Many Low-Wage Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet Basic Needs

With an unemployment rate that has been stubbornly stuck near 9 percent... many of the jobs being added in retail, hospitality and home health care, to name a few categories, are unlikely to pay enough for workers to cover the cost of fundamentals like housing, utilities, food, health care, transportation and, in the case of working parents, child care.
A separate report ... tries to go beyond traditional measurements like the poverty line and minimum wage to show what people need to earn to achieve a basic standard of living.  [It] builds on an analysis... on how much income it takes to meet basic needs without relying on public subsidies. The new study aims to set thresholds for economic stability rather than mere survival, and takes into account saving for retirement and emergencies. 
According to the report, a single worker needs an income of $30,012 a year — or just above $14 an hour — to cover basic expenses and save for retirement and emergencies. That is close to three times the 2010 national poverty level of $10,830 for a single person, and nearly twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
A single worker with two young children needs an annual income of $57,756, or just over $27 an hour, to attain economic stability, and a family with two working parents and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year, or about $16 an hour per worker.
That compares with the national poverty level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2009.

A First in American History: 2011 Federal Aid Set to Overwhelm State General Funds

New research indicates 2011 will be the first year that federal aid becomes the largest component of state revenues. Already 27 states, including Louisiana, rely on federal aid as their primary source of funding, but the report’s author describes this year’s level as a critical breaking point.
“It sends a profound message,” says Sven Larson, a research fellow with the Wyoming Liberty Group. “There is a growing consensus among the states that dependency on the federal government is tolerable, even desirable.”
While state revenues have declined during the Great Recession, debt-financed federal aid has risen. Nationwide it now stands at more than one third of total state revenues, with greater state conformity over the level of federal aid dependence.
In 2010, Oklahoma and Louisiana were the most dependent, with federal aid comprising 50 percent or more of their revenue. Ten other states were more than 40 percent dependent, compared to only one state in 2005 – Louisiana at 45 percent. (Click here for a ranking of state financial dependency.)

Union Myths

The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for the workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.
Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees' free choice as to whether or not to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy.
Workers already have a free choice in secret-ballot elections conducted under existing laws. As more and more workers in the private sector have voted to reject having a union represent them, the unions' answer has been to take away secret-ballot elections.
Under the "Employee Free Choice Act," unions would not have to win in secret-ballot elections in order to represent the workers. Instead, union representatives could simply collect signatures from the workers until they had a majority.
Why do we have secret ballots in the first place, whether in elections for unions or elections for government officials? To prevent intimidation and allow people to vote how they want to, without fear of retaliation. 
The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether those others are businesses or the taxpayers.  
There are limits to how long unions can siphon off money from businesses, without facing serious economic repercussions. 

  

Decentralizing the Internet

Jim Dwyer, of the NYT, reports that:

A Columbia law professor in Manhattan, Eben Moglen, was putting together a shopping list to rebuild the Internet — this time, without governments and big companies able to watch every twitch of our fingers.

The list begins with “cheap, small, low-power plug servers,” Mr. Moglen said. “A small device the size of a cellphone charger, running on a low-power chip. You plug it into the wall and forget about it.”

Almost anyone could have one of these tiny servers, which are now produced for limited purposes but could be adapted to a full range of Internet applications, he said.

“They will get very cheap, very quick,” Mr. Moglen said. “They’re $99; they will go to $69. Once everyone is getting them, they will cost $29.”

Put free software into the little plug server in the wall, and you would have a Freedom Box that would decentralize information and power, Mr. Moglen said.

Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’ by CNS News

From (CNSNews.com):

As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

From Wikipedia, it states that...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording:

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Jason Ditz reports that, in a 10-0 vote (with five members abstaining), the United Nations Security Council Thursday approved an attack on Libya, urging nations the world over to use “all necessary measures” to move against the Gadhafi regime.

The resolution, UNSC Resolution 1973, mandates a no-fly zone and authorizes strikes against Libyan territory, but explicitly excludes, in Paragraph 4, the possibility of a “foreign occupation force of any form.” It is unclear if this rules out a ground invasion, or only requires them to be “temporary” deployments.

In the instance of attacking Libya, under the guise of UN Resolution 1973, not only has President Obama used military force unconstitutionally, but also against the Charters of the UN.  

The Charter of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members."  The U.N. is violating its Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty, and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty. 

Article 2 refers repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya. Can this organization be trusted?

From LewRockwell, Mr. Rozeff states that:

The Charter perhaps leaves itself a loophole, where it says that "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." However, that Chapter refers again and again to "international peace and security." By no stretch of the imagination or by any legal maneuvering or mumbo-jumbo does this mean the internal affairs of Libya. International peace means between two nations or among several nations. Libya’s civil war is within Libya. It is not breaking the international peace. The term "international security" is not threatened either, to the extent that this term can be comprehended. 

If some countries think that they must have Libyan oil in order to maintain their security, they should have managed this risk in other ways before this time. They shouldn’t be using the U.N. and U.N. force to bail them out of their own bad risk management of the past. Even if they impose such force, they might end up making matters worse for themselves.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama’s New War Has Started

Number 3's a Charm...

So...we've decided to bomb another Muslim populated country (that being Libya, the third on the list after Iraq and Afghanistan).  The US, in conjunction with coalition forces that include the United Kingdom and France, have today launched over a 100 tomahawk missles fired into cities within Libya.

Secretary of state Hilary Clinton stated in Paris today, in agreement with President Obama, that "military action is to protect civilians and is to provide access for humanitarian assistance".

Obama states, "Today we are part of a broad coilition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interest of the US and the world." Obama has continued to repeat his stance that no US troop will be deployed on the ground.

However, If we are acting in the interest of the world and answering the call of a threatened people...why not go to Egypt?  (Heck, I feel threatened paying all these taxes.Where's my stimulous package? Oh, sorry, let me get back on track...)  In Egypt's attempt at overthrowing a ruthless dictator, Mubarak, the Egyptians ended up getting a government and military more ruthless than before.  At least, the US now has an ally in Egypt.

The leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, said Saturday that he will arm civiliaions to defend Libya from what he called "colonial, crusader agression" by western forces.

Let me ask some questions.   Is our interest in Libya just for geopolitical positioning? Or is Libya a source of huge deposits of petroleum? If it's the latter, why didn't we pick other oil-rich contries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, or Oman? Or even countries like Berma?

And while we're at it, why don't we go after the natural gas-producing countries, say like...Canada? They're closer. And they have lakes and great vacation spots, not to mention some good Hockey teams. They almost became part of the US 200 years ago. 

Sufice to say, this is another bad decision when it comes to foreign relations with other countries. Again, we are picking fights with a people who have difficutly defending themselves. Even if they could be on our target of Muslim extremists, why not go after countires like Saudi Arabia or Pakastan?

It just appears we are the bully and picking on the "weaker kids on the block".  Eventually, this foreign policy we are pursing will come home to roost.  Ron Paul repeatedly says that an act like 911 on New York and Washington are examples of an aggressive foreign policy, "returning to us as blowback".