A Common Defense Issue: Is Defending Our Ports Cost Effective?

It seems the Congress and Bush have taken action to defend our security at least at the busiest ports. This might cut down some high profile targets but it still leave large holes in our Port defense since the obvious thing for anyone to do who wants to smuggle Weapons of Mass Destruction in the United States is to use less busy ports. The radiation detectors may stop the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the United States but they will not stop one being detonated in a port. Such a detonation may kill less people than actually letting it off in a highly populated area but it could hurt us economically which seems to be at least one goal of Al Qaeda. The best defense is if we could have a means to screen ships even before they get within short to medium missile range of the United States.

My question with this and any other security measure is whether or not the cost is worth the advantage. I have my doubts.

I see radiation detectors were installed in Hong Kong. I have my questions about how much this protects us as Hong Kong is really not an area I perceive a terrorist threat coming from. I also question if we could trust the operators of the detectors in countries that are more to have terrorist operating from them. In addition from what I have heard we gave China the plans for the detectors in exchange for them putting them up. That action itself sounds like a breach in security.

This all is of course my political opinion and it did not win the day on the floors of Congress. I have some interest because this is how my tax dollars are spent but I concede the defeat to those whose ideas received the majority support of both houses. I would not seek to pull a undemocratic procedure technically as Senator Durban of Illinois did when his idea about the parental notification act was overridden. The act was stopped even though the majority of Congress passed it.

I see the Bush Administration spent $10 billion dollars to inefficiently secure our ports but is unwilling to spend $2-4 billion dollars to build a wall in order to secure our borders. He does not see the contradiction.

Source 1 is article about President Bush signing Port Act.

The Common Defense Of Our Economy

Mercantilism was the economic theory of Europe and the United States during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century and a way to enact it is written into the U.S. Constitutions by the powers granted to Congress. It was based on the idea that the worlds wealth was limited. This is considered erroneous by some schools of economic thought. The thing is that these schools also have a globalist bias which their theories support. Some resources are indeed practically unlimited as they are renewable such as labor, farm produce, solar power but they are limited to a maximum output each year. Other resources are limited such as coal, oil, precious metals and they are also limited in output in that they take the expenditure of labor to obtain them. If the output of any of these exceeds the need for them then the rest is not used and in some cases such as labor and food goes to waste if not saved in some way. Since the resource output each year is limited the wealth output each year is also limited. The same is true with those resources that have a limited supply. Renewable resources are for all practical purposes unlimited as long as you do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

According to the Institute of Trade and Commercialism Mercantilism was

A once-prominent economic philosophy that equated national wealth and prowess with the accumulation of gold and other international monetary assets, and hence with running a persistent trade surplus. The mercantilist viewpoint has been discredited by modem economics, which has shown that national economic security and well-being are not necessarily related one way or another with trade surpluses or deficits

This is of course true since if you as a person were to borrow money and just pay the interest owned on it you could live better than if you did not borrow the money even though you are going to end up paying more in the long haul. The key is to pay back as little more than the interest as you can and most lenders will be satisfied with the arrangements as they long as they are making enough money off you which they can reinvest. The problems with this is that you are depending on always making enough money and lenders want higher interest payments for longer duration loans.

This brings us to the news that the increase in the federal deficit this year is less than it has been in four years which President Bush touted as proof that his tax cuts for the rich increased taxes. This may or may not be the case but the economy under Clinton who took away tax cuts for the rich actually gave a federal surplus for several years. To really determine what is going on would require a itemized listing of the taxes and how much they each raise for the federal government over the last thirty years compared with the tax policy during that same time. The key point though is I have my doubts that Congress or the President wants to control the deficit since the United States is living better on borrowed money.

The problem is that the holders of our debt might decide they want more interest. This can be fought by selling our dept to other holders that are willing to lend us money at a lower interest rate. Bust what happen if the number of those willing to lend us money shrink in the total amount they are willing to lend us. The value of our money is based on faith and nothing else so all a country that wants to hurt us economically has to do is destroy the faith of people in the American dollar. Can this faith be destroyed if a country undersells our dept to a third party of if they demand we pay. Lets say China decided to undersell their portion of the U.S. dept to Venezuela. What effect would that happen to the faith other countries have in our dollar. If our dollar started to decline in value Venezuela could then demand we pay off their loan to us in full which I do not even believe we have the ability to do. Meanwhile the price of oil could be inflated by OPEC who “lost” faith in our dollar. Would our money be so devalued that a cart full would barely buy a loaf of bread. What would be the politic ramifications of that.

China has a federal deficit of 32.2 billion dollars in one year. I am not sure whether the loan is held by domestic or foreign investors. They have a trade surplus of 120.4 billion dollars in one year which could easily pay off their deficit. The U.S. has a 247.7 dollar deficit in one year a large part of which is owned by foreign investors. The U.S. also has a trade deficit of 799.5 billion dollars. I have no idea what the depreciation is on the goods and services we receive in exchange for our wealth and increasing our debt. That depreciation is how much we are loosing of our wealth each year if we do not have anything to replace it such as renewable wealth. I wonder if anyone will ever get sick of us borrowing money to live at the standard we are accustomed to.

Do you agree with the modern economic theory of the theory of Mercantilism?

Source 1 is the article about how this years federal deficit is lowest in four years.

Source 2 is the CIA Factbook where you can find economic statistics for both China and the United States.

Unnecessary An Unconstitutional Federal Agencies

I was watching Glen Beck on CNN Headlines when he mentioned an incident some years ago where Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh led his Rajinese religious members in a terrorist attack on the town by poisoning the food supply of The Dalles, Oregon in an attempt to take over the town. His idea was that these E. Coli outbreaks may be a terrorist attack on America and that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. E. Coli poisonings are normal and there is no evidence that the situation has worsened in recent years though our food supply is made vulnerable to such a hypothetical attack by the speed and efficiency of transport system,. Never the less I do not believe that Homeland Security needs to have any direct control of the situation since state and federal agencies do exist that are already on the job and are hopefully competent enough to do it.

The federal agencies are my concern because I question the need and constitutionality of them. The Department of Agriculture for instance. The only power that the federal government has is there ability to regulate commerce between states and nations and the FDA already serves to enforce those laws for the Federal government. So what does the Department of Agriculture do, that is not already accomplished by the FDA, which is also part of regulating commerce. I do know that only the states have the power to regulate production and trade within their own state

The Federal does make the questionable claim that it has the power to regulate trade within a state if it effect trade between states or nations. I question their claim because they do not have the power to regulate trade in other countries even if it effect trade between nations or between states. Those who passed the U.S. Constitution were big on states rights and they wanted the give the federal government jurisdiction within a state they would have spelled it out especially when you consider the Tenth Amendment which states that any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states.

Then there is the question of need. The state governments already have agricultural departments that are just as capable of doing the job as the federal government except they are smaller and thus most likely have less bureaucracy. They can communicate with the federal government in those areas where concerns are and the FDA has the power to enforce any standards put out by Congress. In addition the voting public for the state government is smaller which theoretically grants the individual more power in controlling their fate.

So in conclusion why are we paying for a government agency than seems to be unneeded and unconstitutional. I have the same question about the United States Department of Health and Human Services as states also have the same departments that do the same job and it appears to be a useless duplication of services that I see no justification for in the U.S. Constitution. To answer my own question, the only reason I see that these organizations exist at our expense to give the federal government unconstitutional power over the states and therefore over the people of those states and of the United States.

Source 1 is an account of the E. coli outbreaks

The Battle About Murder Through Abortion In South Dakota

Dakota is having a skirmish on the abortion front using words with anti choice to commit murder v pro choice to commit murder forces facing each other in a political campaign which will end in the voting booth this fall with the people declaring one way or another. All indications are that this is a close campaign with anti choice to commit murder forces closing the gap in polls of the peoples from 47%:39% to47%:44%.

The anti choice to commit murder have taken a new feminist label for themselves and that is pro motherhood. They urge the people to support the woman’s right to motherhood by supporting the ban since women since in the words of Leslee Unruh the campaign manager "We women buy the choice line. We're panicked, or we're being pressured, or we're ashamed to have a child outside marriage,". Evidence from Pew Forum indicates even with the pro choice slogan that women have to right to kill their own child in their womb a similar percentage of women to men support banning legalized homicide through abortion with rape, incest, and to save mother exception by a 42%:40% and women are more likely to support it with no exception 11%:08% ratio over men.

South Dakota is obviously more conservative than the national average but if the anti choice to commit murder faction can chip at some of the base of the pro choice to commit murder faction using these tactics then the dynamics of the United States will most likely undergo a change as the pro choice to commit murder faction retreats and regroups to come up with their own strategy.

In South Dakota they are trying to play on the sympathy of the people for women who are victims of rape and incest but evidence is that such women are actually only about 2% of those that choose to get and abortion and Plan B contraceptives can be made available for them. The frightening thing is that 40% are women that have had a previous abortion and so seem to be arbitrarily and intentionally killing their child in their womb as a means of birth control. Then consider that punishing the child for the father’s crime is a medieval practice called corruption of blood. Do we really want to behave in such a barbaric fashion. It is the father that committed the crime and should be punished for it not the child.

Source 1 is a pro choice to commit murder biased article about the new anti choice to commit murder strategy. The “talk is not of a fetus' right to life” gives away its bias.

Source 2 is also a biased pro choice to commit murder but from the LA Times instead.

Source 3 seems to be a neutral article on the ban.

Source 4 is surveys by the Pew Forum.

Why Is The U.S Government Working Against The General Welfare Of The People

Some of the things the Mains Stream Media do not consider news is quite frightening. One of those is the proposed mega port in Mexico’s Baja California with it adverse effects on Americas working class.

This mega port will not in any way increase the purchase of goods from China and other Asian countries unless it occurs because of the decrease in labor costs of dockworkers and transporters which will be the less expensive Mexican laborers instead of the more expensive American ones. It will not decrease the cost of shipping though it may make it easier and faster to unload cargo ships since those ships will pretty much have to travel the same distance. So how does it provide for the general welfare of Americans unless you are talking about a few rich ones whose loyalty to the United States I question.

I do see the benefits to Mexico and figure that businessman Gabriel Chavez is playing a game in order to get a better deal when he acts like he sees more important priorities. He may also be doing it for political reasons of which I do not know. There is also the possibility that he is being straightforward but I do not give that a high possibility.

In the United States I see dock workers and transport workers put out of work as their jobs are transferred to Mexico. Will the government make governmental jobs by funding public works projects to hide this job loss and so increase the deficit of the state or/and federal government or will they let it be seen.

This is not the first time the U.S. government has acted as the enemy of the people of the United States. Global free trade punishes the U.S. labor force by removing many middle income factory labor positions to developing countries like China and India. In exchange we get lower cost goods sold through companies like Wal-Mart but the middle class begins to disappear. In Los Angelus the middle class is disappearing as illegal immigrants who are used to lower pay have created a surplus labor economy where the United States is beginning to look like a heavily socialized Mexico that can not pay its bills.

Perhaps the government has decided our ports are two vulnerable to a nuclear bomb and have decided to shift the risk to Mexico. If so they are making sure not to let us know the risk.

Source 1 is article about the NAFTA superhighway and the Mexico Mega Port.