Category: Quick Analysis

Categories
Quick Analysis

Elected official opts his children out of Common Core

A prominent local elected official has very publicly refused to allow his children to be taught the Common Core curriculum.

Robert Astorino, the county executive of New York State’s Westchester County, based his decision on a number of objections.  In a widely distributed statement, he noted:

“Our kids deserve better than Common Core, an experiment conceived in secrecy with no public hearings or testing. There are no consequences for opting out. The scores will not affect student records. We support higher standards for our kids, but that’s not Common Core, despite what we’ve often been told.

“The standards are of ‘poor quality.’  Those aren’t my words; those are the words of the Math and English Language Arts content experts on the validation committee. But their concerns were expunged from the final record.

Also ignored are experts’ concerns that:

The standards are developmentally inappropriate in the early grades

  • No K-12 teachers were involved in writing the standards
  • High-stakes testing as the sole assessment for both student and teacher performance is both unfair and wrong.”


Previously, A New York Analysis of Policy & Government review report noted:

Concerns over inadequate educational accomplishments led to the bipartisan creation of the Common Core educational program. But the fears of parents and others that Common Core serves as an excuse for Washington to politicize the American public school system have been heightened by recent disclosures that related textual material introduced partisan statements into English lessons.

Further objections have been raised about what some believe are bizarre common core assignments, including one report from Arkansas that sixth-graders were tasked to revise the Bill of Rights by removing two Amendments and adding two new ones. Education Secretary Arne Duncan added fuel to the fire when he described those expressing their dismay as “White suburban mothers.”

A joint study  by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Pacific Research Institute, and Civitas warns:

“By signing on to national standards and the assessments that will accompany them, participating states have ceded their autonomy to design and oversee the implementation of their own standards and tests. The implications of ceding this autonomy are varied. Not only do some states risk sacrificing high quality standards for national standards that may be less rigorous, all states are sacrificing their ability to inform what students learn. Moreover, the act of adopting national standards has and will continue to disrupt legal and other processes upon which states rely to ensure the adequate and equitable delivery of educational materials and resources. Finally and, perhaps, most distressing, the predicted cost to states of implementing the Common Core is in the billions of dollars, a number that only stands to grow if implementation ramps up.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

China hacks into governments, corporations, and journalists

China’s aggressive military actions against its neighbors have been the subject of discussion. Less publicized has been its extensive and hostile cyberespionage actions against those same nations and others. A report  just released by Fireeye, Inc.  analyzes the issue:

“When our Singapore-based Fireeye labs team examined malware aimed predominantly at entities in Southeast Asia and India, we suspected that we were peering into a regionally focused cyber espionage operation. The malware revealed a decade-long operation focused on targets—government and commercial—who hold key political, economic, and military information about the region.

“This group, who we call APT30, stands out not only for their sustained activity and regional focus, but also for their continued success despite maintaining relatively consistent tools, tactics, and infrastructure since at least 2005. In essence, our analysis of APT30 illuminates how a group can persistently compromise entities across an entire region and subcontinent, unabated, with little to no need to significantly change their modus operandi.

“Based on our malware research, we are able to assess how the team behind APT30 works: they prioritize their targets, most likely work in shifts in a collaborative environment, and build malware from a coherent development plan. Their missions focus on acquiring sensitive data from a variety of targets, which possibly include classified government networks and other networks inaccessible from a standard Internet connection. While APT30 is certainly not the only group to build functionality to infect air-gapped networks into their operations, they appear to have made this a consideration at the very beginning of their development efforts in 2005, significantly earlier than many other advanced groups we track. Such a sustained, planned development effort, coupled with the group’s regional targets and mission, lead us to believe that this activity is state sponsored—most likely by the Chinese government.

“APT30 predominantly targets entities that may satisfy governmental intelligence collection requirements. The vast majority of APT30’s victims are in Southeast Asia. Much of their social engineering efforts suggest the group is particularly interested in regional political, military, and economic issues, disputed territories, and media organizations and journalists who report on topics pertaining to China and the government’s legitimacy…

“APT30’s operations epitomize a focused, persistent, and well-resourced threat group. They appear to consider both the timing of their operations and prioritize their targets. Some of the their tools’ capabilities, most notably the ability to infect air gapped networks, suggest both a level of planning and interest in particularly sensitive data, such as that housed on government networks. The group’s method for selecting and tracking victims suggests a high level of coordination and organization among the group’s operators. With activity spanning more than ten years, APT30 is one of the longest operating threat groups that we have encountered and one of the few with a distinct regional targeting preference. Our research into APT30 demonstrates what many already suspected: threat actors rely on cyber capabilities to gather information about their immediate neighborhood, as well as on a larger, global scale. APT30 appears to focus not on stealing businesses’ valuable intellectual property or cutting-edge technologies, but on acquiring sensitive data about the immediate Southeast Asia region, where they pursue targets that pose a potential threat to the influence and legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. In exposing APT30, we hope to increase organizations’ awareness of threats and ability to defend themselves. APT30’s targeting interests underscore the need for organizations across the region to defend the information assets valuable to determined threat actors.”

Nations targeted include the United States, India, South Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Saudi Aabia, Nepal, Bhutan, Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Japan.

It’s not just governments and corporations that are the targets.

“In addition to APT30’s Southeast Asia and India focus, we’ve observed APT30 target journalists reporting on issues traditionally considered to be focal points for the Chinese Communist Party’s sense of legitimacy, such as corruption, the economy, and human rights. In China, the Communist Party has the ultimate authority over the government. China-based threat groups have targeted journalists before; we believe they often do so to get a better understanding on developing stories to anticipate unfavorable coverage and better position themselves to shape public messaging.

“APT30’s attempts to compromise journalists and media outlets could also be used to punish outlets that do not provide favorable coverage – for example, both the New York Times and Bloomberg have had trouble securing visas for journalists in wake of unfavorable corruption reporting. 28 Beyond targeting, we also saw summaries of media events or reporting in decoy documents, particularly around press releases related to government or military updates. It appears that APT30 could plausibly be targeting press attachés in order to obtain access to their contacts, which would presumably include the contact information of other public affairs personnel or other journalists of interest to target. Targeting press attachés would enable APT30 to target journalists from a trusted source, which would be an excellent resource for spear phishing.”

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Is NATO prepared for near-future threats?

We conclude our two part summary of NATO’s “2014 Annual Report of the Secretary General” by examining NATO’s plans for the near future.

CHAPTER 2 – Investing in defence

At the NATO Summit in Wales, Allies agreed the Readiness Action Plan to strengthen NATO’s collective defence and a defence investment pledge to strengthen Allies’ ability to fund sustained defence efforts. They also approved a defence planning package and set priorities related to training, equipment and technology to ensure that NATO forces are properly prepared and equipped for whatever challenge may come.

Defence investment pledge

In Wales, NATO leaders pledged to stop the cuts to defence budgets, to increase investment as economies recover, to make the most effective use of available funds, and to strive for a more balanced sharing of the costs and responsibilities of their common defence. This is the first time NATO Heads of State and Government have made this kind of commitment.

In 2006, Allies agreed voluntary targets for defence spending: 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should be allocated to defence expenditures, while 20% of those expenditures should be dedicated to research, development and acquisition of major defence equipment. In the defence investment pledge, Allies affirmed that those countries already meeting these targets would continue to do so and that those below would halt any decline, aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows, and aim to move towards the 2% and 20% targets within a decade.The pledge was needed because the amount of resources dedicated by Allies to defence has been on a steady decline since the end of the Cold War. In 1990, the 14 European Allies spent USD 314 billion on defence in real terms. By 2010, defence spending in NATO Europe had dropped to USD 275 billion, despite 12 additional European countries having joined the Alliance. In 2014, it is estimated that European members of NATO spent USD 250 billion on defence. The cuts to defence expenditures…diminish the options available to the Alliance and reduce the extent to which Allies equitably share responsibilities…

Developing the right capabilities

…In Wales, Allies agreed on priorities that include enhancing and reinforcing training and exercises, improving command and control structures, Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, ballistic missile defence, and cyber defence. They emphasised the importance of multinational cooperation, which allows for significant operational and cost benefits. They also affirmed the importance of inclusive, sustainable, innovative and globally competitive defence industries on both sides of the Atlantic.

NATO Forces 2020

… NATO Forces 2020 establishes the goal of developing modern, tightly connected forces that are equipped, trained, exercised and commanded to operate together and with partners in any environment…

NATO Air Command and Control System

NATO’s systems for air command and control, along with national systems within NATO European territory, track all civilian and military aircraft in NATO airspace over continental Europe, providing 24-hour surveillance of the skies. NATO is upgrading a variety of NATO and national systems with the NATO Air Command and Control System (ACCS)…

Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

…In May, the Alliance held the largest JISR trial in its history… The trial, which took place in Norway, tested NATO’s ability to gather information and synthesise intelligence from multiple sources at different stages of a crisis. With satellites, aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, naval vessels, ground sensors and human intelligence from 18 Allies, the trial demonstrated significant progress and provided important feedback that will bring NATO closer to achieving its target of initial operational capability at the end of 2016…

Ballistic missile defence

As part of NATO’s commitment to collective defence, Allies agreed in 2010 to extend NATO’s ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability to provide coverage and protection of all NATO European populations, territory and forces. Since then, work has been underway to acquire and develop the equipment and infrastructure needed to make this capacity fully operational. In 2014, NATO’s BMD was made more robust through additional national voluntary contributions as well as further refined command and control arrangements and procedures. During 2014, two US BMD-capable Aegis vessels arrived at their new home port in Rota, Spain, and two more vessels will arrive in 2015. These ships have advanced sensor capabilities and interceptor missiles that can detect and shoot down ballistic missiles. Deployment of the land-based version of these capabilities, Aegis Ashore, in Deveselu, Romania is on track for completion in 2015. A second Aegis Ashore site will be established in Poland in 2018.

Cyber security

As the Alliance looks to the future, cyber threats and attacks will continue to become more common, sophisticated and potentially damaging. Responding to the evolving challenges in the cyber domain, NATO leaders endorsed an Enhanced NATO Policy on Cyber Defence and a Cyber Defence Action Plan at the Summit in Wales in September. Building on the accomplishments of previous NATO cyber defence policies, the 2014 policy reflects the evolution of the threat landscape, technological environment, and broader international approach to the issue. The policy establishes that cyber defence is part of the Alliance’s core task of collective defence, confirms that international law applies in cyberspace, and intensifies NATO’s cooperation with industry. In 2014, NATO systems registered over 3,000 cyber security events. The top priority of NATO cyber defence is the protection of the communications systems owned and operated by NATO. To this end, NATO has invested in its NATO Computer Incident Response Capability (NCIRC). In May 2014, NCIRC reached full operational capability, expanding the protection of NATO networks to 52 locations.

Countering terrorism

NATO’s efforts to counter terrorism include…New standards were introduced for armoured vehicle protection and the testing of jammers against radio-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Through a voluntary national contribution fund, NATO members supported activities related to future detection technologies, a prototype database to support countermeasure development against radio-controlled IEDs, and training for counter-IED operators. NATO also adopted a new doctrine of route clearance, incorporating lessons learned by NATO countries in different theatres, including Afghanistan, and adapting surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to new technologies. Other aspects of technological advancement to counter terrorism include work to better protect large aircraft through infra-red counter-measures, as well as a planning tool to support harbour protection called “Safe Port”.

Defence and Related Security Capacity Building

NATO is bolstering its existing partnership tools with the creation of the Defence and Related Security Capacity Building Initiative [which] seeks to reinforce cooperation in two broad areas of activity. The first area involves advice on defence reform and institution building, including national security architecture, policy and defence planning. The second involves defence capabilities and the development of local forces, usually focused on education and training over an extended period of time. This initiative differs from other partnership tools because it focuses primarily on short-term stability efforts. NATO has extended invitations to Georgia, Jordan and the Republic of Moldova and is ready to consider requests from other interested countries – partner or non-partner – and organisations. In December, Iraq requested consideration as part of this new initiative. And when conditions permit, NATO is also ready to provide defence and related security capacity advisory support for Libya.

Supporting Ukraine

Throughout the recent crisis in the East, NATO has shown strong political support for Ukraine and its freedom to decide its own future. At the Wales Summit in September, NATO Heads of State and Government met Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, sending a strong political message of NATO’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and for the rules-based Euro-Atlantic security order. Allies are also reinforcing their advisory presence at the NATO offices in Kyiv and will continue to promote the development of greater interoperability between Ukrainian and NATO forces.

Within the framework of the Distinctive Partnership with Ukraine that was agreed in 1997, NATO has increased its practical support to the country as the crisis developed. Measures include a number of immediate and short-term actions to help Ukraine cope with the current crisis, as well as longer-term measures geared towards capacity building, capability development, and reform of the armed forces and the security sector.

In this context, Allies launched five new trust funds to support command, control, communications and computers (C4), logistics and standardization, cyber defence, military career transition and the rehabilitation of injured military personnel. These trust funds add to NATO’s support for existing programmes on defence education, professional development, security sector governance and security-related scientific cooperation. In 2014, Ukraine was the number one beneficiary of the Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, with 15 new projects and an estimated Euro 10 million budget for the 2014- 2017 period.

Open door

Four partner countries aspire to NATO membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

At the Summit in Wales, NATO leaders agreed to launch a period of “intensified and focused talks” with Montenegro to address the remaining issues with regard to the country’s membership aspirations. Montenegro’s progress will be assessed no later than the end of 2015 with a view to deciding whether to invite the country to join the Alliance.

NATO leaders also agreed to develop a substantial package of measures with Georgia to help the country prepare for future NATO membership. The measures aim to strengthen the country’s capabilities through defence capacity building, training, exercises and enhanced interoperability opportunities.

An invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended after a mutually acceptable solution to the issue over the country’s name is reached within the framework of the United Nations.

NATO will continue working with Bosnia and Herzegovina to pursue the reforms needed to meet NATO standards. This principally involves registering immovable defence properties as state property in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A wide network of partnerships around the globe

NATO’s cooperation with partners spans the globe, with countries volunteering expertise and know-how from different continents in a joint effort to resolve common security concerns.

In the Asia-Pacific in 2014, Japan became the fifth partner in the region to sign an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP) after Mongolia, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Australia. The IPCP, which was signed by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in May 2014, focuses on areas including disaster relief, cyber defence, counter-piracy, and interoperability. Australia, Mongolia and New Zealand were recognised as contributors to the Resolute Support Mission, through which NATO will provide training, advice and assistance in Afghanistan.

NATO pursued outreach with other countries in the region, such as China, to discuss issues of common interest including Afghanistan and counter-piracy. The Alliance also remained engaged in informal regional meetings on security including the Shangri-La Dialogue, the Jakarta Defence Dialogue and the Seoul Defence Dialogue.

NATO established a partnership with Iraq in 2012 to help the country build more effective security forces. The partnership includes cooperation in the areas of political dialogue, education and training, response to terrorism, defence institution building and border security, among others. With the Iraqi government’s request at the end of 2014, the Alliance is considering additional cooperation and support within the framework of the new Defence and Related Security Capacity Building Initiative.

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Manufacturing still depressed

The declining fortunes of American manufacturing are being belatedly understood. In February, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government  reported that:

U.S. manufacturing is in a state of crisis…The January 2015 report from the Federal Reserve notes that there are fewer jobs in that industry than at the start of the Obama presidency, when there was 12,561,000 manufacturing jobs in the nation.  By January of 2015, that number had been reduced to 12,330,000. The crisis has its antecedents long before President Obama took office, during the tenure of President Clinton. In October 0f 2000, Clinton signed legislation granting permanent normal trade relations to China. The measure had been bitterly opposed by conservatives, human rights groups, and unions.

In several reports, the Information, Technology & Information Technology Foundation (ITIF) organization has revealed how deep the U.S. manufacturing crisis is, and how little notice the problem has received. A prior study reported:

“In the 2000s, U.S. manufacturing suffered its worst performance in American history in terms of jobs. Not only did America lose 5.7 million manufacturing jobs, but the decline as a share of total manufacturing jobs (33 percent) exceeded the rate of loss in the Great Depression. Despite this unprecedented negative performance, most economists, pundits and elected officials remain remarkably blasé about what has transpired. Manufacturing, they argue, has simply become incredibly productive. While tough on workers who are laid off, outsized job losses actually indicate superior performance. All that might be needed are better programs to help laid-off production workers. And there is certainly no need for a determined national manufacturing competitiveness strategy.

“The alarm bells are largely silent for two reasons. First, most economists and pundits do not extend their analysis beyond one macro-level number—change in real manufacturing value-added relative to real GDP—which at first glance appears stable. But this number masks real decline in many industries. In 2010, 13 of the 19 U.S. manufacturing sectors (employing 55 percent of manufacturing workers) were producing less than in 2000.

“Second, and more fundamentally, U.S. government statistics significantly overstate the change in U.S. manufacturing output, and by definition productivity, in part because of massive overestimation of output growth in the computer and electronics sector and because of problems with how manufacturing imports are measured. When measured properly, U.S. manufacturing output actually fell 11 percent over the last decade while GDP increased 17 percent, something that has not happened before, at least since WWII.”

“In a report released this year, ITIF notes that “American manufacturing has still not recovered to 2007 output or employment levels.  Moreover, the lion’s share of growth that has occurred appears to have been driven by a cyclical, rather than structural, recovery, and as such may represent only a temporary trend…for years, many think tanks,scholars, and pundits turned a blind eye towards the severity of U.S. manufacturing decline, preferring to believe that manufacturing loss is either natural or inconsequential.”

The effect on employment has been harsh.  Real Clear Markets reports:

“Focusing on the last decade, the BLS employment data offer a sobering perspective on the manufacturing sector’s growth in employment in recent years. Between 2010-2014, 762,000 new U.S. manufacturing jobs were created over that five-year period, at an annual average rate of 152,400 new jobs. In contrast, during the preceding five-year period (2005 to 2009), 2.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the U.S. economy, or an average decline of 562,200 jobs per year. Placed in perspective, this means that only 762,000 and about 27 percent of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost during the five years between 2005 and 2009 were actually recovered in the last five years (2010-2014) of economic recovery. And compared to the start of the Great Recession, American manufacturers employ 1.4 million fewer factory workers today than in December 2007…In September 2012, President Obama announced a national goal to create 1 million new manufacturing positions by the end of 2016. Since that announcement, the US manufacturing sector has created payroll jobs at a rate of only 11,000 per month and fewer than 300,000 jobs in total over the last 27 months. That rate of factory job creation would generate only about 560,000 new jobs by the time Obama leaves office — a 440,000 job shortfall compared to the president’s unrealistic goal of 1 million new factory jobs by the end of next year.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Analysis: should Americans fund biased universities?

A new New York Analysis of Policy & Government study examines whether Americans should continue to fund universities that indoctrinate instead of educate.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Embattled Seniors

A combination of government policies, inflationary economics, and employer bias is making life exceedingly difficult for those over 50 years old.

From Obamacare’s “Independent Patient Advisory Boards” that are empowered to decide if providing medical services to seniors are cost effective, to the President’s proposed Medicare Part D changes, seniors’ health is clearly subject to economic pressure. A  Philly.com report notes that   “In February, the president recommended a change that would result in doubling co-payments on brand-name medications for low-income Americans who use Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit. That could raise the out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs for 11 million beneficiaries…Medicare Part D provides essential drug coverage to America’s seniors.”

The problem is not confined to medical issues. The Federal Reserve’s practice of keeping interest rates artificially low to mask a failing economy harms older Americans living off their savings. Also, the historic low cost of living social security increases during the tenure of the current White House has made life increasingly hard for America’s senior citizens.

The extraordinary increase in the federal debt, which soared 70% under President Obama, (from $10.626 trillion when he took office to over $18 trillion currently) is a key factor in the current inflationary spiral. Inflation, particularly in the cost of food, has been devastating to those on fixed incomes, which describes a substantial portion of older Americans. In 2014, the price of standard grocery items soared.

The President’s environmental policies, particularly his move to sharply reduce the role of coal in the energy equation, will result in devastating cost increases that will have deeply harmful effects on the nation’s seniors. In July, according to the Washington Examiner,  “Regulations for new coal plants would increase electricity prices by as much as 80 percent…Julio Friedmann, deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the Department of Energy, told members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”

As noted in a recent Town Hall article  “In the United States there are 27 million households aged 65 or older. Among those households, 63 percent are living with a gross income of less than $50,000 annually. That means the majority of our nation’s seniors are living on fixed incomes. For many of them, their primary source of income is social security. For those living on fixed incomes, seniors and non-seniors alike, any increase in household costs is hard to absorb, and electricity represents 61 percent of total residential bills for seniors.”

Unfortunately, the private sector has added to the challenges faced by older Americans.  “Older” is, of course, a relative term. In the eyes of far too many employers, “older” may mean a job seeker only 40 year old.

An AARP report recently released outlines the extraordinary difficulties—far greater than the general population– faced by those who have lost their job but, because of age, are met with resistance in getting hired.

“On average, 45 percent of older jobseekers (ages 55 and older) were long-term unemployed (out of work for 27 weeks or more) in 2014.” [The national average is about 29.8%.] Many of those who are fortunate enough to find some work “end up accepting jobs at lower pay, with fewer hours, and with limited benefits…Almost half (48 percent) of the reemployed said that they were earning less on their current jobs than the job they had before they recently became unemployed…among the reemployed, half were earning less because they were being paid less, 10 percent were working fewer hours, and 39 percent gave both as reasons.”

In an era when the media and the White House are over-eager to claim unfairness or discrimination in so many instances, the most verifiable, inexcusable and harmful bias–that against America’s older population—is substantially under-reported, ignored, or even facilitated by government practice and employer decisions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russian nukes in Ukraine signal danger for the West

Why is Russia setting up a nuclear weapons infrastructure in its captured portion of Ukraine, and what does it mean for the West? (The Jamestown Foundation notes that “TU-22M3 long-range bombers, which would be able to carry and deliver [nuclear] weapons, have now been deployed to Crimea.”)

Although it rarely gets mentioned, Ukraine voluntarily surrendered its nuclear arsenal—the third largest in the world– in return for guarantees of its territorial sovereignty.

The US, the UK, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 supposedly safeguarding Ukraine . Clearly, all three guarantors, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, have broken their word.  Moscow invaded and annexed a portion of Ukraine, and neither London nor Washington did anything substantive in response.

That failure sent a reverberating, powerful message to aggressors across the globe. Russia, which is in violation of other treaties, has learned that it can abrogate agreements with impunity.  So can other anti-Western powers.

Moscow currently is also in violation of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) . The Hudson Institute notes that “The agreement bans the testing or deployment of intermediate range cruise and ballistic missiles, those with a range between 500km and 5500 km. In its annual 2014 arms control Compliance Report, the Department of State noted that Russia had violated the pact when it deployed a ground-launched cruise missile, whose unique Iskandar system can fire both cruise and ballistic missiles and a system Russia plans to deploy to Crimea… Nor is it Russia’s only INF violation. Moscow also has converted a single-warhead ICBM into a three-warhead intermediate-range ballistic missile, a violation missing from the 2014 Compliance Report.”

Iran and Syria know that America’s threats, and promises of protection to its allies, are not serious. China has harassed and stolen assets from its neighbors.

Apologists for Putin may claim that Russia is only solidifying his grip on a strategic occupied portion of Ukraine.  However, Jamestown reports that “Nor are these Russian military reinforcements seemingly aimed only at the strategic Ukrainian port city of Mariupol. They are also occurring in and around Belarus and sites in western Russia like Belgorod, where massed Russian forces can be turned against the inviting defense-industry target of Kharkiv, in northeastern Ukraine (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, March 16). These reinforcements also derive from previously announced plans to emphasize Russian military buildups for 2015, in the Baltic, Crimea and the Arctic (RIA Novosti, March 17). Moscow’s boosting of its nuclear and conventional forces suggests a continuing Russian effort not just to deter NATO but also to intimidate European governments.”

The message to the West is clear: Russia is asserting hegemony over the former Soviet republics and the Kremlin’s former captive nations in Eastern Europe. It is also returning to Moscow’s former desire to cow the rest of Europe into relative submission.

There has been an historically rapid turnaround from the late 20th century collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the potential era of peace that could have resulted from it.  The failure of the West, the United States in particular, to maintain an adequate military capability, and the pacifist/isolationist policies of the Obama Administration in particular, have squandered what was a true opportunity for a prolonged period of international peace.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Amount & complexity of taxes vexes Americans

Americans are filing their taxes today, but “Tax Freedom Day” won’t occur until April 24, one day later than last year, according to the Tax Foundation.

“Tax Freedom Day® is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay off its total tax bill for the year. Tax Freedom Day provides Americans with an easy way to gauge the overall tax take-a task that can otherwise be daunting due to the multiplicity of taxes at various levels of government and “hidden” taxes and fees that are often buried in the cost of living. Tax Freedom Day computed by dividing total tax collections by the nation’s income, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Every dollar that is officially called income by the government is counted, and every payment that is officially considered a tax is counted. The resulting percentage is then converted into days of a 365-day calendar year.”

It’s not only the amount of taxes that vexes Americans; it’s the complexity of the tax system.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation  (NTUF) has released a new annual study of tax code complexity in the U.S., “finding the economy lost $233.8 billion due to 6.1 billion hours of lost productivity (an estimated value of $202.1 billion) and $31.7 billion in out-of-pocket costs spent complying with a complex and invasive tax code.”

‘Americans face a rising tax complexity burden that essentially prevents anyone from being able to comply without assistance,’ Study author and NTUF Policy Analyst Michael Tasselmyer said. ‘This year’s study gives an indication of future challenges, revealing the additional complications the Affordable Care Act will add to the Tax Code and filing.’
“Additionally, a new analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) impact on complexity found 3,322 pages of legal guidance related to the ACA added to IRS.gov – this overlaps partially with 1,865 pages of new ACA regulations.

“NTUF’s report also highlights complexity issues related to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), heavier paperwork burdens, taxpayer service challenges, and identity theft.

“This year’s key findings include:

  • According to the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, the total time burden of tax compliance totals an astounding 1 billion hoursthis year.
    • That is the equivalent of 152.5 million 40-hour workweeks. It would take 59,580 American workers working every week with no days off from age 18 until reaching the full Social Security retirement age of 67, to account for that much time.
    • Or, enough time for the Voyager spacecraft to fly to the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) and back four times!

  • The total compliance cost is $233.813 billiona year. More than the GDP of Ireland, Portugal, or Pakistan.
    • Of this, individuals spend a combined $31.72 billiona year on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs.
    • When calculated at the average hourly wage, the value of the labor involved in tax compliance is a jaw-dropping $202.093 billion.
  • NTUF found a staggering 3,322 pagesof legal guidancefor the Affordable Care Act added to IRS.gov – including regulations (1,077), Treasury decisions (1,377), notices (669), revenue procedures (100), and revenue rulings (12).
  • The Treasury’s paperwork burden (most of it due to taxes) imposed on the public has grown from 6.4 billion hours to 7 billion hours over the period from fiscal year 2005 to 2013, never making up less than 74 percent of the burden imposed by all government agencies combined.
  • With paid preparers and tax preparation software accounting for 94 percent of returns, it is nearly impossible for any taxpayer to file without assistance.Meanwhile, the average retail fee per return for H&R Block rose to a high of $215. 
  • Most estimates put the length of the Tax Code at roughly 4 million words. This is seven timesthe length of Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace; more than two times the length of the King James Bible plus the entire works of Shakespearecombined; or, for a more modern reference, well over twice the length of the five Song of Ice and Fireseries books that inspired the TV show “Game of Thrones.”
  • Over 75 years ago, the Form 1040 instructions were just two pages Today, taxpayers must wade through 209 pages of instructions, quadruple the number in 1985, the year before taxes were “simplified.”

“Between 2009 and 2011 the cost of tax complexity spiked from under $150 billion per year to well over $200 billion per year. It has not fallen below that threshold since, and 2015’s estimates are nearly $10 billion higher than last year, showing complexity costs are back on the rise.

‘The IRS has never had more power over America’s taxpayers, thanks to even greater cost and complexity added to the code by Obamacare and FATCA,’ added Tasselmyer. ‘Without reform there is little reason to expect anything other than a rising time and financial burden, not to mention more invasion of privacy.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Alternatives to Obamacare

It has become a standard line of those defending Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148)  and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152)  that there is no alternative to the deeply flawed  program, which has cost the taxpayers so much, and produced so little.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has compiled a list of alternatives that have been proposed, including those presented by the CATO Institute; Senators Hatch, Burr, Coburn, and Upton; the Republican Study Committee; Rep. Tom Price; and Senator Ted Cruz.  The continuing  statements by the White House, many legislators, and much of the media that no alternatives have been developed is manifestly incorrect.

In addition, many of the concepts to address the escalating costs of health care and health care insurance have yet to be enacted, and remain actively opposed by special interest groups, including lawyers groups and insurance companies.  These include innovations such as allowing health care insurance to be sold nationally, instead of state by state to enhance competition and reduce prices; enacting tort reform, to address the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and medical institutions due to non-substantive nuisance law suits; and permitting policies that more precisely fit the needs of the insured, such as coverage for catastrophic care only.

The need to address Obamacare has been summarized by the Heritage Foundation,  which outlined how the legislation detrimentally affects Americans:

“Seniors: The law cuts an estimated $716 billion from Medicare over ten years. However, these “savings” are not set aside to preserve Medicare’s future, instead they are used to fund new spending created by the law. Nearly one-third of all seniors rely on Medicare Advantage, the private health care option in Medicare. Despite the program’s growing enrollment and beneficiary satisfaction, Obamacare makes deep cuts to the program that jeopardize its viability in coming years. In addition to payment cuts, Obamacare imposes new taxes on drug companies and medical device makers, and new regulations that will make health care more costly for seniors.

“Doctors: The United States is facing a severe physician shortage. By 2020, the nation will need an additional 91,500 doctors to meet medical demand. Obamacare exacerbates this problem by further increasing physicians’ workload and worsening their attitudes regarding the health care system.

A 2012 survey found that Obamacare is motivating doctors to change their retirement timeline, with 43 percent of respondents stating that they are considering retiring within the next five years as a result of the law.

“Business & The Economy: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Obamacare subsidies will discourage Americans from working, and cause 2.5 million employees to drop out of the labor force.

Obamacare’s employer mandate will raise the minimum cost of hiring a full-time worker to $10.30/hour in 2015. Congress has already raised the minimum wage from an employer’s point of view, but the money goes to the government instead of the employees.

“States: Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion worsens the already heavy burdens facing states. By 2021, approximately 78 million people are projected to be enrolled in Medicaid—requiring billions of dollars from state budgets and taxpayers. In the individual market, Obamacare’s exchanges have on average decreased insurer competition by an estimated 29 percent nationwide. Furthermore, over half of the counties in the U.S. have only one or two insurers to choose from in their Obamacare exchange.

“Families: Obamacare adds nearly $2 trillion in new health care spending according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over the next 10 years, Obamacare will levy about$771 billion in new taxes and fees.

Obamacare imposes significant financial penalties on the decision to get or remain married – over $10,000 per year for certain couples.

“Uninsured: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that “between 6 and 7 million fewer people will have employment-based coverage each year from 2016 through 2024 than would be the case in the absence of [the new health law].”In 2024, after ten years of full implementation, 31 million people are projected to remain uninsured.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s unexplained Cuban policy

The New York Analysis has released its report on the President’s move to normalize relations with Cuba.  The report can be accessed below.