Monday, December 31, 2012
Obama Grants Pay Increase For Members Of Congress, Federal Workers In Executive Order
When it comes to US austerity, a very sensitive topic as framed best by the "spending cuts" portion in the Fiscal Cliff debate, the ideas range from the surreal to the outright idiotic: as an example in the most recent Obama proposal spending would be "reduced" in the form of $290 billion in interest savings - not an actual spending reduction, but a hope and a prayer that because rates are lower, the government will "save" money with rates continuing to be lower (something which immediately causes a #Ref!explosion for anyone not using government math), $130 billion in savings that would come from once again rejiggering the definition of 'inflation', as well as "savings" from not funding extra defense spending because the US is not engaged in a pro forma war. Like we said: surreal and idiotic, or in other words, no actual real cuts to spending. Yet even as the nation is gripped by the melodrama of fake spending cuts offset by the threat to tax millionaires more (all of whom will merely find more creative and effective ways to hide their wealth and income offshore), spending increases are all too real, such as last night's order by Obama's just issued an executive order to end the pay freeze for federal employees, which is the equivalent of a wage increase. A truly deserved rise in wages for a job well done by the most dysfunctional Congress America has ever seen.
Among the workers to receive a pay increase is Vice President Job Biden. As the Weekly Standard reports, citing disclosure forms, Biden made $225,521 last year and after the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year. More: "Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase." Somehow we have the feeling that Congress will be quite united behind this "order", just as the Senate was very united yesterday in its decision to continue spying on America's citizens.
From the Weekly Standard:
Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:
"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."
Jeryl Bier points to an example of the pay increase for average government executives:
"Not much of an increase, but an increase all the same," Bier notes.
And the timing isn't great either: Just as President Obama and Congress try to avert going over the "fiscal cliff," he doles out pay increases to federal workers.
UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.
The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."
Obama Executive Order
Zero Hedge
Ron Paul On The Fiscal Cliff: "We Have Passed The Point Of No Return"
In a little under three minutes, Ron Paul explains to a somewhat nonplussed CNBC anchor just how ridiculous the charade that is occurring in D.C. actually is.
This succinct spin-free clip should be required viewing for each and every asset-manager, talking-head, propagandist, and mom-and-pop who are viewing the last-minute idiocy of the 'fiscal cliff' debacle with some hope that things will be different this time. "We have passed the point of no return where we can actually get our house back in order," Paul begins, adding that "they pretend they are fighting up there, but they really aren't.
They are arguing over power, spin, who looks good, who looks bad; all trying to preserve the system where they can spend what they want, take care of their friends and print money when they need it." With social safety nets available to rich and poor, there is no impetus for change and "the country loses," but Paul concludes, the markets are starting to say "there is a limit to this."
Zero Hedge
Zero Hedge
India Receives Second Russia-Built Stealth Missile Frigate
The source did not specify whether an official ceremony of the frigate’s reception would be held.
Russia and India signed a $1.6 billion contract on construction of three modified Krivak III class (also known as Talwar class) guided missile frigates for India in 2006. The first frigate, INS Teg, joined the Indian Navy on April 27.
The second frigate, The Tarkash, was commissioned on November 9 and sailed from Baltiysk to India on November 17.
The last in the series of three frigates, The Trikand, currently undergoes dock trials and after it completes sea trials in the Baltic Sea will join the Indian Navy in the summer of 2013.
The new frigates are each armed with eight BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.
They are also equipped with a 100-mm gun, a Shtil surface-to-air missile system, two Kashtan air-defense gun/missile systems, two twin 533-mm torpedo launchers, and an antisubmarine warfare (ASW) helicopter.
Russia previously built three Talwar class frigates for India - INS Talwar (Sword), INS Trishul (Trident), and INS Tabar (Axe).
RIA Novosti
The year 2012 ended with the announcement of the arrival of a new period of confrontation between Washington and Moscow
Political strategies and show biz have become so intertwined nowadays that it’s hard to tell the former from the latter, and vice versa. For Washington and Moscow – two old-time friends and rivals – the year 2012 ended with the announcement of the arrival of a new period of confrontation, which can be observed between parliaments at the moment but could grow into something much more serious.
Having shaken off the ‘archival dust’ of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, the United States quickly replaced the obsolete document with the Magnitsky Act. Russia responded with the blacklist of Americans who will be denied Russian visas and imposed a ban on the adoption of Russian children by US citizens.
Like in chess, the game between Moscow and Washington is developing on the basis of a logical scenario. The methods the two countries resort to are not important after all, as the relations between the two countries were destined to deteriorate anyway. This opinion belongs to International Grandmaster Alexei Kuzmin.
"The political duel between the United States and Russia will assume yet more threatening proportions in 2013. Given that the two sides have exhausted all their arguments concerning a European missile defense system, Iran, Syria and the ever-green issue of a Middle East settlement, there are practically no chances for striking an easy deal. A chess player is often confronted with difficult choices where he has to decide whether the oncoming worsening of his position is beneficial. Every grandmaster knows how to provoke the opponent into making a move that could seem dangerous but yields good fruit in the long run. A provocation that fails to hit its target makes your position weaker."
Whatever moves Russia and the US choose to make, they are unlikely to grow into a full-fledged conflict, International Grandmaster Vladislav Tkachev says.
"No high-profile moves, like the Magnitsky and Dima Yakovlev Lists, the creation of new missile defense systems, or support of one of the parties to the Syrian conflict, can spoil relations between Russia and the US. As always, the United States is feigning interest in what Russia has to say but does as it pleases. It reserves the right to set its own rules of conduct. Like in a game of chess, Washington controls the key fields of the chessboard while feeling free to decide whether to exchange pieces or launch a direct attack against the king."
According to Alexei Kuzmin, the recently signed Dima Yakovlev Bill and the law that bans corrupt US officials from opening accounts in Russian banks or entering Russia are strategic moves designed to provoke the opponent into taking symmetrical measures, which in turn could strengthen President Putin’s positions on the ‘domestic policy section’ of the chessboard.
All these moves are but red herring while Moscow is consistently pursuing its agenda moving, slowly but surely, towards the ‘main target’. This is what is bothering Washington, Vladislav Tkachev says.
In general, Russia is against ‘blacklist wars’ or games for raising stakes. The Russian Foreign Ministry said a few days ago that the only reasonable way of handling international relations is a dialogue. But a dialogue presupposes two parties.
Voice of Russia
Sunday, December 30, 2012
EU,US plan economic union
The European Union and the United States are holding secret talks on the creation of a joint trade and economic union. According to news media reports, Washington and Brussels are in talks to strike an unprecedented deal on creating a trans-Atlantic market.
The purpose of such an initiative is to offset the potential of the Old and New Worlds against the rapidly developing markets of the BRICS group of countries, particularly India, China and Russia.
The idea of economic integration between the EU and the US was first suggested by Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel put forward this initiative in 2007. Back then, the plan received no approval from Washington and was shelved altogether, following the 2008 crisis. According to unofficial reports, the participants in the clandestine talks are discussing mutual investments and common standards in taxation, medicine and other areas. Meanwhile, experts warn about the difficulties that lurk behind such integration. They make it clear that a trade union of the two regional economies should not hurt European and American high-tech companies. Analyst Mikhail Neyzhmakov comments.
"A large number of corporations on both sides could benefit from such a union. However, since the EU and the US both produce high-tech products and are competing in this area, they might end up damaging their own corporations by creating a free economic zone and offering free access to each other’s markets."
A trans-Atlantic economic zone would spur economic growth in the US and the EU. According to experts, abolition of taxes will guarantee a 0.5% GDP growth in the EU and a 1.5% in the US. Exports would increase by nearly one fourth in both the EU and the US. The European Union and the United States could thus form an effective counterbalance to the BRICS economies. Europe and the United States have been losing their positions on foreign markets over the past few decades. Maxim Bratersky of the Higher School of Economics, comments.
"Over the past 10-15 years, Europe has become less competitive compared to China and India. However, it has been losing only in a particular set of sectors, where European workers can be replaced by Chinese, or Vietnamese. As for a whole range of other sectors of the economy, Europe retains fairly strong positions on the markets."
Most analysts are skeptical about a US-EU economic union. Nevertheless, given the current trend for economic integration in various corners of the world, such a union remains an option. The 21st century could well become an era of economic alliances in the course of which the US and Europe will join forces against the rest of the world, including Asia.
Voice of Russia
EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia
While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.
In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated:
By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20.
As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.” Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”
“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed:
Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.
Then Annan addressed the rational apprehension that many people would harbor concerning these new proposals for restructuring the world. “What do we mean by ‘governance’ when applied to the international realm?” he asked. “In the minds of some,” he said, “the term still conjures up images of world government, of centralized bureaucratic behemoths trampling on the rights of people and states.” These fearful conjurations, he assured us, have no basis in reality. “Nothing is less desirable” than world government, said Annan, insisting that “the very notion of centralizing hierarchies is itself an anachronism in our fluid, highly dynamic and extensively networked world — an outmoded remnant of nineteenth century mindsets.”
However, only months prior to the Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan’s report, on February 26, 1999, Sir Shridath Ramphal, a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, addressed the Commission’s meeting in Barcelona, Spain, and gave a very different take on the matter. Ramphal stated:
The point I am making is that when we talk of “governance” and “democracy,” we have to look beyond governance within countries and democracy within states. We have to look to Global Governance and Democracy within the Global State.
A Global “State” with a capital “S” signifies a world “State,” a world government. And Ramphal emphasized that in the conclusion of his talk by celebrating the end of the “Nation State.” He declared:
As the Century of the Nation State ends, however, to a far greater degree than their governments, people recognize … they understand that the roads to justice and survival are conjoined; that the task is to bring the mutual interests and the moral impulses of mankind together.
Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”
Van Rompuy — Tapped by Bilderbergers
Attali is a veteran attendee of the annual meetings of the super-secret, super-elite Bilderberg Group. Which brings us back to Herman Van Rompuy, frequently referred to as “Bilderberg Van Rompuy,” a reference to his having received his current job title through the actions and influence of the Bilderbergers. In a November 17, 2009 article for the U.K.’s Guardian, entitled “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of ‘shambolic’ process to fill key jobs,” Ian Traynor wrote:
Van Rompuy met Kissinger at a closed session of international policymakers and industrialists chaired by Viscount Etienne Davignon, a discreetly powerful figure in Brussels who was vice-president of the European commission in the 1980s. The viscount currently chairs the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy global freemasonry of politicians and bankers who meet to discuss world affairs in the strictest privacy, spawning innumerable conspiracy theories. Van Rompuy, it seems, attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles.
Jon Ronson, another reporter at the Guardian, interviewed Lord Denis Healey, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, for a 2001 article entitled, “Who Pulls the Strings?” Although Lord Healey insisted the group was not conspiratorial at all, he confirmed that they are working in the direction of world government. Ronson wrote:
This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”
He said, “Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren’t politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy.”
David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.
That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reports in September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American. What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky “conspiracy theory,” is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.
INFOWARS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)