AEI: 'U.S. Demand for Drugs Fuels Cartels'

Source:AEI- event on the War on Drugs.

"The Drug War's New Front Line: Combating Narco-Criminality in Central America

Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:AEI." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

If you look at the reasons why America still has a so-called War on Drugs and why narcotics are still a problem in America forty years after President Nixon officially launched the so-called War on Drugs in America, I believe its pretty simple and two reasons: the way we fight the so-called War on Drugs and how ineffectively we've been at it. As well as Mexico and the large demand in America as Mexico two huge countries, two of the largest countries in the world physically and in population. 

The combine population of both America and Mexico is roughly 430M people. And you are also talking about two of the largest economy's in the world. America still being the largest economy. And these two economy's put together total 16T$ with 430M people. And of course America and Mexico share a two- thousand mile border with each other. Easily one of the largest borders in the world. So there are a lot of resources and demand on both sides of the border to buy heroin, cocaine and meth, and marijuana. 

Marijuana, I and a lot of people would argue not being very dangerous compared with the big  three (cocaine, heroin, meth) for example it can't kill you right away. And again I and a lot of other people would argue that marijuana is as dangerous or as helpful as alcohol and tobacco and should be treated as such. 

America and Mexico, two huge country's that are trying to forcefully eliminate narcotics are actually feeding the problem and keeping narcotics dealers and growers in business by locking up drug addicts and treating them the same drug dealers. And locking these addicts up who have a medical condition in prison where they get no help for their problems and get more drugs while in prison. And if anything get back on the streets with a bigger addiction. 

Mexico has the same issues but they also have a lot of corruption in their Federal Government especially in the law enforcement. And this corruption is a problem not only for Mexico to deal with its so-called drug war, where their officers get paid off by narcotics dealers and gangsters. The good news is the answers to reforming the so-called War on Drugs are fairly simple. 

First of all you stop fighting a fake, so-called War on Drugs and admit that it was a failure and use those resources where we've spent over a trillion-dollars to fight and use them for better things. By decriminalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol and tobacco. 

And with heroin, cocaine and meth, separate the addicts from the dealers. Treat addicts like the patients that they are and get them in drug rehab and halfway houses where they would pay for their treatment and stay as well. 

And treat those dealers like the criminals that they are and put them away in prison. 

As I said before, part of the problem with the so-called War on Drugs is about demand: if people want something enough and are addicted to it they'll do whatever they can to get what they want and to hell with the consequences. So if you teach these people that these drugs are horrible for them, they are not going to want them and their dealers will have less customers to deal their dope to.

Paul Ryan: 'Tax Reform is Key to Fixing the Economy'

 

Source:Paul Ryan- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (Republican, Wisconsin) Chairman of the Budget Committee.

"Paul Ryan goes 'On the Record' to discuss House Budget Committee video & need for tax reform." 

From Paul Ryan

I believe everyone on the American political spectrum believes that America needs tax reform at the Federal level. It's just a question of how to do it. 

Socialists believe that we should have tax reform that closes a lot of loopholes and also raises rates on everyone, to provide a lot more public services. Which they believe would benefit the economy for everyone. 

Conservatives believe in the flat tax (a middle class tax hike) basically one Tax Rate for everyone or perhaps just three rates. There are also Conservatives that believe in what's called a fair tax, which is a consumption tax taxing what people spend money on. Rather than taxing money that they make. That tax if done right I as a Liberal would be in favor of as well. 

Liberals believe in simplifying the tax code, closing tax loopholes and lowering tax rates in exchange. 

Libertarians, some believe in eliminating the tax code all together and having no Federal taxes. Others who I believe are adults and reasonable, believe in the fair tax, something that Gary Johnson is running on for President ironically in the Republican Party, even though he's a Classical Liberal, but thats a different post that I've already written. 

So there's broad agreement for the need for tax reform in America and its a matter of how to do it. But I believe there's at least one step that has to be done first before we have tax reform figuring out exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. And then how much money through taxes should we raise to fund the Federal Government and then can we afford to do it for the economy and our broader fiscal policy. 

If you want the Federal Government to do more, then you are going to have to raise more money to pay for that or get the economy strong enough to pay for it. If you want the government to do less, then you have to figure out what to reform or cut and based on that how much lower taxes will be. 

I have a two step plan that I've laid out in previous posts that I call government reform. 

First step is reforming the Federal Government to get it back to doing the things that only it can do. And that at least historically has done very well and been efficient and just by reforming the Federal Government and making it work better, you would make it smaller and cheaper with a smaller workforce, whether thats your goal or not. 

My goal in this is to make it more effective and efficient which would make it cheaper and smaller. And to give you a few examples of this: decentralization, independence and consolidation. (Or DIC, if you prefer) But also some reforms as well, but I think DIC sounds better so I'm going with that. 

Decentralization, take all of our social insurance programs and pass them down to the states. But not for the states to run and this is where independence comes in. Each State would have their own system in how these programs operate, that would have to meet basic Federal standards. But each of these programs would be semi-private, non-profit, self-financed community services, and each state would have their own version of each these programs to address the needs that they work on for the people of their state. 

Consolidation - the Interior Department, Energy Department, and Agriculture Department into one new Department of Natural Resources. Take the Public Health Service out of the Health Department including NIH and make it and independent service. And put the Education Department and combine it with the Department of Human Services that would become a regulator of the community services in America. Reform, pull all of our Armed Forces out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves and put that money into deficit reduction.

And after that the Federal Government would have saved a lot of money and not need a Federal budget of 3.7T$, because we would have saved 200B$ a year alone in defense. About 1.5T$ in Social Security and Medicare because the Federal Government would no longer be running these services. Each State would have their own system for them that would be self-financed, the FEDS would regulate them instead. 

I believe this plan would save the Federal Government and Tax Payers about 2T$ a year. And then I would move to tax reform, eliminating most if not all tax loopholes, but I would settle for most. And then have a consumption tax, taxing consumption instead of income. With low rates on the essentials that people need to survive and higher rates on luxury items. And keeping the same tax credits that are aimed at helping the working poor.

Euro News: 'Iran Due to Inaugurate First Nuclear Power Plant'

Source:VOA News- a member of the Iranian opposition.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Iran's first nuclear power plant is due to be officially inaugurated today amid ongoing concern about the country's nuclear ambitions. Some are also worried about a possible nuclear race in the region. Analyst and critic of the Iranian President, Saeed Laylaz, said: "In this atmosphere, it can bring or it can start a nuclear race, a race in the Middle East to have nuclear power for military purposes and so on. Euro News." 

From Euro News

Iran opening a nuclear plant, there's probably not much that the United States, Israel or the European Union, all countries that of course doesn't want to see the Islamic Republic obtain nuclear weapons, can do to stop them. It wouldn't be irresponsible to bomb a nuclear plant in a foreign country, just because it's a nuclear plant. You would cause a lot of damage killing a lot of innocent people. 

Now if you know that Iran has nuclear weapons in it and that information is clear with other countries understanding that, then that would be a different story, but hopefully Iran is actually building nuclear power for their economy and not for nuclear weapons. But with how badly they've managed their economy the last thirty years, we shouldn't take their word on that.

It's easy to be skeptical about Iran because this is a country thats also deep in natural resources, oil as well as natural gas, they also have a middle class an an educated class. Iranians are generally well-educated, but this is a very large country of 75M people thats still a developing country with high unemployment and poverty. 

Iran is still a developing country that if anything has taken steps backwards since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, with high poverty rate and high unemployment, with an educated workforce. And a lot has to do with the fact that the Islamic Republic spends a lot of their vast resources sponsoring terrorists who support their cause and would like to establish other Islamic theocracies in the Middle East. 

Iran has made it clear that they want to the superpower of the Middle East, just not economically apparently. By the way they've managed their economy, the way their government is set up, how they treat their democratic opposition, that has the education to lead this large country and get their economy going again, by essentially freeing its people to run their economy and put their vast natural resources to work for the country and not just for the regime. And to free the people of Iran to live their own lives and put the skills that they obtain to use to benefit the country. 

Iran is way too big to invade and occupy, especially by one country but even for an international coalition. Iran is three Iraq's both physically and in population. So and invasion and occupation of Iran is almost completely off the table especially for the United States. 

But letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons can't be an option either. Whether they get them in the end or not and they may very well get them in the end, they'll probably get the technology for them and since it's such a large country will probably be able to hide them pretty effectively. 

But what the Arab League, perhaps Pakistan, and India as well, as well as the European Union and United States can do is to support the democratic opposition in Iran, financially and in with other resources. And perhaps through a coalition of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, maybe even Pakistan, and India as well, take out any nuclear weapons that Iran successfully obtains if they are successful. After all peaceful options are exhausted, through the air destroy Iran's nuclear weapons through the air if they obtain them. 

The Islamic Republic of Iran now has a nuclear plant and hopefully thats to benefit their economy and people. And perhaps to a small extent it is, but the international community, can't allow the Islamic Republic to obtain nuclear weapons especially to fund their terrorists allies.

Euro News: 'EU Unveils New Energy Strategy to End Gas Cuts'

Source:Euro News- Gunther Oettinger: EU Commissioner For Energy.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The EU has unveiled a new energy strategy it says will help it avoid possible shortages arising from gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine.  Europe imports more than 60 percent its gas, most of it from Russia.  

Brussels has long recognised the need to diversify sources after some EU countries suffered supply cuts during price rows between Moscow and Kiev. The Commission's energy chief Günther Oettinger said the new strategy would make the bloc's gas stocks less vulnerable to interruptions beyond its control. Euro News" 

From Euro News

I'm glad that the European Union has come out with their own energy policy which will be a big help for them and their economy as far as them being able to produce their only energy sources and creating jobs in Europe and putting Europeans to work. Which will also benefit their foreign policy and environmental policy as well, as fiscal policy, because it would get them off of foreign oil and gas or at least non- European oil and gas. 

The European Union is not technically a country, yet and it would also help their environmental policy, because it would allow them to use renewable energy sources creating an alternative energy industry in Europe. 

This would also help Europe's fiscal policy and allow them to pay down their debts and deficits, because this would be a boost to their economy with all of the jobs that they would create. This all sounds great right, but how is this great for America? 

I'm talking here about a European energy policy, not an American energy policy. The same benefits that could come to Europe because of this, could come to America as well. How long as a country have we've been talking about the need for a national energy policy: forty years. Ut goes back to the Nixon Administration with the 1973 Middle Eastern Oil Embargo. 

President Ford took up energy to a certain extent. President Carter had some success at getting some reforms in on conservation. And things like solar and wind. And President W. Bush managed to get an energy policy through Congress in 2005. That was mostly about oil and gas, at least it was American oil and gas, but mostly subsidy's to these company's that are already doing very well. 

But six years later we are still in this debate about having a national energy policy because we still don't have one. What we need is a comprehensive energy policy that moves America towards energy independence. We have the most natural resources in the world or we only trail Russia, but yet we aren't energy independent. Because we don't have a national energy policy, which is why we import oil and natural gas from other countries. Even though we have plenty of both to help move us towards energy independence. Not by themselves but part of a broader energy package. 

We have a whole menu of energy sources that we don't use that could also help move us towards energy independence. To go along with oil and gas but natural gas, clean coal, solar wind, nuclear, electricity, water. But we haven't developed these resources, which is why we are still dependent on foreign nations, because we don't have a national energy policy. 

And we also need to conserve more, use less of wasteful and dirty energy by taxing, perhaps taxing low mileage autos like SUV's. And perhaps subsidizing at least in the short-term clean energy that America has a market for and can help move us towards energy independence. 

An energy policy that moves you towards energy independence is just as beneficial in Europe as it's in America, as long as both have their own energy policy's. And develop their own energy sources. And if Europe can do this, then so can America which has a lot more natural resources.

American News Project: 'HUD's Affordable Housing Project'

Source:American News Project- public housing in America.

"As the Obama Administration plans to implement their recently signed $787 billion rescue plan, one of the areas they will immediately be forced to confront is the ongoing housing crisis.  The stimulus gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development $13.6 billion to address the needs of low-income families across the country. Experts say it's a good start, but new HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan is facing an enormous task, as he attempts to overhaul an agency that is facing years of neglect and mounting debt." 

From the American News Project

To me people living in public housing is just one step away from what I would call at least being level 4 Poverty. Level 4 poverty to me would be homeless people, people who can't afford a place to live and live on the streets or sometimes stay in a homeless shelter. Level 4 to me would be the worst level in poverty, the best being low-income workers. 

Some low-income workers live in public housing, others live in low-rent apartments in rough neighborhoods. A woman in this video said that she basically has lived most of her life in public housing. To me that just evidence of how much the War on Poverty has failed in America. That we would allow as a country for this to happen and not do anything or anything that would actually move these people out of poverty and into private affordable housing. 

To actually reduce poverty in America, that gets to things like  education and job placement so these people can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and become self-sufficient. What we could've been doing the last forty plus years in public housing is helping these people get the skills that they need in order to get a good job, whether they are already working or not. Because a lot of these people are low-skilled. They either only have high school diploma's, but not college or vocational or didn't even finish high school. And we should've been sending these people back to school, including community college so they can get the skills that they need in order to get a good job and be self- sufficient. 

But thats just one failure in public housing which was part of the so-called Great Society legislation of the mid and late 1960s. The main failure gets to how it was designed and is very fundamental. The Federal Government figured that they could take essentially a community of low-income, low-skilled people and basically force them to live together in these run down public housing projects in rough neighborhoods. And left them there in these bad neighborhoods to raise their kids and send them to bad schools. Where they remained low-income and low-skilled. 

What we should've been doing all along and what we should be doing today is reforming public housing not only in a way that would empower the residents of public housing to finish school and further their education. So they can get a job that can support themselves and their families and become self- sufficient. And be able to pay for their own home or pay for the rent of their home on their own. 

But instead of creating more ghettos through government of all things, what we should be doing is integrate public housing residents into middle class communities. So these people can live in better communities and send their kids to better schools and find better jobs, etc, s well as living in safer communities. 

And then we need to get the Federal Government as well as state and local governments out of the business of public housing. And let them be there to regulate, but give the power to the people and let them run public housing. Turn it into a semi-private, non-profit community housing service. With each state and local government having their own chapters, but where private sector to an extent would run them. 

And these public housing projects could be paid for by the residents up to a point and then by their employers for the people who work. And Unemployment or Welfare or Disability Insurance for the people who don't work. 

Public Housing has succeeded in the sense that its prevented millions of people from having to be homeless. And perhaps all that it was designed for and to that extent it's been a success. But if the goal is to actually move people out of poverty and not just sustain them, then we need some serious reforms in public housing and are other public assistance programs. 

J Branstetter: President Ronald Reagan- Taxes and Budget Deficit: October, 1987

Source:J Branstetter- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) deficits don't matter? (1987) 

"Listen to the camera shutters when he moves his hands, they go crazy. President Ronald Reagan talks about the effects of different types of taxes on the budget deficit and why some taxes have a adverse effect on the economy. This takes place at the White House at a news conference in October 1987." 

From J Branstetter

I just want to point out that I actually have a lot of respect for President Reagan, even though I’m a Jack Kennedy Liberal Democrat, but I also have serious differences with him and his fiscal policy which at the time would be called supply side economics. 

Supply side economics: you cut taxes deeply without paying for them and increase government spending substantially in defense, but in other areas as well. The theory being that the economic growth as a result of the tax cuts, would pay for the new spending. President Reagan inherited roughly a 40B$ Budget Deficit which even at the time in the late 70s and early 80s was considered small.

And President Carter had an awful economy and President Reagan inherited and awful economy, but left office with a strong economy. With strong economic and job growth, but left office in 1989 with a large Federal debt and deficit and one of the largest debts as a percentage of GDP. As well as deficits of GDP as well, of around 200B$. 

President Reagan’s debt and deficit was so big that he raised taxes in back to back years after the 1981 tax cuts and this is with a Republican Senate as well. President Reagan’s own Vice President called the Reagan tax cuts when he was running for President: “Voodoo Economics”.

Howard Baker, a Republican and the Senate Leader from 1981-85, called the Reagan tax cuts: “A riverboat gamble”. 

David Stockman, President Reagan’s own Director of Budget and Management called the Reagan tax cuts, a big mistake. 

Dick Darman, President Reagan’s other Director of Budget, said that if President Reagan had to choose between balancing the budget by 1984, or ending the Cold War and getting the economy going again, he would pass on a balanced budget. He didn’t want the debt and deficit, but believed that was a price worth paying in oder to accomplish his other goals. You know none of these people are Democrats, they are all Conservative Republicans saying these things. Just not Neoconservatives.

President Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to Congress, or a plan to balanced the budget to Congress. It was never a priority on his part. The economy, the Cold War, reforming Social Security, tax reform and immigration reform were his priorities. All things that he got through Congress as President. 

President Reagan had a very good batting average in Congress as President. Including his ten plus tax hikes he had as President, including middle class tax hikes with the 1983 Social Security reform law. President Reagan increased taxes and spending and because of that he could be labeled a tax and spender.

Tax and spender is generally a label that’s reserved for Social Democrats or Socialists (who are called Progressives or Liberals today) not Conservative Republicans like Ron Reagan. Ron Reagan talked and campaigned like a Conservative, but governed like a pragmatist: “This is what I want to do and if I have to give these things up to accomplish that, then that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

President Reagan was right to cut taxes, perhaps even as deeply as he did. 70% tax rates in a liberal democracy is too high. But where he failed was by not cutting government spending to make up any difference that economic growth doesn’t pay for. He was also correct to beef up our national defense, but failed to pay for it as well. And that’s why he left office with the debt and deficit he had. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

The Film Archives: BookNotes With Brian Lamb- Robin Wright: 'A History of Iran: From the 1979 Islamic Revolution to Ayatollah Khomeini's Death (1989)'

Source:The Film Archives- The Iranian People, perhaps in 1979.

"The Iranian Revolution is also known as the Islamic Revolution of Iran or the 1979 Revolution; Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن. About the book:Amazon."

From The Film Archives 

“The author chronicles the first ten years of the Iranian Revolution, employing an unprecedented access to Iran’s major figures to outline the nation’s importance to the rest of the world.”

Source:Amazon- Robin Wright's book.

From Amazon 

“TEHRAN, Iran — Here are key events that have marked Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the monarchy.

Islamic Republic proclaimed

On January 16, 1979, the US-backed shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, leaves for exile after months of protests.

On February 1, revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini makes a triumphant return from exile.

The shah falls 10 days later, with public radio declaring “the end of 2,500 years of despotism.”

An Islamic republic is proclaimed on April 1." 

Source:Times of Israel- talking about the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

From the Times of Israel

Part of the fault for the 1979 Islāmic Revolution in Iran that brought an Islāmic Republic to Iran after they were a monarchy with the Shah as its head of state (dictator, really), has to be given to the Shah of Iran. Because he was a dictator at the time ruling a very large country, but with only 20-25M people, that is deep in natural resources. 

The Shah wasn’t all bad, he did managed to build up their economy to a certain extent and build an education system and other things. (Sort of like Fidel Castro in Cuba) But he was a dictator who was accountable to basically no one, except for the United States and United Kingdom, to a certain extent. That both put the Shah in power and could’ve removed him at any point and this was also a political problem for the Shah with his people.

To America and Britain, the Shah was a puppet for them, instead of his own man only accountable to the Iranian people. Who also held down his own people and they got tired of being held down without much freedom or recourse. And they saw these Islāmic leaders in Iran and turned to them to take down the Shah and his regime. Not knowing the consequences of this, because in taking down the Monarchy they replaced one authoritarian dictatorship with another one with an Islāmic Theocracy that over thirty-two years later is still in power in Iran. With its strict restrictions on political freedom and women’s rights and so-forth. 

Iran which has the natural resources, physical size and population to be a first world country and the most dominant power in the Middle East has regressed backwards under their Islamic Theocracy. And making it look like a country from the 15th Century with how it treats its women. With dress codes and limiting people to the things in the media that they can see and so-forth.

What Shah Reza of Iran, should’ve been doing as he was building up his large country, was to educate his people as well. And give them the freedom to live their own lives, not overnight, but overtime. And moving Iran from a monarchy towards a republic, where the Shah would be more of a ceremonial power, or perhaps have more governmental powers. But where most of the power would be with the executive, a President or Prime Minister, with a Cabinet and so-forth. That would govern the country with a multi-party elected Parliament at some point. With provincial and local government’s, as well that would also be elected. And then the Shah could’ve run for president and probably would’ve been elected, perhaps several times.

Shah Reza was in power in Iran for about forty-years and had plenty of time to establish a system like this and as he could’ve brought these progressive changes to Iran. With a national constitution and everything else. To go along with the economic and educational development.

The Shah could’ve released the grip that the United States and United Kingdom had on him and his government. Which would’ve only of helped him politically, because he would’ve no longer be seen as a puppet of the U.S. and U.K. Iran today as the Islāmic Republic of Iran, instead of the Federal Republic or United Republic of Iran, or something, most of that blame has to fall on the Islāmic Revolution. Because maybe Iran is a developed nation today instead of a third world nation. But some of this blame also has to fall on Shah Reza for keeping his people down before they rose up and went with the Islāmic Revolution.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)