George Washington's Prophecy

George Washington is one of those historical figures about whom it is easy to find reasons to admire. Perhaps the foremost two that spring to mind are his successful leadership of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and his tenure as our country's first president. As children I'm sure we all grow up admiring him, given his preeminence among our founding fathers. No doubt we all remember the fable of him as a child himself, boldly admitting to cutting down a cherry tree rather than tell a lie. For me though, my deep and profound respect for the man comes from the recognition of the fact that he was able to do what very few people in history have done in his position. It is a feat which is based in historical fact and I think is so monumental that it completely justifies any myth of his legendary character. I am speaking of his refusal of absolute power in the service of the birth of our nation.

Toward the end of the Revolutionary War, many of the officers and men of the Continental Army had yet to receive much of the pay promised to them by Congress. In May of 1782 a letter was sent to Washington by Colonel Lewis Nicola who proposed resolving the situation by having the army support his appointment as King of the United States. Naturally Washington reacted very strongly against this suggestion, refusing a mantle offered to other important men of history such as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, who accepted it, and ultimately lead themselves to their own ruin. I mention this not only because I believe it earns him a position of prominence in the pantheon of historical figures, but to establish his exceptional integrity and single-minded devotion to the upright establishment and survival of the United States of America.

Over the course of his presidency, George Washington was keenly aware that as the first President of the United States, his every action would be precedents for his successors. Despite the widespread demand that he serve a third term he retired from the office after serving only two, thus establishing a peaceful transfer of power that exists in the Executive Branch of our government to this day. At this time, the two-party system was beginning to emerge. There was the Federalist Party, associated with John Adams, and the Democratic Republican Party, or anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson. Many of the differences between the two parties would be formed over the course of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, and when Washington left office in 1797 they had become a potent force in the new America's politics. In these parties George Washington foresaw a danger to the new republic for which he fought, one he warned the country against in his farewell address:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

Given the current state of affairs in our country, with party politics they way they are and the manner in which they affect our government; the accuracy of these passages that were delivered over two hundred and ten years ago is so profound that to me they border on prophecy. Look back over the last few election cycles and you can easily see our community having been agitated with poorly grounded jealousies. Although not having taken us to the point of riot and insurrection, yet, our political parties have most certainly kindled the animosity of one part toward another. Indeed, do we not now refer to ourselves as being a nation of blue states and red states?

I do not wish to promote the notion that just because one is involved with a political party it necessarily follows that they must be prone to corruption, or cannot be good public servants. Over the course of our history we have been fortunate enough to have had many fine statesmen from both parties serve us with both diligence and honor. Yet when you consider the never-ending cacophony of partisanship coming from the twenty four-hour news cycle, talk radio, and the internet coupled with the vast, potentially limitless sums of money that can be raised by either party from anonymous donors, even potentially by foreign governments; one has to wonder that if, particularly now, the two parties are more focused on securing their own power rather than furthering the best interests of the country.

I understand that when one believes a cause is just it is natural to want to see its goals carried to fruition. The question that must be asked is how far does one go in this pursuit? What is the maximum price willing to be paid in its fulfillment? There is no doubt that in pushing their respective agendas, both Democrats and Republicans do believe they have the best interests of the country at heart and in theory there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately though both sides have become so single-minded in the quest for power that it seems they are willing to sacrifice a functioning republic that promotes the general welfare for a dysfunctional one that, even in only a small measure, satisfies their rigid ideals. Put simply, the Democrat and Republican parties see themselves as enemies whose sole purpose is to destroy the other and to employ every possible advantage in doing so. If it means an unlimited, unregulated amount of money may be spent to influence our elections and legislative process to the detriment of us all then so be it. If it means that perfectly good legislation is killed in Congress by poison pill amendments for the sole purpose of securing political advantage, then again so be it. In these ways and others, both parties have served to, as George Washington put it: "distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration".

The solution to this problem is not the abolition of political parties. This is not something that Washington was advocating in his address. He said party spirit should be discouraged and restrained, not eliminated. I think his point was that even though people will always coalesce around certain ideals there comes a time when the passion for those ideals is counterproductive. Believe it or not, there are some genuinely good ideas that have germinated from both political parties, but because of the antagonism between the two they will never see the light of day. If our country is to see real solutions to our problems and continued prosperity this antagonism must end. Political jockeying has its place, but it must stop when mutual concern is involved.

If George Washington were to see the political landscape with which we contend today, then based on his final address I do not think he would be at all surprised. Although he may have predicted this present, his advice to restrain the passions of our political parties is certainly easier said than done. Yet in addition to his wisdom he also left his example. One that we, citizen and public servant alike, would do well to follow. He marshaled a fledgling army against the superpower of his day, refused absolute power over a new nation, and always put the well-being of his country first. We should endeavor to do the same and think of ourselves not as dogmatically inflexible Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, first and always.

About The Author:
Jim Paquette lives in Indiana with his wife and two kids. He writes about politics, religion, movies, and television on his blog: jimdom.NET ( http://www.jimdom.net ).

George Washington's Prophecy

George Washington is one of those historical figures about whom it is easy to find reasons to admire. Perhaps the foremost two that spring to mind are his successful leadership of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and his tenure as our country's first president. As children I'm sure we all grow up admiring him, given his preeminence among our founding fathers. No doubt we all remember the fable of him as a child himself, boldly admitting to cutting down a cherry tree rather than tell a lie. For me though, my deep and profound respect for the man comes from the recognition of the fact that he was able to do what very few people in history have done in his position. It is a feat which is based in historical fact and I think is so monumental that it completely justifies any myth of his legendary character. I am speaking of his refusal of absolute power in the service of the birth of our nation.

Toward the end of the Revolutionary War, many of the officers and men of the Continental Army had yet to receive much of the pay promised to them by Congress. In May of 1782 a letter was sent to Washington by Colonel Lewis Nicola who proposed resolving the situation by having the army support his appointment as King of the United States. Naturally Washington reacted very strongly against this suggestion, refusing a mantle offered to other important men of history such as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, who accepted it, and ultimately lead themselves to their own ruin. I mention this not only because I believe it earns him a position of prominence in the pantheon of historical figures, but to establish his exceptional integrity and single-minded devotion to the upright establishment and survival of the United States of America.

Over the course of his presidency, George Washington was keenly aware that as the first President of the United States, his every action would be precedents for his successors. Despite the widespread demand that he serve a third term he retired from the office after serving only two, thus establishing a peaceful transfer of power that exists in the Executive Branch of our government to this day. At this time, the two-party system was beginning to emerge. There was the Federalist Party, associated with John Adams, and the Democratic Republican Party, or anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson. Many of the differences between the two parties would be formed over the course of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, and when Washington left office in 1797 they had become a potent force in the new America's politics. In these parties George Washington foresaw a danger to the new republic for which he fought, one he warned the country against in his farewell address:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

Given the current state of affairs in our country, with party politics they way they are and the manner in which they affect our government; the accuracy of these passages that were delivered over two hundred and ten years ago is so profound that to me they border on prophecy. Look back over the last few election cycles and you can easily see our community having been agitated with poorly grounded jealousies. Although not having taken us to the point of riot and insurrection, yet, our political parties have most certainly kindled the animosity of one part toward another. Indeed, do we not now refer to ourselves as being a nation of blue states and red states?

I do not wish to promote the notion that just because one is involved with a political party it necessarily follows that they must be prone to corruption, or cannot be good public servants. Over the course of our history we have been fortunate enough to have had many fine statesmen from both parties serve us with both diligence and honor. Yet when you consider the never-ending cacophony of partisanship coming from the twenty four-hour news cycle, talk radio, and the internet coupled with the vast, potentially limitless sums of money that can be raised by either party from anonymous donors, even potentially by foreign governments; one has to wonder that if, particularly now, the two parties are more focused on securing their own power rather than furthering the best interests of the country.

I understand that when one believes a cause is just it is natural to want to see its goals carried to fruition. The question that must be asked is how far does one go in this pursuit? What is the maximum price willing to be paid in its fulfillment? There is no doubt that in pushing their respective agendas, both Democrats and Republicans do believe they have the best interests of the country at heart and in theory there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately though both sides have become so single-minded in the quest for power that it seems they are willing to sacrifice a functioning republic that promotes the general welfare for a dysfunctional one that, even in only a small measure, satisfies their rigid ideals. Put simply, the Democrat and Republican parties see themselves as enemies whose sole purpose is to destroy the other and to employ every possible advantage in doing so. If it means an unlimited, unregulated amount of money may be spent to influence our elections and legislative process to the detriment of us all then so be it. If it means that perfectly good legislation is killed in Congress by poison pill amendments for the sole purpose of securing political advantage, then again so be it. In these ways and others, both parties have served to, as George Washington put it: "distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration".

The solution to this problem is not the abolition of political parties. This is not something that Washington was advocating in his address. He said party spirit should be discouraged and restrained, not eliminated. I think his point was that even though people will always coalesce around certain ideals there comes a time when the passion for those ideals is counterproductive. Believe it or not, there are some genuinely good ideas that have germinated from both political parties, but because of the antagonism between the two they will never see the light of day. If our country is to see real solutions to our problems and continued prosperity this antagonism must end. Political jockeying has its place, but it must stop when mutual concern is involved.

If George Washington were to see the political landscape with which we contend today, then based on his final address I do not think he would be at all surprised. Although he may have predicted this present, his advice to restrain the passions of our political parties is certainly easier said than done. Yet in addition to his wisdom he also left his example. One that we, citizen and public servant alike, would do well to follow. He marshaled a fledgling army against the superpower of his day, refused absolute power over a new nation, and always put the well-being of his country first. We should endeavor to do the same and think of ourselves not as dogmatically inflexible Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, first and always.

About The Author:
Jim Paquette lives in Indiana with his wife and two kids. He writes about politics, religion, movies, and television on his blog: jimdom.NET ( http://www.jimdom.net ).

George Washington's Prophecy

George Washington is one of those historical figures about whom it is easy to find reasons to admire. Perhaps the foremost two that spring to mind are his successful leadership of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and his tenure as our country's first president. As children I'm sure we all grow up admiring him, given his preeminence among our founding fathers. No doubt we all remember the fable of him as a child himself, boldly admitting to cutting down a cherry tree rather than tell a lie. For me though, my deep and profound respect for the man comes from the recognition of the fact that he was able to do what very few people in history have done in his position. It is a feat which is based in historical fact and I think is so monumental that it completely justifies any myth of his legendary character. I am speaking of his refusal of absolute power in the service of the birth of our nation.

Toward the end of the Revolutionary War, many of the officers and men of the Continental Army had yet to receive much of the pay promised to them by Congress. In May of 1782 a letter was sent to Washington by Colonel Lewis Nicola who proposed resolving the situation by having the army support his appointment as King of the United States. Naturally Washington reacted very strongly against this suggestion, refusing a mantle offered to other important men of history such as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, who accepted it, and ultimately lead themselves to their own ruin. I mention this not only because I believe it earns him a position of prominence in the pantheon of historical figures, but to establish his exceptional integrity and single-minded devotion to the upright establishment and survival of the United States of America.

Over the course of his presidency, George Washington was keenly aware that as the first President of the United States, his every action would be precedents for his successors. Despite the widespread demand that he serve a third term he retired from the office after serving only two, thus establishing a peaceful transfer of power that exists in the Executive Branch of our government to this day. At this time, the two-party system was beginning to emerge. There was the Federalist Party, associated with John Adams, and the Democratic Republican Party, or anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson. Many of the differences between the two parties would be formed over the course of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, and when Washington left office in 1797 they had become a potent force in the new America's politics. In these parties George Washington foresaw a danger to the new republic for which he fought, one he warned the country against in his farewell address:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

Given the current state of affairs in our country, with party politics they way they are and the manner in which they affect our government; the accuracy of these passages that were delivered over two hundred and ten years ago is so profound that to me they border on prophecy. Look back over the last few election cycles and you can easily see our community having been agitated with poorly grounded jealousies. Although not having taken us to the point of riot and insurrection, yet, our political parties have most certainly kindled the animosity of one part toward another. Indeed, do we not now refer to ourselves as being a nation of blue states and red states?

I do not wish to promote the notion that just because one is involved with a political party it necessarily follows that they must be prone to corruption, or cannot be good public servants. Over the course of our history we have been fortunate enough to have had many fine statesmen from both parties serve us with both diligence and honor. Yet when you consider the never-ending cacophony of partisanship coming from the twenty four-hour news cycle, talk radio, and the internet coupled with the vast, potentially limitless sums of money that can be raised by either party from anonymous donors, even potentially by foreign governments; one has to wonder that if, particularly now, the two parties are more focused on securing their own power rather than furthering the best interests of the country.

I understand that when one believes a cause is just it is natural to want to see its goals carried to fruition. The question that must be asked is how far does one go in this pursuit? What is the maximum price willing to be paid in its fulfillment? There is no doubt that in pushing their respective agendas, both Democrats and Republicans do believe they have the best interests of the country at heart and in theory there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately though both sides have become so single-minded in the quest for power that it seems they are willing to sacrifice a functioning republic that promotes the general welfare for a dysfunctional one that, even in only a small measure, satisfies their rigid ideals. Put simply, the Democrat and Republican parties see themselves as enemies whose sole purpose is to destroy the other and to employ every possible advantage in doing so. If it means an unlimited, unregulated amount of money may be spent to influence our elections and legislative process to the detriment of us all then so be it. If it means that perfectly good legislation is killed in Congress by poison pill amendments for the sole purpose of securing political advantage, then again so be it. In these ways and others, both parties have served to, as George Washington put it: "distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration".

The solution to this problem is not the abolition of political parties. This is not something that Washington was advocating in his address. He said party spirit should be discouraged and restrained, not eliminated. I think his point was that even though people will always coalesce around certain ideals there comes a time when the passion for those ideals is counterproductive. Believe it or not, there are some genuinely good ideas that have germinated from both political parties, but because of the antagonism between the two they will never see the light of day. If our country is to see real solutions to our problems and continued prosperity this antagonism must end. Political jockeying has its place, but it must stop when mutual concern is involved.

If George Washington were to see the political landscape with which we contend today, then based on his final address I do not think he would be at all surprised. Although he may have predicted this present, his advice to restrain the passions of our political parties is certainly easier said than done. Yet in addition to his wisdom he also left his example. One that we, citizen and public servant alike, would do well to follow. He marshaled a fledgling army against the superpower of his day, refused absolute power over a new nation, and always put the well-being of his country first. We should endeavor to do the same and think of ourselves not as dogmatically inflexible Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, first and always.

About The Author:
Jim Paquette lives in Indiana with his wife and two kids. He writes about politics, religion, movies, and television on his blog: jimdom.NET ( http://www.jimdom.net ).

George Washington's Prophecy

George Washington is one of those historical figures about whom it is easy to find reasons to admire. Perhaps the foremost two that spring to mind are his successful leadership of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and his tenure as our country's first president. As children I'm sure we all grow up admiring him, given his preeminence among our founding fathers. No doubt we all remember the fable of him as a child himself, boldly admitting to cutting down a cherry tree rather than tell a lie. For me though, my deep and profound respect for the man comes from the recognition of the fact that he was able to do what very few people in history have done in his position. It is a feat which is based in historical fact and I think is so monumental that it completely justifies any myth of his legendary character. I am speaking of his refusal of absolute power in the service of the birth of our nation.

Toward the end of the Revolutionary War, many of the officers and men of the Continental Army had yet to receive much of the pay promised to them by Congress. In May of 1782 a letter was sent to Washington by Colonel Lewis Nicola who proposed resolving the situation by having the army support his appointment as King of the United States. Naturally Washington reacted very strongly against this suggestion, refusing a mantle offered to other important men of history such as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, who accepted it, and ultimately lead themselves to their own ruin. I mention this not only because I believe it earns him a position of prominence in the pantheon of historical figures, but to establish his exceptional integrity and single-minded devotion to the upright establishment and survival of the United States of America.

Over the course of his presidency, George Washington was keenly aware that as the first President of the United States, his every action would be precedents for his successors. Despite the widespread demand that he serve a third term he retired from the office after serving only two, thus establishing a peaceful transfer of power that exists in the Executive Branch of our government to this day. At this time, the two-party system was beginning to emerge. There was the Federalist Party, associated with John Adams, and the Democratic Republican Party, or anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson. Many of the differences between the two parties would be formed over the course of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, and when Washington left office in 1797 they had become a potent force in the new America's politics. In these parties George Washington foresaw a danger to the new republic for which he fought, one he warned the country against in his farewell address:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

Given the current state of affairs in our country, with party politics they way they are and the manner in which they affect our government; the accuracy of these passages that were delivered over two hundred and ten years ago is so profound that to me they border on prophecy. Look back over the last few election cycles and you can easily see our community having been agitated with poorly grounded jealousies. Although not having taken us to the point of riot and insurrection, yet, our political parties have most certainly kindled the animosity of one part toward another. Indeed, do we not now refer to ourselves as being a nation of blue states and red states?

I do not wish to promote the notion that just because one is involved with a political party it necessarily follows that they must be prone to corruption, or cannot be good public servants. Over the course of our history we have been fortunate enough to have had many fine statesmen from both parties serve us with both diligence and honor. Yet when you consider the never-ending cacophony of partisanship coming from the twenty four-hour news cycle, talk radio, and the internet coupled with the vast, potentially limitless sums of money that can be raised by either party from anonymous donors, even potentially by foreign governments; one has to wonder that if, particularly now, the two parties are more focused on securing their own power rather than furthering the best interests of the country.

I understand that when one believes a cause is just it is natural to want to see its goals carried to fruition. The question that must be asked is how far does one go in this pursuit? What is the maximum price willing to be paid in its fulfillment? There is no doubt that in pushing their respective agendas, both Democrats and Republicans do believe they have the best interests of the country at heart and in theory there is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately though both sides have become so single-minded in the quest for power that it seems they are willing to sacrifice a functioning republic that promotes the general welfare for a dysfunctional one that, even in only a small measure, satisfies their rigid ideals. Put simply, the Democrat and Republican parties see themselves as enemies whose sole purpose is to destroy the other and to employ every possible advantage in doing so. If it means an unlimited, unregulated amount of money may be spent to influence our elections and legislative process to the detriment of us all then so be it. If it means that perfectly good legislation is killed in Congress by poison pill amendments for the sole purpose of securing political advantage, then again so be it. In these ways and others, both parties have served to, as George Washington put it: "distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration".

The solution to this problem is not the abolition of political parties. This is not something that Washington was advocating in his address. He said party spirit should be discouraged and restrained, not eliminated. I think his point was that even though people will always coalesce around certain ideals there comes a time when the passion for those ideals is counterproductive. Believe it or not, there are some genuinely good ideas that have germinated from both political parties, but because of the antagonism between the two they will never see the light of day. If our country is to see real solutions to our problems and continued prosperity this antagonism must end. Political jockeying has its place, but it must stop when mutual concern is involved.

If George Washington were to see the political landscape with which we contend today, then based on his final address I do not think he would be at all surprised. Although he may have predicted this present, his advice to restrain the passions of our political parties is certainly easier said than done. Yet in addition to his wisdom he also left his example. One that we, citizen and public servant alike, would do well to follow. He marshaled a fledgling army against the superpower of his day, refused absolute power over a new nation, and always put the well-being of his country first. We should endeavor to do the same and think of ourselves not as dogmatically inflexible Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, first and always.

About The Author:
Jim Paquette lives in Indiana with his wife and two kids. He writes about politics, religion, movies, and television on his blog: jimdom.NET ( http://www.jimdom.net ).

George Soras- KOSOVO

Never before has it been so important to have independent, honest voices and sources of information. We are – as a society – inundated and overwhelmed with a flood of information from a wide array of sources, but these sources of information, by and large, serve the powerful interests and individuals that own them. The main sources of information, for both public and official consumption, include the mainstream media, alternative media, academia and think tanks.

The mainstream media is the most obvious in its inherent bias and manipulation. The mainstream media is owned directly by large multinational corporations, and through their boards of directors are connected with a plethora of other major global corporations and elite interests. An example of these connections can be seen through the board of Time Warner.

Time Warner owns Time Magazine, HBO, Warner Bros., and CNN, among many others. The board of directors includes individuals past or presently affiliated with: the Council on Foreign Relations, the IMF, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Warburg Pincus, Phillip Morris, and AMR Corporation, among many others.

Two of the most “esteemed” sources of news in the U.S. are the New York Times (referred to as “the paper of record”) and the Washington Post. The New York Times has on its board people who are past or presently affiliated with: Schering-Plough International (pharmaceuticals), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chevron Corporation, Wesco Financial Corporation, Kohlberg & Company, The Charles Schwab Corporation, eBay Inc., Xerox, IBM, Ford Motor Company, Eli Lilly & Company, among others. Hardly a bastion of impartiality.

And the same could be said for the Washington Post, which has on its board: Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Warren Buffett, billionaire financial investor, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway; and individuals associated with (past or presently): the Coca-Cola Company, New York University, Conservation International, the Council on Foreign Relations, Xerox, Catalyst, Johnson & Johnson, Target Corporation, RAND Corporation, General Motors, and the Business Council, among others.

It is also important to address how the mainstream media is intertwined, often covertly and secretly, with the government. Carl Bernstein, one of the two Washington Post reporters who covered the Watergate scandal, revealed that there were over 400 American journalists who had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” Interestingly, “the use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence-gathering employed by the CIA.” Among organizations which cooperated with the CIA were the “American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune.” 

By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.” 

These types of relationships have continued in the decades since, although perhaps more covertly and quietly than before. For example, it was revealed in 2000 that during the NATO bombing of Kosovo, “several officers from the US Army’s 4th Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group at Ft. Bragg worked in the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters.” This same Army Psyop outfit had “planted stories in the U.S. media supporting the Reagan Administration’s Central America policies,” which was described by the Miami Herald as a “vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory.” These Army PSYOP officers also worked at National Public Radio (NPR) at the same time. The US military has, in fact, had a strong relationship with CNN.

In 2008, it was reported that the Pentagon ran a major propaganda campaign by using retired Generals and former Pentagon officials to present a good picture of the administration’s war-time policies. The program started in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003 and continued into 2009. These officials, presented as “military analysts”, regurgitate government talking points and often sit on the boards of military contractors, thus having a vested interest in the subjects they are brought on to “analyze.”

The major philanthropic foundations in the United States have often used their enormous wealth to co-opt voices of dissent and movements of resistance into channels that are safe for the powers that be. As McGeorge Bundy, former President of the Ford Foundation once said, “Everything the Foundation does is to make the world safe for Capitalism.” 

Examples of this include philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation providing immense financial and organizational support to Non-Governmental Organizations. Furthermore, the alternative media are often funded by these same foundations, which has the effect of influencing the direction of coverage as well as the stifling of critical analysis.

This now brings us to the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research.

As an institution which acts as a research centre as well as a source of alternative news through the website www.globalresearch.ca, the CRG has become a much needed voice of independence seeking to break through all the propaganda and misinformation.

To maintain our independence, Global Research does not accept assistance from public and private foundations. Nor do we seek support from universities and/or government. 

While the objective is to expand and help spread important and much-needed information to more people than ever before, Global Research needs to rely upon its readers to support the organization. 
 

Thank you, dear readers, for your tireless support. 

Supporting Global Research is supporting the cause of truth and the fight against media disinformation. 

Thank you.

The Global Research Team 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23868

View the original article here

The missed opportunities of George Osborne’s budget

The missed opportunities of George Osborne’s budget
Rory Meakin  •  2020 Tax Commission  •  Friday 25 March 2011

George Osborne delivered some good news in Wednesday’s Budget. He stated the Government’s intention to simplify taxes, introduced surprise 1p cuts in both Corporation Tax and Fuel Duty and he reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to macroeconomic stability and the fiscal policy tightening programme outlined in the June Emergency Budget. Reviews into the treatment of profits of ‘Controlled Foreign Companies’ and a promised shake up of Britain’s enterprise-asphyxiating planning system also offer a basis for some optimism. But despite these measures and their accompanying nasty surprises (see our post budget briefing), the overriding impression was that it was a budget of missed opportunities.

Cutting Corporation Tax by 2 per cent instead of the planned 1 per cent from April was a surprise, but it was not enough. OECD data shows 10 out of its 28 members already have rates at 24 per cent or lower. Cutting our rate to 26 per cent will not do enough to tempt business to Britain or encourage new start-ups and growth of indigenous companies. The Chancellor should have cut it more aggressively.

Missing opportunities...

Likewise, sticking to the already announced plan to raise the Personal Allowance by £1,000 (to £7,475) will help but it’s not nearly enough. People on low incomes and those on benefits with the prospect of a job with relatively low pay are heavily disincentivised by both taxation and benefit withdrawal from making the most of available opportunities. As we’ve pointed out, £10,000 by the end of the Parliament is not the same and will be worth much less than the pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.  For the sake of both reducing the welfare bill and the lives of those on low incomes, the Government should move more quickly.

On the 50p top rate of income tax, ordering an investigation into how much it actually raises is a good idea but we already have a good idea of the answer. The evidence is already overwhelming: independent forecasters expect the measure to raise negligible amounts or lose significant amounts of money. The fragile recovery and the pressing need to close the budget deficit both mean the Government should have abolished the 50p rate immediately.

Finally, George Osborne was not bold enough on tax simplification. We welcome the move to hold a review into reform of Income Tax and National Insurance, but George Osborne should not have said he does not plan to abolish the contributory principle. It is already close to meaningless in light of the proposed pension reforms and the Government should do the humane thing and kill it off once and for all. It is hard to see how any serious simplification of the system could be implemented without doing so.  In terms of the immediate proposals in the Budget, as I pointed out in the TPA briefing document, there was as much complication as there was simplification.

We do not manually moderate comments, but from time to time the spam filter may hold your comment for approval. To avoid this, please be sure to use good grammar, avoid submitting too many links in any one comment and refrain from excessive profanity.

View the original article here