Update on the European Monetary Union: Spain, Italy, Greece

Developments have been occurring rapidly in the ongoing crisis in the European Monetary Union since my last update.  First, Spain asked the European Union for and received a bailout of its banks.  However, the move undermined confidence in the ability of the Kingdom to repay its sovereign debt, which, along with the ongoing debt crisis in Greece, caused its borrowing costs to spike, as did the Italian Republic’s, despite the reforms that both the Spanish and Italians have successfully implemented and the progress they have made in reducing debt, despite their anemic growth.  In the latest example, the Italian parliament approved a controversial labor reform law, according to ANSA, that gave businesses more flexibility in firing workers, although the measure was diluted.  It was proposed by Prime Minister Mario Monti as critically necessary for Italian fiscal and economic health.

The two Southern European states demanded that the more fiscally responsible Germans and other Northern Europeans agree that the European Central Bank make available loans to ease Spanish and Italian borrowing costs.  They argued that because of their good behavior, they did not deserve to pay higher interest rates, unlike Greece, which is in worse fiscal condition and has not met its commitments.  Investors in sovereign debt have demanded high interest rates for bonds issued by the two states as a premium for higher perceived risk as the crisis continues.  The loans would not represent an embarrassing bailout – with the usual heavy oversight –  because Spain and Italy have complied fully with all the demands of the Europeans to improve their fiscal condition.  The Germans have acceded to the demands, as long as the Spanish and Italian governments continued to reform, as Spain and Italy, with their large economies, are recognized as the European Union’s firewalls against the contagion of debt from Greece and others. There will also be some consideration given to Ireland for a similar deal. 

Meanwhile, the second parliamentary elections in Greece averted the crisis, for now, of a Greek exit from the Euro.  Although the far-leftists who had done well in the first election had promised to keep Greece in the Eurozone, their demand to renegotiate the Greek bailout by the European Union was recognized as what would have been a breach of the terms of the deal that would have resulted in a Greek default on debt and subsequent exit from the Monetary Union.  The conservatives, who had backed the bailout and its necessary harsh conditions of austerity, won a plurality and were able to from a new government with the third-place socialists, the same two parties who were previously in a coalition government before the last election.  The victory was achieved despite the deep five-year recession and the record of overspending and budgetary dishonesty of both parties that had resulted in the crisis in the first place, as well as the unpopularity of the austerity measures. 

Nevertheless, by the time the new government was formed, it had become apparent that new terms of the bailout would have to be negotiated, such as an extension of the length of the term in order to reduce the Hellenic Republic’s borrowing costs, as well as other measures, such as some tax cuts and increases in pay in order to ease the pain of the recession and spur economic growth, which, in turn, would improve Greece’s fiscal health.  As a result, the withdrawal of funds from Greek banks has reversed and Greeks have begun to file tax returns more than before.  The European Union is open to modifying the deal, but only if Greece continues its austerity program to reduce its debt.   The elections and formation of a government have reassured the markets somewhat because of the aversion of a disorderly Greek exit from the single currency, but the future of Greece in the Eurozone remains unresolved not only until the bailout is renegotiated, but also whether or not the Greek government is successful in reducing its sovereign debt. 

The more liberal Europeans have argued for greater European integration to resolve the crisis, while the more conservative Europeans have resisted paying the debts of their profligate spending neighbors, as I have posted previously.  What is remarkable is how the left argues for more integration – “more Europe” – even as the grand project of European integration has been revealed as the reason the crisis has worsened and become continentalized.  To them, there was never enough European integration in the first place, as the problems were only caused by mistakes in establishing the union.  It reminds me of liberal Americans who argue that the trillions of dollars spent on poverty alleviation efforts that have been exposed as catastrophic failures were simply not enough and that far more is needed.  To the left, it is never enough.  It will be, however, when the money runs out. 

More Media Errors, 2012

I have decided to continue my series of posts on errors committed by the media.  See also my posts, Media Errors on Iraq and Afghanistan, from March of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/03/media-errors-on-afghanistan-and-iraq.html, Misleading Media Phrases, from May of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/05/misleading-media-phrases.html, and More Media Errors, from August of 2010, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-media-errors.html.   Most of the errors identified in this post have been initiated by the media, but some are often committed by the public and have been propagated by the generally ignorant media. 

“Robbery” vs. “Burglary”

Robbery is theft by violence or threat of violence, whereas burglary means breaking and entering into a property for the purpose of committing a crime therein.  Note: the crime a burglar intends to commit need not necessarily be theft.  The difference is between a violent crime and a non-violent crime, a felony and a misdemeanor.  Additionally, a building or vehicle cannot be “robbed,” as only people can be robbed.  The confusion the media causes by failing to make this major distinction between the two crimes causes many people to misreport the crime when contacting first responders, which triggers an incorrect response on the part of the first responders.

“Town Hall” vs. “Town Hall-style”

A town hall meeting is an official assembly of residents in order to govern their municipality.  Elected officials, other than municipal officers calling a meeting for such a purpose, who conduct informal meetings with citizens, are not thereby exercising such an administrative function.  Furthermore, candidates for public office cannot exercise any such power.  Such elected officials or candidates, therefore, when convening an assembly in which questions and comments are taken from the floor thereby conduct town-hall style meetings, not “town hall meetings.”

“Imploded” vs. “Collapsed”                                   

            An explosion is the violent ejection of matter from the point of its source, whereas an implosion is the drawing in of matter to that point (such as the filling of a vacuum).  The confusion about the proper usage of implosion arises from the metaphoric use of that word to describe a demolition as if by implosion, whereby the explosive charges are set in such a manner that the building collapses upon itself, instead of outwardly, in order to avoid collateral damage.  As a result, many people wrongly associate implosion with a collapse, especially one that is upon something’s own weight, and thus consider these two unrelated words as synonyms, or at least that implosion is an appropriate metaphor for such a collapse.

            Therefore, many people, especially in the media, describe various events as examples of something having “imploded.”  For example, they describe the collapse of the Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union as an “implosion,” but the opposite was true.  Neither Communism nor the Soviet Union attracted anyone or anything towards them, but repelled people away from them as they were revealed to be unattractive.  They collapsed both by their own weight and a significant push from the efforts of anti-Communists.  Indeed, it would be expressed better, for example, that the Soviet Union “exploded,” as its constituent parts all broke away, but for the fact that they left willingly instead of being violently ejected.  Similarly, it was stated that former United States Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich’s campaign for the Republican nomination for President had “imploded” in 2011 when much of his senior staff resigned.  Again, this example is one of a collapse, not an implosion, as his campaign was not drawing anyone in – until later, when he was twice the frontrunner, which suggests that the resignations did not even truly represent a collapse, but a restructuring.  More recently, the Democratic Party has been described as having “imploded” for its losing effort to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican.  Although the election did draw in funds and volunteers to both sides, it is more accurate to describe the losing party to have “collapsed” than to have imploded, especially considering that the successful Republicans drew in more ideas and funds.  None of these examples come close to representing implosions.

            The example of describing Greece as having “imploded” is a less inaccurate example.  Although the metaphor is intended to explain the Greek fiscal and economic collapse, a true monetary implosion is taking place, in a sense, as Greece draws in loans of hundreds of billions of euros from the European Monetary Union and its supporters in order to bail the Hellenic Republic out of its crisis.  Nevertheless, the media is using the incorrect metaphor of implosion in order to describe what it identifies as a collapse. 

            I daresay that much of the media is itself in the process of collapsing, not imploding, as people are drawn away from it instead of toward it.  The only thing the media is drawing towards itself is shame for its bias and ignorance.

William Cinfici: A Successful Conservative School Director in an Urban District, Part III

           Despite being in a minority of two Republicans out of nine members of the Reading School Board of Directors, I was nevertheless successful in achieving significant accomplishments as a result of my principles and the practices I described in Part II of this series of posts.

            I was able to keep my promise of reducing some wasteful spending in order to avoid a tax increase, without sacrificing the quality of education, despite addressing the challenges I mentioned in Part I of this series of overcrowded schools and crumbling buildings, as well as an insufficient (and illegally inadequate) level of support for special education and a lack of adequate safety and security.  In fact, there were even improvements to the education equality during my term, among other positive results.

            Money was saved in a number of ways because of my suggestions, ranging from several hundred to tens of millions of dollars.  Facilities and labor costs were held down, in particular, such as my questioning the need for building six new elementary schools and the offering of less expensive health insurance with increased coverage for employees.  Also, better financial controls were instituted and policies I spearheaded were approved to increase openness and transparency and reduce waste, fraud and abuse: the Board adopted the stronger anti-fraud policy, and the conflict of interest and whistleblower protection policies I championed, as well as a policy I initiated to limit trip expenditures to the Internal Revenue Service per diem guidelines and to improve the policy for facilities usage.  I also led the successful effort to adopt policies for open records, document retention and for requesting bids for goods and services and to improve the policy for employee use of school vehicles.  As a result, the District has not raised real estate taxes in a decade.  It is important to understand that these savings came despite the liberal tendency to spend money in order to do good or to prove one’s commitment to a particular priority, and to reject small savings as insignificant, coupled with the bureaucratic mindset that if the money in an agency’s budget is not spent during the fiscal year, a lesser amount will be appropriated for that agency the next year.

            The quality of education was improved by the establishment of more programs, higher standards and more staff training.  There was also more focus on results.  I identified errors in the proposed high school history textbook.  The school discipline codes and student handbooks were dramatically approved because of my input to the process.  My suggestion was adopted to provide for customer feedback from students in order to improve education.  I was also one of the leaders in drastically reducing the counterproductive lengthy line to process tardy students at the high school.   

But before the quality of education could be addressed, it was necessary to improve the safety and security for students.  The two of us conservative Republican School Directors were successful in protecting students from obscene art at our District-owned Reading Public Museum by getting the Museum Foundation to agree to keep obscene art out of children’s reach and to post warning signs, despite opposition from most of the rest of the Board of Directors.  I was successful in getting the District to install carbon monoxide detectors in the schools, despite resistance from administrators for this initiative.  I also supported my Republican colleague’s successful initiatives to increase cameras, security guards and police in the schools.  One of my ideas that was implemented was a student I.D. card swipe for building access at the high school.  A policy I spearheaded required that all volunteers in unsupervised direct contact with students obtain their state child abuse clearances.           

            Our support for a conservative Democratic colleague’s proposal to restore the names “Christmas Break” and “Easter Break” to the school calendar resulted in a favorable compromise: “Winter Break” and “Spring Break” were replaced with “Holiday Break,” which at least reflected the religious origin of the state and federal holidays.  I was also successful in my initiative to treat Columbus Day the same as other official holidays, either by inclusion of it in the curriculum or by a day off from school, which was accomplished by the scheduling of an in-service day on Columbus Day.  Both of these initiatives were especially appreciated by the public and staff.

            Although my efforts to increase openness and transparency and improve fiscal controls to allow greater accountability and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse were partly successful, as I mentioned in Part II of this series, the liberal Democratic majority of the Board resisted more serious efforts to eliminate corruption in the Reading School District.  Similarly, although the spending cuts I proposed helped avoid tax increases, the Board treated the increase in funding the District received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, as an opportunity to go on a spending spree.  The Board was unprepared for the return of pre-Obama stimulus levels of funding under Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, despite my warnings of an eventual change in governor or the legislature, or at least the end of their tolerance of wasteful spending, and my reminder of the temporariness of the Obama stimulus. 

Nevertheless, I can say that matters would have been worse without my efforts, which served as a model for reformers, conservative or liberal, to establish good government.  Indeed, several moderate Democratic candidates with whom I campaigned in 2011 for school director on a reform platform were victorious, although my loss left them short of a majority.  I continue to advise them and stand ready to serve again should I be called upon to fulfill my duty.   I have proven that a conservative elective official – even in a minority within an elected body – can be successful in an urban district.  I hope this series of posts inspires other conservatives in urban districts to seek elective office and reformers of any ideology in public service to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.  

A Lesson from the Baltics for Southern Europe and Obama

An interesting article on CNBC’s website today contrasted the rest of the European Union with the relative prosperity of Estonia, despite the Estonians’ entry into the European Monetary Union in 2010.  The state is enjoying robust growth and low unemployment.  The other Baltic States, Latvia and Lithuania, which are not part of the Eurozone, are also prosperous.  The reason these three former Communist states are enjoying prosperity is their government policies of austerity, i.e. cutting government spending, without raising taxes, which has held down public debt in the Baltics to far lower levels than in Western Europe, and their people’s willingness to sacrifice in order to avoid worse problems.  The low debt which keeps interest rates low naturally, coupled with the pro-business environment, makes the Baltic States attractive to investors. 

In my update on the Monetary Union last month, I observed the rejection by many Greek and French voters, among others, of austerity policies.  United States President Barak Obama has also voiced opposition to austerity, just as he supports increased federal spending (“economic stimulus”) instead of reducing unnecessary spending.  The Baltic States are proving the Southern Europeans and Obama wrong.  Austerity does work.  Indeed, more public spending only exacerbates the problem.   

William Cinfici: A Successful Conservative School Director in an Urban District, Part II

            I am posting about my experience in public office as an example of how to be an effective officeholder, and especially how a conservative elected official can successfully advance the cause of good government even in a challenging environment, such as a liberal urban one.  I shall not reveal all of my methods of effectiveness, in case I am called upon to serve again, but I can note, for example, that I was inspired by Ronald Reagan’s belief that one can achieve much if one is not concerned with getting the credit.

            I asked many questions of the staff, contractors, vendors and solicitors, both in order to inform myself in order to cast an informed vote, but also to establish accountability by exercising my oversight responsibility.  I also learned that it was necessary to follow-up with administrators even after a resolution was passed or the Superintendent issued an order to ascertain whether or not the staff was following the instructions.  The Reading School District was shockingly lacking in openness and transparency, which became apparent almost immediately.  It was the reason the District is under federal and state criminal investigation for corruption.  Thus, asking questions was also a method of increasing transparency.  Other successful methods were requesting documents, making unannounced visits to District buildings and opposing violations of the Sunshine Law.  I also advocated for better openness for the public in several ways in order to increase accountability and was a model of it myself by informing both my colleagues of my actions and explaining matters to the public at meetings and keeping the citizens informed through the media.

            There was one natural advantage of being a Republican in a Democratic-dominated city: I received few requests for patronage from members of my party.  Most of the handful of such requests came from Democrats.  I only promised the courtesy of an interview if my name were used by the applicant as a reference, in accordance with District policy.  As a result, I was not burdened by patronage concerns and my interest in the taxpayers and students and not upon self-interest or partisan interest was thereby made all the more apparent.

            Indeed, my mostly liberal Democratic colleagues recognized and respected my commitment to the students (e.g. in terms of safety and education) and taxpayers, my knowledge of parliamentary procedure and concern for process, and my preparation.  Despite strong ideological differences, they entrusted me to draft all of the District’s new policies, for example.  My colleagues came to respect me, at least to some degree, because I spoke my conscience in standing up for taxpayers, students and staff.  I courageously expressed conservative views, even if I believed that my colleagues would sharply disagree.  Not surprisingly, sometimes they did, even when an idea seemed non-ideological.  However, I was often relieved that they agreed with some of my common-sense ideas, which encouraged me to feel free to express my principles, regardless of what they thought.  Although we had very different ideas, there was much common ground, beyond the many non-controversial issues.  When my colleagues and I did argue publicly, it was usually conducted in a respectful manner.  I criticized the Superintendent publicly, but I seldom personally criticized my colleagues in public and only when necessary to defend myself.  I avoided ad hominem arguments, even when the liberals did not.  I did not carry grudges against my colleagues in order to work with them on whatever the next issue was. 

I found it effective, if necessary, to force a debate on a matter and a vote, whether by a resolution or amendment.  I rejected the anti-democratic argument advanced by one liberal colleague that a new board of directors cannot overturn something approved by a prior board.  I was not afraid to cast a vote knowing that I would lose, even if I were the lone vote in opposition.  I usually explained my vote briefly to the public, although there were times when I found it prudent to be silent.  Sometimes when I did explain my vote clearly and with conviction, enough of my colleagues would gradually be persuaded to agree with me that when the issue arose again, the outcome was changed in favor of my position. 

            I would like to conclude by offering general advice to any other school director, some of which could also be helpful for municipal or county elected officials.  Consider the students and their parents as customers, while never losing focus on the taxpayers.  Participate in voluntary board duties, such as negotiations or hearings, in order to lighten the burden on colleagues.  Be prepared for meetings by reading the materials provided by the administration ahead of time and by knowing parliamentary procedure, board policy and relevant law.  Ask questions in order to clarify something the administration presented or to suggest alternative methods, as well as to exercise good oversight, at least by letting the administration know that someone on the board is reading the materials.  Insist upon transparency and the rights of the public to know how their tax dollars are being spent.  Defend the rights of elected officials, such as their access to public information.  Keep the public informed by explaining issues at public meetings, by nurturing positive relationships with members of the press and, if necessary, through new media.  Find out how other school boards have addressed similar issues as models.  Force a debate and a vote on important matters, even if victory is uncertain.  Have the courage to speak your mind by expressing your ideas respectfully, clearly and as succinctly as possible and to vote your conscience, but exercise good judgment in picking your battles.  When a majority agrees with your ideas, encourage the board or administration to develop a plan to implement them.  Follow up with administrators after a resolution is passed or order is given to find out whether it is being implemented. 

William Cinfici: A Successful Conservative School Director in an Urban District, Part I

           In this three-part series of posts, I shall describe my experience as a conservative school director in a liberal urban political environment, as promised.  The first part will be an introduction.  Part II will focus on my example of methods and advice for other school directors or other officeholders.  In the final part, I shall discuss the specific successful results of my service.

            I was elected a School Director of the Reading School District in 2005, winning the highest number of votes for the four seats open that year, thereby becoming only the third known Republican ever to serve on the Reading School Board of Directors in a city where Republicans are outnumbered 5:1 that was once a bastion of the Socialist Party.  I won not by campaigning as a moderate, but because of my conservative platform of fiscal responsibility, having promised to be the taxpayers’ advocate – a promise I was able to keep by cutting wasteful spending without raising taxes or sacrificing the quality of education.

            While Republicans re-nominated me without opposition, a changing electorate prevented me from again winning the Democratic nomination in 2009 and 2011, despite seldom receiving any public criticism and hearing only praise from the public.  As a result, I did not win those general elections, although I was able to both times to help a number of my like-minded Democrats to win and I have continued to advise current School Directors.  I should note that I did not begin the campaign season with the intent to seek public office in any of those three elections, but duty called when prominent members of both parties urged me to run for school board. 

            The Reading School District has about 18,000 students and a budget of about $230 million.  The District has the highest poverty rate in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a high number of special needs children and a high number of students who do not speak English as their native language.  There are nine seats on the School Board.  Directors serve without compensation.

            In short, the District seemed an unlikely place for a conservative to be elected, let alone successful.  But a number of natural circumstances made it possible, such as the presence on the board of colleagues who were either relatively conservative Democrats or were liberal but held moderate views on some issues.  Another key factor was the District’s considerable problems, such as overcrowding, antiquated buildings that were in disrepair, a lack of adequate safety and security, etc. which made it open to effective solutions.  Its lack of a tax base meant that the usual liberal method of raising taxes was not an option, which created an opening for conservative fiscal ideas.  Thus, liberal urban areas do create potential opportunities for conservative leadership, not only for mayors, but even for school directors.

Memorial Day: A Day of Mourning and Remembrance for American War Dead

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday intended to honor all American servicemen who died in hostile action in wartime.  It was first commemorated after the Civil War (the War Between the States).

In my post from May of 2009, Memorial Day Is Not Meant to be Happy, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/05/memorial-day-not-meant-to-be-happy.html, I explained the error of those who observe the holiday as if it were a celebration.  Yet there is another error in recognition of the significance of this holiday that also dilutes its significance by broadening it far beyond its intended purpose: that of honoring people other than those whom the holiday is intended to honor. 

Memorial Day is not a day of mourning and remembrance for all who died.  It is neither a day to honor veterans who survived war, nor to commemorate those veterans who died in peacetime service or service not in the theater of war.  Instead, Memorial Day is intended to mourn and remember those servicemen who died in war.  It is them – and only them – whom we hallow on this holiday.

Among those to be honored should include those servicemen who died at Little Rock and Ft. Hood at the hands of jihadists as part of the War on Terrorism, as I noted in my post from February of this year, American Casualties of Jihad in the U.S. Homeland Should be Awarded Purple Hearts,  http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/american-casualties-of-jihad-in-us.html.

May all U.S. servicemen who sacrificed their lives in war for freedom rest in peace and may we honor their memory by bequeathing the blessings of liberty they bequeathed to us to our posterity. 

Foreign Digest: Liberia, Iran, The European Monetary Union

Liberia

            Former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was convicted in an international court for war crimes.  Not only did he oppress the people of Liberia, he aided the notoriously brutal rebels of Sierra Leone by trading arms for “blood” diamonds.  Taylor’s conviction in international court was the first for a head of state since the Nazi successor to Adolph Hitler was convicted in 1946.

Iran

            The results of the runoff of the Iranian elections confirm the point I made in my previous post on this subject – that the hardliners won the pseudo-democratic elections, but they control Iran regardless of the outcome of such elections.  The opposition was not permitted to participate fully in the election.  The only issue, therefore, was the independence of the president from the theocratic mullahs.  The election proved that he has none.  Meanwhile, Iran continues its nuclear program and its aid to Syria as its only Arab ally continues to oppress its people while the world dithers.

The European Monetary Union

            The presidential elections in France bucked the global trend toward the right in recent years.   The Socialist presidential candidate defeated the conservative incumbent, Nikolas Sarkozy, returning the Socialists to power for only the second time and the first time since the 1990s.  The 2012 French elections reflect the fickle nature of voters.  In systems where there is universal adult suffrage, voters tend to cast ballots based primarily on the economy, as well as personal perceptions about the candidates, unless there are major scandals, usually regardless of national security concerns or moral issues.  Thus, they elect one party to lead government and then throw out that party in the next election or two and then, in turn, throw that party out after a similarly brief while and return its predecessor to power, giving credit for prosperity to whichever party is in power and blame for recession to whichever party is in power, usually without factoring in the previous government’s policies or external factors beyond its control.  France had been an exception to the trend of changes in governments from one party to the other in the West in the first elections after September 11, as Sarkozy succeeded an unpopular government from the same party.  As President, he had presided over a warmer period of Franco-American relations, cooperated in the War on Terrorism, had led the effort to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Qaddafi and played a major role in attempting to resolve the European debt crisis.  Sarkozy had implemented some austerity measures to reduce French debt, as he had promised during his campaign, but was not as successful in winning as many reforms as he had hoped.  There will be parliamentary elections in June.

            The major issue in the French elections was austerity.  Although the differences between the two candidates were narrow, the Socialist promised more government spending.  Spending cuts are unpopular among the dependent class of voters who are allowed to elect leaders to take from those who have earned the money and distribute it to the dependent class, which is a legal form of stealing.  The election results in France were mirrored in the Greek parliamentary elections, which were part of a larger trend across Europe against government policies in regard to the European fiscal and economic crisis.  

          In Greece, the ruling center-left-right national unity coalition lost ground to the far-left.  Although the conservatives remain the largest party in parliament, no party won a majority of seats and no party could form a coalition, setting the stage for another parliamentary poll in June.  The far-left party won more votes than the Socialists, who were members of the pro-austerity governing coalition.  The vote for the far-left represented a popular rejection of austerity, as in France.  As I have posted before, the Greeks are unwilling to pay the price for their past overspending while the wealthier Northern Europeans, especially the Germans, are unwilling to continue to bail out the Greeks if they do not reduce their public debt.  The Greeks who voted against austerity are betting that the European Union is bluffing when it insists that Hellenic Republic must continue to reduce its massive public debt in order to receive additional bailout funds or be forced to abandon the euro and return to the drachma.  A Greek debt default and subsequent unprecedented exit from the eurozone would lead to uncertain economic shock to the European Union, the spread of fiscal contagion in the form of higher borrowing costs to the most vulnerable members of the eurozone, whose borrowing costs would rise even further, and a significant devaluation of the drachma, which would plunge Greece even deeper into a fiscal and economic abyss.  Greeks have already been withdrawing euros from banks in case of a return to the drachma, at the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy that could further weaken Greek banks.  The uncertainty about the situation is discouraging economic activity and increasing interest rates in European states most vulnerable to contagion, thereby worsening the situation for the entire European Union.  Both the Greeks and the Europeans want Greece to remain in the eurozone, but contingency plans are being considered for a Greek exit, as the Northern Europeans are more confident that Spain and Italy can survive the shock.  The Greeks must continue to reduce spending or face the consequences while the Europeans must continue to assist Greece, should it want the euro to endure and to avoid an uncertain fate for Europe.

1,000th Visit of a Post to My Blog

          A post to my blog, The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, from April of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-recent-posts-about-lepanto-and-fr.html, has become the first to be visited for the 1,000th time, as tracked by StatCounter.  I count hits (pageviews) at least one hour from the last one as visits and do not count my own.  This figure does not include those who viewed my blog homepage or the archive for that month, but only those who landed on posts.  The Follow-Up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-up-on-fall-of-islamic.html, from May of 2009, has been visited 135 times, the seventh most among all 414 posts since November of 2008.

          StatCounter has been tracking hits to my blog since April of 2009.  There have been 4,500 visits to my blog since then.  Thank you for visiting!

Conservative Analysis of the 2012 Pennsylvania Primary Election

          The focus on the 2012 Pennsylvania Primary had been on the Republican presidential race, but the significance of even the beauty contest had decreased significantly within the last few days of the campaign with the suspension of the campaign of former United States Senator Rick Santorum.  Still on the ballot, the Pennsylvania favorite son received a respectable 18% of the vote, while native Pennsylvanian Newt Gingrich won 10.5% of the vote in the first competitive Republican presidential primary in the Keystone State in decades.  The combined 29% represented a still-significant conservative protest vote against the moderate

front-runner whose campaign tried to portray his chief rival as less than conservative, despite Santorum’s conservative voting record over sixteen years in Congress.

            As I noted in my last post, however, the significance of the race was mostly for Delegates to the Republican National Convention.  Many conservatives were among the victors.

            The major significance of the Pennsylvania primary was on the Democratic side for U.S. Representative.  The Democratic primary results in Pennsylvania were characterized by a noticeable shift leftward among Democratic voters, as two incumbent U.S. Representatives lost in newly-drawn districts to more liberal opponents, including Rep. Tim Holden, who was the dean of the state congressional delegation.  The smaller Democratic state congressional delegation would thus continue to become more liberal, regardless of whether the primary winners are victorious in the general election.

            The results, which were heavily influenced by redistricting, nonetheless sent a shockwave across America, as they may signal the demise of “conservative Democrats,” especially the Blue Dog Democrats, like Holden, a group that billed itself as fiscally moderate.  Several pro-life members of that group had lost in 2010 to Republican challengers because of their support for President Barak Obama’s federalization of health insurance, which would allow the federal funding of abortion.  The primary in the Keystone State suggests that liberal Democratic voters have become even less tolerant of occasional conservative votes, even from representatives with mostly liberal voting records who had represented conservative districts.  See my post from October of 2010, Some House Democratic Candidates are Trying to Run Away from Obama and the Liberal Democratic Congressional Leadership, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/10/some-house-democratic-candidates-are.html. The opposition from both left and right to this dwindling group that claims to be in the middle is squeezing it into an ever-smaller size, leaving it even less influential than it ever was.  It was never successful in eliminating wasteful spending even at its full strength.  The Pennsylvania primary has cast even more doubt on its effectiveness.

            There has been some debate about the significance in the Pennsylvania primary of the issue of abortion and the effectiveness of a considerable amount of money spent by Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the U.S.  Although the results were somewhat favorable to Planned Parenthood in state legislative Democratic primaries, it came up short in a simultaneously-held special election for state representative, despite spending $100,000. 

The Democrats did, however, net a gain of one in the three special elections for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  They will remain several seats short of a majority in the chamber.

            The Republicans nominated a candidate for U.S. Senate, Tim Smith, a farmer and coal mine owner, who has been tying the incumbent Democratic Senator to the fiscally irresponsible policies of Obama that Senator has supported which have increased the federal debt to $15 trillion.  The Obama Administration’s hostility to the coal industry in particular, and opposition to the Keystone natural gas pipeline and to more drilling for oil will undoubtedly also be a major issue in the general election campaign.

            The 2012 Pennsylvania primary election confirms my longstanding opinion that Pennsylvania is not a “moderate” state, as many pundits have asserted over the years, but a closely, sharply ideologically divided one, despite the massive Democratic voter registration advantage.  For example, pro-life liberal Democrats, whose ranks are dwindling, are liberal, not “moderate.”  Conservatives must build on the edge gained in 2010 and elect more of their own to public office in the Keystone State.

Pennsylvania Primary Election Day 2012: Elect Conservative Delegates

     With most political commentators dismissing the Republican presidential nomination as over, voters might miss the significance of today’s Republican primary in Pennsylvania, as well as in several other states simultaneously conducting primaries.  The significance is not the presidential primary in the Keystone State, which is a beauty contest, but the election of delegates to the Republican National Convention.

     Candidates for Delegate and Alternate Delegate to the GOP Convention run uncommitted and are not obligated to vote for the candidate who wins the presidential primary.  Three Delegates and Alternates are elected from each of the 18 congressional districts.  Not all delegates are chosen by this process, as several  “Superdelegates” serve by right or appointment, but most are elected today.  Therefore, conservatives have the opportunity to elect fellow conservatives to choose the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees (the nominee for vice president is elected, not appointed by the presumptive presidential nominee) and party platform.  It is imperative that we conservatives send a strong message to the party and its potential presidential and vice presidential nominees of commitment to our principles.

     In my district, the 16th, for example, which is new to me because of reapportionment and redistricting, former United States Representative Robert Walker, a staunch conservative, is a candidate for Delegate.  He is also the U.S. campaign chairman of his former colleague and fellow conservative, Newt Gingrich, a native Pennsylvanian.

     Additionally, there are significant primaries for U.S. Senate and Representative and state legislators.  Many conservative candidates are on the ballot in these races.

     Today is also a dry-run for the new voter identification requirement. See my post from last month, Corbett Signs the Voter Identification Bill into Law: http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html. 

     If you have not already voted in Pennsylvania or in another state holding a primary election today, vote for  candidates who can stand for conservative principles.

Chester Arthur, the Most Underrated U.S. President

     The latest United States Presidential Dollar Coin released by the United States Mint honors Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States from 1881-1885.

     The coin should provide an opportunity to educate the public about President Arthur’s accomplishments. Alas, Arthur’s coin is the first that will not be released into general circulation, for the Obama Administration has suspended the Presidential Dollar series. See my post from December of 2011, The Obama Administration is Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish about Dollar Coins http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-administration-is-pennywise-and.html. Presidential Dollars will henceforth only be minted specially for collectors. I hope this article, therefore, helps to inform the American people about this underrated President, who is often, along with Millard Fillmore, ignorantly made the butt of jokes about mediocre presidents.

     Arthur, of New York, was elected Vice President on the Republican ticket in 1880. He had been placed there as the running mate of General James Garfield of Ohio as a compromise between the reform wing of the GOP, represented by Garfield, and the patronage wing, led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. Arthur had been a political protégé of Conkling, who had run the patronage-rich New York Customs House. President Rutherford Hayes, a fellow Republican, had fired Arthur in a modest step toward civil service reform of the “spoils system.” Thus, when President Garfield was murdered in 1881 by an assassin who was denied a patronage job and who declared “Arthur is President!” after firing the fatal bullet, Arthur acceded to the presidency lacking public confidence in his integrity.

     It must have been shocking to all Americans, therefore, when President Arthur decided to break with his faction and end the spoils system by signing the Pendleton Civil Service Act into law. This landmark legislation established a federal hiring system for most jobs based upon qualifications, not political party. It did much to reduce self-interest and corruption in federal politics and to improve the competence of appointed public officials. Arthur’s remarkable conversion reflected the seriousness with which he took his office after the tragic death of his predecessor whose death was attributable to the spoils system.

     President Arthur’s greatest accomplishment would have been sufficient to count him among the better presidents, but he also is credited with several other significant achievements. He signed the first federal immigration act into law; this liberal legislation barred only undesirables, except for Chinese immigrants, as Congress went against President Arthur’s wishes to allow them to immigrate. President Arthur lowered the tariff, which was the main tax of the time; Congress prevented him from lowering it more. Meanwhile, he held federal spending down. President Arthur respected federalism, vetoing, for example, the River and Harbors Act because he did not regard the proposed projects as sufficiently federal in nature. He increased education aid to American Indians, although Congress did not go along with his proposal to allow individual Indians to own land, and he supported civil rights by backing Southern independents for federal employment over Democrats. President Arthur is also the “Father of the Modern American Navy,” having replaced the fleet of wooden ships with steel ships. 

     Arthur knew he had a fatal kidney disease. He formally entered the Republican presidential nomination race in order not to alert the public to the seriousness of his condition, but did not actively campaign. President Arthur’s short term and his failure to be elected or nominated may have adversely affected his reputation among the American public today, even though he left office well respected, his clashes with Congress notwithstanding. Although historians judge his presidency well, the public has forgotten the good deeds of the 21st Chief Executive, who has become one of the most obscure Presidents, thus leaving Arthur the most underrated of all of them. 

     Chester Alan Arthur deserves the gratitude and respect of all Americans commensurate with his accomplishments as President of the United States. It is unfortunate that the educational benefit of the Dollar Coin engraved with his portrait will likely be diminished by its lack of general circulation. I ask that you, my dear readers, spread this essay to as many of your fellow Americans as possible, not only to right a historical wrong, but to ensure that President Arthur’s heroic deeds may continue to inspire courage today, especially among elected officials.

Foreign Digest: Mali, Burma, Sudan, Cuba

The Coup in Mali

     There has been a longtime separatist Tuareg rebellion in the north of Mali. The returning Tuaregs, who were mercenaries for Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, were boosted recently by their acquisition of Libyan weapons after the fall of the Qaddafi dictatorship. Malians had grown increasingly concerned about the progress of the rebellion and the apparent lack of sufficient effort on the part of the representative government to crush it. Finally, the Malian military recently staged a coup d’etat. The president went into hiding.

     The Tuaregs are loosely allied with a jihadist affiliate of al-Qaeda that wishes to impose Sharia on the unwilling populace. Thus, the Malian coup has major international significance, especially in regard to the War on Terrorism, as al-Qaeda could potentially establish a base of operations in the Sahara Desert. Alas, the effect of the coup was the opposite as intended, as the chaos provided the opportunity for the Tuaregs and their allies to seize all of the north, including Timbuktu, a World Heritage Site. The rebels declared the vast area they call “Azawad” independent.

     The successful coup was internationally condemned and aid cut off. A visitor of this blog returned to Bamako, the Malian capital, shortly after the coup; the source reported the city was calm and was mostly returning to normal. However, pressure built on the leaders of the coup to restore representative government, as they had promised. The popularly-elected President resigned in order to allow the constitutional transition to power to the leader of parliament, who will take power later this week. 

     I call for a peaceful restoration of representative civilian government. I hope the new government of Mali will defeat the jihadists and deny them their safe harbor in the Sahara. I call for the international community to support the new Malian government in its efforts.

Burmese Parliamentary Elections 

     The parliamentary elections in Burma were characterized by the participation of opposition candidates, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi, the human rights activist and chief opponent of the authoritarian military junta that has ruled Burma for decades. However, Burma remains a dictatorship and the elections, in which only a relatively small number of seats were contested, thereby guaranteeing the junta would remain in power, were not free and fair. Nevertheless, Suu Kyi was among the victors and she will take her seat in parliament as the leader of the opposition. 

     The tolerance of opposition candidates is part of a softening of the rule, including the release of many political prisoners. The Burmese government has been making a number of such moves in order to soften international sanctions for its repression. It has also distanced itself somewhat from its ally, China. 

      The election of Suu Kyi legitimatizes her while delegitimatizing the regime that had kept her under house arrest for much of the last two decades. A concern is that her membership in parliament will legitimatize the regime as representative and free, which would thereby make opposition to it more difficult. Nevertheless, Suu Kyi will now have a voice, even as the leader of the loyal opposition, to cry out publicly for liberty in the very hall of Burmese power.

Fighting in Sudan Intensifies 

     The fighting in Sudan in the Blue Nile States and South Kordofan between rebels and the Sudanese government has intensified recently. There is some international concern that the fighting will spread to South Sudan, which won independence from Sudan last year after a long, bloody war, followed by a mediated peace settlement and plebiscite. Sudan and South Sudan have territorial disputes and the Islamist government of Sudan accuses South Sudan of supporting the rebels in the north. However, South Sudan is not likely involved with conflict, which long predates the South’s independence.

     The international community must protect South Sudan’s independence and territorial integrity, while calling for human rights in Sudan and a peaceful settlement of the rebellion in the Blue Nile States and South Kordofan, as well as in Darfur.

Miami Marlins Suspend their Manager for Pro-Castro Remarks

     I commend the Miami Marlins major league baseball club for suspending its manager for remarks that appeared positive toward the Communist dictator, Fidel Castro – the first time a major league employee was punished for other than racial remarks. The manager apologized and disavowed his statements. Miami is the home to the largest concentration of Cuban-Americans. The club did not think it appropriate to minimize the suffering caused by the five decades of brutal repression of the Castro regime.

     Cuba libre!

Outrageous Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement Rewards Irresponsible Homeowners

     Forty-nine of the American states (all except Oklahoma) recently accepted a settlement with five major banks for $25 billion of a lawsuit brought by the Obama Administration. The lawsuit was brought ostensibly to fix the problem of reckless mortgage foreclosures by the banks. 

     The banks violated the law with hasty paperwork, but few of the foreclosures were improper. However, the relief for those few homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon is paltry – only $2,000. Much of the money from the deal is instead intended for people other than these true victims.

     The foreclosure deal includes much help for homeowners whose home values have dropped below the value of their mortgages. They will receive principal reductions. Other homeowners having difficulty making their payments will also receive help. Many of these homeowners lied about their creditworthiness or got in over their heads by borrowing money for homes much larger than needed. Most of these people were irresponsible homeowners. Therefore, this deal rewards cheating and irresponsibility. 

     Although this money from the mortgage deal is private, not public money, it was forced by government. The cost will be passed onto bank customers. The money supplants other Obama Administration aid to irresponsible homeowners. 

     The mortgage crisis was caused by federal government policies. Both the Carter and Clinton Administrations forced banks to make loans more widely available (i.e. to decrease the standard for creditworthiness) in order for more poor people, especially minorities, to own homes. The easy credit policies were exacerbated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had implied they were backed by the federal government, which had chartered them. Thus, more people bought homes who were not prepared for the financial responsibility. Some of these irresponsible homeowners were unable to keep up with the payments from the beginning, but when interest rates rose on mortgages, most of the rest also became unable to keep up with the payments. In turn, the real estate values dropped, trapping these homeowners “underwater,” as the loan (the mortgage) exceeded the value of the collateral (the home). 

     When the crisis occurred, liberals, who ignored repeated warnings by the Bush Administration about this problem, blamed the crisis they had created not only on Bush and the Republicans, but especially on the greed of the rich banks, as if the banks had forced all of their loans on the poor. Predictably, the liberals used the crisis to demonize bankers, blame the free market and seize more power for the federal government. Although there were certainly irresponsible and even predatory lending practices, greed and other abuses, this crisis was caused primarily by the distortion of the free market by government, as well as by the greed of the irresponsible borrowers to which government had appealed. 

     Responsible homeowners whose home values have dropped because of the mortgage foreclosure crisis but who are not underwater on their mortgages will receive no compensation for their loss.

     Many on both the left and populist right have criticized the bailouts of the banks. They argue that the money from the mortgage settlement essentially had been set aside by the banks from the bailout funds, which means that the banks do not need to pass along the costs to all customers, including responsible homeowners. The liberal argument in particular is that the banks received billions of dollars that they should not keep, but pass along the money to the struggling homeowners, including the irresponsible ones. I shall take this opportunity to refute some of the criticism of the bank bailouts. 

     As with other so-called “bailouts,” the federal money given to the banks was in the form of loans, not grants, much of which have been paid back with interest. The money was not necessarily sought by the banks. Indeed, some were forced to accept it. Moreover, the loans to the banks were necessary in order to make up for the considerable economic harm caused by federal policies. It was far more cost-effective to loan banks to prevent their collapse and the seizing up of credit than to bail out all bank deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In other words, the loans represented a “depositor bailout” more than a bank bailout, in addition to restoring credit for all who needed to borrow money. One can reasonably disagree with the policy of risking tax money in order to aid businesses, but my point is that a reasonable exception ought to be recognized when government creates the problem in the first place. 

     This mortgage foreclosure settlement is even more unfair and outrageous than the earlier Obama Administration programs that gave federal tax dollars to irresponsible homeowners – the same policy that sparked the Tea Party movement. I call upon conservatives to oppose more vociferously all unnecessary government intereference in the free market, especially those policies that reward irresponsibility and punish responsibility. 

Three-Year Blog Visit Report

     In the three years since StatCounter has been tracking hits to my blog, there have been nearly 4,400 visits, not including my own and strictly defining a visit as a pageview at least one hour after someone’s last pageview. Thank you for visiting my blog.

     Since my last report, there was a record 23 visits in one day on May 2, 2011. 

     In addition to Pennsylvania, there have been more than 100 visits each from California, New York, Texas, Florida and Ohio since StatCounter began tracking visits to my blog three years ago. There have been visits from all 50 American states and several territories. The most visits outside the United States over the three years came from Malaysia, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom, India, Australia and Pakistan, which represents little change from the last report, ranging from just under 50 to over 200 visits apiece. There have been visits from over 100 foreign states and several other territories. 

     Interesting hits since my last report included visits from Mali and Vietnam, the United States Defense Department at West Point, the European Central Bank, the National League of Cities, the Spartanburg Herald Journal and the South African Broadcasting Corporation. As usual, there were visits from numerous other government entities, as well as schools and major businesses.

     Since my last report, the list of my blog’s most popular posts has changed. The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization continues to be the most popular, by far, with nearly 960 visits, but it is now followed by Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center; then by The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration; both of which have been visited at least 280 times. Four other posts have been visited over 100 times: Misleading Media Phrases; Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy from Bush; Radicals in the Obama Administration and Follow-Up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, followed closely by Lepanto, by GK Chesterton. 

     I shall continue to post of major milestones. 

     I am especially grateful to you repeat visitors to my blog. Please continue to visit regularly and to post comments. Thank you. I wish everyone a Happy Easter!

Pennsylvania Welcomes Home Veterans of the Vietnamese War

     Today, veterans of the Vietnamese War, which ended in 1975, were finally welcomed home officially in Pennsylvania.

     Ceremonies were held across the Commonwealth, including in Reading, to welcome home the veterans who were never officially celebrated as heroes and instead often faced hostility upon their arrival home after having served their country with honor in a noble cause for liberty.  The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a resolution declaring March 30, 2012 as “Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.”  Numerous state and federal elected officials participated in the events.  My father was among the Vietnamese War veterans who spoke at the ceremony in Reading at the Vietnamese War memorial in City Park.  The day was justly intended to right the wrong of the disrespect shown to the veterans of the unpopular war and to emphasize the necessity of supporting and honoring the troops, regardless of the popularity of their cause.

     Although the United States never lost a battle in the Vietnamese War, the Communist North Vietnamese took over the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam).  Nevertheless,    the war represented a campaign in the broader Cold War between the Communist Soviet Union and the U.S.  The American victory in the Cold War was partly gained by the Vietnamese War, despite the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, as it prevented further Communist advances and forced the Soviets to expend resources it could less afford to expend than the Americans.  The defeat of Soviet Communism liberated tens of millions of people around the world. 

     Let us continue to oppose tyranny and support liberty around the world, including in Communist Vietnam and Laos.  Let us never allow opposition to a war to be expressed as hostility to the soldiers tasked to fight it for their country.  I thank all the American and allied veterans of the Vietnamese War for their service to the cause of liberty.  Welcome, home Vietnamese War veterans.

Corbett Signs a Principled Natural Gas Impact Fee

     Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, recently signed the bill to impose an impact fee on natural gas drillers, thereby keeping his promise not to impose a tax on the industry in addition to the high state corporate taxes it already pays.

     As I have posted repeatedly, natural gas drillers do pay state business taxes in Pennsylvania, as well as various local government taxes, in addition to the increase in tax revenue the industry generates from landowners’ royalties and from employment and other economic activity. The push from the left to get the drillers to “pay taxes” implies otherwise. What the liberals meant is that they wanted to single out one industry to pay an additional tax, even though the industry is of enormous fiscal and economic benefit to the state. 

     A responsible impact fee differs from a tax because it is intended to offset the extra expenses generated by the industry subject to the fee, not simply to raise revenue like a tax. However, a small portion of the money from the natural gas impact fee will be diverted for other purposes, which arguably makes it a tax to that extent. Nevertheless, it generally maintains the principled practice of imposing mostly a fee, not a tax. 

     In addition, the new law eliminates the power of local governments to prohibit drilling. This provision is sound because natural gas drilling is a statewide interest while local concerns about the impacts are addressed by the new law. Counties and local municipalities benefit much from the industry because of increased local taxes and road improvements made by the drilling industry. Thus, the new law offsets the burdens of the industry from local government, while allowing it to keep the benefits.

     Meanwhile, all Pennsylvanians are benefiting not only from the extra tax revenue generated by the industry, but from lower electricity prices, in addition to those who are receiving lower natural gas bills. Thousands of Pennsylvanians are benefiting through employment by the industry or by the economic activity the presence of natural gas drillers generates. As natural gas burns more cleanly than coal, natural gas drilling is an environmentally safer method of electricity generation. The Commonwealth’s new impact fee and environmental regulation strike the proper balance between economic and environmental concerns. While Pennsylvania is benefiting from the Marcellus natural gas play, the new law lays the groundwork for the future drilling of the larger Utica play that underlies it.

Corbett Signs the Voter ID Requirement into Pennsylvania Law

     Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed a bill into law that requires all voters in the Commonwealth to present photographic identification in order for their votes to be counted. 

     Voters without ID may cast a provisional ballot and then present an ID within six days for their votes to be counted.  The Commonwealth will make obtaining photo IDs easy.  The law addresses widespread concerns about voter fraud. 

     Democrats opposed the bill, dismissing the concerns as exaggerated.  As someone involved in politics, I can confidently report, as I have posted before, that the problem of voter fraud is much more widespread than the number of cases that are successfully prosecuted.  I was victimized in a Democratic area by voter impersonation during my 2000 state legislative campaign, for example, and I have observed firsthand and become aware of numerous reports of irregularities of all kinds over the years.  Liberal Democrats are likely to run to court, as usual, to block the popular legislation that was publicly debated and duly passed, but a large majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has such laws constitutional.

     Reducing voter fraud prevents the dilution of honest votes, increases confidence in the outcome of elections and in the counting of the votes and restores the benefit of public accountability that popular elections in a representative republic are intended to produce.

Follow-Up on the Obama Administration’s Violation of Religious Liberty

     The “accommodation” offered by the Obama Administration on its mandate that employers provide their employees health insurance coverage for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients falls short of adequately protecting religious liberty.

     See my post from last month, The Obama Administration Plans to Violate Religious Liberty, http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-administration-plans-to-violate.html.
 
     The accommodation no longer requires employers to pay directly for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients, but requires insurers to provide them free of charge, which means that their cost will be passed along in higher premiums. Thus, religiously-affiliated organizations (e.g. hospitals, charities, schools) would still be complicit in sterilization, contraception and abortion because their employees’ access to them would be by virtue of their employment. Also, religiously-affiliated organizations that self-insure would be required to provide them. Insurers who oppose sterilization, contraception and abortifacients would be required to provide coverage of them. Individual employers who oppose them for religious reasons would be required to provide the coverage. Those employers, including religiously-affiliated employers, who refuse would be levied heavy fines, which is tantamount to a tax on the free exercise of religion.

     Abortion and contraception are moral issues. Because religious doctrines require morality, religious objections to moral issues are therefore legally valid objections under the free exercise of religion. Religious liberty does not depend upon the whim of executive policy to make exemptions; freedom of religion is natural law that is guaranteed in the state and federal constitution, and enforced by legislation. 

     A pattern of hostility to freedom of religion has been discernible in the Obama Administration’s policies. It has favored the term “freedom of worship” over “freedom of religion.” The former expression refers narrowly to worshipping at a particular house of worship, while the more robust latter expression refers to the liberty to act publicly in accordance with one’s belief. The Obama Administration has denied licensing to Catholic charitable organizations for providing foster care for victims of human trafficking because of the Catholic Church’s opposition to placing children with same-sex couples. The Administration recently lost a case unanimously before the United States Supreme Court in which it tried to narrow the ministerial exemption which allows congregations to hire their own ministers. 

     There has been much misinformation in the debate about the Obama Administration mandate and the subject of contraception in particular. A few points are necessary to be made. Women who take prescribed contraceptives for certain health reasons are not necessarily contracepting. Pregnancy is not a disease; abortion is not healthcare. Providing “free” contraception to all women encourages sex outside of marriage. The objections of Catholics and Orthodox, however, are broader than that valid concern; they oppose artificial contraception in all instances because of their belief in the unitive and procreative purposes of the marital act. 

     Some of the misinformation on this controversy centers particularly on Catholics, who have been the most vociferous in their opposition to the mandate and who operate the most hospitals and schools of any religious denomination in the U.S. Contrary to some contentions, the Catholic Bishops opposed the federalization of health insurance bill signed into law by Obama in the first place. Indeed, during the debate over the plan by the Obama Administration and the liberal Democratic majority in Congress to federalize health insurance, the fear expressed by the plan’s opponents that it would lead to mandated insurance coverage of abortion has turned out to be well founded, as some contraceptives work in a number of ways, including the inducement of abortions (i.e. they are abortifacients). Also, there have been exaggerations about how many Catholics contracept. Regardless of the number, the point is that those devout Catholics or Orthodox who oppose contraception cannot be made to subsidize it without violating their religious liberty. 

     As I have continued to note, the issue of the contraception mandate is part of a broader issue of the general mandate by government to provide health insurance. Such a mandate from the federal government violates the Commerce Clause, which allows it only to regulate interstate commerce, not commerce within states – let alone decisions not to engage in commerce. It thereby violates the principle of federalism established by the Founding Fathers. Although it is right that Catholics and Orthodox oppose the contraception mandate, together with a great many others who are sympathetic to them because of the clear violation of religious liberty, Catholics should also oppose the general mandate and the federalization of health insurance on the grounds that it violates the principle of subsidiarity, in which it is held that local authorities are best suited to handle matters of local concern, such as providing health care for members of one’s family or community. The contraception mandate is exposing the dangers of the centralization of power. It is only one of many such regulations to come should the federalization of health insurance not be overturned or repealed.

Elections in Authoritarian Russia and Iran Produce Similar Results

     Although there were some key differences, the elections in both Russia and Iran were remarkably similar. Predictably, the authoritarian regimes in both states won. 

     In Russia, Vladimir Putin was returned to the office of the presidency. He had remained the power behind the Premier in the meantime. His election followed a recent parliamentary election in which his allies easily won. Both elections were characterized by state control of the media, limits on freedom of assembly and intimidation of opponents, which created an atmosphere of little competition, except mostly from fringe candidates. Both elections were also marred by widespread fraud. The parliamentary elections produced the largest public protests of Putin’s regime. The Russian people would have to rise up much more forcefully after the presidential election in order to effect real change in Russian government. 

     In the parliamentary elections in Iran, the hard-line theocratic forces defeated an attempt by the President to gain independence from the mullahs. Those opposed to the theocracy, and increasingly even moderates, are barred even from running for office. The elections suggest that the Islamic Republic’s crackdown on dissent has been unusually effective. There were fewer allegations of fraud this time because there was less competition tolerated.

     Iran’s regime is similar to Communist regimes. The mullahs, like Communist Party officials, are the real powers, despite elections for civil officials. The officials owe their allegiance to the mullahs in Iran, just as they do the Communist Party in Communist states. Communist Putin’s authoritarian regime is also reminiscent of Communist regimes, but it is less overt, as it maintains more of a façade of democracy. The freedoms of religion and speech are somewhat tolerated, but not of assembly or press, while the rule of law is arbitrary. There is no question, however, that both Russia and Iran are dictatorships, to one degree or another. Therefore, these periodic elections are not likely to liberate the Russian and Iranian people until these peoples are able to bring much greater pressure on their governments for freedom.

Unintended Obama Economic Stimulus: Increased Gun Sales

     There was another report of increased gun sales because of United States President Barak Obama. This time, the reason is the fear of his reelection. Obama is hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. 

     I had posted about an increase in the sale of arms early in Obama’s Administration, in October of 2009 in my post, Two Unintended Positive Consequences of Obama’s Policies, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/10/two-positive-unintended-consequences-of.html. I was right that the increase in gun sales is one of the few areas in which Obama has successfully stimulated the economy.

Rep. Frank Wolfe Proposes to Restore February 22 as a Federal Holiday for Washington's Birthday

    
     United States Representative Frank Wolfe (R-VA) has proposed to restore George Washington’s Birthday as a federal holiday on February 22 to replace the diluted Presidents’ Day holiday.

     “Presidents’ Day” – an unofficial name for the federal holiday originally intended to honor Washington – never falls on February 22, Washington’s birthday, but is instead celebrated on the third Monday in February.  In 1971, Congress changed several holidays to Mondays, including Washington’s Birthday.  Wolfe cited the historical precedent of the return of Veterans’ Day from a Monday to November 11, the date of Armistice Day, the date commemorating the end of the First World War.

     Wolfe expressed concern that the loss of a day honoring the Father of our country contributes to the lack of historical education among American youth today and also relegates the day as a three-day weekend most noted for commercial sales. He notes that Washington is the only president intended to be honored with a federal holiday and that the date was celebrated in Washington’s lifetime – even before the creation of the presidency.  Wolfe’s proposal, which is supported by the Mount Vernon Association, would honor Washington not only as the greatest American president, but as a soldier and statesman.  

     I have expressed concerns similar to those raised by Wolfe.  See my posts, Presidents’ Day vs. Washington’s Birthday http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/02/presidents-day-vs-washingtons-birthday.html from February of 2009 and Eliminate the Presidents’ Day Holiday http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/02/eliminate-presidents-day-holiday.html from February of 2010.  I note that the day is intended to honor Washington for all his contributions to America, not only his presidency.  I also observe that currently the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is the only American honored with a holiday on his birthday (although also celebrated on a Monday, the date can fall on King’s birthday), but not America’s greatest Founding Father. 

     See also my post from February of 2009, George Washington the Great http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/02/george-washington-great.html.

     I urge my fellow conservatives to join me in support of Wolfe’s proposal to restore Washington’s Birthday as a federal holiday on February 22, not only because George Washington uniquely deserves a holiday, but to educate all Americans about his greatness and the legacy he has left us, for which we should be most grateful and most vigilant to maintain.

Peru Gains a Victory in the War on Terrorism

     Peru has captured the leader of the Shining Path, the vicious Marxist narco-terrorists responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. He was wanted by both Peru and the United States.

     The Maoist Shining Path is infamous for its brutality. Its leader, who was wounded during his capture, led one of two small separate remaining bands of the once sizable force that had been dealt a heavy blow twenty years ago with the killing of its first leader. It has still been responsible nevetheless for the deaths of 20-30 people per year. It is hoped that this capture will end the cause of establishing a socialist state that its leader admitted is impossible. The Peruvian government has been making gains against the rebels, as has Colombia against its Marxist terrorists who, like the Shining Path, also derive their income from the illegal production and sale of narcotics. 

     I congratulate Peru for its successful contribution to the War on Terrorism and the fight against the scourge of drugs.

European Monetary Union Update: Greece Passes Another Austerity Plan

    The Greek Parliament approved another harsh austerity plan in order to receive the latest tranche of bailout money from the European Monetary Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund to avoid default on its sovereign debt or having to leave the eurozone.

     Debt-ridden Greece's creditors had demanded it approve the plan in order to receive over $170 billion in bailout loans because the Greeks had failed to implement fully the necessary spending cuts after receiving the first tranche of $145 billion.  The latest Greek austerity package saves an additional $5 billion in spending by sharply cutting the minimum wage and pensions and eliminating tens of thousand of public sector jobs, among other cuts.  The austerity plan will also facilitate a separate deal with Greece's bondholders to write off a large percentage of Greece's tens of billions of dollars of sovereign debt.

     The austerity program had been approved by Greece's caretaker national unity government led by Lucas Papademos, meaning that it was approved by most of the main parties, including both the socialists and conservatives.  Only one smaller party in the coalition opposed the measure, although some members of the two major parties also did.  Cabinet members who opposed it were fired and members of parliament who voted against it were expelled.  Both major parties have agreed in writing to implement the program, regardless of which one wins snap elections in April, as demanded by the European creditors, who will only release the money once the plan is implemented. The measure still passed easily, despite violent popular opposition. 

     Papademos had identified overspending as the cause of the debt.  In opposition to further spending cuts, Greeks have been rioting and striking, which not only harms the economy that has been mired in a deep recession that is unlikely to end in the forseeable future and thereby adds to the public debt, but undermines investor confidence in Greece.  Although the riots have been particularly violent in Greece, the same phenomenon has hampered the efforts of other European governments to reduce debt.  Europeans, especially Greeks, had become so accustomed to government largess that they fail to recognize that the benefits to which they were encouraged to feel entitled were the cause of the debt, for which they rightfully must share the burden, as I have noted before.  I also understand, as previously noted, the Greek loss of sovereignty, as Greeks feel as though they are being dictated to by Europeans, especially Germans.  The Greek national unity government deserves praise for recognizing that it had to approve the harsh, unpopular measures, lest even greater ills befall the country.   

     I also note the uncertainty over the passage of the plan affected the markets adversely, as has the passage of every new plan by every government in the eurozone affected by the sovereign debt crisis, even though the governments have majorities to approve the plans in parliament.  Although the uncertainty is partly understandable because of popular opposition, I cannot help but suspect, as Italians did during Silvio Berlusconi's premiership, that speculators benefit from market fluctuations based upon exaggerated fear.  These uncertainties result in higher interest rates on sovereign debt, for example, which make it even more difficult for governments to afford to service their debt.  There ought to be some confidence that these governments will continue to act responsibility, despite the political challenge, which would be beneficial for all.  It would help if people refrain from violence and strikes.  If anyone takes to the streets to demonstrate peacefully, it should be the supporters of the governments to give them, their creditors and the markets the confidence they need during this crisis.