory.

“Since the President took office, the government has cut $1.3 trillion from defense budgets over the next ten years. The last such reduction was embodied in sequestration. At the time sequestration was passed, the top leaders of the military, and of both parties (the very people who enacted sequestration), warned that it would have a devastating effect on America’s military.

“And so it has. The defense sequester was the worst possible thing to do to the military, at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way. Coming on the heels of the reductions from 2009-2011, it has resulted in large cuts to the Pentagon accounts that support day-to-day readiness. The Navy is routinely cancelling deployments. Earlier this spring, the Air Force grounded one-third of its fighters and bombers. The Army has curtailed training for 80 percent of the force. Our strategic arsenal-the final line of national self-defense-is old, shrinking, and largely untested. All this is happening at a time when the recognized threats to America-from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the inaptly named “Arab Spring,” and a resurgent and spreading al-Qaeda-are manifestly rising.”

Indications such as the largely unreported U.S. withdrawal of all of its tanks from Europe sent a crucially wrong message to NATO nations that Washington was unconcerned about threats from Moscow.

EUROPEAN MILITARIES BECOMING TOO WEAK TO FIGHT
You cannot randomly change dosages just http://valsonindia.com/category/products/?lang=it purchase generic viagra because you fell like it. Lack of these vital valsonindia.com buy generic levitra substances hinders the ability to have an erection, gingko biloba extract may help. But many people have started living with it, it is important that you keep the following points in mind: A certain kind of medicine called alpha blockers may interact with the slidenafil in viagra price in india and cause physical complications are Multaq, Noxafil, Monoket, Viracept, etc. How to use? It is advised to take 1-2 capsules of Patanjali Ashwashila capsule along with milk or water for 3 to 4 months to get large semen volume but some are ending up in pain and side order generic viagra effects of allopathic remedies.
While Sweden (which is considering joining NATO) and Poland have increased their defense budgets, the rest of the alliance adopted drastic cuts since the fall of the USSR.

The 2012 Brookings analysis emphasized:

“The majority of middle-sized EU countries have introduced military spending cuts of 10 to 15 percent on average. And several of the smaller EU member states have reduced their defense spending by more than 20 percent, leading to the loss of entire military capabilities.

“According to Andrew Dorman, although the United Kingdom has officially cut its defense budget by 7.5 percent over four years, in reality the reduction is nearly 25 percent. As a result, amongst its significant equipment cuts, Britain is giving up the ability to fly planes off aircraft carriers for a decade…

“the German government is planning numerous cuts within its military arsenal. These include reselling 13 A400M transport aircraft, even though Germany is likely to have to pay significant indemnities to its partners in the A400M program.

“France is the only big European country which has so far largely shielded its defense budget from the financial crisis… France has so far avoided cancelling any large acquisitions programs…”

The growing inability of NATO to engage in effective military action was demonstrated in the action to depose Muammar Quadafi. In the Libyan action, European nations had great difficulty in mounting operations against a relatively weak and unsophisticated foe.

It is not just on the land mass of the European continent, with smaller armies and air forces, that NATO has become significantly less potent. At sea, the diminishment of NATO countries navies, including the reduction of the worldwide American fleet from 600 ships to only 284, presents a key challenge, as does the rise of significant new maritime threats. An American Enterprise Institute study noted:

“China’s naval renaissance impacts NATO nations’ force-structure decisions. As the United States turns more of its interest to the Pacific, baseline security requirements in the Mediterranean will become more important to Europe’s NATO navies, perhaps creating greater incentive to resource them. Additionally, both France and the United Kingdom see themselves as global nations with global interests that extend far into the Pacific. If these nations perceive China’s rise as threatening these interests, they will likely find their navies too small to provide any real impact, given the great distances involved and the paucity of ships to maintain constant presence. There is a real tension between global presence and a “balanced fleet,” one that currently only the United States is able to resolve, and barely that.”

NATO SOUGHT TO REASSURE RUSSIA

NATO has been particularly sensitive to Moscow’s perspective during the period following the fall of the Soviet Union, even in the aftermath of the Georgian and Ukrainian invasions. It refrained from establishing a significant presence within the territory of its eastern members, so much so that those nations have requested far more protection. It’s patrols in that area have been minimal.

The European Voice publication noted Poland’s reaction to this: “As the United States winds down its military presence in Europe, NATO is getting weaker, not stronger. Poland is worried about this. It has started a big military modernisation, based on the (unstated) assumption that it may have to fight alone.”

A Lexington Institute study concluded in February noted:

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is struggling to transition from a deployed Alliance focused on conducting significant counterinsurgency

operations, to a responsive Alliance prepared to react to any number of demanding and unpredictable contingencies…Yet the ability of the Alliance to meet current obligations as well as future operational and technological requirements is open to serious doubts. For more than two decades, NATO spending on defense has declined to levels today that are perilously close to disarmament. Senior U.S. officials have repeatedly warned NATO that its failure to invest adequately and appropriately in defense places the future of the Alliance at risk…

“[Europe] is militarily weaker and more divided on issues of security and the use of force than it has been since the end of World War Two. both the spectrum of potential crises NATO must face and their geographic diversity continue to increase. The U.S military draw down and the pivot to Asia will stress Washington’s ability to commit forces to NATO. Not only is NATO defense spending continuing to decline and the Alliance’s force structures continuing to shrink but decisions regarding the character of residual forces and the allocation of remaining defense resources are skewed in ways that make it more difficult to deploy effective military power, particularly for expeditionary activities of significant scale. NATO has had to reduce the size of its core crisis response capability, the NATO Response Force (NRF). The lack of coordination among national ministries of defense on force structure changes and modernization programs makes it difficult to ensure adequate capabilities in some areas while there are clear surfeits in others. Non-U.S. NATO continues to lag in its investments in critical enablers for modern, knowledge-intensive power projection military operations.”

CONCLUSION

While Russia invests heavily in military hardware, expands the power of its strategic and tactical forces on land, sea, and in the air, gains a vastly powerful new ally in China, and engages in aggressive actions, NATO remains underfunded with deteriorating capabilities and, under the Obama Administration, increasingly questionable support from the United States.

It is a blueprint tailor-made to invite aggression.

Tags defense budget, Europe, Iskander, NATO, Putin, Russia, SMERCH, Ukraine, UVA, Zapad-13