Bureaucrats, scientists move SC against n-plants

New Delhi: Members of civil society, including former bureaucrats, scientists, a former Navy Chief and NGOs, on Friday approached the Supreme Court seeking its direction to stay construction of all proposed nuclear power plants.


They have filed a joint PIL pleading that the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, be declared as unconstitutional and appoint an expert independent body to conduct a thorough safety reassessment of all existing and proposed nuclear facilities in the country.

"Issue an appropriate writ canceling clearances given to proposed nuclear power plants and staying all proposed nuclear power plants till requisite safety assessment studies, thorough comparative cost-benefit analysis and meaningful public hearings are carried out by or under the supervision of an independent expert body," the petition said.

The petitioners, who include former Cabinet Secretary T S R Subramanian, former Chief of Naval Staff L Ramdas, former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former Secretary to the Prime Minister K R Venugopal and nuclear scientist P M Bhargava, pleaded an expert nuclear regulator independent of the government be set up to do a comparative cost-benefit analysis vis-?-vis other sources of energy.

They submitted the apex court should rule that in the case of a nuclear accident, all nuclear operators and suppliers, would be jointly and severally and absolutely liable for civil damages and their financial liability would be unlimited.

They have also pleaded the court to quash all the agreements signed between the government and private companies, for supply of nuclear reactors and equipment, based on private negotiations, without any competitive process and safety evaluation.

"The government’s plans for expansion of nuclear power programme and construction of newer and huge nuclear power plants without undertaking a thorough safety and comparative cost-benefit analysis, clearly made under the influence of foreign countries and multi-billion dollar nuclear industry, shows arbitrary decision-making, based on extraneous considerations and non-application of mind," the petition said.

"The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, by capping the financial liability of operators and by making suppliers not liable violates the polluter-pays principle and the absolute liability principle which have become recognized as part of the law of the land and puts to grave and imminent risk the right to safety, health, clean environment and life of the people," the petition said.

It pointed out that Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd is planning to construct 36 imported reactors by 2032.

Four 700 MW Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors, two at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan and two at Kakrapur in Gujarat are under construction. Two reactors in Koodankulam district of Tamil Nadu and two reactors in Haripur district of West Bengal are under construction based on Russian design.

The plant in Koodankulam has met with stiff resistance from people in the area.

Not Enough Bureaucrats

There’s a new article in the Washington Monthly making the point that we need federal bureaucrats to manage spending, including spending on private contractors, and that understaffing the government — which we’re doing already, and will do more of if the right gets its way — actually increases the deficit. I agree. And with perfect timing, we have a new report finding that tens of billions have been wasted on undersupervised contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What’s happened in American political discourse is that constant repetition has drilled in the message that government officials are always engaged in pointless activity, and that private is always better — even if you’re hiring private contractors to do government work, which means that there’s no market competition. None of this is true. Federal offices, in my experience, are quite thinly staffed and overstretched, despite having very real jobs to do. And the experience with outsourcing to contractors has been mixed to bad across the board.
The thing is, any private corporation would have no trouble understanding the argument that you need more auditing, more supervision, to keep costs under control. But when it comes to government, the myth of the useless bureaucrat persists. Of course, that’s the way the contractors like it.

Bureaucrats sending sensitive information on BlackBerrys

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA—Senior federal bureaucrats are sending sensitive government information on their BlackBerrys despite warnings to stop.
Deputy ministers at Transport Canada, Veterans Affairs and Public Works have all used a BlackBerry feature called PIN messaging to discuss information that is supposed to be secure, The Canadian Press has learned.
PIN messaging allows BlackBerry users to send messages directly between devices over wireless networks, bypassing email servers.
The privacy commissioner and Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) — the federal agency responsible for information security — have explicitly said the PIN service shouldn’t be used for material considered sensitive.
The vulnerability of government communications was exposed this week with the revelation that computer networks at two federal departments were compromised by hackers. Exactly what the hackers were after is unclear but Internet service at the Treasury Board and finance department has been curtailed as a result.
In the case of PINs, some or all of the departmental records released under Access to Information were censored because they contained information that could compromise security, economic interests or detailed the operations of government.
PIN messages are popular because they travel faster than emails and there is the perception they are secure because they are encrypted and not stored. But they can be cracked.
“The key used is a global cryptographic ‘key’ that is common to every BlackBerry device all over the world,” a CSEC security bulletin says.
“This means any BlackBerry device can potentially decrypt all PIN-to-PIN messages sent by any other BlackBerry device, if the messages can be intercepted and the destination PIN spoofed.
“Further, unfriendly third parties who know the key could potentially use it to decrypt messages captured over the air.”
None of the departments provided an explanation as to why the PIN function is being used to send sensitive information.
Security experts say the risk is real.
Agencies “can install any sort of procedure and systems and policies they want for email, for Internet access for everything else, but this is a total grey area,” said Keith Murphy of Defence Intelligence Inc.
“If something does happen, they have no recourse.”
In an audit of five federal agencies released in October, privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart found all of them in violation of PIN-to-PIN policy.
“Existing policies surrounding wireless devices lack key elements — including restrictions on the use of PIN-to-PIN messaging — and four of the five entities lack documented procedures to mitigate the risk of a data exposure resulting from a lost or stolen wireless device,” she found.
Late last year, the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia and India threatened to shut down BlackBerry service in their countries because PIN messages couldn’t be monitored by the government.
Canadian government departments are required to have a capture mechanism for PIN messages in place if they are used. That’s because they constitute government records and are therefore subject to Access to Information.
But it’s up to each department to decide if PINs are allowed. A request to Citizenship and Immigration for PIN messaging came up empty, with subsequent documents suggesting that department forbids use of the service.

Loving Level-Three Bureaucrats

Oct 24, 2011 (Rwanda Focus/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
For those of us who view Rwanda with hope, on occasion we have a moment where we conclude: "This country does not work." The policeman stops directing traffic to answer his phone. Our paper work that should take days to complete takes months. Our food is delivered late and cold. We choose not to join the ranks of Rwanda hating bloggers; instead we seek understanding and solution. Some argue for better customer service. Some argue for more training. Some point to leadership patterns.

I have a new understanding. The problem is the level-three bureaucrats. The answer is to love level-three.

Cultural insiders and comedians have pointed out that our region is very aware of the hierarchy of influence. Some conclude there are three circles of influence in every social cluster. The task of each circle of influence is to try to get into the next inner circle. I am not convinced it is that cutthroat. However, I do notice circles of influence in all organizations. I propose that one of the reasons that Rwanda does not always act with efficiency is the level-three bureaucrats.

Level-one is a single vision bearer. He clearly knows what will be the final outcome. He has a certain amount of natural charisma, raw talent, and leadership ability. He labors long hours. He gathers people to his vision. He has very high standards. We find these vision bearers in all growing organizations from schools to churches to business to government. As the institution he leads grows he must add colleagues.

The first addition is level-two policy creator. He takes the vision and begins to put flesh upon it. He begins to lay out the basic policy framework that will turn the vision into reality. He is well educated. He is seasoned. He is stable. He like the level-one vision bearer has high standards of ethics. His work ethics are impeccable. You notice that you sometimes get business emails from him sent as late as 11:00 p.m. or as early as 5:00 a.m. He keeps his nose to the grindstone and sometimes does not see the big picture. Yet, the level-two policy creator is essential to an enduring institution.

The greatest level-one leaders of history know the value of relinquishment. They know that without relinquishment they will build a doomed personality cult. The level-two leader is the key colleague of level-one. Level-two makes sure the intellectual framework remains for an enduring institution. Without him level-one is sunk. Great level-two leaders gave us enduring literature ranging from the New Testament to Nation's Constitutions.

Now we hit the snag. Level-two policy creators need to delegate. We all need proteges. So level-two delegates to level-three the creator and executor of procedure. In an exceptional organization with a well educated staff level-three works. Excellence is built. The ideal level-three bureaucrat is a future level-one leader. He has raw talent mirrored with education and social sophistication. He quickly gets the vision. Then he does the nuts and bolts grunt work to make the vision happen.

Yet, sometimes this ideal does not happen. You can usually tell first as level-one and two are simply exhausted. They have blood shot eyes from too little sleep. They are still masterfully polite. They model customer service. Yet underneath they are weary. When a local pastor briefly visits them, they quickly respond, "YES! PLEASE!" to an offer to pray for their office.

For those who wait for the services of the inefficient level-three bureaucrats, prepare to wait. Wait. Hurry up. Wait some more. Find out you didn't communicate properly. Redo the communication. Wait. Hurry up. Wait some more. Level-three does not get the vision. He is consumed with procedure. He does not understand the importance of a good final product.

Now what do those of us who have the misfortune of being stuck with a poor level-three do?

Options abound. Get angry. Write a mean letter to the editor. Go into passive aggressive mode and make life difficult for level-three while finding a way to dodge personal accountability.

Let me propose a new way: love level-three bureaucrats. Wise men from all ages have stated, "Treat others as you want to be treated." We may rant about how to change level-three bureaucrats, but most of us will never have the opportunity to do anything more than rant. Love is in our capacity.

Be kind to level-three. Be patient with level-three. Be forgiving of level-three.

For it is quite likely that all of us will someday be in a place of level-three. We will have a new job, live in a new city, and get a new start. While we hope we are competent. We will be in over our heads. Hopefully, a level-two or one will come close and guide us. Also, hopefully, a customer won't be cruel to us.

No one likes to be level-three. We should empathize. Many do not like those who exist at level-three. Yet all of us can choose to love level-three. Make the choice.

Copyright Rwanda Focus. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division

By Paul Ryan
October 26, 2011 — The Heritage Foundation
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thank you so much, Ed, for that kind introduction.
We’re here today to explore the American Idea, and I can’t think of a better venue for this topic. The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
These are the principles that define the American Idea. And this mission has never been timelier, because these principles are very much under threat from policies here in Washington.
The American Idea belongs to all of us – inherited from our nation’s Founders, preserved by the countless sacrifices of our veterans, and advanced by visionary leaders, past and present.
What makes America exceptional — what gives life to the American Idea — is our dedication to the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means opportunity.
The perfection of our union, especially our commitment to equality of opportunity, has been a story of constant striving to live up to our Founding principles. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.”
This commitment to liberty and equality is something we take for granted during times of prosperity, when a growing economic pie gives all Americans the opportunity to pursue their dreams, to provide brighter futures for their kids, or maybe just to meet their families’ needs.
These are tough times. We know all too well that too many Americans are hurting today. And these hardships have reopened our longstanding national debate over what it means to be an exceptional nation. Have those periods of unprecedented prosperity in America’s past been the product of our Founding principles?
Or, as some would argue, have we made it this far only in spite of our outdated values? Are we still an exceptional nation? Should we even seek to be unique? Or should we become more like the rest of the world — more bureaucratic, less hopeful, and less free?

The American Idea is not tried in times of prosperity. Instead, it is tested when times are tough: when the pie is shrinking, when businesses are closing, and when workers are losing their jobs.
Those are the times when America’s commitment to equality of opportunity is called into question. That’s when the temptation to exploit fear and envy returns – when many in Washington use the politics of division to evade responsibility for their failures and to advance their own narrow political interests.
To my great disappointment, it appears that the politics of division are making a big comeback. Many Americans share my disappointment – especially those who were filled with great hope a few years ago, when then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois.
Do you remember what he said? He said that what’s stopped us from meeting our nation’s greatest challenges is, quote, “the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics – the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.”
I couldn’t agree more.
And yet, nearly three years into his presidency, look at where we are now:
Petty and trivial? Just last week, the President told a crowd in North Carolina that Republicans are in favor of, quote, “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.” Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care? Chronic avoidance of tough decisions? The President still has not put forward a credible plan to tackle the threat of ever-rising spending and debt, and it’s been over 900 days since his party passed a budget in the Senate. A preference for scoring cheap political points instead of consensus-building? This is the same President who is currently campaigning against a do-nothing Congress, when in fact, the House of Representatives has passed over a dozen bills to help get the economy moving and deal with the debt, only to see the President’s party kill those bills in the do-nothing Senate.
Look, we put our cards on the table. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives advanced a far-reaching plan filled with common-sense reforms aimed at putting the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity.
But instead of working together where we agree, the President has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past. He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.
The tax increases proposed by Senate Democrats and endorsed by the President – when combined with the new taxes in the health-care law, and the President’s other tax preferences – would push the top federal tax rate to roughly 50 percent in just 14 months, while doing nothing to promote job creation.
This tax increase on so-called “millionaires and billionaires” would actually constitute a huge tax hike on the nation’s most successful small businesses. According to the Tax Foundation, the surtax would hit roughly 35 percent of small-business income.
As P.J. O’Rourke put it, “The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you’re rich.”
Actually, the news is even worse. As a practical matter, when you try to chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher tax increases, you eventually run into a brick wall of math.
The President has been talking a lot about math lately. He’s been saying that, quote, “If we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit… the math says… we’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.”
This is really a stunning assertion from the President. When you look at the actual math, you quickly realize that the way out of this mess is to combine economic growth with reasonable, responsible spending restraint. Yet neither of these things factors into the President’s zero-sum logic.
According to the President’s logic, we should give up on trying to reform our tax code to grow the economy and get more revenue that way. Instead, these goals are taking a backseat to the President’s misguided understanding of fairness.
Remember that 2008 debate, when ABC’s Charlie Gibson pointed out that raising the capital gains tax rate actually tends to drive revenues down?
Obama replied: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” That’s the kind of logic we are unfortunately seeing today.
Also according to the President’s logic, spending restraint is incompatible with a strong, well-functioning safety net. The belief that recipients of government aid are better off the more we spend on them is remarkably persistent. No matter how many times this central tenet of liberalism gets debunked, like Brett Favre, it just keeps coming back.
The President has wrongly framed Republican efforts to get government spending under control as hard-hearted attacks on the poor. In reality, spending on programs for seniors and for lower-income families continues to grow every year under the House-passed budget – it just grows at a sustainable rate. We direct tax dollars where they’re needed most, and stop spending money we don’t have on boondoggles we don’t need.
The President’s political math is a muddled mix of false accusations and false choices. The actual math is apolitical, and it’s clear: By the time my kids are my age, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the size of government will be double what it is today.
Government health care programs alone will have grown to consume 45 percent of federal spending. The primary driver of this increase is runaway inflation in health care costs, which are rising at 2 to 3 times the rate of GDP.
It’s impossible to keep funding health care expenditures at this rate. Even President Obama has said, quote, “If you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”
So the real debate is about how best to control these unsustainable costs. And if I could sum up that disagreement in a couple of sentences, I would say this: Our plan is to empower patients. Their plan is to empower bureaucrats.
The Republican plan gives individuals the power to put market pressure on providers and make them compete.
The President’s plan is to give 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington the power to cut Medicare in ways that, according to Medicare’s own chief actuary, would simply drive providers out of business. This would result in harsh disruptions and denied care for seniors.
Pain like this simply can’t be sustained. So when it comes to out-of-control spending on entitlements, the President’s math simply doesn’t add up.
And his math is no better on the tax side. Let’s say we took all the income from those the President calls “rich” – those making $250,000 or more. A 100 percent tax rate on their total annual income would only fund the government for six months. Just six months!
What about some of the other tax hikes the President likes to talk about? Under the President’s policies, deficits are set to rise by a whopping $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
Letting the top two tax rates expire would equal roughly 8 percent of that planned deficit increase. Eliminating tax subsidies for oil and gas companies would only equal 0.5 percent of the President’s planned deficits. And what about corporate jet owners? That provision would reduce those deficits by just 0.03 percent.
Look, I’m all for closing tax loopholes – but you can’t close our nation’s deficits by chasing ever-higher spending with politically motivated tax hikes here and there. Instead, tax reform must broaden the base and lower rates.
This policy approach, which has attracted strong bipartisan support, would bolster our fiscal health by increasing competitiveness and encouraging more investment and job creation.
Lately, the President has been fond of taking Ronald Reagan quotes out of context, in an effort to persuade Republicans that Reagan would have agreed with the idea of using fear and envy to push a partisan agenda of permanently higher taxes.
Every time he does this, I can picture Reagan shaking his head: “There you go again.”
Obama quotes Reagan as saying that bus drivers shouldn’t pay a higher effective tax rate than millionaires. Well, that’s a no-brainer. Nobody disagrees with that.
But it is simply disingenuous to use this quote as evidence that Reagan would have supported the tax increases that Obama wants Congress to pass.
Reagan was attempting to build support for the landmark 1986 tax reform, a revenue-neutral law that reformed the tax code by lowering tax rates while broadening the tax base.
Reagan’s point – which President Obama clearly missed – was not that we should raise tax rates to chase out-of-control spending in Washington.
His point was that we should get rid of loopholes that are exploited by the few, so that we could lower everyone’s tax rates and help the economy grow.
The House-passed budget includes this kind of tax reform, which many agree would provide an immediate boost to the economy. Our budget proposed getting rid of scores of loopholes, lowering the hurdles for job creation and economic growth, and making our tax code fair, simple, and competitive.
In his address to Congress last month, the President said he agrees in principle with this kind of reform, especially when it comes to the uncompetitive way we tax our businesses.
This made Republicans think, well, we might have an opportunity here for the kind of genuine consensus-building that the President talked about as a candidate.
Yet he chose not to pursue this kind of tax reform. Instead, he sent us a partisan bill filled with the same stimulus proposals that failed two years ago, only this time he also asked for permanent tax hikes to go with them.
He’s also failed to work with us on another area where one would think we could find common ground: ending the lavish subsidies and government benefits that go to those who are already successful.
The House-passed budget was full of proposals to get rid of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.
Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically-connected solar energy firms? Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness? Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?
Rather than raising taxes and making it more difficult for Americans to become wealthy, let’s lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive.
The President likes to use Warren Buffett and his secretary as an example of why we should raise taxes on the rich.
Well, Warren Buffett gets the same health and retirement benefits from the government as his secretary.
But our proposals to modestly income-adjust Social Security and Medicare benefits have been met with sheer demagoguery by leading members of the President’s party.
The politics of division have always struck me as odd: the eagerness to take more, combined with the refusal to subsidize less.
Instead of working with us on these common-sense reforms, the President is barnstorming swing states, pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class.
This just won’t work in America. Class is not a fixed designation in this country. We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.
The Treasury Department’s latest study on income mobility in America found that during the ten-year period starting in 1996, roughly half of the taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
Meanwhile, half of all taxpayers ended up in a different income group at the end of ten years. Many moved up, and some moved down, but economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most people over this period.
Another recent survey of over 500 successful entrepreneurs found that 93 percent came from middle-class or lower-class backgrounds. The majority were the first in their families to launch a business.
Their stories are the American story: Millions of immigrants fled from the closed societies of the Old World to the security of equal rights in this land of upward mobility.
Telling Americans they are stuck in their current station in life, that they are victims of circumstances beyond their control, and that government’s role is to help them cope with it – well, that’s not who we are. That’s not what we do.
Our Founding Fathers rejected this mentality. In societies marked by class structure, an elite class made up of rich and powerful patrons supplies the needs of a large client underclass that toils, but cannot own. The unfairness of closed societies is the kindling for class warfare, where the interests of “capital” and “labor” are perpetually in conflict. What one class wins, the other loses.
The legacy of this tradition can still be seen in Europe today: Top-heavy welfare states have replaced the traditional aristocracies, and masses of the long-term unemployed are locked into the new lower class.
The United States was destined to break out of this bleak history. Our future would not be staked on traditional class structures, but on civic solidarity. Gone would be the struggle of class against class.
Instead, Americans would work, compete, and co-operate in an open market, climb the ladder of opportunity, and keep the fruits of their efforts.
Self-government and the rule of law would secure our equal, God-given rights. Our political and economic systems – rooted in freedom and responsibility – would reward, and thus cultivate, traditional virtues.
Given that the President’s policies have moved us closer to the European model, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that his class-based rhetoric has followed suit.
We shouldn’t be surprised… but we have every right to be disappointed. Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment.
This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.
Ironically, equality of outcome is a form of inequality – one that is based on political influence and bureaucratic favoritism.
That’s the real class warfare that threatens us: A class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society. And their gains will come at the expense of working Americans, entrepreneurs, and that small businesswoman who has the gall to take on the corporate chieftain.
It’s disappointing that this President’s actions have exacerbated this form of class warfare in so many ways:
While the EPA is busy punishing commercially competitive sources of energy, a class of bureaucrats at the Department of Energy has been acting like the world’s worst venture capital fund, spending recklessly on politically favored alternatives. While the unemployment rate remains stuck above 9 percent, a class of bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board is threatening hundreds of jobs by suing an American employer for politically motivated reasons. And while millions of Americans are left wondering whether their employers will drop their health insurance because of the new health care law, a class of bureaucrats at HHS has handed out over 1,400 waivers to those firms and unions with the political connections to lobby for them.
These actions starkly highlight the difference between the two parties that lies at the heart of the matter: Whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome.
If you believe in the former, you follow the American Idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line, and rewards are proportionate to merit and effort.
If you believe in the latter kind of equality, you think most differences in wealth and rewards are matters of luck or exploitation, and that few really deserve what they have.
That’s the moral basis of class warfare – a false morality that confuses fairness with redistribution, and promotes class envy instead of social mobility.
I’d like to introduce President Obama to the Ronald Reagan he isn’t so eager to quote – the man who said, “Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?”
President Reagan was absolutely right. Instead of policies that make it harder for Americans to rise, let’s lower the hurdles to upward mobility.
That’s what the American Idea is all about. You know, in the midst of all the joys and sorrows of our everyday lives, I think we sometimes forget why America was considered such an exceptional nation at its Founding, and why it remains so.
To me, the results of the Founders’ exceptional vision can be summed up in a single sentence: Throughout human history, the American Idea has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.
Americans, guided by our ideals, have sacrificed everything to combat tyranny and brutal dictators; we’ve expanded opportunity, opened markets, and inspired others to resist oppression; we’ve exported innovation and imagination; and we’ve welcomed immigrants seeking a fresh start.
Here in America – unlike most places on earth – all citizens have the right to rise.
Thank you.

thanks to the Tories, wield the axe and up your bonus

When it comes to the size of the state, the Conservatives are finally starting to live up to their name. This week Industry Minister Tony Clement announced that Ottawa bureaucrats' "at-risk pay" (government-speak for "performance bonus") will be tied to - gasp! - efficiency. Forty percent of government managers' bonuses will depend on their ability to identify savings, towards the Tories' goal of finding $4-billion in permanent cuts in the 2012 budget.

Clement may not the most credible Conservative to deliver the message, considering the $50-million in G20 funds sloshing about his riding, but he is right about one thing: Unless you motivate people to change, they won't. This type of incentive-based bonus structure is widely used in the corporate world, when companies want to pare back and remain competitive. Predictably, this has provoked negative reaction from a public service unused to this type of approach: According to Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, "There's a potential to be a little overzealous."

Sorry, but that zealousness is long overdue. According to the Privy Council Office, after the Chrétien retrenchment of the 1990s, federal public spending and the size of government bureaucracy ballooned. Between 2000 and 2008, real program spending shot up 32%, the civil service expanded by 25%, while the population inched up less than 10%. While it's true that GDP increased by roughly 80% over the same time period, just because more wealth was being produced doesn't justify more redistribution. In the business world, profits would be reinvested where they would generate the greatest returns. In government, unfortunately, returns are all too often in the eye of the beholder, such as politicians, looking for support from specific constituencies at election time.

Or bureaucrats, looking to grow their fiefdoms. Government and business are alike in one crucial respect: Their employees are both motivated by personal ambition. Within any organization, people seek to protect - and grow - their turf. Just as the bank manager wants to expand the size of his branch, so the government bureaucrat seeks to increase the size of his department. In the private sector, of course, there exists a bottom line: If the branch isn't sufficiently profitable, the manager can't justify hiring more tellers. In government, however, there exists a bottomless pit: taxpayer dollars and government debt can be increased by fiat, with no relation to the actual demand for the service provided. This means that programs and staff can expand irrespective of need, resulting in waste and inefficiency.

Tying bureaucrats' bonus pay to savings is one way to mitigate the effects of these negative incentives. Indeed, the Tories' plan finds support in social science, namely a school of thought called public-choice theory. Public choice posits two types of pressure which increase the size of government. The first is "citizen over state," driven by external demand, such as the clamour of interest groups or lobbying by industry. The second is the more insidious "state over citizen," namely bureaucratic ambition and creativity: Think up a new program, and justify your job.

Or now, thanks to the Tories, wield the axe and up your bonus. While it is true that it can be difficult to measure the actual value-for-money of some expenditures - how do you quantify Canada's contribution to the Libyan intervention or the upcoming celebration of the War of 1812? - others are easier to judge. You can measure how many people use a highway, attend a university or access a government website. As in the private sector, every effort should be made, therefore, to ensure that outputs justify inputs - or that a program is needed at all.

So kudos to the Conservatives for bringing some positive incentives into government - and for making a real commitment to making it smaller.

Rick Ross' private jet made an emergency landing in Birmingham

Rick Ross' private jet made an emergency landing in Birmingham, Alabama, 2 hours ago, en route to his concert in Memphis ... and we found out he suffered another seizure.

It's the second time today where a plane in which the rapper was a passenger made an emergency landing.  We broke the story ... Rick suffered a seizure this morning on a Delta flight that returned to the Ft. Lauderdale airport.

Rick went to the hospital, was released, and then took off at 5:07 PM ET from Ft. Lauderdale to make his concert  tonight in Memphis. But at 5:44 PM CDT, the plane was diverted and landed in Birmingham after Rick had a seizure on board.

Rick is currently in a Birmingham hospital emergency room.  We do not know his condition.

Before Rick took off from Ft. Lauderdale, he tweeted a video showing he was ok.

hairstyles of frances bean cobain

some hairstyles of frances bean cobain, you can find more about women hairstyles here on Sassy Uptown Chic blog


Frances Bean Cobain, 15, the daughter of Courtney Love and late grunge legend Kurt Cobain, graces the March issue of Harper's Bazaar, including a photo-spread for the magazine as Evita, and characters from Grease, and Beauty and the Beast.

in memoriam al davis

Allen "Al" Davis (July 4, 1929 – October 8, 2011) was an American football executive who was the principal owner of the Oakland Raiders of the National Football League. His motto for the team was "Just win, baby."