The Defraying Costs for free trade are Costly

This past weekend, I watched on C-Span discussions of the new free trade agreement with EU, TTIP, and the proposals for a NAFTA-2 agreement.  Particularly, I found instructive the discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

During negotiations for NAFTA-1, I had a tiny window of input; and overall, I was encouraging of the developing treaty for the North American Continent.  Currently, there's a plethora of free trade agreements in effect or in circulation, including Mexico's outreach market ploy to corral South American countries into its free trade pact.

Support for these free trade agreements has never been enthusiastic.  I think the public is aware that there are costs to it; and these don't seem part of the agreement!  I describe these costs, viz., what I regard as opportunity costs, as defrayed, usually paid for by the people of the countries through their governments' participation in some free trade agreement.

Key to understanding these defrayed costs is to start with a transaction between two corporations (i.e., a memo of understanding) that establish a free trade agreement for some product, one ordering the product to be produced, the other agreeing to manufacture the product (or, in some way produce it) for a set sum of money; and each corporation head-quartered in a country other than the other.

What are these opportunity costs which are being defrayed?  In the country where the product is produced, these  involve use of natural resources--water and land--which, if polluted are not satisfactorily cleaned up.  In the country losing sites of production and manufacturing, these involve workers who are displaced and have lost income; and in many cases must be subsequently re-trained, perhaps, even re-located.  In that the governments, acting on behalf of the businesses involved, have provided the opportunity for international trade, they must be compensated for the incursion of demands upon their workforce and resources because of the free trade transaction.        

Accordingly, I argue for an export tariff tax:  when the value is added to the product being produced within the boundaries of a country, that country should tax the value that was added to the product in goods and services provided within its borders.  Secondly, while companies bear no responsibility to workers who migrate into their country to become part of its labor force so as to benefit possibly from an additional call for skilled workers, they should discourage worker migration cross borders. For one thing, migration drains the indigenous worker pool (witness what happened in Mexico and Central America, when migrants drifted north to the US).  For another, it places undue and uncompensated demand on social services in the producing country. 

What principle I appeal to for backing to these shifts toward paying for the free trade opportunity is the recognition that for the transaction to benefit each participating corporation, all parties must assume responsibilities as operating businesses in partnership in the production process.

A related point to make: Internet Point of Sale

It is true that the Internet spans many, many countries; and there's a tremendous surge in sales of companies doing selling over the Internet.  Typically, these are "mom-and-pop" or "husband-and-wife" operations, but their costs are minimal--amounting to cost to produce the product or engage in the service; and shipping charges via Fed-Ex; and costs to meet relatively minimal regulatory standards within one country or another where the transaction and sale is recorded. 

Obviously, many Internet companies are thriving, capable of meeting the responsibilities of business to pay their share to government.  Accordingly, there should be a sales tax instituted, possibly by the federal government or certainly by the province or state government where the point of sale is recorded.  Failing to impose this responsibility upon small businesses, primarily, is to my mind providing undue advantage to those involved in Internet selling over the more usual customer selling.      

The Ukrainian Developing Nation!

It's been many years since I was in Russia to discuss the construction of a constitution for the Russian Federation of Independent States, some discussions in some of which I participated.  I'm lucky enough to be still living to see how these Independent States are faring.  The current struggle in the Ukraine over how close this Nation is to be tied to Russia is something that we had anticipated at that time.

That each federation state is a nation with independent status, to my mind, is a precious property--one that should be retained.  Negotiating with Russia to extend a strategic partnership relationship ought not mean giving up nor sacrificing the independent character of the Ukrainian people, for which right they voted in approving the new Constitution in 1991. 

I take it, should the Ukraine join the customs union the country would remove all passport controls, much as is essentially the case for a country in the E.U.  The question really is what does the Ukraine gain in so doing and what of its independence does it give up. From the EU's beginnings, it is true, a citizen of one member state could freely travel to any other.  The reason (I believe) for this fundamental free travel feature stems from a desire by the large states for cheap labor:  a citizen of one of the EU countries can migrate to any other in order to look for, or find work.  Now that the EU countries are experiencing a recession lasting for several years, the more prosperous states are seeking to restrict entry to migrant workers from the poorer states. 

But there's more to the EU.  It wants its own currency.  The UK has shied away from going along with this feaature.  Another--it is committed to remedying the financial deficits of member states.  Germany has tried to resist EU's pressure for its own country's wealth to help Greece and Spain maintain solvency.  I can't fathom that the Ukraine wants to get involved in Western European financial problems.  No, to my way of thinking, the EU is no answer.  Add to this how scandalously EU has treated Turkey's steps to join the EU, when I don't believe the EU has any intention to give it member status!

Now, there are international organizations that can be useful to the Ukraine, and maybe it already has sought help from them or belongs as a member state of some of them.  Best by far is the World Trade Organization (WTO).  This organization is dedicated to lower tariffs among its members.  While a member state may not have all its tariffs reduced, it sets up trade agreements with trading partners to economically benefit both the member country and its partners.  It is the case that the EU handles tariff reductions among member states, but be it observed, that the US trades with all European nations and does not belong to the EU!  It is also the case that the US belongs to several regional trading blocs whose purpose is to reduce tariffs among its members.  That the Ukraine may have a free-trade agreement with Russia ought not preclude, nor rule out, its making some free-trade agreement with another country anywhere else in the world!

There's the UN, which does monitoring of a country's internal elections; and has a distinguished record in this area.  There's the many international accounting firms that can be hired to systematically audit a country's financial systems.  These, I noted in my trips to Brazil, can be invaluable in handling issues pertaining to corruption in government.  For money, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been designated principal agent to Eastern European countries.  But there's also the World Bank, useful, I have seen, in establishing new industries within a country.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Russian Federation of Independent States has permitted trade agreements among members in the Federation and permitted trade agreements of a member with those outside the Federation, even with EU member states. 

-------------------
An aside matter.  When I was in Russia, I was asked whether I thought large-scale emigration of Jews living in the Ukraine, particularly in Kiev, was a good idea.  Knowing that a new constitution was in the works in Russia, I thought Russia would find itself drained of an important educated, talent pool should that happen.  In the States a few years back, I saw a motion picture that depicted the plight of some immigrant Jews who were sent into the desert to work at a bottle factory.

You know, Malcolm-X, a black leader in the US, advocated for awhile the position that blacks of slave ancestory in the US should found their own country, somewhere in the South--a country where they could be themselves.  I'm glad that Malcolm-X changed his mind and they have worked together with whites and all other peoples in the US for justice and for unity among all.  The blacks in the US have done so much to promote peace and equal opportunity for all by being included amongst us and championing the cause of justice with us all: As is said in the streets of Detroit and in the streets of Memphis and in the streets of San Francisco, "We shall overcome!"                          

                          

You can't be yourself if you work for a money-making company!

Jacques Rousseau said it several centuries ago, the Hippies said it in the 1960s (maybe that's why I married a former Hippie):  you can't be yourself if you're part of the establishment, which for Rousseau was society en toto, for the Hippies was working for a company; but today, I think it translates into working for a money-making company.  I think you can be working for a non-profit, non-political foundation and still be yourself.

Case in point: CCN news just over this past weekend.  One of the regular news-anchors was interviewing Mr. F. Zakaria about his position-statement made on his own GPS program.  I am presupposing that Zakaria is himself paid by CNN.  Anyway, Zakaria had expressed the view that some nations who are close friends of the US don't actually want a deal to be made with Iran regarding limiting Iran's nuclear capabilities (a capability that has up to now taken over 15 years, I might add).  He cited France and Israel as being adamantly opposed.  On religious grounds, he seemed to name both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as opposed--being Sunni not Shiite (as are Iran and Iraq).  He also thought these Muslim countries would also be against a peace settlement in Syria.

Regarding his position on an Iranian nuclear agreement, boy, did Zakaria ever back-track after a seeming assent to it--making his position into an 'Oh, yes, well, there's much to be said blah...blah...blah;' and at least one 'You know how things are.'  But then Zakaria works for a money-making corporation; and I don't; and I contend that not only nations friendly to the US don't want any nuclear agreement with Iran but that many members of the  US Congress don't either!         

The Need for World Stability has local implications

Several reports have just circulated about conflicts within a single country's boundaries or beyond.

1) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appealed to President Obama for military hardware.  The situation in Iraq appears close to another civil conflict between Muslim sects--Sunni and Shiite.  During the period of US occupation, the strife was controlled, but now is again looming. The Prime Minister seems to think all he needs from the US is helicopters, for now, thinking that his own military can devise strategies for restraining the combatant groups.

I agree with Senator ("no boots on the ground")McCain, should he be arguing for US military involvement in an advisory capacity.  No doubt, there needs to be developed strategies that work to cope with the violence, particularly in the cities; and I would think it would require consultation of the Iraqi military with the US military; and together with the Iranians.   Bring back US military conspicuous presence short of ground troops?

2)  In the Kashmir, there yet continues the dispute between India and Pakistan, leading to shelling occurrences over the Indian rule.  Over the years, I've talked with Indians who claim that the Muslims in the area really want the land to remain Indian.  This controversy cannot be resolved when the deep-seated social differences between the Muslims and those of other religions in the area are glossed over for the sake of maintaining control of that rich agrarian land.  But, who's to act as arbiter? 

3)  In the US, the immigration pending legislation appears to be held up over the issue of vouchsafing that the borders to the South are secure from penetration by foreigners.  Some legislators want independent certification by an outside, impartial body after thorough investigation, course.

In my opinion, no better evaluator of border security than the US military, itself!

4)  As noted per country on an update-basis--Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, and just until recently,  the Congo--Africa is yet ablaze in conflict (added to its notorious problem of corruption of officials in government--except in Westernized South Africa).

While China evidently approaches the Continent as a goldmine for natural resource development, it nonetheless must seemingly deal with the problem of insurrectionist violence.  It has been able to work with the Sudanese government to lay claim to its oil; and so may think it competent to overcome social problems sufficiently to meet its strategic goal for natural resource trade. By establishing colonies on the Continent it may have alighted upon a smart way to lure trading partners on the Continent.  Still it doesn't have the military presence to bring about change in social structures on its own.  Anything it could significantly accomplish would seem to be a long way off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What appears absent in these reports of struggles among opposing, sometimes hostile parties, is the presence of some outside mediating agency to prompt these factions to work together in finding a solution or in coming upon a strategy of handling the conflict that meets the needs of the people who are caught in a struggle, yet not participant in it.         

Role of the Military in Worldwide Governance I

Over the years I've come into contact with several countries' military and have read up on the topic, too.  It is related to this background that I begin a rumination on the military, particularly, the US military.

The Issue at hand

Today's military is very skilled.  Remember the days when a young man was conscripted when he was drunk and didn't care what he did?  Nowadays, industry and business are recruiting members of the military, since they are so technologically advanced as able to improve industrial practices significantly.  Was not the Internet an advance born out of military technology?

If you've witnessed the testimonies of our recent Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are aware of, not only their technical expertise, but their political savvy.  It causes me to question our heritage since the days of the cave men that places the leader of the government, e.g., The President, as the Chief of the country's military.  Military top brass can certainly and independently, have political opinions, e.g., whether to go to war, and should be given the platform to publicly express them.

When I was visiting Ottawa, Canada a few years ago, I met military high echelon from African countries.  I discovered my initial reasons to think that the African Union concept should become a reality were well-founded, since it has indeed sought to bring about a stable environment throughout that Continent by bold actions.

Be it noted, too, that despots like Hussein in Iraq, Hitler in Germany, always relied on their own loyal military--in Germany,  the SS and Gestapo--to carry out their wishes against their opposition or their victims, circumventing or even superseding the established military.

The paradigm of the military is that body of dedicated and trained soldiers whose purpose is to protect and save the country from invasion from foreign countries.  Just as the paradigm of the police is that institutional arm of local and state government concerned to protect and preserve the law-abiding citizens within its jurisdiction from harm and injury from those who would perpetrate hostile and un-lawful acts.

Note that the Egyptian military recently intervened in the political arena in order to oust the President and his government (actions I highly approve of).  It did so, as it claimed, to save the country from autocratic rule that would not recognize and respect those groups who disagreed with it.  The military has promised to re-institute a democratically-elected government, but one which acknowledges the rights and privileges of all Egyptians and promises to reform state institutions including the judiciary.  Moreover, saving the country implies placing it on sound economic ground through policies and directives that promote trade, reduce governmental deficit, and so forth.  This the military intends to promote.  In sum, it would not allow the country to drift into economic chaos!

The Egyptian intervention into the political arena reminds me of what the Turkish military has found  necessary to do in times of civil governmental floundering during recent past centuries.  Even today, we find the anger of its citizenry rising against the current President, who would insinuate himself in matters of local affairs, demanding his edicts be followed even if whimsical.

Admiring the Turkish model of an independent military, not beholden to the state's political structure, I have argued that the US military be its own political force for the good of the US citizenry; but not only this, I have pressed that, because of the US military's especial technological and strategic planning capabilities, the US military should become a vital force in the policy-making of worldwide governance.  Being that it has bases and other installations in over 170 countries around the globe, I believe that it is in position to lead on in an international basis to preserve world peace and foster international commerce and trade through mechanisms of influence and might.        

   



  

         

Good Reasons for US Involvement in Syrian War

This past week, FOX news carried a few outstanding commentators on the good reasons for US involvement in the Syrian War.  I was impressed, largely because Hannity and O'Reilly's own analyses are so trite in comparison!  I believe the points raised for US military involvement are convincing and significant.  They are the following:

1. The moderate rebels need counseling and training by the American military.  I was impressed by the outstanding job the US military did in assisting and offering advice to the Filipino people in their battles with the Communists on their soil. This record of achievement continues the US military's international program to assist governments stabilize their regimes and improve their economic condition.  In Syria, the US military could play a prominent role in turning the tide toward rebel victory and in guiding the moderates toward proposing a responsible government, even as the al-Quada continues to hold its own reign in northern territory. 

2. But in gaining a toehold in the heart of the Middle-East through this opportunity to strengthen the position of the rebels against Assad's might, the US  military can add stability to Egypt's military in its efforts to restore a civil government (and influence it towards establishing democratic institutions of justice and law).  Moreover, its presence can deter Iran and the Hezbolah from doing nasty deeds on their own.  What an opportunity this moment is for the US to exert its expertise and prominence in the Middle-East and calm the waters of violence and oppression!

Discussion

Most news commentators have been talking up the issue of whether the President has the authority to commit troops and hardware without Congressional authorization.  They go back as far as Regan sending in troops to Granada and Clinton opposing evil in the Balkan republics during the 1990s.  However, they fail to grasp the importance of what FDR did in the late 1930s.   When the country was trying to recover from the Great Depression, he virtually tricked Congress through the Lend Lease Program to get the US involved in the Second World War on the side of the European Allies.  An argument could have been made then that it was not in the interest  of the US to involve itself in a war in Europe.  After all, until US boats were threatened by the Nazis on the high seas, as the US sent war materials to England, there had been no thought that Germany might invade the US!  So, logically, using the principle of self-interest the US should not have involved itself.  Even had Hitler admitted to gassing Jews, as long as no Americans were clearly victimized, by invoking the principle of self-interest, the US should have minded its own business!

Syrians, whose only problem was staying in Syria, have become subject to gassing and death; even as in the Gospels, it is reported that Jesus' innocence succumbed to the evil of His day.  People through no fault of their own are laid to rest victimized by Evil forces.  Is it not marvelous when leaders with vision--and are prepared to lead a campaign against evil--are given the chance to march for the right reason! 
  

    

A Change in the Black Culture in the USA

They had a meeting yesterday regarding black culture in the USA today.  I think its purpose was to provide black elders to encourage their youth to hang in there!  There's some 56% of black youths ages, 16-19, unemployed, I understand; a bit less for older youths.

I think the problem in the black culture today stems from black history in America.  It's that blacks came to this country as slaves.  That means by definition that the women might lead separate lives from the men.  That heritage lives on even today in the black kids' attitudes about themselves, especially, regarding their future jobs in American society. They don't think their career interests, if any, have any relevance to what they will do in life.   

There's two steps that might be taken that I believe could help rectify the situation, granting that integration in housing is a long way off.  Be it noted, that neither blacks nor, I'm sorry to say, whites want the other race in their neighborhoods.  I know--I, a white retired male, tried to live in Washington, DC on at least 4 separate occasions, which for me meant living among blacks; and I got the cold shoulder from them implied by looks and aggressive youths' actions--"Get out!

John Dewey an American philosopher argued in the middle of the previous century that everyone should be future oriented in their thinking.  His dictum: forget about the past (a stance the Republicans are woeful to take) and forge ahead!  Applying this notion to the black culture of today, I think the blacks should be forward looking.  Importantly with respect to establishing a plan for a child's development, a black child should begin to think from the get-go, say age 3, about his future adult role in society.  His parent(s) and educators should ask him, "What do you want to do when you grow up?  Would you like to become an electronics repairman?"  And they should remind him of what society's expectations are to be that kind of adult.  At every stage in his development, he should modify his answer to this question in light of his own personal changes in interests, capabilies and talents.

Years ago, white parents were inculcated by their parents to ask this question of their own children in the spirit of pledging support:  "What do you want to be?  If you want to become a lawyer, we'll back you every step of the way, so you can fulfill your dream--as much as we can.  Just tell us what job you want in your future. "  It was the way families and schools helped their kids realize their wants and needs in society.  And, ministers promised from the pulpit that "God has a plan for your life.  All you have to do is commit yourself to the Lord and let him lead you."

Stern discipline falls on deaf ears of black youths.

The second step I advocate, though I'm not certain how it would work, is to "guarantee" the racial mingling of kids and young adults on projects involving team cooperation. That way, kids of different races can learn to trust each other. This has been demonstrated in the military by co-mingling, but unfortunately because of an all-volunteer military, the races don't develop that team spirit which should permeate American society.  Going back to a compulsory military service would, I believe, alleviate the situation to a remarkable degree--even as the Israelis insist that their youth serve in the military.

Of the two ideas, I think a cadre of future-looking blacks would change the cultural mode of thinking and acting from that of allowing kids to wallow in the present to, instead, encouraging them to plan and pursue their own employment futures in American society (which, by the way, is a source of their own self-identity).  It's a little thing, but sometimes the little things have the greatest impact.  After all, the USA is forward-looking in business: both in its enterprises undertaken and its investments made. 

    

President Morsy addresses his fellow Egyptians

On the 1st Anniversary of his Presidency, President Mohamed Morsy is to address his people, amid consternation of his policies.  Primarily, he must appeal to the Egyptian military, who has made possible the Arab Spring advancement in that country.  But, unemployment, particularly among the youth under 30 years of age is of critical concern in every Egyptian's mind.

You know, China's major problem of unemployment has been a source of other problems, but it's actually the military who have kept unemployment under manageable control.  Its conscripts do farm work part of the year, so as to maintain the agricultural economy.  The young soldiers don't always like it, but they make their contribution to society in more ways than just in military uniform.  Maybe, the Egyptian military might help its civilian government in some ways, too.  In any case, without some millitary backing the fledgling democracy in Egypt will come upon harsh times.

I believe, too, the Muslim Brotherhood can appeal to other groups in Egypt--including the intellectuals and technical workers--to make democracy a successful experiment.  After all, the rank-and-file Egyptians were not brought into governance of that country under previous administrations, which spanned some thirty years!

So, the whole world, really, is waiting to hear from President Morsy as he extends his hand of fellowship to the Egyptian people.

7/5/13 Postscript:  What I heard of the speech of the deposed President Morsy did not seem to bear a message of unification and conciliation among the many political groups.  The Egyptians should feel proud of its military generals!  JLO
     

Bernanke, the Great One

It is anticipated that Mr. Ben Bernanke, current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, will resign his post effective in the Fall.

After the disgraced performance of the former Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who pandered to the dictates of the big corporations and the very wealthy plutocrats during his tenure of many years, Bernanke's policies set the banking industry on a viable course.  Not only in America but around the world--in England and in Japan.  He could not do what he was also charged to do, however:  affect the unemployment rate.  Those statistics are the result of structural, technological changes in business and industry.  Only when the United States adopts a policy akin to that of China, namely, insisting that industry hire those who can work regardless of industry's commitment to its shareholders for maximum profit return will that problem be solved.  It's a simple solution--keep workers busy and out of trouble!  But capitalism seems unable to adopt any constraint upon its lust for profit.  Bernanke actually attempted to restrain unbridled capitalism by keeping the interest rate low, thereby affecting bond yields and the inflation rate;- but he needed industry's commitment to hiring the unemployed. something the capitalist would not consent to.

This man, Ben Bernanke, will go down in history as the greatest of Chairmen. He was needed at a time when faith in the American economy was waning, both in the US and in Europe.         

"Seniors, let's talk it out!"

There's too much effort devoted to the patient-doctor relationship.  Seemingly, old age is a topic to remain secret, discussed in hush-hush tones only.  But seniors, let's talk it out, so as to benefit from the dialogue.

Since coming to El Paso, I've contacted some politicians to make my view known about the need to share information, particularly new knowledge about skills and activities to lessen or even overcome the effects of old age upon us seniors.  To date, I let my views be known to Congressman O'Rourke, the Congressman in my district in a letter of April 22, 2013 and Hector Lopez, running for mayor of the city in a letter of May 4th.  No response from them.

Well, let me share the idea, anyway. I'm proposing that senior centers across the country offer not only meals and entertainment to senior citizens, but importantly, the opportunity to express their feelings about the effects of old age they've experienced and wish to share; and just as important, to learn of new knowledge from the journals on the topic of gerontology.  These opportunities should be granted in the senior centers in the form of a seminar on a regular basis--just like the AA meetings, but because information is to be disseminated, there should be a leader conversant with the new knowledge as presented in the journals.

Traveling throughout the country I've come to realize that the senior centers haven't really done anything at all to inform seniors of coping skills useful in their struggle against the effects of old age.

My recent own experience leads me to make this proposal.  For over a year, I had a lovely apartment in Omaha, and before that a pleasant situation in Reno.  In both these places I succumbed to a series of falls, mostly in snow and ice.  Finally, a doctor hinted to me that social security might make it more difficult to receive Medicare coverage, apparently regarding these instances as excessive.  After suffering through falls last winter and early spring, the manager of my senior center in Omaha (at St. Mary's Senior Center) and some others in the group encouraged me to think about moving out of that climate.  I had on various occasions stayed in El Paso and eventually returned here.  So, such frank discussions can make a definitive difference.  Incidentally, I've met another person who came to the realization that she h had to get out of the cold climate, which was proving detrimental to her health.

Also, I came up with a possibilitty of who might the discussion leaders be:  the corps of the Salvation Army.   Their work with the disabled and autistic has demonstrated a competency and a willingness to weal with people who confront life-demeaning problems.

Advantages of this proposal         

1.  I think discussions at the senior centers could offset the possibility that physicians might make recommendations for more costly treatments.  After all, there are likely more than one method to attack at health or mental problem.  By "comparing notes," the seminar participants might obtain information about other options.  Moreover, I don't think every physician can claim legitimately to be current in his field of specialty or know about new knowledge in fields other than his specialty.

2.  I think one of the advantages to Obama-care is to lessen his dependence upon his own physician, lest he succumb to the words of some 'soothsayer' promising cures but lacking sufficient evidence for his claims.  Having a second-opinion doesn't always end in receiving knowledge of various options, e.g., if the some cases when the doctor is an associate of the initial doctor in consultation.

3.  The idea is to get away from the notion that just by using one's own common sense the patient is in position to weigh the advice that medical people make (or, medical companies make).  And the notion that the informed individual is one who has 'read up' on some particular methodology may be insufficient.

So, "let's talk it out" in disineterested seminars at local senior centers.             

A Major Problem with Federalism

I think there's a major problem in instituting federalism at the national level of government.

Just this past week a Chinese Communist leader speaking at a forum carried by C-Span argued that the Chinese not only recognize the problem but have a solution to it.  The Communists through the existence of their party exercise control upon governmental agencies at all levels to maintain its plan of direction that carries forth the nation in unified and coordinated effort.  The Russians used to implement the so-called Five-Year Plans to accomplish the same thing.

The point being that under federalism which enables, because of its loose construction, provincial and local governments to "go their own way", thereby foregoing an overriding sense of national purpose, which serves to give guidance and identity to the citizenry. 

In the United States, specifically, the states must be treated "fairly" in such a way that the national government must not play state-favorites.  This point of view overlooks that some regions of the nation should be "favored" to achieve national purpose, such as expending more money in some particular region to build up infrastructure, e.g., roads and bridges.  Or, it fails to devote large sums of the nation's finances to construct a dam in some African country so as to bring about especial good will abroad.  The ability to wield large sums of money at the national or federal level to achieve some  particular national, political goal is very much limited by internal political struggles.  Note that the US cannot provide sufficient aid to Egypt so as to effect its internal policy.  In short, federalism is really only good for implementing national short-term goals.

Why, the states are engaged in competition to attract the most numbers of citizenry precisely because there is no national plan regulating regional growth and development.  I believe this will eventually cause serious rifts among the people.

Having been in China and having become familiar with the Communists' control of governmental policies, I believe the Communist leader's assessment of the effect of the Party upon determining long-range national goals is correct.  And, therefore, I am led to believe his evaluation of a major weakness in federalism is also correct.  Similar to the party, is the national governing agency or governing board.

In sum, the US in its present allegiance to federalism bears all the marks of the classic "ship without a rudder!"  It needs to adopt long-range planning controls that build a sense of direction and purpose for its people to carry forth in their everyday actions.  (Simply to extol the virtues in the US Constitution doesn't do it).  Something like a national governing agency is needed to assure long-range planning and control.        

H. Clinton Urges VOA Saturation

During Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's appearance before Congress this past week, she made the point that the United States should make its case to the world's population, possibly through the Voice of America, regarding the vision that is realizable by Third World countries abroad.  She mentioned how effective the United States' use of the air waves had been previously, e.g., during the Second World War in proclaiming the US position in opposition to the Axis regimes'  misguided propaganda.

The point to my way of thinking is worthy of implementation.   As she noted, most of the Third World countries are still reliant upon the radio and TV for their understanding of the world.  It is therefore incumbent to draw upon these media to reach the citizenry of these countries with the Western message of hope and possibility for improvement of conditions worldwide--with words of encouragement from the US.

To overlook her comment would be short-sighted, since it bears the mark of US achievement in the progranda realm in decades past.

Parenthetically, on C-Span's Washington Journal, Monday, February 3rd, an Afghanistan news reporter noted that the Taliban have local and regional stations that carry their propaganda line all over the country to sway its citizenry. 

On yet another C-Span discussion, a participant pointed out that the Taliban groups are frequently taking credit for cultural advances in schooling and in public works.  That being true, it would be useful for the US to counter such claims by taking to the air waves and tell the real story!