Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 691)
Opinion

APTOPIX Germany France Paris Attacks

Young women have formed the word Paris with candles to mourn for the victims killed in Friday’s attacks in Paris, France, in front of the French Embassy in Berlin, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

Many French people referred to the January attacks on the offices of French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo and other sites as their 9/11. As awful as that time was, it was not a 9/11. Seventeen people died that day. The Sept. 11, 2001, assaults on New York and Washington left nearly 3,000 dead, having demolished two skyscraping towers, part of the Pentagon and, in the process, four large jetliners full of passengers.

What happened in Paris on Friday was still not on the scale of 9/11, though getting closer. And it was more terrifying than our 9/11 in one very important way.
The terrorists behind 9/11 focused on national landmarks. France’s 11/13 horror was a coordinated assault on a variety of “soft targets,” places ordinary Parisians and tourists patronized for fun and relaxation.

The choice of soft targets was the “game changer,” and not just for the French. American law enforcement has taken note. And so should ordinary Americans grown overly confident that they can stay safe without empowering the federal government to broadly monitor our communications to locate the bad people operating in a sea of good.

The widespread acceptance of encryption devices on cellphones is one such example.

This technology prevents law enforcement from listening in on the cellphone calls of terror suspects under surveillance, even if the police have warrants.

As New York Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton said Sunday, “I think you’re going to see that playing a significant factor in this event.” He also said: “These apps, these devices that now allow these terrorists to operate without fear of penetration by intelligence services — this is the first example of this.”
We’re talking to you, Apple. We’re talking to you, Google.

Before the outrage in Paris, squads of heavily armed security personnel were already patrolling the big marquee sites. They were in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral, at the Eiffel Tower and around the Sacre Coeur basilica. The savages went after the sort of locales one doesn’t think to protect.

On Sunday, I thought of all those unremarkable-looking eating establishments I had passed on a recent visit to Paris — Asian restaurants like Le Petit Cambodge and the bar-cafes like Le Carillon. They’re everywhere. The music club Bataclan, site of the most vicious attack, could have been a music club back home.

Similar soft targets are found in every big, medium and small city in the Western world. You can’t place police in all of them. The only thing we can do is have intelligence capabilities able to identify terrorist plots still in the planning stage.

French President Francois Hollande wants to extend the current state of emergency to three months. That would be a very serious clamping down on movement. It would let the authorities set curfews, ban large gatherings and close public facilities, such as museums. And it would let security services search houses at any time.

American civil libertarians so incensed at the National Security Agency’s relatively innocuous program of examining the metadata (the time, length, etc., not the content) of our communications for disturbing patterns should be mindful that the liberty-loving French appear to be accepting their new restrictions as a tragic necessity. America has had the luxury of its recent good luck in avoiding gruesome terrorist attacks and the passing of time since the trauma of Sept. 11.

As the holiday season approaches, soft targets will be anywhere people shop, party or even worship. We can’t assume that security agencies operating blindly can locate the monsters who may target them. This is our reality, and we can’t wish it away.

Before the attacks in Paris, which was

Opinion

Obama-G-20-Summit-Press-Conference

President Barack Obama answers reporters’ questions at a press conference at the G-20 Summit in Turkey on Nov. 16, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

It’s hard to believe we twice elected a president who refuses to defend the United States. I think people who used to dismiss our criticism of President Obama as extreme are now realizing just how naive they were.

On the morning before the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, Obama was bragging that ISIS is contained. Are you kidding me? Even before the attacks everyone knew ISIS was on the march and couldn’t possibly be contained. What have you done to contain them, by the way? And why are we even talking about “containment” instead of wholesale destruction of a known enemy? What is Obama’s strategy?

He obviously has no strategy, because he refuses to recognize we’re at war. The truth is that Obama is willfully blinded by his warped ideology, to which he has far more allegiance than the United States. No matter what evidence, facts or reality indicate, Obama will reject them if they don’t conform to his worldview and his distorted perceptions.

He doesn’t believe we are in a war against ISIS. He insists ISIS doesn’t represent the religion of Islam, a religion for which he has obvious sympathy dating back to his early childhood. He won’t even take ISIS’ word for it.

Obama thinks that if we utter the term “Islam,” “Islamist,” or “Muslim” within 30 paragraphs of the term “terrorism,” we are going to incite millions of otherwise peace-loving Muslims to violence.

Hmm. Does anyone, anywhere, any time think any Christians would respond in violence if you insulted them? I didn’t think so.

Obama, John Kerry and everyone else associated with this recklessly confused administration refuse to say Islamists were responsible for the terrorist attacks in Boston. Now they are refusing to say they are responsible for Paris. They choose to see them as random acts of violence and “violent extremism.”

All the Democratic presidential candidates are on the same page, intentionally ignorant — no, actually deceitful about the connection to Islamism. The Paris attacks were performed by organized, violent, Jihadi, Islamic terrorists.

When asked about this bizarre blindness on the part of the president and now seemingly all Democrats, Hillary Clinton chose not to distance herself from the administration’s insanity but to embrace it, even double down on it. She would not utter the name of that religion. We do not want to infuriate millions more Muslims.

Well, if 95 percent of Muslims are peaceful wouldn’t they join us in condemning these murders by Islamists? Do they think for a second that rational people aren’t associating global terrorism with their religion? Isn’t the burden on peaceful Muslims to demonstrate to us how much they abhor what is going on in the name of their religion? The numbers of Islamist terrorist attacks around the globe are staggering. Every other day we’re hearing about a new one, and it’s almost always from Islamists, so to say there isn’t something in that religion — or how millions interpret it, anyway — leading people to violence just doesn’t square with our common sense and our daily observations.

If we don’t identify our enemy we cannot develop a strategy to defeat it. But worse, if we don’t even recognize we’re in a war then we most certainly won’t fight, much less win, the war.

Of course we don’t believe all Muslims or even the majority are violent, but the overwhelming percentage of terrorist acts around the globe are being committed by people who claim the mantle of that religion, and ISIS undoubtedly does. It is hurting us not to be realistic about that.

We’ve already seen the life-and-death consequences of this administration’s conscious paranoia about calling Islamism by its name. This politically correct insanity was responsible for our failure to investigate Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s known connections to violent Islamist ideas, and that failure arguably resulted in the deaths of thirteen people.

Obama’s apparent non-strategy is to be patient and allow other nations to do what they will but to tiptoe softly so as not to offend Muslims everywhere, including his new bestie, the Iranian regime.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t engage in the ideological battles and try to win hearts and minds, but we’re not going to defeat ISIS without engaging them militarily — aggressively. The more victories they achieve, by the way, the more recruits they acquire, so good luck with the sweet-talking.

Obama insists on treating ISIS as a criminal cartel to be prosecuted rather than an Islamist nation-state marching toward a global caliphate.

While leaders of France and the rest of the world heard this sobering wake-up call in Paris and have resolved to join together to obliterate ISIS in an “all-out war,” Obama indignantly informs us that nothing he’s doing will change. How dare anyone question his policy or blame him for mischaracterizing the strength of ISIS, having no strategy to defeat them and not even recognizing that they are a bona fide enemy.

Americans are trembling in rage and disbelief as they watch this dangerously narcissistic commander in chief show no passion for defending the United States but gush with emotion over the prospect of dumping 10,000 Syrian refugees in our land without proper security screening. We see photos of him with Russian thug President Vladimir Putin and think to ourselves, “I hope Putin will talk some sense into him about ISIS.”

What a surreal time we are living in. What an age of presidential denial. God help us.

Americans are trembling in rage and disbelief

Opinion

Francois Hollande

French television pool shows French President, Francois Hollande making an emergency broadcast Friday evening, Nov. 13, 2015.

There was a painful irony when France’s immediate response to the terrorist attacks in Paris was to close the borders. If they had closed the borders decades ago, they might have avoided this attack.

Someone once said that the First World War was the most stupid thing that European nations ever did. Countries on both sides of that war ended up worse off than before, whether they were on the winning side or the losing side.

History may yet record that an even greater stupidity, with even more catastrophic consequences in the long run, was the European nations’ decisions to import millions of people with a culture that was not merely very different, but hostile, to the culture, the values and the people of the Western world.

Even now, people who publicly warn of the dangers can be prosecuted in various European countries under “hate speech” laws.

And what about us? When, if ever, are we going to close our borders? When will we even take control of our borders, so that we can decide who, and how many, will be admitted? Certainly not before a new president takes office in January 2017 — and maybe not even then.

Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for failing to take control of the borders. In all the years that have been spent talking back and forth about every conceivable immigration policy — and some that are inconceivable — we could have built the biggest fence of all time, backed up by electronics, boots on the ground and whatever else it takes.

Instead, many have been pursuing the will-o’-the-wisp called “comprehensive” immigration reform. In other words, we are supposed to do everything all at once, like Obamacare. How well did that turn out?

There are very serious and complex questions to be confronted before immigration issues are laid to rest by new laws. But none of that stops us from taking control of the borders now.

When someone is brought into a hospital, bleeding profusely, he may also have other medical problems that will need to be addressed at some point. But, first of all, you STOP THE BLEEDING. Nobody is stopping the bleeding across our borders. The fact that the main border that people have been pouring across, at will, is the border with Mexico, does not mean that everyone crossing that border is Mexican.

Middle East terrorists can cross that border just as easily — and probably have crossed it. And will continue to cross it.

There are lots of complicated issues revolving around the open borders — drugs, visas, employers, refugees, crime syndicates, sanctuary cities, amnesty and more. But first we need to stop the bleeding.

There is absolutely nothing to stop us from discussing what kind of immigration policy we need to have, while the border is being secured. And, if the border is not secured, it does not matter what kind of immigration policy we have — or think we have — because people will cross the borders when they want to, regardless of what the policy turns out to be.

Among all the seemingly endless words that are thrown around about immigration issues, there is remarkably little being said about getting hard facts about illegal immigrants. Basic things like crime rates, welfare rates, school performances — all compared to the general population.

It may turn out that none of those things is as bad as some believe. Or it may turn out that they are far worse. But we certainly ought to know which it is before rushing “comprehensive” immigration reform through Congress, the way we rushed ObamaCare through.

Such questions cannot be answered with rhetoric or anecdotes. It so happens that my own interactions with Hispanic people have been at least as good as my interactions with black or white people. But a colleague and friend whom I greatly respect tells of wholly different experiences where he lives.

At least a year of multiple Congressional hearings and fact-finding ought to precede any legislation. But none of this should slow down the securing of the borders. If we don’t stop the bleeding at the borders, there are going to be a lot of Americans bleeding — and dying — inside our borders, just like in France.

There was a painful irony when France's

Video

[brid video=”20150″ player=”1929″ title=”CNN Reporter to Obama at G20 Summit “Why Can’t We Take Out These Bastards””]

At the G-20 Summit, after noting that the president once called ISIS the “JV” team that was “contained,” Jim Acosta bluntly asked Obama, “Why can’t we take out these bastards?”

Obama, who has been under intense criticism in the wake of the Paris attacks on Friday regarding multiple facets to his policy toward ISIS, was visibly annoyed that mainstream media reporters were pushing back on his usual rhetoric.

“I just spent the last three questions answering that very question,” Obama replied. “I don’t know what more you want me to add. I think I’ve described very specifically what our strategy is, and I’ve described why we do not pursue some of the other strategies that have been suggested.”

Obama. also said the Islamic State is not a “traditional military opponent.”

“We can retake territory,” he added. “And as long as we leave our troops there, we can hold it. But that does not solve the underlying problem of eliminating the dynamics that are producing the kind of violent extremist groups.”

At the G-20 Summit, after noting he

Policy

art-laffer-laffer-curve

Art Laffer, former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan and the architect of the Laffer Curve.

Since I’m a big fan of the Laffer Curve, I’m always interested in real-world examples showing good results when governments reduce marginal tax rates on productive activity. I’m equally interested in real-world results when governments do the wrong thing and increase tax burdens on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship (and, sadly, these examples are more common).

My goal, to be sure, isn’t to maximize revenue for politicians. Instead, I prefer the growth-maximizing point on the Laffer Curve.

Laffer-Curve-graph

In any event, my modest hope is that politicians will learn that higher tax rates lead to less taxable income. Whether taxable income falls by a lot or a little obviously depends on the specific circumstance. But in either case, I want policy makers to understand that there are negative economic effects.

Writing for Forbes, Jeremy Scott of Tax Notes analyzes the supply-side policies of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu…argued that the Laffer curve worked, and that his 2003 tax cuts had transformed Israel into a market economy and an engine of growth. …He pushed through controversial reforms… The top individual tax rate was cut from 64 percent to 44 percent, while corporate taxes were slashed from 36 percent to 18 percent. …Netanyahu credits these reforms for making Israel’s high-tech boom of the last few years possible. …tax receipts did rise after Netanyahu’s tax cuts. In fact, they were sharply higher in 2007 than in 2003, before falling for several years because of the global recession. …His tax cuts did pay for themselves. And he has transformed Israel into more of a market economy…In fact, the prime minister recently announced plans for more cuts to taxes, this time to the VAT and corporate levies.

Pretty impressive.

Though I have to say that rising revenues doesn’t necessarily mean that the tax cuts were completely self-financing. To answer that question, you have to know what would have happened in the absence of the tax cut. And since that information never will be available, all we can do is speculate.

That being said, I have no doubt there was a strong Laffer Curve response in Israel. Simply stated, dropping the top tax rate on personal income by 20 percentage points creates a much more conducive environment for investment and entrepreneurship.

And cutting the corporate tax rate in half is also a sure-fire recipe for improved investment and job creation.

I’m also impressed that there’s been some progress on the spending side of the fiscal ledger.

Netanyahu explained that the public sector had become a fat man resting on a thin man’s back. If Israel were to be successful, it would have to reverse the roles. The private sector would need to become the fat man, something that would be possible only with tax cuts and a trimming of public spending. …Government spending was capped for three years.

The article doesn’t specify the years during which spending was capped, but the IMF data shows a de facto spending freeze between 2002 and 2005. And the same data, along with OECD data, shows that the burden of government spending has dropped by about 10 percentage points of GDP since that period of spending restraint early last decade.

Here’s the big picture from the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World. As you can see from the data on Israel, the nation moved dramatically in the right direction after 1980. And there’s also been an upward bump in recent years.

Since I’m not an expert on Israeli economic policy, I don’t know the degree to which Netanyahu deserves a lot of credit or a little credit, but it’s good to see a country actually moving in the right direction.

Let’s close by touching on two other points. First, there was one passage in theForbes column that rubbed me the wrong way. Mr. Scott claimed that Netanyahu’s tax cuts worked and Reagan’s didn’t.

Netanyahu might have succeeded where President Reagan failed.

I think this is completely wrong. While it’s possible that the tax cuts in Israel has a bigger Laffer-Curve effect than the tax cuts in the United States, the IRS data clearly shows that Reagan’s lower tax rates led to more revenue from the rich.

Second, the U.S. phased out economic aid to Israel last decade. I suspect that step helped encourage better economic policy since Israeli policy makers knew that American taxpayers no longer would subsidize statism. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a lesson there for other nations?

The latest data on Israel shows the

Politics

G-20-Obama-Cameron

President Obama joins world leaders at the G20 Summit in observing a moment of silence for the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris. (Photo: Pete Souza/WH)

A growing number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are calling on President Obama to suspend his Syrian refugee program, rethink the ISIS strategy and halt the transfer of Gitmo detainees. The president received a number of letters urging him to change direction following a series of deadly terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, sent a letter today urging Obama to suspend admission of all so-called Syrian refugees into the United States.

“We remain concerned that these resettlements are taking place without appropriate regard for the safety of the American people,” said Chairman McCaul in his letter to the president. “In light of the terrorist attack in Paris, I call on you to temporarily suspend the admission of all additional Syrian refugees into the United States pending a full review of the Syrian Refugee resettlement program, including of the aforementioned security risks.”

At least one terrorist in the deadly Paris attacks Friday entered the European Union (EU) through Leros on Oct. 3 “where he was identified [as a ‘refugee’] based on EU rules,” PPD confirmed on Saturday. The Syrian passport in question was found on one of the dead suicide bombers, who was supposedly not known to French intelligence officials.

“On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder had passed from Leros on Oct. 3 where he was identified [as a ‘refugee’] based on EU rules,” said Greek Citizen Protection Minister Nikos Toskas. “We do not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder likely passed.”

According to a recent poll, which was conducted before the Paris attacks, Americans were less than open to the idea of allowing Syrian refugees to come to the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found 49% of likely voters said no to any and all alleged Syrian refugees, while 20% said they would only support taking in 10,000 total. Still, 50% said they were opposed to the idea of allowing 10,000 to come to the U.S. in a poll conducted immediately after the president’s first announcement, and just 36% supported it.

Yet, neither the facts nor public opinion seem to persuade the president to change his mind or policy.

While speaking in Turkey at the G-20 Summit, Obama argued that “as we accept more refugees–including Syrians–we do so only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.” On Sunday, Ben Rhodes, the president’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, said there was a “rigorous” vetting process in place to screen the Syrian refugees.

“That’s a flat-out lie,” Tony Shaffer, a retired U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel and intelligence officer said Monday. Shaffer noted that data from Germany indicates it effectively takes 60 agents to screen one refugee.

Further, in the wake of the attacks on Friday, 11 governors have said they will not accept Syrian refugees in their states. The governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin said Monday they will ask the federal government not to relocate Syrian refugees to their states or will otherwise try to prevent their resettlement.

Meanwhile, Chairman McCaul’s letter was the second one to hit the president’s desk on Monday.

Rep. David Jolly, R-Fla., sent a letter to Obama urging him to reconsider his entire national security strategy to confront the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. In an email to PPD, Jolly said he also asked Obama to “halt his crusade” to close Guantanamo Bay detention by transferring detainees to American soil.

“Together with our allies and willing world partners, we must dramatically enhance our engagement with the enemy to accomplish one clear objective – to immediately destroy ISIS and its partners in terror,” Rep. Jolly wrote in his letter.

Last week, the Obama administration announced the Pentagon would put forward a plan to transfer Gitmo detainees to a facility in Colorado dubbed “the Alcatraz of the Rockies.” The move will make good on a campaign promise the president made in his 2008 White House bid to close Gitmo, though it remains extraordinarily unpopular with the American people.

According to a recent poll, voters continue to oppose President Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and don’t believe his administration over the U.S. intel community regarding the rate of return. Just 28% of American registered voters in January supported Obama closing Gitmo, and 59% said the administration isn’t being truthful when they claim only 6% of detainees have returned to the War on Terror battlefield. The intel community has estimated the recidivism rate is at least 3o%, if not higher.

According to a recent report, U.S. intel officials believe upwards of 20 to 30 Guantanamo Bay detainees released by the Obama administration in the past few years alone have joined the Islamic State (ISIS), while upwards of 30% are suspected or confirmed of returning to Islamic terrorist activity.

Similarly, a Rasmussen Reports poll found that just 29% of likely U.S. voters believe the Guantanamo prison camp should be closed, which was up slightly from the 23% measured in April 2013. Rasmussen, historically, found more support for the prison’s closure than other pollsters. But even the current level is down from a high of 44% in January 2009, when Obama first announced his plans to do so. Now, a significant 19% are undecided.

A June 13 Gallup poll found just 29% of Americans support closing the terrorist detention camp and moving its prisoners to U.S. prisons, while 66% oppose doing so. As PPD research has repeatedly observed, ideology is the most predictive factor when determining a respondent’s answer, not party preference or ID.

“Bringing enemy combatants into the U.S. is reckless and will only embolden the enemies of freedom who wish to do us harm,” Rep. Jolly added.

[mybooktable book=”our-virtuous-republic-forgotten-clause-american-social-contract” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

A growing number of lawmakers are calling

World

Merkel: “Time is Running Out to Return Hope to the Millions of Refugees”

G20 Summit Merkel Obama Erdogan

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, flanked by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, and U.S. President Barck Obama, right, poses for a group photo at the G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. The 2015 G-20 Leaders Summit is held near the Turkish Mediterranean coastal city of Antalya on Nov. 15-16, 2015. (Photo: AP/Anadolu Agency)

Despite the details of the terror attacks in Paris and increasing opposition from political allies German Chancellor Angela Merkel has doubled-down on taking in Muslim refugees. Speaking at the G20 summit in Antalya, Turkey, Merkel suggested Europe owed it to the so-called “innocent” refugees to find the terrorists responsible for the attack in Paris, as well as provide them “security in our countries.”

“We all know that time is running out to return hope to the millions of refugees,” Merkel said. “We owe that not only to the victims but also to security in our countries and to the refugees, a large number of whom are fleeing terrorism.” Merkel also said that “everyone has a duty to give refugees a home, or at least a temporary home.”

Support for Merkel within her own political coalition, following her decision to open Germany to a million migrants, is completely plummeting. Bavaria’s Christian Social Union (CSU), sister party of Merkel’s CDU, is in full rebellion. Bavaria, along with Leros, has been a main port of entry for the hundreds of thousands of arriving migrants.

At least one terrorist in the Paris attacks Friday entered the European Union (EU) through Leros on Oct. 3 “where he was identified [as a ‘refugee’] based on EU rules,” PPD confirmed Saturday. The Syrian passport in question was found on one of the dead suicide bombers, who was supposedly not known to French intelligence officials.

“On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder had passed from Leros on Oct. 3 where he was identified [as a ‘refugee’] based on EU rules,” said Greek Citizen Protection Minister Nikos Toskas. “We do not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder likely passed.”

Greece’s junior minister for migration Yiannis Mouzalas admitted in September that it would be “foolish” to completely discount the possibility of jihadists sneaking into Europe among the refugee wave.

“The days of uncontrolled immigration and illegal entry can’t continue just like that. Paris changes everything,” said Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Soeder. “The CSU stands behind the chancellor, but it would be good if Angela Merkel acknowledged that the opening of the border for an unlimited period of time was a mistake.”

Meanwhile, despite the mounting pressure and growing anxiety in Germany and France amid the flood of “asylum-seekers,” only one leader has been consistently pushing back against the unfettered migrant policy.

“A modern day mass migration is taking place that could change the face of Europe’s civilization,” said Hungarian President Viktor Orban. “If that happens, that is irreversible. There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. If we make a mistake now, it will be forever.”

Merkel made clear Monday she would not be joining the growing chorus of voices in the EU, and was joined by U.S. President Barack Obama in doubling-down. According to recent surveys, American voters do not want to accept refugees from Middle East countries in the wake of the civil war. Most Americans understand that there is no real vetting process and are simply not willing to assume the risk.

Despite the terror attacks in Paris and

Economy

manufacturing-reuters

Surveys gauging manufacturing growth or contraction in Empire State. (REUTERS)

The New York Federal Reserve’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey fell deeper into contraction territory in November, marking the fourth straight month in contraction. The gauge increased slight to -10.74, up from -11.36 in October. Wall Street expected a far bigger rebound to -6 in November.

Readings for the Empire State Manufacturing Survey above 0 indicate expansion or growth, while those below indicate contraction.

Labor market conditions continued to weaken in the latest survey, as the index for number of employees was little changed at -7.3. Employment levels have fallen for a third consecutive month, and the average workweek index also fell by 7 points to -14.6, which is its lowest level since mid-2011. The prices paid index edged up to 4.6, suggesting that input prices increased somewhat after holding steady last month. The prices received index remained negative at -4.6, indicating that selling prices declined for a third consecutive month.

New orders and shipments also declined, although at a slower pace than last month. Price indexes suggested that input prices increased slightly, while selling prices were slightly lower. Labor market conditions continued to deteriorate, with survey indicators pointing to a decline in both employment levels and hours worked. Indexes for the six-month outlook were little changed from last month, and suggested that optimism about future conditions remained tepid, even though employment is expected to increase.

PPD has reported extensively on the manufacturing sector essentially going on life support throughout 2015, and there is no sign or expectations things will get better in the region going into the first half of 2016.

The six-month outlook was unchanged in Nov., indicating that optimism about future business conditions remained nil. The index for future business conditions actually fell slightly lower to 20.3, while the indexes for future new orders and future shipments also edged lower. However, employment index showed manufacturers expected conditions in that area to improve, gaining to 16.4. The index for expected workweek rose to 5.5. The capital expenditures index was little changed at 12.7, and the technology spending index fell four points to 1.8.

The New York Federal Reserve’s Empire State

World

France Paris Attacks

Anti terrorism police officers enter a building during a raid in the Mirail district in Toulouse, southwestern France, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015. France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls says there have been over 150 police raids overnight in the country. (AP Photo) FRANCE OUT

UPDATED: Officials have made a number of arrests in connection with a series of terrorist attacks in Paris Friday after having conducted over 150 raids in France and Belgium. As of Monday afternoon, officials say at least 24 people had been arrested and, contrary to earlier reports, Salah Abdeslam, 26, a key suspect, has not yet been apprehended.

Officials told PPD Abdeslam was stopped by officers at the border in the hours following the attacks, but let him go. His brother, Mohammed Abdeslam, was arrested in a sting operation as he returned to Belgium from Paris. While PPD can confirm Mohammed’s arrest, Salah’s arrest has not yet been independently verified.

Suspected Paris attackers

  • Salah Abdeslam, 26 – Reported arrested and being urgently sought by police
  • Mohammed Abdeslam – Reportedly arrested in Belgium
  • Brahim Abdeslam, 31 – named as attacker who died near Bataclan concert hall
  • Omar Ismail Mostefai, 29, from near Paris – died in attack on Bataclan
  • Bilal Hadfi, 20 – named as attacker who died at Stade de France
  • Ahmad al-Mohammad, 25, from Idlib, Syria – died at Stade de France (unverified)
  • Samy Amimour, 28, from near Paris – suicide bomber at Bataclan
  • Two other attackers died during the assaults in the city

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Monday “we are at war” against a “terrorist army,” not a single cell or group.

“We know that operations were being prepared and are still being prepared, not only against France but other European countries too,” Valls said. “We are making use of the legal framework of the state of emergency to question people who are part of the radical jihadist movement… And all those who advocate hate of the republic.”

Belgium’s Premier Charles Michel said the Belgian authorities would crack down on Molenbeek, a location known to be at the center of a longtime weapons trafficking operation and jihadist haven.

Meanwhile, PPD confirmed on Saturday that at least one terrorist in the Paris attacks Friday entered the European Union (EU) through a popular transit point for so-called Syrian refugees.

“On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder had passed from Leros on Oct. 3 where he was identified [as a ‘refugee’] based on EU rules,” said Greek Citizen Protection Minister Nikos Toskas. “We do not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder likely passed.”

European security officials have long and quietly feared that Islamic jihadists could take advantage of the mass migration influx, while opposition from native populations across Europe continues to rise. Support for Angela Merkel, who has opened Germany to a million migrants, is completely plummeting. Bavaria’s CSU, sister party of Merkel’s CDU, is in full rebellion. Bavaria, along with Leros, has been a main port of entry for the hundreds of thousands of arriving migrants.

“It is clear now that together with the victims of Islamo-fascism in the Middle East that come as refugees, extreme elements are crossing to Europe,” Defence Minister Panos Kammenos said after an emergency meeting with Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.

Greece’s junior minister for migration Yiannis Mouzalas admitted in September that it would be “foolish” to completely discount the possibility of jihadists sneaking into Europe among the refugee wave.

Over 800,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean to Europe this year, alone. Yet, Tsipras on Saturday sought to downplay the danger, insisting that the refugees fleeing Syria “are hunted by the same terrorists” that were behind the Paris attacks on Friday.

“We must find solutions to the drama of the people who leave their homes, hunted by the same terrorists, and drown in the Mediterranean,” Tsipras said in a televised address.

Salah Abdeslam, 26, a key suspect in

Policy

Bernie-Sanders-CBS-Democratic-Debate

Socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders defends his support for raising the top tax bracket to 90% during the second Democratic debate hosted by CBS News on Nov. 14, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: AP)

During last night’s Democratic debate, Senator Bernie Sanders said he would not raise tax rates as high as they were in the 1950s. And if Twitter data is accurate, his comment about being “not that much of a socialist compared to [President] Eisenhower” was one of the evening’s most memorable moments.

But a clever line is not the same as smart policy. Promising not to raise top tax rates to 90 percent or above is hardly a sign of moderation from the Vermont politician.

Fortunately, not all Democrats are infatuated with punitive tax rates.

Or at least they didn’t used to be. When President John F. Kennedy took office, he understood that the Eisenhower tax rates (in fairness to Ike, he’s merely guilty of not trying to reduce confiscatory tax rates imposed by FDR) were harming the economy and JFK argued for across-the-board tax rate reductions.

…an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Here’s a video featuring some of President Kennedy’s wisdom on lower tax rates.

[brid video=”20073″ player=”1929″ title=”Obama vs. JFK on Taxes”]

If that wasn’t enough, here’s another video featuring JFK’s wisdom on taxation.

[brid video=”20074″ player=”1929″ title=”Income Tax Cut JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962813″]

By the way, if Senator Sanders really wants the rich to pay more, one of the lessons reasonable people learned from the Kennedy tax cuts is that upper-income taxpayers respond to lower tax rates by earning and reporting more income. Here’s a chart from a study I wrote almost 20 years ago.

Last but not least, let’s preemptively address a likely argument from Senator Sanders. He might be tempted to say that he doesn’t want the 90-percent tax rate of the Eisenhower years, but that he’s perfectly content with the 70-percent top tax rate that existed after the Kennedy tax cuts.

But if that’s the case, instead of teaching Sanders a lesson from JFK, then he needs to learn a lesson from Ronald Reagan.

During last night’s Democratic debate, Senator Bernie

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe