Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to a joint meeting of Congress on March 3, 2015.
Speaking to a joint session of Congress Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned case against the dangers of the Iranian nuclear deal. In his roughly 40-minute speech that was interrupted by bipartisan applause some 40 times, Netanyahu said the “bad deal” doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, but rather “paves the path for Iran to the bomb.”
The prime minister spent 6 minutes outlining the vast activities of the regime in Tehran in support of Islamic terrorism and expanding their Islamic Republic. He further warned of a nuclear arms race in an already-violent region, creating a “nuclear tinderbox.” He predicted the this deal would lead to “a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs” and a “nuclear nightmare.”
The Israeli leader said the agreement currently in the works makes two major concessions. First, it would leave in place a “vast nuclear infrastructure,” because it wouldn’t require nuclear facilities to be destroyed. Indeed, some centrifuges would be allowed to keep running, while others would only be disconnected.
Second, Netanyahu said the restrictions would “automatically expire” in about a decade, and the regime has already been playing a dangerous game of “hide and cheat” with U.N. inspectors. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Netanyahu’s allegations earlier this week.
“It’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation,” Netanyahu said.
President Obama confirmed in an interview with Reuters Monday that the U.S. is, in fact, conceding to a so-called sunset provision, a term even Democrats such as New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez have opposed.
Meanwhile, he urged the U.S. should not to “be fooled” by Iran’s efforts to oppose the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a group the U.S. is also is fighting. Netanyahu said both groups are radical haters of the West “competing for the crown of militant Islam.”
“When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy — is your enemy,” he said.
“We must always remember that the greatest danger facing the world is a nuclear-armed Iran,” he added. “To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle and lose the war. We can’t let that happen.”
The prime minister’s remarks were made during his high-profile yet controversial and long-awaited speech as a result of Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation. The Obama administration, which is desperate to make a deal with the mullahs, considered the invitation a breach in protocol. Republican leaders defended the move, arguing it was important for Netanyahu to explain the threats posed by Iran and his concerns over the still-largely secretive terms of the nuclear deal.
However, as he did Monday at AIPAC, Netanyahu tried to ease tensions over his, which critics charged was too politicized.
“That was never my intention,” he said. “Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.”
The appearance marks the third time the prime minister addressed a joint meeting of Congress, a privilege only one other foreign leader — Winston Churchill — has enjoyed. Speaker Boehner presented Netanyahu with a bust of Churchill prior to the speech 55 Democrats took issue with and refused to attend.
But, ultimately, Netanyahu said he felt “a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.”
He further indicated that Israel will act on its own if need be, and that Jews are no longer scattered and powerless, and are defended by the “boundless courage” of IDF soldiers.
“This is why as prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing. Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” he said to an eruption of applause. “But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel. I know that you stand with Israel.”
He added “the story of Israel” is the “story of the human spirit which refuses to succumb to the horrors of history.”
In conclusion, Netanyahu quoted Moses in Hebrew, then translating to English: “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”
He wrapped it up by saying “may God bless Israel, and may God bless the United States of America.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference in Washington, March 2, 2015.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday tried to ease tensions surrounding his speech to Congress this week on the Iranian nuclear talks. Speaking to a record 16,000 people at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington, Netanyahu said he means no “disrespect” to President Obama but that he feels “a moral obligation” to warn U.S. lawmakers and the American people of the dangers of cutting a deal with Tehran, a regime that has threatened to “wipe Israel off of the map.”
“First, let me clarify what is not the purpose of that speech. My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both,” Netanyahu said. “I deeply appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel… I am deeply grateful for this support, and so should you be.”
President Obama responded by giving an interview with Reuters, stating the speech will not be “permanently destructive to U.S.-Israeli relations, but “a distraction.”
“I don’t think it’s permanently destructive,” Obama said. “I think that it is a distraction from what should be our focus. And our focus should be,‘How do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?’”
Obama said that there remains “substantial disagreement” between his administration and the Israeli government over how to achieve that goal. However, the president confirmed a previously leaked term of the still-secret framework agreement that has many lawmakers, including Democrats, very concerned.
“If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their [nuclear] program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist,” Obama said. “If we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.”
Still, many Democrats are following the president’s lead, even though many have both publicly and privately expressed concerns over the terms of the nuclear talks with Tehran. At last count, as many as 55 Democrats will not attend the speech at the U.S. Congress, which is currently served by the smallest number of Democrats in nearly a century.
In his roughly 20-minute speech, Netanyahu defended his decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation, saying he did not seek to inject partisanship into U.S.-Israeli relations nor score political points at home two weeks ahead of his own election.
“Israel has always been a bipartisan issue,” he said. “Israel should always remain a bipartisan issue.”
While the prime minister enjoys a large lead in recent polling, the decision to speak to Congress has not earned him favorable press at home. But Netanyahu insists it is responsibility to the survival of the Jewish state that drives his decision-making process, not politics.
“I’ve been prime minister of Israel for nine years,” he added. “There’s not a single day, not one day that I didn’t think about the survival of my country and the actions that I take to ensure that survival, not one day.”
Speaking to the historical differences between the U.S. and Israel over the “course of our nearly 70-year-old friendship,” Netanyahu said “our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future.” Despite the current differences, “the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion.”
The Israeli prime minister was tasked with not only easing tensions with a frustrated U.S. administration desperate to strike a deal with Iran, but also with highlighting one of the most fundamental differences between the allies.
“America is the strongest power in the world. Israel is strong, but it’s much more vulnerable,” he said. “American leaders worry about the security of their country. Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a press conference at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv on July 28, 2014. (Photo credit: Haim Zach / GPO/Flash90)
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
When President Obama keeps talking about “violent extremists” in the abstract, you might wonder whether Presbyterians are running amok.
The mainstream media seem desperate to try to find something to undermine Republican governor Scott Walker’s rise in the polls. The worst they have come up with is that he didn’t finish college. Neither did Bill Gates or Michael Dell. The Wright brothers didn’t finish high school. Neither did Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.
Have you noticed that there seem to be an ever growing number of things that we are not supposed to say in public?
Given the Obama administration’s repeatedly failed policies in the Middle East and the lost credibility of the president’s glib pronouncements, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress may be many Americans’ first chance to get a realistic assessment of the Middle East situation and its potential for international catastrophe.
Attempts to bring order out of the chaos in the paper jungle of my office usually get nowhere until I finally break everything down into just two categories: (1) urgently needed and (2) trash to be thrown out.
It is going to take time to secure the border, and it ought to take time for Congress to explore the facts about immigrants from different countries before voting on new immigration legislation. Both processes can be going on at the same time. But those who want border security laws and immigration laws passed together — “comprehensive immigration reform” — are for denying us that time. Why?
State Department official Marie Harf said, “We cannot win this war by killing them” but instead we need to get to the “root causes” of jihads by providing “job opportunities.” We tried getting at the “root causes” of crime back in the 1960s — and crime rates skyrocketed. But we stopped the Nazis in World War II by killing them, instead of setting up a jobs program in Germany.
The old advertising slogan, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” may or may not have been true. But surely the West should know by now that what happens in the Middle East does not stay in the Middle East. Throwing Israel to the wolves and signing agreements with Iran will not buy “peace in our time” and allow us to further shrink the military and expand the welfare state.
Academics often defend tenure, despite its many negative consequences, on grounds that it allows academic freedom for independent minds. Yet there are few places in America with more taboos and intellectual intolerance than academic campuses. The young are indoctrinated with demographic “diversity” that contrasts with a squelching of diversity of ideas on social issues.
It is remarkable how the Internal Revenue Service has been “losing” e-mails that Congressional investigators want to see and how “global warming” researchers have been “losing” the raw data on which their dire predictions have been based. In the social sciences, people just frankly refuse to allow their raw data to be seen by critics of such sacred cow policies as affirmative action.
The radical feminist movement, so ready to go ballistic at any little remark that can be twisted to mean something offensive to women, has been strangely silent while ISIS has been raping women and even little girls wholesale, and selling them as sex slaves. Is the silence of the radical feminists just political expediency or moral bankruptcy? Or both?
Secretary of State John Kerry says that there is less violence than usual in the world right now. Meanwhile the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, says the opposite, that terrorism is more violent and dangerous than ever. Since Clapper is Director of National Intelligence, maybe Kerry should have the title Director of National Stupidity.
We should never again put a first-term Senator in the White House. But, of the three Republican first-term Senators who are prospective candidates for the 2016 nomination for president, Marco Rubio is one of the very few politicians of either party to publicly admit that he was wrong on a major issue — immigration. He may well be ready for the White House in 2020.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing the 2015 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference in Washington, Monday, March 2, 2015.
Full transcript of PM Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC 2015:
Thank You! Wow, 16,000 people. Anyone here from California? Florida? New York? Well, these are the easy ones.
How about Colorado? Indiana? I think I got it. Montana? Texas? You’re here in record numbers.
You’re here from coast to coast, from every part of this great land. And you’re here at a critical time. You’re here to tell the world that reports of the demise of the Israeli-U.S. relations are not only premature, they’re just wrong. You’re here to tell the world that our alliance is stronger than ever. And because of you, and millions like you, across this great country, it’s going to get even stronger in the coming years.
Thank you Bob Cohen, Michael Kassen, Howard Kohr and all the leadership of AIPAC. Thank you for your tireless, dedicated work to strengthen the partnership between Israel and the United States. I want to thank, most especially, Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans. I deeply appreciate your steadfast support for Israel, year in, year out. You have our boundless gratitude.
I want to welcome President Zeman of the Czech Republic. Mr. President, Israel never forgets its friends. And the Czech people have always been steadfast friends of Israel, the Jewish people, from the days of Thomas Masaryk at the inception of Zionism.
You know, Mr. President, when I entered the Israeli army in 1967, I received a Czech rifle. That was one of the rifles that was given to us by your people in our time of need in 1948. So thank you for being here today.
Also here are two great friends of Israel, former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar and as of last month, former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird. Thank you both for your unwavering support. You are true champions of Israel, and you are, too, champions of the truth.
I also want to recognize the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, for your genuine friendship, Dan, and for the great job you’re doing representing the United States and the State of Israel.
And I want to recognize the two Rons. I want to thank Ambassador Ron Prosor for the exemplary job he’s doing at the U.N. in a very difficult forum.
And I want to recognize the other Ron, a man who knows how to take the heat, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. Ron, I couldn’t be prouder to have you representing Israel in Washington.
And finally, I want to recognize my wife, Sara, whose courage in the face of adversity is an inspiration to me. Sara divides her time as a child psychologist, as a loving mother, and her public duties as the wife of the prime minister. Sara, I’m so proud to have you here with me today, to have you with me at my side always.
My friends, I bring greetings to you from Jerusalem, our eternal undivided capital. And I also bring to you news that you may not have heard. You see, I’ll be speaking in Congress tomorrow.
You know, never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given. And I’m not going to speak today about the content of that speech, but I do want to say a few words about the purpose of that speech.
First, let me clarify what is not the purpose of that speech. My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.
I deeply appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel, security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support at the U.N., and much more, some things that I, as prime minister of Israel, cannot even divulge to you because it remains in the realm of the confidences that are kept between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. I am deeply grateful for this support, and so should you be.
My speech is also not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate. An important reason why our alliance has grown stronger decade after decade is that it has been championed by both parties and so it must remain.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have worked together with friends from both sides of the aisle in Congress to strengthen Israel and our alliance between our two countries, and working together, they have provided Israel with generous military assistance and missile defense spending. We’ve seen how important that is just last summer.
Working together, they’ve made Israel the first free trade partner of America 30 years ago and its first official strategic partner last year. They’ve backed Israel in defending itself at war and in our efforts to achieve a durable peace with our neighbors. Working together has made Israel stronger; working together has made our alliance stronger. And that’s why the last thing that anyone who cares about Israel, the last thing that I would want is for Israel to become a partisan issue. And I regret that some people have misperceived my visit here this week as doing that. Israel has always been a bipartisan issue.
Israel should always remain a bipartisan issue. Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel. Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Look at that graph. Look at that map. And you see on the wall, it shows Iran training, arming, dispatching terrorists on five continents. Iran envelopes the entire world with its tentacles of terror. This is what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Iran would do with nuclear weapons.
And this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel. If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen.
And as prime minister of Israel, I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there’s still time to avert them. For 2000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless. We were utterly powerless against our enemies who swore to destroy us. We suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks. We could never speak on our own behalf, and we could not defend ourselves.
Well, no more, no more.
The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over. Today in our sovereign state of Israel, we defend ourselves. And being able to defend ourselves, we ally with others, most importantly, the United States of America, to defend our common civilization against common threats.
In our part of the world and increasingly, in every part of the world, no one makes alliances with the weak. You seek out those who have strength, those who have resolve, those who have the determination to fight for themselves. That’s how alliances are formed.
So we defend ourselves and in so doing, create the basis of a broader alliance.
And today, we are no longer silent; today, we have a voice. And tomorrow, as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state, I plan to use that voice.
I plan to speak about an Iranian regime that is threatening to destroy Israel, that’s devouring country after country in the Middle East, that’s exporting terror throughout the world and that is developing, as we speak, the capacity to make nuclear weapons, lots of them.
Ladies and gentlemen, Israel and the United States agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but we disagree on the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons. Now disagreements among allies are only natural from time to time, even among the closest of allies. Because they’re important differences between America and Israel. The United States of America is a large country, one of the largest. Israel is a small country, one of the smallest. America lives in one of the world’s safest neighborhoods. Israel lives in the world’s most dangerous neighborhood. America is the strongest power in the world. Israel is strong, but it’s much more vulnerable. American leaders worry about the security of their country. Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country.
You know I think that encapsulates the difference. I’ve been prime minister of Israel for nine years. There’s not a single day, not one day that I didn’t think about the survival of my country and the actions that I take to ensure that survival, not one day. And because of these differences, America and Israel have had some serious disagreements over the course of our nearly 70-year-old friendship.
Now, it started with the beginning. In 1948, Secretary of State Marshall opposed David Ben-Gurion’s intention to declare statehood. That’s an understatement. He vehemently opposed it. But Ben-Gurion, understanding what was at stake, went ahead and declared Israel’s independence.
In 1967, as an Arab noose was tightening around Israel’s neck, the United States warned Prime Minister Levi Eshkol that if Israel acted alone, it would be alone. But Israel did act — acted alone to defend itself.
In 1981, under the leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor at Osirak. The United States criticized Israel and suspended arms transfers for three months. And in 2002, after the worst wave of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel’s history, Prime Minister Sharon launched Operation Defensive Shield. The United States demanded that Israel withdraw its troops immediately, but Sharon continued until the operation was completed. There’s a reason I mention all these. I mention them to make a point. Despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between America and Israel grew stronger and stronger, decade after decade.
And our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future. And I’ll tell you why; because we share the same dreams. Because we pray and hope and aspire for that same better world; because the values that unite us are much stronger than the differences that divide us values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion.
As our region descends into medieval barbarism, Israel is the one that upholds these values common to us and to you.
As Assad drops bell bombs on his own people, Israeli doctors treat his victims in our hospitals right across the fence in the Golan Heights As Christians in the Middle East are beheaded and their ancient communities are decimated, Israel’s Christian community is growing and thriving, the only one such community in the Middle East.
As women in the region are repressed, enslaved, and raped, women in Israel serve as chief justices, CEOs, fighter pilots, two women chief justices in a row. Well, not in a row, but in succession. That’s pretty good. In a dark, and savage, and desperate Middle East, Israel is a beacon of humanity, of light, and of hope.
Ladies and gentlemen, Israel and the United States will continue to stand together because America and Israel are more than friends. We’re like a family. We’re practically mishpocha.
Now, disagreements in the family are always uncomfortable, but we must always remember that we are family.
Rooted in a common heritage, upholding common values, sharing a common destiny. And that’s the message I came to tell you today. Our alliance is sound. Our friendship is strong. And with your efforts it will get even stronger in the years to come.
Thank you, AIPAC. Thank you, America. God bless you all.
The former first lady, New York senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016, sort of.
There may be some poetic justice in the recent revelation that Hillary Clinton, who has made big noises about a “pay gap” between women and men, paid the women on her Senate staff just 72 percent of what she paid the men. The Obama White House staff likewise has a pay gap between women and men, as of course does the economy as a whole.
Does this mean that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both discriminate against women, that they are themselves part of the nefarious “war on women” that so many on the left loudly denounce? The poetic justice in the recent “pay gap” revelations is that the fundamental fraud in the statistics that are thrown around comes back to bite those who are promoting that fraud for political purposes.
What makes such statistics fraudulent is that they are comparing apples and oranges.
Innumerable studies, going back for decades, have shown that women do not average as many hours of work per year as men, do not have as many consecutive years of full-time employment as men, do not work in the same mix of occupations as men and do not specialize in the same mix of subjects in college as men.
Back in 1996, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that young male physicians earned 41 percent higher incomes than young female physicians. But the same study showed that young male physicians worked over 500 hours a year more than young female physicians.
When the study took into account differences in hours of work, in the fields in which male and female doctors specialized and other differences in their job characteristics, “no earnings difference was evident.” In other words, when you compare apples to apples, you don’t get the “gender gap” in pay that you get when you compare apples to oranges.
This is not peculiar to the medical profession. Nor was this a new revelation, even back in 1996. Many studies done by many scholars over the years — including female scholars — show the same thing, again and again.
A breakdown of statistics in an old monograph of mine — “Affirmative Action in Academia” — showed the pay differential between women and men evaporating, or even reversing, as you compared individuals with truly comparable characteristics. This was back in 1975, forty years ago!
There might have been some excuse for believing that income differences between women and men were proof of discrimination back in the 1960s. But there is no excuse for continuing to use misleading statistics in the 21st century, when their flaws have been exposed repeatedly and long ago.
Many kinds of high-level and high-pressure careers require working 50 or 60 hours a week regularly, and women with children — or expecting to have children — seldom choose those kinds of careers.
Nor is there any reason why they should, if they don’t want to. Raising a child is not an incidental activity that you can do in your spare time, like collecting stamps or bowling.
If you trace the actual history of women in high-level careers, you will find that it bears no resemblance to the radical feminist fable, in which advances began with the “women’s liberation” movement in the 1960s and new anti-discrimination laws.
In reality, women were far better represented in professional occupations in the first three decades of the 20th century than in the middle of that century. Women received a larger share of the postgraduate degrees necessary for such careers in the earlier era than in the 1950s and 1960s.
The proportion of women among the high achievers listed in “Who’s Who in America” in 1902 was more than double the proportion listed in 1958. The decline of women in high-level careers occurred when women’s age of marriage and child-bearing declined during the mid-century “baby boom” years.
The later rise of women began when the age of marriage and child-bearing rose again. In 1972 women again received as high a proportion of doctoral degrees as they had back in 1932.
The truth is not nearly as politically useful as scare statistics. The “gender gap” is not nearly as big as the honesty gap.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
There are entire departments of the federal government, such as Education or Housing and Urban Development, that should be abolished before we worry about the Ex-Im Bank.
But here’s the deal. Achieving any of the goals listed above would require approval of the House, approval of the Senate, and signed legislation from the President.
So I’m not exactly holding my breath for immediate victories.
In the case of the Export-Import Bank, though, victory is possible. Authorization for this odious form of corporate welfare automatically sunsets later this year.
In other words, so long as either the House or the Senate say no (which simply means choosing to do nothing), taxpayers win.
This is why getting rid of the Export-Import Bank is a real test of whether Republicans are serious about shrinking the size and scope of government.
And just in case you need a reminder of why this bit of cronyism should disappear, here’s some of what Veronique de Rugy recently wrote for The Hill.
Politicians are hoarders. Instead of filling up their homes with junk and refusing to throw any of it away, they surround themselves with bloated government programs and come up with excuses to not get rid of any of them.
And if you go down the rickety stairs to the mildew-filled basements of their homes, surrounded by dead mice, you’ll find the Ex-Im Bank.
Ex-Im simply isn’t the job creator that it claims to be. The bank itself reported that only 16 percent of its beneficiaries were seeking to overcome limitations in private sector export financing. And in cases where the private sector didn’t think it was a good idea to finance a deal, why should taxpayers have backed it instead? The truth is that the bulk of Ex-Im’s activities benefit large, politically connected companies. Indeed, over 65 percent of Ex-IM Bank’s loan guarantee program benefits aerospace giant Boeing, which currently has a market cap of $106 billion. …the Congressional Budget Office projects that taxpayers will have to shoulder $2 billion in losses over the next decade. Even when there aren’t losses, it merely shows that the private sector could have handled the financing. Second, Ex-Im places the 99.96 percent of U.S. small businesses that it doesn’t subsidize at a competitive disadvantage because the subsidies artificially lower costs for privileged competitors.
Indeed. You should watch this excellent video from Mercatus to learn more about the destructive economic impact of the Export-Import Bank.
Defenders of the program say it’s necessary for American exports, but only a tiny share of exports get these subsidies.
And here’s a look at export-related jobs. As you can see, it’s preposterous to claim the Ex-Im Bank plays a big role.
You can peruse lots of additional evidence at this Mercatus link. The bottom line is that the only argument for the Export-Import Bank is that it helps to perpetuate a corrupt insider scam.
But if you’re not a lobbyist, cronyist, corporate fat cat, or other form of insider, the Ex-Im Bank is a lose-lose proposition.
P.S. If you support the Export-Import Bank and you want to raise your children to have the same warped view of the world, here are some toys you can get them for their birthdays.
Institute for Supply Management readings for U.S. manufacturing activity. (Photo: Reuters)
The pace of U.S. manufacturing growth fell in February to its slowest in 13 months, according to a closely-watched industry report released Monday.
The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity fell to 52.9 from 53.5 the month prior. The reading missed economists’ expectations of 53.1 outlined in a Reuters poll, and was the lowest reading since January 2014.
“The February PMI® registered 52.9 percent, a decrease of 0.6 percentage point from January’s reading of 53.5 percent. The New Orders Index registered 52.5 percent, a decrease of 0.4 percentage point from the reading of 52.9 percent in January. The Production Index registered 53.7 percent, 2.8 percentage points below the January reading of 56.5 percent,” said Bradley J. Holcomb, the chair of the Institute for Supply Management. “The Employment Index registered 51.4 percent, 2.7 percentage points below the January reading of 54.1 percent. Inventories of raw materials registered 52.5 percent, an increase of 1.5 percentage points above the January reading of 51 percent. The Prices Index registered 35 percent, the same percentage as in January, indicating lower raw materials prices for the fourth consecutive month.”
A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the manufacturing sector, but most components of the index declined, the latest piece of data suggesting a slowing in growth in the factory sector. Though the main index’s 50-plus reading marks the 28th consecutive month of growth in manufacturing, there is little doubt that the index confirms previous regional Fed indexes showing slowdowns and contractions.
“Comments from the panel express a growing level of concern over the West Coast dock slowdown, negatively impacting exports and imports and requiring workarounds and added costs,” Mr. Holcomb added. However, the port strike has been ongoing for more time than many economists can justify as negatively impacting this report.
The new orders index cooled to 52.5 from 52.9 in January, a piece of data unrelated to port strikes. The prices paid index was unchanged at 35, and the employment index fell to 51.4 from 54.1.
“The past relationship between the PMI and the overall economy indicates that the average PMI for January and February (53.2 percent) corresponds to a 3.2 percent increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) on an annualized basis,” Holcomb explained. “In addition, if the PMI for February (52.9 percent) is annualized, it corresponds to a 3.1 percent increase in real GDP annually.”
Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ) announced an agreement to acquire wireless-networking company Aruba Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:ARUN) in a deal valued at roughly $2.7 billion, expanding H-P’s capabilities in the mobile market.
H-P is offering $24.67 a share, a 1 percent discount to Aruba Network’s close on Friday, which was the highest level for the stock in almost two years amid rumors of a possible deal. The nearly $3 billion-valued deal includes cash and debt.
Meg Whitman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of HP, said the deal will combines Aruba’s wireless mobility solutions with H-P’s switching portfolio, allowing the company to offer most secure networking solutions to help enterprises easily deploy next-generation mobile networks.
“Enterprises are facing a mobile-first world and are looking for solutions that help them transition legacy investments to the new style of IT,” said Ms. Whitman. “By combining Aruba’s world-class wireless mobility solutions with HP’s leading switching portfolio, HP will offer the simplest, most secure networking solutions to help enterprises easily deploy next-generation mobile networks.”
Aruba, a Sunnyvale-based industry leader in wireless networking, boasts roughly 1,800 employees and had revenues of $729 million in fiscal 2014. It has reported compound annual revenue growth of 30 percent over the last five years.
The H-P and Aruba operation will be led by Aruba Chief Executive Officer Dominic Orr and Chief Strategy and Technology Officer Keerti Melkote. They will report to Antonio Neri, head of H-P Enterprise Group.
“Together with HP, we have a tremendous opportunity to become an even greater force in enterprise mobility and networking,” said Mr. Orr. “This transaction brings together Aruba’s best-of-breed mobility hardware and software solutions with HP’s leading switching portfolio. In addition, Aruba’s channel partners will have the opportunity to expand their businesses with HP offerings. Together, we will build on Aruba’s proven ‘customer first, customer last’ culture, creating an innovative, agile networking leader ideally positioned to solve our customers’ most pressing mobility, security and networking challenges.”
Hewlett-Packard in October announced plans to separate its personal-computer and printer businesses from its corporate hardware and services operations, which has been sold as the growth engine.
A shopper organizes his cash before paying for merchandise at a Best Buy Co. store in Peoria, Illinois, U.S., on Friday, Nov. 23, 2012. (Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty)
U.S. consumer spending dropped in January in what is the latest sign gross domestic product growth estimates are widely overblown, Commerce Department reported. Consumer spending data, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of U.S. GDP, come after news last week that a larger-than-expected trade deficit sliced fourth-quarter growth more than previous estimates suggested.
According to the report released Monday, American households are holding back whatever extra disposable money from lower gasoline prices, largely due to stagnant incomes.
Personal spending fell to a seasonally adjusted 0.2 percent from the previous month, and December spending was unchanged from the initially estimated 0.3 percent decline. But Americans’ personal income, which reflects money collected from wages, investments and government aid, increased by a less-than-expected 0.3 percent.
Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had forecast a 0.1 percent decline in household outlays, but a 0.4 percent rise in personal income.
The price index for personal consumption expenditures, which is the gauge used by the Federal Reserve to judge inflation, fell 0.5 percent from December. The inflation measure is down 0.2 percent from a year earlier. Excluding volatile food and energy components, so-called “core” prices were up 1.3 percent over the year.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sat down with Chris Wallace for a Fox News Sunday exclusive interview to discuss CPAC 2015 and the 2016 presidential race. When asked about his past support for amnesty-resembling immigration reform plans, including the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration plan, Walker did something shocking to interviewers and media observers — he told the truth and indicated he is capable of learning.
“And my view has changed,” Walker said in response to Wallace pointing out that past support. “I’m flat out saying it. I’m — candidates can say that. Sometimes they don’t. Absolutely. I look at the problems we’ve experienced for the last few years.”
A visibly and verbally stunned Wallace again tried to ask the governor why he doesn’t support unpopular policies now when he did before, but the governor’s answer again showed he can be a candid, responsive candidate.
“I’ve talked to governors on the border and others out there,” Gov. Walker said. “I’ve talked to people all across America. And the concerns I have is that we need to secure the border.”
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Over the years, you have supported comprehensive immigration reform and a right to citizenship for people who pay penalties. And this for the 11 million people who are in this country illegally.
Here’s what you said to a Wisconsin newspaper in 2013.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WAUSAU DAILY HERALD: Can you envision a world where with the right penalties and waiting periods and meet the requirements, where those people can get citizenship?
GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Sure, yes. I mean, I think it makes sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Question, isn’t that amnesty?
WALKER: Well, I don’t believe in amnesty. And part of the reason why I made that a firm position is I look at the way that this president has mishandled that issue. I’m one of the governors that joined — I was one of the first governors that joined the lawsuit that has been successful, at least on this initial technicality. And I hope we prevail ultimately throughout the courts.
And then going forward, I think the way you enforce it is not through amnesty. I think the better approach is to enforce the laws and to give employers, job creators, the tools like E-Verify and other things, to make sure the law is being upheld going forward.
WALLACE: The question was, can you envision a world where if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship? And you said, sure, that makes sense.
WALKER: I believe there’s a way that you can do that. First and foremost, you’ve got to secure that border or none of these plans make any sense.
WALLACE: But it’s a little bit slippery here. Back when you were the Milwaukee County executive, you actually supported the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive immigration plan.
Are you basically saying as part of a comprehensive plan, tough enforcement, E-Verify, the 11 million people already here paid penalty, they get citizenship?
WALKER: No, I’m not talking about amnesty. And even I said the reason for that is over time —
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: But you said you supported it.
WALKER: And my view has changed. I’m flat out saying it. I’m — candidates can say that. Sometimes they don’t. I’m saying my —
WALLACE: So, you’ve changed from 2013?
WALKER: Absolutely. I look at the problems we’ve experienced for the last few years. I’ve talked to governors on the border and others out there. I’ve talked to people all across America. And the concerns I have is that we need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works. A legal immigration system that works. And part of doing this is put the onus on employers, getting them E-Verify and tools to do that. But I don’t think you do it through amnesty.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
