Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Case for a State-Owned Bank

The Case for a State-Owned Bank

One professor argues it's a way to bring revenue gushing into state coffers.
by Penelope Lemov | April 12, 2012
 
A growing number of policymakers have been looking to North Dakota and its state bank. Why, you ask? Founded in 1919 with $2 million in capital, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) now operates with more than $270 million. More to the point, it has handed over some $300 million to North Dakota's treasury over the past decade.
When states and localities are turning over almost every rock looking for revenue, that's an enviable track record. The Public Banking Institute reports that 17 states have introduced bills either to form state-owned banks or to do feasibility studies on their potential.
What are the arguments driving the debate over state banks? To gain some perspective on the issue, I talked to Timothy A. Canova, professor of international economic law at Chapman University in California, and a proponent of the idea. An edited transcript follows.

RELATED

Everyone seems to be looking to the Bank of North Dakota. Is it the only model out there?
There are other state-owned banks. For example, California has the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank. What's different about North Dakota is that it takes deposits from individuals and state tax revenues, and in turn, makes commercial loans. It's perceived as a competitor to private or commercial banks, but in reality it plays a supportive role because it can purchase part or all of a bank's loan after it has been issued and do other financing arrangements. California's bank is an infrastructure bank. By definition, it doesn't compete with commercial banks in making commercial loans and taking deposits. What it competes with is other ways to finance infrastructure. There's an interesting bill that's been introduced by California state Sen. Alan Lowenthal that would expand the powers of the infrastructure bank to be able to receive state funds for deposit, which could then be used to reinvest in California communities.
The Bank of North Dakota has been getting more attention in the past couple years; it's becoming more widely recognized. As we keep trying other solutions and those solutions are not working, people will keep coming back to ones that do. Some say, North Dakota is just one small state. Okay, but look at Germany and China and their uses of publicly owned infrastructure banks. Look at Sweden. These models have worked successfully in recent years, and they worked well here in the 1930s and '40s.
The+Public+Banking+Institute+map+on+state-owned+banksWhat can a state bank do for a state's economic and financial well-being?
It can extend credit to small- and medium-size enterprises, something that the private banking sector has not been doing. When you try to stimulate the economy with the private banking sector, it's -- to use a long-ago metaphor -- like pushing on a string. It's not a very effective way to get credit to the smaller enterprises. Look at North Dakota. Its bank accepts deposits from ordinary folks and, when the state collects tax revenue, instead of depositing it in big banks that might have another agenda, it goes into BND, which is more likely to take that tax revenue and other deposits and lend it within the state. It's one of the reasons North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Yes, the state also has an oil and gas boom, but so do Montana and Wyoming and they have high unemployment.
Meanwhile, California is the largest state economy in the nation, yet without a state-owned bank, it is unable to steer hundreds of billions of dollars in state revenues into productive investment within the state. Instead, California deposits its many billions in tax revenues in large private banks which often lend the funds out of state, invest them in speculative trading strategies (including derivative bets against the state's own bonds) and do not remit any of their earnings back to the state treasury.
What kind of headwinds does a state face in setting one up?
The private banking sector is resistant. It wants public funds deposited with its banks -- it doesn't want a competitor in taking deposits and making commercial loans. The political opposition is fierce. North Dakota's bank leaders admit that if the state were considering creating this bank today, it would have political problems -- even though it is fantastically successful. To overcome the political opposition of big banks requires an informed public, and that's a challenge on so many issues.
How would a new state-owned bank be capitalized?
One way might be for a state to put in an initial investment. State tax revenue is one way, too. I've been on an advisory committee U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont put together on reforming the Federal Reserve. (Also on this committee are economists Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, Robert Reich and James Galbraith.) In the course of discussions, it has been proposed that the Federal Reserve help capitalize an infrastructure bank. I don't see why it couldn't do that for a state-owned bank. Just like the Federal Reserve used quantitative easing in the past few years, there's nothing economically or financially problematic for the Federal Reserve to simply purchase shares -- either common stock, preferred stock or debt securities -- from state-owned banks. Qualitative easing programs don't add to the deficit. If the Federal Reserve pushed several billions of dollars into state infrastructure banks -- the country needs $3 trillion in new investment in infrastructure over the next decade -- we would reduce the public deficit quickly. If state infrastructure and commercial banks start lending and financing infrastructure projects and business development, that will help renew the tax base. There are 13 million people out of work and businesses are hurting. They don't pay as much in taxes. That's been one of the real problems in public finance in past three years.
Penelope Lemov
Penelope Lemov  |  correspondent




McCain Sneaks Across Syria Border, Joins Al-Qaeda

2013-11-23

McCain Sneaks Across Syria Border, Joins Al-Qaeda



Vatic Note:   This has got to be satire.  It can't be written up this way and still be serious.  If it is satire, does it mean that McCain has not really done that?  Probably, but he for certain did deliver something to those rebels that they needed.  It was either weapons or cash to buy weapons. 

He did this in Benghazi before the Ambassador was killed and its what made me think they killed the ambassador because he was not happy about all this and considered any cooperation with the scam, as going along with treason.  We published a blog on this with photos showing McCain walking with the ambassador while McCain is smiling and happy and the ambassadors face showing he was extremely unhappy. 

It was shortly thereafter, that the ambassador was killed at a CIA safehouse and we all know CIA safehouses are where plots are either hatched or executed.  Which of those two choices it was, we do not know, but we do know that DOD secretary Panetta, Petreas, and Hitlary all sat and watched live stream feed as it was going down and refused military's call for  help  on the situation.

I asked then, "who hired the videographer to professionally film the entire event and how did the raw live feed make its way into the White House in real time?  You read and see what this sounds like to you. 

McCain Sneaks Across Syria Border, Joins Al-Qaeda
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/28/mcjihad/
by Kevin Barrett,  Veterans Today, reporter
June 2013

According to unconfirmed reports, former Republican presidential candidate and current Senator John McCain has joined al-Qaeda.
                                                         
Informed sources report that McCain slipped across the Syrian border last night and joined the al-Nusra front, an Israeli-supported al-Qaeda affiliate that is waging war against Syria.

McCain issued the following statement explaining his actions: “In the name of Yahweh, the benevolent, the merciful, I hereby declare allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri and to the Zionist entity he represents."

I have always wanted to grow a beard, cut off some heads, and devour the raw internal organs of my victims, especially since I had a bad experience in a POW camp, so this represents the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. I am grateful to Sheikh al-Zawahiri, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Adam Gadahn, and the other heroic mujewhideen who have made this possible.”

According to terror expert Daniel Pipes, McCain is the highest-level American politician ever to have joined al-Qaeda: “This is a real coup for al-Qaeda. But it wasn’t  unexpected. Now that the State of Israel has openly merged with al-Qaeda, and is bombing Syria on behalf of al-Qaeda operations, I believe we will be seeing more well-known American statesmen follow in the footsteps of Senator McCain.”

Another leading terror expert, Steve Emerson, explained: “More and more US Senators are competing to see who can humiliate themselves the most obsequiously as they grovel at the feet of Israel and Netanyahu. What better way to show your devotion to Israel than by joining its favorite false-flag militia and blowing yourself up?”


S. Res 65) supporting al-Qaeda’s right to self-defense, and committing the US to go to war to defend al-Qaeda if it should decide to attack any nation, including the US.

Graham explained:
“Al-Qaeda is a branch of Israel, and Israel has the right to attack anyone it wants, including us. That’s why McCain’s father covered up the Israeli massacre of the USS Liberty crew, and it’s why we all covered up Israel’s demolition of the World Trade Center on 9/11. If Israel and its al-Qaeda front group want to blow up any more American skyscrapers, the United States must stand behind them and offer our full support.”

Al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn welcomed the news of McCain’s decision to wage kosher jihad. “We both have a family tradition of service to Israel. My grandfather was a Director of the ADL, and Senator McCain’s father was the Navy’s highest-ranking Mossad infiltrator. Together, we will make a terrific team as we make Muslims look like homicidal lunatics, while waging kosher jihad against Israel’s enemies in Syria. It’s a win-win situation.”

Meanwhile, back at the White House, an executive branch “disposition matrix” death panel is considering targeting McCain in a drone strike. Polls showed that since McCain joined al-Qaeda, 68% of Americans now favor “taking him out” – a three-point jump since he joined the terrorist group.


Obama administration drowning in lawsuits filed over NSA surveillance

Obama administration drowning in lawsuits filed over NSA surveillance

Published time: July 16, 2013 17:39
Edited time: July 17, 2013 10:26
Get short URL


Attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation have sued the Obama administration and are demanding the White House stop the dragnet surveillance programs operated by the National Security Agency.
Both the White House and Congress have weighed in on the case of Edward Snowden and the revelations he’s made by leaking National Security Agency documents. Now the courts are having their turn to opine, and with opportunities aplenty.
Day by day, new lawsuits waged against the United States government are being filed in federal court, and with the same regularity President Barack Obama and the preceding administration are being charged with vast constitutional violations alleged to have occurred through the NSA spy programs exposed by Mr. Snowden. 
The recent disclosures made by Snowden have generated commotion in Congress and the White House alike. The Department of Justice has asked for the 30-year-old former Booz Allen Hamilton worker to be extradited to the US to face charges of espionage, and members of both the House and Senate have already held their share of emergency hearings in the wake of Snowden’s series of disclosures detailing the vast surveillance programs waged by the US in utmost secrecy. But with the executive and legislative branches left worrying about how to handle the source of the leaks — and if the policies publicized should have existed in the first place — the courts could soon settle some disputes that stand to shape the way the US conducts surveillance of its own citizens.
Both longstanding arguments and just-filed claims have garnered the attention of the judicial branch in the weeks since the Guardian newspaper first began publishing leaked NSA documents attributed to Snowden on June 6. But while the courts have relied previously on stalling or stifling cases that challenge Uncle Sam’s spy efforts, civil liberties experts say the time may be near for some highly anticipated arguments to finally be heard. Now on the heels of lawsuits filed by the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, groups are coming out of the woodwork to wage a legal battle against the White House.
The most recent example came this week when a coalition of various organizations filed suit together against the Obama administration by challenging “an illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet electronic surveillance, specifically the bulk acquisition, collection, storage, retention and searching of telephone communications information.” Represented by attorneys from the EFF and others, the plaintiffs in the latest case filed Tuesday in San Francisco federal court include an array of groups, such as: First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Calguns Foundation; California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees; Council on Islamic Relations; Franklin Armory; Free Press; Free Software Foundation; Greenpeace; Human Rights Watch; Media Alliance; National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; Open Technology Institute; People for the American Way, Public Knowledge; Students for Sensible Drug Policy; TechFreedom; and Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the EFF, told the Washington Post that the NSA leaks credited to Snowden have been a “tremendous boon” to the plaintiffs in recently filed court cases challenging the surveillance state. The courts are currently pondering at least five important cases, Cohn told the Post, which could for once and for all bring some other issues up for discussion.
Since June 6, the American Civil Liberties Union, a Verizon Wireless customer and the founder of conservative group Judicial Watch have all filed federal lawsuits against the government’s collection of telephony metadata, a practice that puts basic call records into the government’s hands without a specific warrant ever required and reported to the media by Mr. Snowden. Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch has also sued over another revelation made by Snowden — the PRISM Internet eavesdropping program — and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, has asked the Supreme Court to vacate the order compelling Verizon Business Network Services to send metadata to the feds.
Perhaps most important, however, is a California federal court’s recent decision to shutdown the government’s request to stop the case of Jewel vs. NSA from proceeding. That debate first began in 2008 when Jewel, a former AT&T customer, challenged the government’s "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance” as exposed by a whistleblower at the telecom company. That case has seen roadblock after roadblock during the last five years, but all that changed earlier this month.  The government long argued that Jewel v. NSA can’t go up for discussion because the issues at hand are privileged as ‘state secrets’ and can’t be brought into the public realm.
“[T]he disclosure of sensitive intelligence sources and methods . . . reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to national security,” the government wrote in one earlier filing. "The very purpose of these cases is to put at issue whether the NSA undertook certain alleged activities under presidential authorization after 9/11, and whether those activities continue today. At every stage, from standing to the merits, highly classified and properly privileged intelligence sources and methods are at risk of disclosure. The law is clear, however, that where litigation risks or requires the disclosure of information that reasonably could be expected to harm national security, dismissal is required."
Following Snowden’s recent disclosures, though, Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California ruled on July 8 that there’s a way for those cases to still be heard.
"The court rightly found that the traditional legal system can determine the legality of the mass, dragnet surveillance of innocent Americans and rejected the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege to have the case dismissed," the EFF’s Cohn, who is working on the case, said in a statement issued at the time of the ruling. "Over the last month, we came face-to-face with new details of mass, untargeted collection of phone and Internet records, substantially confirmed by the Director of National Intelligence. Today's decision sets the stage for finally getting a ruling that can stop the dragnet surveillance and restore Americans' constitutional rights."
Sen. Ron Wyden (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images / AFP)
Sen. Ron Wyden (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images / AFP)

Weighing in weeks later to the Post, Cohn said that outcome could have more of an impact than many might imagine. “It’s tremendous, because anything that allows these cases to proceed is important,” she said.
Speaking to the New York Times this week, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Jameel Jaffer said that until now the government has operated a “shell game” to shield it’s surveillance programs from litigation. “[T]he statute has been shielded from judicial review, and controversial and far-reaching surveillance authorities have been placed beyond the reach of the Constitution,” he said.
Should Cohn’s prediction come true, though, the courts could decide to weigh in and reshape the way the government currently conducts surveillance.
According to University of Pittsburgh law professor Jules Lobel, a victory there could come in more than one way. “There is a broader function to these lawsuits than simply winning in court,” he told the Post. “The government has to respond, and forcing them to go before a court might make them want to change aspects of the programs.”
The government does things to avoid embarrassment,’’ he added, “and lawsuits are a key pressure point.’’
Interviews to the Post and the Times come just days after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), a long-time member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he thought the revelations made by Snowden may influence the White House to reconsider their surveillance practices before the courts can even have their chance.
I have a feeling that the administration is getting concerned about the bulk phone records collection, and that they are thinking about whether to move administratively to stop it,” Sen. Wyden told the Times.
I think we are making a comeback,” he said.


Recorded Crickets - awesome

I can't stop listening to this. It makes me think that this is what God hears as He created all things to worship and praise Him. It almost brings tears to my eyes. Keep listening and you will hear a woman's voice explaining what you are hearing. 

It’s Recorded Crickets then Slowed Down the Track, and It Sounds Like Humans Singing

Composer Jim Wilson has recorded the sound of crickets and then slowed down the recording, revealing something so amazing. The crickets sound like they are singing the most angelic chorus in perfect harmony. Though it sounds like human voices, everything you hear in the recording is the crickets themselves. The recording contains two tracks played at the same time: The first is the natural sound of crickets played at regular speed, and the second is the slowed down version of crickets’ voices.

Jim states “I discovered that when I slowed down this recording to various levels, this simple familiar sound began to morph into something very mystic and complex……..almost human.”



:

Use your masterful powers of thought,
visualization and verbal intent to
Co-create a peaceful world now...

dolphins 3

Maple Pumpkin Pie with a Crunch Recipe


Discover the country’s best flavors! Get a FREE PREVIEW of ALL-NEW Taste of Home Recipes Across America. See offer for details!

View recipe | Email Preferences
Taste of Home Recipe of the Day
FREE PREVIEW
Treat yourself
to a FREE preview of
Recipes Across America!

Click here for details!

Taste of Home
Maple Pumpkin Pie with a Crunch

AVERAGE RATING
AVERAGE RATING
Share this recipe:
facebook
twitter
e-mail

ADVERTISEMENT
Want more Taste of Home? Check us out on these social sites!
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
This email was sent to: johnmachaffie@gmail.com

To ensure that you receive Recipe of the Day newsletters, please add newsletter@email.tasteofhome.com to your address book or list of approved senders. Click here for details.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about our newsletters. To contact us please click here.

Copyright 2013 RDA Enthusiast Brands
All rights reserved
5400 S. 60th St., P.O. 991
Greendale, WI 53129-0991

THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL IN GENEVA "HISTORY HAS BEEN MADE"

OBAMA'S BIO IN SEGMENTS

OBAMA'S BIO IN SEGMENTS.  OBAMA CHANGED THE BIO AT WILL AND PROBABLY NOT VERY ACCURATE. FORGERY, BIRTH CERTIFICATE (FORGERY) SSAN (STOLEN).  THE ITEMS HEREIN ENCLOSED IS PROBABLY CREATED IN THE SAME MANNER: