|
|
|
Our on-line
newsletter bulletin now going on our seventh year!
Offering our clients and readers news items and headlines
often not covered by the mainstream media, articles of interest
regarding banking, economics, real estate, taxes, living or investing
abroad, plus much more. Finally, our very popular readers write
in section, with answers to some of the questions many of our readers
have - that no one else wants to answer truthfully, except us!
Want to See our
Other Back Issues from 2002 - 2006?........Click Here
|
|
|
|
Visit The Main Newsletter Section &
Read Past Issues On-Line:
Dominican Republic Real Estate, Residency
Filing, Banking and Interest Rates.
Panama Residency and Retirement. Naturalization and Dual
Citizenship - Expatriate Issues.
Economics commentary, inflation, housing, stock markets and investing -
Plus a Whole Lot More ! .
|
Our June 15, 2007 Newsletter
Edition
|
.
|
IN
THE NEWS:
.
.
ECONOMISTS
FORSEE 2007 GROWTH AS MOST SLUGGISH IN 5 YEARS
May
21, 2007 - By Jeannine Aversa, Associated Press
.
WASHINGTON
- Weighed down by a housing slump, the economy in 2007 will log its
most sluggish growth in five years. But that showing should not cause
businesses to really clamp down on hiring, economic forecasters
say. A forecast released today by the National Association for
Business Economics puts the growth of the gross domestic product at 2.2
percent for this year. The rate was 2.7 percent in the group's previous
survey, in February. If the latest prediction proves correct, the
growth rate would be the weakest since 2002. Back then, the fragile
economy was emerging from a recession and grew by just 1.6
percent. The expansion has descended from its cruising altitude,
said the association's president, Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at
LaSalle Bank. The main culprit is the sour housing market. It
fell into a slump last year after a five-year boom. Nearly half of the
forecasters think the market will not reach its bottom until this
winter or later.
.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4821271.html
.
EDITORS NOTES:
In another related news story from the same day, the above journalist
reported: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says he doesn't believe
the economy will slide into recession this year, nor do Bush
administration officials and many economists. But ex-Fed chief Alan
Greenspan has put the odds at one in three. As the famous Mr.
Ripley used to say: Believe it or Not.
.
.
A
NOT-SO-TRADITIONAL LOOK AT BECOMING AN EXPATRIATE
By
Beth Monkarsh - Alumna of 2006 (George Washington University) 5/14/07
.
BUENOS
AIRES, Argentina - Why did I decide to move to Buenos Aires straight
out of graduating from GW? Everyone asked me back in the States, and
every Argentine I meet continues to inquire. Had I ever been to
Argentina? No. Did I have a job lined up for when I arrived? No. An
apartment? Nope. Family, friends? Did I have any idea what I was going
to do in a foreign country, alone and without any connections? I
could - and do - list many reasons for my decision to move abroad. I
wanted a drastic change. I wanted to become fluent in Spanish. I wanted
to travel. I wanted to avoid the reality that my career as a
professional student was over. But more than anything, the single
episode that motivated me to flee the comfort of the States was a box
of latex gloves. It was a Friday afternoon in mid-April when I
had my first big job interview. It was the kind of job a journalism
major salivates over: working as a copy editor for The Washington Post.
In reality, copy editor was code for a job in the mailroom. My job: to
open the reporters' mail and, to assist me in my work, my interviewer
pointed to a large box of latex gloves. They were for my own
protection, in case opening up the reporters' mail got messy or
arsenical. As I stood outside The Post after my interview, I felt
deflated. After all the courses, all the good grades and non-paying
internships, my first job out of college was going to be shifting
through mail and checking for suspicious substances? Like any
college student, in moments of depression and anxiety, I went out to my
sorority's formal and drank like I had just turned 21. After waking up
the next day with a hangover I should have known how to avoid by senior
year and a sprained ankle neither my date nor I could explain, I made
my decision to move to Argentina - and just 6 weeks shy of
graduation. When I first told people about my newfound
post-college plan, no one really believed me. You mean like a
vacation, right? my parents asked nervously, still unsure as to if
Argentina was under military regime. You love D.C. You don't
really want to move and have to start over again, friends said. To be
fair, no one took me very seriously because I'm not known for my
spontaneity. I've always been a girl with a plan. In fifth grade,
I told my parents I was going to leave California and go college on the
East Coast, by sixth I had decided to become a print journalist and
after seeing a replica of Picasso's Guernica in eighth grade, I decided
to study abroad in Madrid. I fulfilled all the promises and goals
I made to my 13-year-old self but it stunted me. I didn't realize until
last April that I had managed to artfully avoid making a decision that
would substantially impact my future since my Bat Mitzvah years.
Once I made my decision, I acted pretty quickly and had a ticket by the
beginning of June to leave for the first week of September. As planned,
I arrived in Buenos Aires sans job or apartment and yet, through the
weeks and then months, I managed to create a niche for myself. I found
a great apartment, a decent job, friends and even family. Being
an expatriate isn't for everyone and for many the appeal lies mostly in
the fantasy. But post-college, everyone has to take some chances, some
risks - eagerly or reluctantly. For me the biggest difference between
college life and the real world is the decision of how big a risk you
are willing to take on yourself. Everyone has had a latex glove
experience that made him or her say, I want more than this.
.
http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/05/14/Life/
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Read the next article below from another young American woman doing the
same thing. Mere coincidence, or is this a new trend? If a
new trend (and of course the evidence is certainly not in just yet or
concretely enough to say that it is), then why are well educated young
people from the United States leaving almost directly after graduation?
.
.
EXPATRIATE
TAKES LEAP OF FAITH, RELOCATES TO ARGENTINA
By
Soyia Ellison, For the Journal-Constitution, 05/27/07
.
Buenos
Aires, Argentina - In 24 hours, I'll be homeless, in a country where I
barely speak the language. And where I don't know anyone. A
couple of months ago, when I announced I was quitting my job and moving
to Buenos Aires to do some writing and learn Spanish, people I barely
knew came by my desk to congratulate me and confide that I was doing
what they'd always wanted to do. Oh, they didn't necessarily want
to go to Buenos Aires. But they wanted to go somewhere, far away from
their jobs and their families, and live the life of an expatriate. I
was so brave, they said. I started to feel a little smug. But what I
feel at the moment is panicked. Setting out on this adventure
wasn't easy. I am not a free spirit. I'm the oldest child, the
responsible one who's worked steadily since graduating from college. I
agonize over the smallest of purchases. I squirrel away money in
401(k)s and Roth IRAs. And yet, here I am, unemployed in a foreign
land. Buenos Aires had captivated me 18 months earlier, when I
took a weeklong vacation with a friend. Argentina's capital city has a
definite European flavor, its hodgepodge of architectural styles
reflect the large numbers of Spanish, Italian and Germans who settled
here. Its people are beautiful and friendly. And since the peso crisis
of 2002, it is unbelievably affordable.
.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/travel/otherdestinations/int_stories/2007/05/24/0527buenosaires1.html
.
EDITORS NOTES:
I have made the comment that over the years, our clients have become
younger and younger. Whereas we used to see mostly retirement
aged persons, of those heading very close to retirement, we are NOW
seeing young families and young business owners. The New York
Times recently reports on young Americans in Poland (May 27, 2007) and
writes the following:
.
There
is a lot of creative energy here, said Garrett Van Reed, 25, a writer
from Pennsylvania, who is part of a growing expatriate community that
is turning Krakow into Eastern Europe's newest bohemian capital.
There's tons of artists and street performers. And there is always
something going on in Rynek Glowny, he said, referring to the
picturesque main square. You are constantly stumbling upon
something new. And with the euro climbing against not only the
dollar but other foreign currencies, too, younger travelers have
another reason to flock to Poland's second city. At about 2.9 Polish
zloty to the dollar, Zywiec beers are still under $2, dinners rarely
exceed $10 a person and a hostel bed goes for $15 a night. Krakow
has exploded, said Thymn Chase, 26, a musician and writer who moved to
Krakow shortly after graduating from Skidmore College in 2003, and
started Lost in Krakow, an English-language-zine, which he first
published in September to give voice to the growing expat community. A
brooding man with a goatee and long hair, Mr. Chase embodies the
backpacker-philosopher type who might have chain-smoked in Prague
during the early 1990s. Within a half-hour of arriving in Krakow, I
knew this is where I wanted to be, he said over a beer at Lokator, a
new lounge on Ulica Krakowska. Krakow has an incredible artistic
atmosphere. In October, a dozen expats and Poles gathered at Mr.
Chase's grungy apartment in Old Town. Sprawled on beat-up couches and
flea-market chairs, they were a motley crew of unemployed artists, Web
designers, writers and musicians eager to make their mark as cultural
pioneers, colonizing a new frontier in Eastern Europe. You don't
have the pressures of London, New York or Austin. And you don't need
two jobs to survive. (end of New York Times copy)
.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/travel/
.
So,
the reason for moving to Poland is that you do NOT need TWO JOBS to
survive, so says the young American. Life is better, more relaxed
and more enjoyable than the life they left behind? It would seem
then that many young people from America are expatriating before they
even start their careers or before they become embroiled in the daily
grind of life after University. Stay tuned, but if the United
States is losing its talented and educated young people so early in
life, this is a very significant and important trend to keep an eye on
(as it pertains to the long-term economic and social fallout in the US,
again - if indeed this is a new trend as we suspect it might be).
.
.
BUSH MAKES POWER GRAB - May 24, 2007
.
President
Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a
directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the
president in the event of a national emergency declared by the
president. The National Security and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive, with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a
National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland
Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of
president a new National Continuity Coordinator. That job, as the
document describes, is to make plans for National Essential Functions
of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as
well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the
president's directives in the event of a national emergency. The
directive loosely defines catastrophic emergency as any incident,
regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass
casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S.
population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government
functions. When the President determines a catastrophic emergency
has occurred, the President can take over all government functions and
direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the
emergency with an enduring constitutional government. Translated
into layman's terms, when the President determines a national emergency
has occurred, the President can declare to the office of the presidency
powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government
and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of
dictatorial powers by the President with the goal of maintaining
constitutional continuity through an emergency. The directive
specifies that the assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
Counter Terrorism will be designated as the National Continuity
Coordinator. Further established is a Continuity Policy Coordination
Committee, chaired by a senior director from the Homeland Security
Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, to be
the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
Currently, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and
Counter Terrorism is Frances Fragos Townsend. Townsend spent 13 years
at the Justice Department before moving to the U.S. Coast Guard where
she served as assistant commandant for intelligence. She is a White
House staff member in the executive office of the president who also
chairs the Homeland Security Council, which as a counterpart to the
National Security Council reports directly to the president. The
directive issued May 9 makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created
there for the National Continuity Coordinator with the National
Emergency Act. As specified by U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 34,
Subchapter II, Section 1621, the National Emergency Act allows that the
president may declare a national emergency but requires that such
proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and
published in the Federal Register. A Congressional Research
Service study notes that under the National Emergency Act, the
President may seize property, organize and control the means of
production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute
martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in
a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.
The CRS study notes that the National Emergency Act sets up congress as
a balance empowered to modify, rescind, or render dormant such
delegated emergency authority, if Congress believes the president has
acted inappropriately.
.
NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to
supersede the National
Emergency Act by creating the new position of National
Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing
the position. NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever
to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any
a requirement that the President submit to Congress a determination
that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of
the executive order can be implemented without any congressional
approval or oversight. Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke
affirmed that the Homeland Security Department will be implementing the
requirements of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 under Townsend's direction.
.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_107907.asp
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Before we pass comment on what probably is one of the most important
(and disturbing as well) political acts taking place inside a so-called
free democratic nation, here is the link to the White House web site
that offers the information quite directly, and below some additional
news articles as well:
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
.
.
NEW LAW OF THE LAND BYPASSES CONGRESS
- Friday
- May 25, 2007
.
Without
input or approval of, and lacking any oversight by Congress, President
George W. Bush signed two new directives on May 9 that grant
extraordinary, nearly dictatorial powers to the office of the president
in the event of a national emergency declared by the president. The
directives - National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) and
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (HSPD-20) - establish under
the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose
job is to make plans for National Essential Functions of all federal,
state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private
sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's
directives in the event of a national emergency. In the
directives, catastrophic emergency is loosely defined as any incident,
regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass
casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S.
population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government
functions. The news of the directives was revealed by Jerome R.
Corsi, Worldnetdaily.com. Corsi reports that, in essence, if the
president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the
president can take over all government functions and direct all private
sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an
enduring constitutional government. In simpler terms according to
Corsi, a Political Science PhD and co-author of several books including
Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Verterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
(co-authored with John O'Neill), following his declaration of a
national emergency, the president can now declare to the office of the
presidency powers usually assumed by dictators. At least until the
emergency is over.
.
Corsi
also reports the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers
created for the national continuity coordinator with the National
Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation shall immediately
be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal
Register. The National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a
balance empowered to modify, rescind, or render dormant such emergency
authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately,
according to a Congressional Research Service study. NSPD-51 and
HSPD-20 appear to supersede the National Emergency Act through the
creation of the new position of national continuity coordinator. The
new position is created without any specific act of Congress
authorizing the position. There is no reference to Congress in
the new directive, and Corsi reports the language of the directive
appears to negate any existing requirements that the president submit
to Congress any determination that a national emergency exists.
.
http://www.tanasijournal.com/
.
.
BUSH
TO BE DICTATOR IN A CATASTROPHIC EMERGENCY
By
Lee Rogers - Global Research, May 21, 2007
.
The
Bush administration has released a directive called the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive
released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream
and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron
Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this
directive, Bush declares that in the event of a Catastrophic Emergency,
the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure
constitutional government. The language in this directive would in
effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an
emergency. So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective
and doesn't provide any real concrete definition of what such an
emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale
of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United
States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with
either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the
President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working
constitutional government.
.
The
language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn't say
that the President will work with the other branches of government
equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says
clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three
branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is
coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every
branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature
making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three
branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the
cooperative effort. Further on in the document it states the
following.
.
The President shall lead the activities of
the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.
.
This
directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of
government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be
equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such
an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches
is effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all
branches of government what to do. Even worse is the fact that
the directive states that the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve
as the lead for coordinating overall continuity operations. We already
know that the Homeland Security department is not really working to
secure the homeland. Instead the Homeland Security department is really
working to enslave the homeland just like the Home Office over in the
United Kingdom has made that country an Orwellian hell of
closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency is declared, we can
only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland Enslavement department
will have for us.
.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
.
.
MEMORIALIZING
AMERICA: July 4, 1776 to May 9, 2007?
May
25, 2007
.
Just
in time for Memorial Day, America, land of the free and home of the
brave and the best hope for all of humankind, appears to have
died. Although conservatives have been warning of the imminent
death of our constitutional republic for some time, the death still
comes as a shock to many. The cause of death appears to be abuse
by the executive branch, although the Bush administration has refused
comment to date. All that is known for sure is that on May 9,
2007, President George W. Bush signed a presidential directive that
would grant dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the
event of an emergency. And who would be authorized to declare
such an emergency? Hard to believe, but that would be the same
person to whom those dictatorial powers would accrue; namely, the
president. Allowing dictatorial powers to end up in the hands of
a termed-out president with approval ratings hovering around 30 percent
probably does not pass the Civics 101 smell test. Even worse,
this president's woes are compounded by an extremely unpopular war, a
hostile congress including members of his own party, and an amnesty
scheme that could destroy American sovereignty, language, and culture
by legalizing 12-30 million third world illegal aliens. Given the
political realities that George W. Bush faces, one cannot help but
wonder if the president's May 9 directive will, in effect, also serve
as a death certificate for the most successful and prosperous society
in recorded human history?
.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/18967
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Once again, why devote so much time and attention to a seemingly
obscure presidential order not mentioned in the least by any of the
mainstream media organizations, nor even commented upon by
representatives in Congress (the US legislative branch)? Perhaps
that fact alone is enough to warrant your attention. But for
those that argue such Emergency Powers were enacted in the past (during
the so-called Great Depression of the 1930s) it is noted that: the
previous National Emergency Act (enacted during the Depression) sets up
congress as a balance empowered to modify, rescind, or render dormant
such delegated emergency authority, if Congress believes the president
has acted inappropriately. This new presidential order would seem
to take the legislative branch (Congress) out of the picture
completely. But since we are making references to the politics of
the Depression Era, IS it mere coincidence that this theme comes up
again now in 2007? Which is to ask: IS this new authority
meant to quell or address FOREIGN threats, or IS it meant to quell or
address DOMESTIC unrest that may be looming because of the economic
situation that is developing? I do not know the answer, but pose
it as a question none the less. Alan L. Roland comments (and is
someone who makes the connection with a possible move towards war with
Iran instead of our speculation towards other domestic issues):
Blueprints for a dictatorship which includes, of course, classified
Continuity Annexes which I am sure cover mass civil unrest and
rendition procedures utilizing FEMA and the National Guard, which is
now completely under control of the president.
.
See:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2007/05/26.html
.
Summing
up or making a connection between economics (results of globalization
and income inequalities) plus the tendency towards tyranny , here is a
quote from a famous Greek philosopher that lived more than 2,000 years
ago, who went by the name of Aristotle:
.
It
is therefore the greatest of blessings for a state that its members
should possess a moderate and adequate property. Where some have
great possessions, and others have nothing at all, the result is either
an extreme democracy or an unmixed oligarchy; or it may even
be-indirectly, and as a reaction against both of these extremes- a
tyranny. Where democracies have NO middle class, and the poor are
greatly superior in number, trouble ensues, and they are speedily
ruined.
.
If
you understand the meaning of this quote and how it relates to the
above news stories plus the current financial environment (or we can
say chain of events involving the economic schematic), my only advice
is to Think About It.
.
.
NAFTA: KICKED UP A NOTCH - By Laura Carlsen -
May 24, 2007
.
The
North American Free Trade Agreement is the world's most advanced
example of the U.S.-led free trade model. It is not just about
economics any more. The expansion of NAFTA into the Security and
Prosperity Partnership reveals the road ahead for other nations
entering into free trade agreements. It is not a road most nations --
or the U.S. public -- would take if they knew where it led. The
first problem is that very few people know about this next step
of deep integration.
.
The
official U.S. web page describes the SPP as a White House-led
initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders,
Canada and Mexico, to increase security and to enhance prosperity among
the three countries through greater cooperation. White House-led
is a key element. When the heads of state met in Waco and in subsequent
meetings to follow up on NAFTA, both Canada and Mexico had some very
serious concerns. Canada was embroiled in trade conflicts with the
United States (soft lumber, beef) that it wanted to see resolved
through NAFTA mechanisms. Mexico's right-wing government, meanwhile,
has found increasingly untenable the stark contradiction between open
borders for merchandise and the criminalization of immigrants. On the
one hand, it had a commitment to greater integration under the free
trade model; on the other it was under tremendous political pressure to
defend Mexicans migrating to the United States. None of these issues
made it into the SPP. U.S. security concerns, and corporate demands for
fewer obstacles to border-hopping production and sales, hijacked the
tri-national agenda. Instead, the SPP has three fundamental
objectives. The Bush administration wants to create more advantageous
conditions for transnational corporations and remove remaining barriers
to the flow of capital and cross-border production within the framework
of NAFTA. It wants to secure access to natural resources in the other
two countries, especially oil. And it wants to create a regional
security plan based on pushing its borders out into a security
perimeter that includes Mexico and Canada.
.
NAFTA
was signed before the current Bush administration took office and
before the terrorist attack of September 11. SPP on the other
hand, was born in the global war on terror era and reflects an
inordinate emphasis on U.S. security as interpreted by the Department
of Homeland Security. The head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff,
along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mexico's Secretary
of Finance Carlos Gutierrez, represent the three ministries charged
with attending SPP ministerial conferences. National security is
not simply part of the political sell. It is central to the NAFTA-plus
agenda. The SPP explicitly ties together the U.S. trade and security
agendas under the pretext of greater integration. Its accords mandate
border actions, military and police training, modernization of
equipment and adoption of new technologies, all under the logic of the
U.S. counter-terrorism campaign. For Mexico and Canada, these new
security priorities attached to regional integration are not only
misplaced, but expensive and politically threatening. Mexico has
historically been reticent to allow U.S. agents to operate in its
territory because, historically, the United States has posed the
greatest threat to its national security. Mexico also has a policy of
neutrality in international affairs that prevents its government from
becoming embroiled in conflicts that do not directly affect the
nation. There are many problems with the SPP and the White House
goal of deep integration. Perhaps the most fundamental is that it
takes place at a time when North American integration faces a crisis.
Economic integration under NAFTA has led to job loss and the erosion of
job security and quality in the United States, while also increasing
unemployment in Mexico. Over thirteen years, the model has confirmed,
rather than reversed, Mexico's status as the less-developed partner.
The rise in immigration to the United States attests to the failure of
NAFTA as a development mechanism. Moreover, it has not increased the
U.S. competitive edge although it has delivered record profits to a few
major global traders. Unfortunately for the majority, those few are now
driving the efforts to deepen integration under the
NAFTA-plus-Homeland-Security model. But to deepen integration
would mean deepening the contradictions and the problems that have led
most Americans to express their rejection of the free-trade model in
recent polls, and that has spurred widespread public protest in Mexico
and Canada. Currently four more free trade agreements are before
the U.S. Congress. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North
America demonstrates that this model of economic integration has taken
on a momentum of its own, unaccountable to legislatures and citizens,
and driven by interests that do not represent the public good
.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9616
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Mr. James Babka says (click on the link to read the full article) or
asks in the article titled - Immigration Reform Attempt to Impose
Stealth National ID?
.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/64/7626/ji.asp.asp?wid=64&nid=7626
.
Could a Real ID (national ID) become a
hallmark of citizenship? There are those (as has been much
commented on in the alternative press) attempting to create a North
American Union out of Canada, Mexico and the United States. The ability
to extend such a national ID to citizens of other nations or to meld
IDs of several nations could make such a merger far easier. Under
REAL ID deadbeat Moms and Dads, drunk drivers, jaywalkers, and anybody
else who does anything wrong at any time, can be punished simply and
quickly, without prison, and perhaps without trial, simply by turning
them into a non-person in terms of the required employment background
check. Let's say you don't ever do anything wrong, but you still end up
with a black mark next to your name anyway, just like what has happened
to people with the terrorist watch list? How long will it take, and how
much will it cost, to get your name cleared? And what if you can't get
your name cleared, simply because of bureaucratic inefficiency, like
with the terrorist watch list? Will you starve because you can't get a
job? And what about your family? Your kids?
.
Ms.
Diane M. Grassi in an article titled: NAFTA
Superhighway has Guiliani as Key Player, posted on May 7, 2007
says (see: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/)
writes:
.
Legally,
a treaty would require a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate to
concur for its ratification as determined by the U.S. Constitution.
Cleverly, however, since the SPP is not a treaty, the President was
able to avoid such a required procedure by using the power of the
Executive Branch. And in August 2006, President Bush additionally
crafted a Signing Statement to passed legislation declaring it
Constitutional for his administration to withhold information from or
deny authority required from the U.S. Congress on the SPP and
its negotiations. With the recent swell and frequency of free
trade agreements being passed in the U.S. Congress in the past few
years alone, seemingly rushed through without genuine debate or
challenge, it would be easy for the public to assume that the SPP was
authorized by Congress and thinking matters pertaining to it were in
the best interest of the American people. And sadly, many U.S. free
trade agreements do not directly better the workers of the countries
involved, but are solely reserved for big business profiting from cheap
labor, and foreign lobbyists and bureaucrats enriching
themselves. But the SPP is cleverly disguised as a boon for all
three North American countries and its citizens, yet has lacked input
or oversight from federal, state, or municipal legislators nationwide.
.
.
IN
VERMONT, NASCENT SECESSION MOVEMENT GAINS TRACTION
By
John Curran, Associated Press - June 3, 2007
.
MONTPELIER,
Vt. --At Riverwalk Records, the all-vinyl record store just down the
street from the state Capitol, the black US Out of Vt.! T-shirts are
among the hottest sellers. But to some people in Vermont, the idea is
bigger than a $20 novelty. They want Vermont to secede from the United
States -- peacefully, of course. Disillusioned by what they call
an empire about to fall, a small cadre of writers and academics is
plotting political strategy and planting the seeds of separatism.
They've published a Green Mountain Manifesto subtitled Why and How Tiny
Vermont Might Help Save America From Itself by Seceding from the
Union. They hope to put the question before citizens at Town
Meeting Day next March, eventually persuading the state Legislature to
declare independence, returning Vermont to the status it held from 1777
to 1791. Whether it's likely is another question. But the
idea has found plenty of sympathetic ears in Vermont, a left-leaning
state that said yes to civil unions, no to slavery (before any other)
and last year elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate. About 300
people turned out for a 2005 secession convention in the Statehouse,
and plans for a second one are in the works. A poll this year by the
University of Vermont's Center for Rural Studies found that 13 percent
of those surveyed support secession, up from 8 percent a year
before. The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an
empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too
corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens, said Rob
Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to
secession.
.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/06/03/
.
EDITORS NOTES:
The new independent nation of Vermont? Will the new country
called Vermont become a member of NAFTA? Nah, probably not in
both cases, but it is interesting this is being talked about in a state
that came in existence in 1791 after its secession, so to speak,
from New York and New Hampshire (both claimed the area of Vermont
belonged to each other, prior to Vermont becoming a state in its own
right).
.
.
NEW YORK CITY'S POOREST - By Rich Herschlag
.
To
go along with law enforcement using dum-dum bullets, the City of New
York has enacted yet a new dum-dum policy. Since an incredibly
ill-advised settlement in 2005, the starting yearly salary for police
officers has been cut to $25,100. This is not a typo. The first two
digits have not been reversed. The cut represents a return to the
starting pay for cops in the year 1986. We knew the '80s were coming
back eventually, but who knew it would be the salaries? Forty
percent pay cuts are normally reserved for faltering professional
athletes looking to make a comeback and airline employees after a
reorganization. The city is barely hospitable for citizens making
around $40,000. At $25K, one can hardly afford the court costs for
filing bankruptcy. Carl Pavano makes more per inning sitting on the DL.
Michael Bloomberg's blind trust generates more in less time than it
takes to play down talk of a presidential run. Bernie Kerik and Judy
Regan used to drop more on dinner and a nightcap. Bizarrely, the
pay cut was part of an overall effort to recruit more police officers.
And this move will put more cops on the street -- in cardboard boxes.
Though City officials may be guilty of smoking the same crystal meth
they have charged the police with removing from the streets, there is a
hidden logic at work. As one theory goes, nothing will make the police
more sensitive to the working poor than becoming one of them.
Therefore, in addition to hand-to-hand combat, crowd control, conflict
resolution, and hostage negotiation, police training will now include
squatting, panhandling, and cashing food stamps. Their new motto will
be to protect and serve and scrounge. There are other
not-so-obvious benefits to a police salary so small it may not
jeopardize their amateur status. The policy has effectively narrowed
the income gap between regular and auxiliary cops, thereby leveling the
playing field not only for professional versus aspiring peace officers
but also for career versus up-and-coming criminals. In the life skills
department, recruits will learn how to live off of credit cards, making
NYPD Blue NYPD Red. And finally, nothing will steel inexperienced
police recruits for long hours on the job quite like moonlighting on
docks, warehouses, and 7-Elevens. Fortunately, there are plenty
of perks. The benefits package still includes suicide counseling and
medical treatment for depression. Appropriately, broken window policing
will now be carried out by broke civil servants. For ambitious young
officers looking to make ends meet, paychecks can be fattened by
cleaning up those very same broken windows. Officers inclined to
tidying while on duty will find a little extra something in their pay
envelopes come Christmastime. And for the many recruits facing possible
eviction, it's reassuring to know squad cars are more plushly appointed
than ever. While the city is already facing a shortfall of almost
1,200 officers, who are we to ask a media mogul
billionaire-turned-politician to apply simple supply-and-demand
economics to recruitment efforts? This is a man who last year
personally fired a City employee for having video solitaire on his PC,
saving the City possibly minutes in lost productivity. Though critics
say the new pay scale has helped with police recruitment the way
roadside ambushes have drawn recent high school graduates to Iraq,
there is cause for optimism. The NYPD will soon have its pick from a
wide variety of petty thieves, spousal abusers, drug addicts, and
schizophrenics, all of whom bring to the table special insight into the
criminal mind.
.
As
Michael Bloomberg brings his philosophy of governance to a national
audience, there are still greater lessons to be learned. For instance,
when trimming a municipal budget, always start with core services while
leaving in place funding for botanical exhibits and tourist kiosks.
Moreover, competitive starting salaries and recruitment bonuses may
appear to attract quality candidates, but in reality they promote
softness. What is needed is a kind of economic hazing, the theory being
if you can make it through a year of poverty and homelessness, hanging
out in a Dunkin' Donuts talking about treatment for your intestinal
ulcer should be a relative breeze. Coincidence or not, earlier
this month the Drum Major Institute came out with a study that
concluded a middle class existence in New York City required a yearly
income of at least $135,000. Some say this paints a bleak picture of
the city's future. On one hand you have a Tribeca studio apartment
overlooking an air shaft fetching $1,250 a square foot. On the other
hand you have brave young officers sworn to uphold the law raking in
$371 a week on a waiting list for the air shaft. And
therein lies the solution. Luxury condos have both the means and
incentive to hire and train their own police officers, who will receive
superior salaries, exhibit fierce loyalty to their employers, and
remain unhampered by nuisances like the Miranda Law. A new bold breed
of privatized cop will roam the streets, as long as they are the
specific streets paying their wages. Let the recruiting begin!
.
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=493
.
EDITORS NOTES:
The above article, which was sent in by a client of ours in New York,
highlights the idea that downward pressures on wages do not only apply
to the private sector alone. Here we have a case of new police
officers earning US$1,930 per month, BEFORE taxes are taken out, and I
can only imagine what they have left over afterwards (actually the
author got it right, it comes out to about US$1,400 per month after
taxes). I wonder if the crooks in New York City, in a shall we
say act of civic generosity, have decided to take a pay cut also, or in
the least, simply decided to rob less going forward? According to
the FBI, the murder rate increased again in 2006 while of course
robberies are up 6 percent. Is having underpaid cops really the
answer?
.
.
VIOLENT CRIME INCREASING IN US, FBI REPORTS
- Associated
Press - June 4, 2007
.
WASHINGTON:
The murder rate rose slightly in the United States last year, but the
number of robberies skyrocketed by 6 percent, preliminary FBI data
released Monday show. The statistics were part of an overall 1.3
percent rise in violent crime across the country in 2006, the second
consecutive annual increase. Car thefts, arsons and other
property crimes dipped for a second straight year, the data show.
The modest increase in murders reflected a mixed bag for cities. The
number of homicides in major metropolitan areas, those with at least 1
million residents, climbed by 6.7 percent. Smaller cities, meanwhile,
saw their murders decrease by a collective 11.9 percent. The
spike in robberies marked the largest increase in any category of crime
surveyed in the FBI report, which was compiled with data from more than
11,700 law enforcement agencies nationwide.
.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/04/america/NA-GEN-US-Crime.php
.
EDITORS NOTES:
Does the increase in robberies have anything to do with the
economy? Of course, Ben Bernanke and folks at the Bush White
House say don't worry about it (the economy, that is). Cities
with big increases in the number of murders included Orlando and Miami
in Florida; Oakland and San Diego in California; Phoenix, Arizona;
Corpus Christi, Texas; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Reno, Nevada and Little
Rock, Arkansas. Orlando, Florida has big increases in
murder? Isn't that the home to family friendly Disney World and
cute Mickey Mouse? What's the next news headline going to be -
Goofy has got a gun?
.
.
READERS
WRITE IN:
.
Hi
John - I read your Dominican Republic Report about 4 to 5 years ago
because of my frustration with the situation in the U.S. and I now
develop property in Bavaro. I wanted to say thanks, and I will be
adding your link to my new website. My old one will be up for
about one more week. Please look at what your advice has
accomplished. I began with 1 apartment and now am on number 7.
.
EDITORS
REPLY: Thank you for your letter. Incredibly enough, we do
have a number of clients that are doing positive things, and are both
making money and living what they consider to be a better life. I
think the point is, while relocating to another country has its
problems and adjustments, nothing is impossible, and one can perhaps
find success as a result (both materially, and otherwise as well).
.
.
ANOTHER
READER WRITES:
.
Hi,
John - I think you forgot to mention a very important part to consider
when thinking of living in the Dominican Republic, and that is the
weather! I've gone to visit there twice and if it weren't for the
burning sun, I would have enjoyed my stay. I can barely stand the
weather when I visit. I can't imagine living there. The heat gets
to me so much that I don't want to lift a finger. I normally take
2-3 showers a day, but showering seems like such a chore there! I can't
stand the sticky feeling on my face with 10 layers of dirt piled on
it. Mind you, I have family there so I'm obligated to visit
every couple of years. I do have to admit that I end up missing
it afterwards! I hope you enjoy your time there.
.
EDITORS REPLY:
Well, I think it is true that any time you change climate, that your
body does take about one year or two to adjust. I can remember
laughing at many local Dominicans who put on a sweater or light jacket
during December, January and especially February. I have to
admit, I am not laughing any more because I do the same thing.
And forget about visiting Constanza in February (you will need a heavy
duty jacket for the evenings, and it is no joke if you forget to bring
it). On the other hand, never having to shovel snow again does
not bother many people one bit, so take your preference I guess.
.
.
ANOTHER
READER WRITES:
.
Dear
Editor: (Regarding The Total Picture of Life in the Dominican
Republic). You always make good comparison cases for why the DR
is better than the USA. But a balanced coverage would also
include the undeniable negatives: 1. Poverty/hunger---sea
refugees to Puerto Rico, 2. Constant electrical outages,
3. Traffic/pollution in Santo Domingo, 4. Malaria
risk, 5. Hurricane risk, 6. Etc.
Admittedly no place is perfect. And I do see the USA
trending away from the freedoms that made it the greatest
country. One should, however, always weigh both the pros and the
cons before jumping into the deep end. I think you should share
at least 2 or 3 local newspaper headlines every time you send out an
Ascot-Advisory to balance and support your points.
.
EDITORS REPLY:
I do appreciate your letter and your opinion, but my true goal has
always been to motivate readers to think, and perhaps more importantly,
to think for themselves (and not necessarily to make a specific
comparison case that the Dominican Republic is superior to the United
States as the main goal or agenda per say). Indeed, we have some
clients that very much like the Dominican Republic, and some clients
who do not. Some of our clients prefer Panama, Ecuador,
Argentina, Belize, South Korea, South Africa, just to name a few other
countries, and I am not offended at all when that is so. Which is
to point out, there is something far deeper and far more important
going on, other than to simply engage in a school yard argument of my
country is better than yours. There is crime, traffic jams,
mosquitoes, poor people, wealthy people, political corruption, power
outages, stray dogs, and whatever else the world over, in every country
to one degree or another. Once again, the real question remains
to be: Is there more, less or about the same of these things
elsewhere (in comparison to where you are living at the moment) ?
And with that said, what are some of the other issues motivating people
to relocate regardless: Taxes, Cost of Living, Freedom or Civil
Liberty Issues, Quality of Life? For sure, there are a number of
economic issues that historically have almost always resulted in
certain outcomes, even though our noble politicians would love for us
to believe that the laws of physics and economics no longer
apply. Which is to say in terms of what is going on inside the
US: the growing inequality of incomes, the INCREASE in the
percentage of citizens living in poverty, a very low domestic savings
rate and in recent years - negative personal savings rate, loss of jobs
and technology (cutting edge research and development is now being done
elsewhere), and the list goes on.
.
When
examining the bigger picture, as they say, many Americans are indeed
starting to question the future economic prospects and quality of life
issues going forward in the US, and often enough, making a decision to
relocate as a result. Your focus seems to be on the political or
civil, whereas I believe it is the economic and financial issues that
are driving much of these changes, and that is the real problem or
concern because this involves matters not always under domestic control
(whereas politics are of course domestic). And indeed your
thinking is very typical that is so common with many Americans, and I
do not say this to insult you. Most Americans do not see this in
themselves, as it is something indoctrinated or instilled at a very
early age (the US is the greatest nation on earth, always moral, always
correct, the best economy, the rest of the world is full of uneducated
pigmies, etcetera and so on). Such blind nationalism and failure
to think retrospectively and introspectively clouds the mind, and makes
any suggestion to the contrary very painful to suggest or think
about. Many Americans do not want to think that their nation may
be in decline, because this is in direct contrast to what they have
been taught to believe their entire lives. Thus the idea that
another country may in fact offer a better life, economically or even
politically, tantamount to a form of heresy or
blasphemy.
.
Is expatriation the solution for everyone?
Of course not.
But I do think it is very interesting to see some people getting their
emotions elevated over this issue, and it usually is the person that
clearly understands what the possibly long-term result might be, and is
also someone perturbed to see others fly the coop, as it were, when
they cannot or will not leave themselves, for whatever reasons.
As I have said before, there will come a time, I believe, when there
will be a backlash, both politically and socially if this continues
(even though that will not solve the problem, but rather motivate
people even more so to get the heck out of there). You ask me
directly why I do not highlight news items about crime or whatever else
in the DR? The very simple answer is, why bother? Most
Americans (but not all) already are brainwashed to believe the rest of
the world is mired in poverty, unfair or failing political
institutions, corruption and whatever other social or economic ills
(issues or topics that they think or would prefer to believe are not so
bad or perhaps even better inside the US, and always far worse
elsewhere). Instead, my goal or intent is to motivate you to
think about what you do not know, or what you are not being taught by
the so-called common wisdom. The other negative stuff regarding
other nations or life outside the US, most Americans are already
convinced of, regardless if it is completely accurate or not, and
regardless if I highlight it or not (which to say the commonly believed
stereotype inside the US regarding life outside the US is negative
regardless). However (or ironically), many people in other
countries are convinced that while the United States has (or had)
tremendous material wealth, that the country and the society is morally
and spiritually bankrupt. Perhaps this explains why the sales of
legal anti-depressants (such as Prozac) is now skyrocketing, not to
mention the fact that the US consumes almost 70 percent of the worlds
illegal drugs, while claiming a mere 4 to 5 percent of the worlds
population. Which is to ask, if the religion of America is
consumerism and chasing the material, what is left of the believe
system or the soul of the society when the money runs out?
Perhaps that is the true problem behind the drugs (both legal and
illegal). There are indeed many positive things that can be said
about living in the US, but the same is true for living in many other
countries as well - it all depends, at the end of the day when you add
up your list of positives and negatives, which scores higher for you
personally. In summary, live where you want and do of course have
your eyes wide open, both in terms of what is going on in the rest of
the world AND your own country as well at the same time. In this
regard, I do agree with you.
.
.
ANOTHER
READER WRITES:
.
Hello
John - Excellent newsletter, as always. I heard something
interesting on the radio today...Rush Limbaugh's show no less. A woman
called in and mentioned that Bill and Hillary Clinton are building a
mansion in the DR. I guess they're looking to bail out too, after they
do whatever damage they can muster here in the U.S. That made me
think of something I've often thought...that even though there's lots
of lip service from Congress and the Senate about money going offshore,
they really don't want to close that offshore door completely, since
many of them have moved, or are planning to move, whatever spoils
they've accumulated through that offshore door themselves
someday. Keep up the great work.
.
EDITORS REPLY:
Well, I believe there is no shortage of hypocrisy when the topic of
politicians comes up. Which is to say, they usually say one thing
publicly and then go do something different. But in terms of this
theme specifically, a spokesperson for the Clintons in reply to this
story that appeared in some US newspapers, denies that they are
building a house in the DR, but of course the local rumor here is that
they have bought property and are building using a nominee or third
party proxy (I guess it would not look too good if someone running for
President of the US was busy building a home in a foreign country -
that would be gosh darn Un-American, no?). Then again, who knows
what is true and what is not? I do know they visit the Dominican
Republic quite a bit, whatever that might mean or tell
you.
.
.
ANOTHER
READER WRITES:
.
If
I open a high-yield peso account and then change what I receive in
interest over to dollars, is that legal as long as I don't bring the
money here to the U.S. to pay bills, buy a car, etc???
.
EDITORS REPLY:
US citizens can legally open and own bank accounts, brokerage accounts,
and make whatever other investments that they wish overseas, at least
as far as the current regulations or laws are concerned in the US (some
speculate that may change, but for the moment, that is the case).
However, US citizens are technically required to report and pay any
related taxation on the interest or gains earned from such
accounts. There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding that
providing US citizens do not repatriate those funds back to the US,
that the interest earned is somehow tax-free as far as the US tax
authorities are concerned, which is not the case. Of course, on
the other hand, interest on bank accounts or other kinds of investments
may be locally tax-free in many, many countries and because of that
fact, local financial institutions do not report to their own local
governments, never mind any other foreign government. But, in
terms of the Dominican Republic, there are NO currency controls:
you can deposit funds, take them out and convert back and forth between
Dollars, Pesos and Euros the whole day long if you wish. Also,
with many of the local banks in the DR, you can open a savings account
in USD, Euros and of course Pesos as well - all at the same bank branch.
.
.
ANOTHER
READER WRITES:
.
I
am also interested in relocating to the D.R. and you mentioned about
real estate bargains. I called and inquired about a 3 bedroom apt. in
this new building called Torre Vierremar on the Maleacon on the corner
of Pasteur Ave. The selling price was $485,000.00 U.S. Is that what the
prices of apts. are actually going for in that country. I would love to
have something close to the water and near all of the action....have
any other options or suggestions?
.
EDITORS
REPLY: There are a large number of high end luxury
apartments being built at the moment in Santo Domingo, and of course
existing apartments worth considering as well. But your direct
question seems to be: IS US$485,000 the typical or normal cost for a
higher end apartment (condo) in Santo Domingo, and the answer to that
question is NO. There are a number of apartments on the market,
some with ocean views and on the waterfront ranging from 2,000 square
feet up to 2,700 square feet with prices from about US$200,000 to
US$375,000. And of course if you can consider living without an
ocean view or on the waterfront, then in that case you can find new
higher end luxury apartments ranging from say the equivalent of
US$140,000 up to perhaps about US$200,000 all depending upon size,
building amenities and so on.
|
|
|
