ENTERPRISE AND FREE MARKETS: obama read on.

The entrepreneurial spirit has been a key source of America’s greatness since the nation’s founding over two hundred years ago. In addition to being the primary engine of our economic growth and prosperity, the entrepreneurial spirit is inextricably linked to the inalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Winston Churchill once said, “America is an idea, not a place.” Central to the American idea is the notion that individual dignity necessarily includes the freedom to work hard, be creative and get ahead in life without interference by the state. As such, entrepreneurship has historically been seen in America as a fundamental expression of the human spirit. 

In recent years, however, the entrepreneurial spirit in America has been increasingly stifled by burdensome taxes, regulations, and other government-imposed requirements that discourage risk taking by business and diminish the freedom and flexibility of American workers. Entrepreneurship in America is also currently dampened by over-criminalization in the judicial system, deteriorating public education, and a broken immigration system which discourages highly-skilled knowledge workers from coming to America. If left unchecked, these obstacles to entrepreneurship will have an increasingly negative impact on economic growth, America’s competitive position in the world, and ultimately our very liberty itself. It is therefore imperative that we unshackle America’s entrepreneurs and allow the power of economic creativity to flourish. 

2010 INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM- THE TOP TEN

Top Ten of 2010

search included the following criteria:
Year: 2010

Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings

World Rank	Country	Year	Overall Score	Change from Previous	Business Freedom	Trade Freedom	Fiscal Freedom	Government Size	Monetary Freedom	Investment Freedom	Financial Freedom	Property Rights	Freedom From Corruption	Labor Freedom
1	Hong Kong	2010	89.7	-0.3	98.7	90	93	93.7	83.1	90	90	90	81	87.4
2	Singapore	2010	86.1	-1	98.2	90	90.7	95.3	80.9	75	50	90	92	98.9
3	Australia	2010	82.6	0	90.3	85.1	61.4	64.9	82.7	80	90	90	87	94.9
4	New Zealand	2010	82.1	0.1	99.9	86	63.6	51.3	83.1	80	80	95	93	88.8
5	Ireland	2010	81.3	-0.9	92.8	87.5	71.1	61.8	79	95	80	90	77	79
6	Switzerland	2010	81.1	1.7	81.2	90	68.2	68.9	81.3	80	80	90	90	81.8
7	Canada	2010	80.4	-0.1	96.5	88.1	76.7	54.1	75.4	75	80	90	87	81.5
8	United States	2010	78	-2.7	91.3	86.9	67.5	58	78.1	75	70	85	73	94.8
9	Denmark	2010	77.9	-1.7	97.9	87.5	35.9	22	79.3	90	90	90	93	93.7
10	Chile	2010	77.2	-1.1	64.8	88	77.5	89.6	73	80	70	85

TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE INTERNET

Linguistic Gerrymandering: The FCC Moves to Regulate the Internet

It’s been a bad week for the rule of law. First, President Obama — without any apparent legal authority — “informs” BP that it is to hand over $20 billion into an escrow fund, or else. Not to be outdone, the Federal Communications Commission this morning voted 3-2 to take the first steps toward regulating the Internet. The decision comes only two months after a federal court — rather definitively – ruled that the agency had no authority to do take that step.

Specifically, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that the Communications Act only allows the FCC to regulate “telecommunications” service.” And, since the agency has earlier concluded that broadband Internet service was NOT “telecommunications,” that means — the court decided — the FCC generally could not regulate broadband. So how does the FCC, led by Chairman Julius Genanchowski, propose to get around that problem? By re-defining broadband as a “telecommunications service,” after all.

Never mind that the initial classification of broadband was the result of a years-long inquiry by the Commission. The FCC (or at least 3 out of its 5 members) wants to regulate broadband. And if only telecommunications can be regulated, then its telecommunications. It’s reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty-Dumpty, who famously said: “when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

It’s more than a linguistic battle. If adopted, the change would open the way for the Commission to impose so-called “net neutrality” rules, limiting how owners of broadband networks can manage the traffic they carry. The result could be grim. According to one study released just this week, neutrality rules could cost the economy up to 600,000 jobs and $80 billion dollars.

Today’s decision is a first step along that road. Specifically, the commission launched a formal inquiry into re-classifying broadband. Its not clear, however, when Chairman Genanchowski will move to finalize the reclassification. Opposition to the plan has been fierce — not just from the firms to be regulated, but from members of Congress, including many Democrats. All told, some 291 members have expressed concerns about the proposal — seeing not just economic harm, but a threat to their role as lawmakers. Moreover, once a decision is finalized, it will still face scrutiny by the courts, which are apt to look at such linguistic gerrymandering skeptically.
All of this, however, could take years. And in the meantime, Internet providers and users will face uncertainty over the future of their services and their investments. The question now, as Lewis Carroll would put it, is how do we get out of this rabbit hole?

Applying Alinsky: Why Obamacare Makes No Sense

After seven and a half hours of the Republicans trying to introduce some rationality into the discussion of Obamacare, the “reform” of Medicare that actually takes trillions out of the present system and adds millions of people into it, the ordinary American can be excused for being confused, frustrated, and angry.

That’s exactly where President Obama, the Chicago political mafia around him, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want people to be. At one point in the pointless all-day meeting on Thursday, she even claimed that passing Obamacare would create four million jobs overnight! Even for Speaker Pelosi, that’s a new level of insane babble.

Nothing coming out of the leadership in the White House or Congress makes a grain of sense and it is calculated to making the public so hopeless that, in the end, when they manage to bribe their way to a “reconciliation” vote to pass it, the public will feel defeated by all their efforts to date and ripe for more legislative horrors such as Cap-and-Trade.

Those efforts were seen in the heated town hall meetings during the summer, a march on Washington, D.C. in September, the elections of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Senator from Massachusetts. In very obvious ways, the public is shouting No! No! No!

Forgotten and unreported in all this are the “Rules for Radicals” by the godfather of all radical community organizers, Saul Alinsky. The President who began his political career as a community organizer and whose entire approach to politics is based on his book, said “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard.”

Alinsky taught that Americans must be overwhelmed with a never-ending barrage of crisis, emergencies, and unworkable ‘solutions’ that exacerbate problems. This is why Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff, famously said that a crisis should never be wasted.

It may even explain why the financial crisis conveniently occurred in the last weeks of the Bush term and during the campaign for the presidency.

It also explains why the so-called “stimulus” bill has done nothing to create jobs and, in fact, why some ten million Americans have lost their jobs in the past year while billions were allocated to countless political pork projects rather than taking steps to lower the taxes on corporations and small businesses in order to actually stimulate hiring and growth.

Alinsky also preached the importance of intimidation and of ridicule to achieve one’s goals. Though guarded, the President used both at the meeting to discuss Obamacare. Just ask Senator John McCain or Representative Eric Cantor.

Again, because the mainstream media, still in love with a President whose approval ratings now stand at only 44% and heading south, neither vetted him as a candidate, nor analyzed the Alinsky approach that he cites as the greatest influence in his life. The public can be forgiven for not knowing that Alinsky’s book is dedicated to “the very first radical”, none other than “Lucifer” a.k.a. Satan

Now perhaps you can understand why, when the 2,400 page bill was actually put on display during the meeting, President Obama dismissed it as “political theatre” and “a prop”, but it was neither. How can one discuss such a massive bill without, at least, bringing it to the meeting allegedly intended for that purpose?

The bill, however, contains some of the most wrenching and damaging changes to the nation’s healthcare system and the insurance programs involved with it that it cannot and must not be so casually dismissed.

If Obamacare passes, the healthcare system that Americans value will be destroyed and turned into one resembling the failed systems in neighboring Canada and in Great Britain where horror stories of delayed and denied care are routine.

Barack Obama is the apotheosis of Saul Alinsky’s gameplan to destroy the republic and replace the Constitution with an all-powerful socialist central government.

First, we must by drowning Congress in calls, faxes, and emails, make it abundantly clear that we are opposed to Obamacare. We must sway as many fence-sitters as possible.

Then, in November, we must vote out of office those incumbents who have supported and voted for the House and Senate versions of it.

And lastly we must return power in Congress to the Republicans who have been chastened and learned from their mistakes in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The nation's future depends on it.

CONSERVATION

Water Lessons from Singapore

Some of the most interesting water stories are coming out of Singapore — an example of a place with serious water constraints and important political and economic incentives to address those constraints in a sustainable way. For years, Singapore has been buying water from its neighbor, Malaysia, to help satisfy the needs of around 4.5 million people. In a move with all sorts of political, economic, and environmental implications, the government of Singapore recently announced that it will not renew one of its two water agreements with its neighbor Malaysia under two water agreements, signed in the very early 1960s. This water comes at an economic cost, though a very small one — the rate paid to Malaysia is very low. But it also comes with a political cost: their dependence on Malaysia for water constrains and affects their political relationships. In the past few years, Singapore has been working hard to diversify their water “portfolio.”

Water Number: 4. Today, Singapore depends on four different sources of water: about 35% of their water comes from rainfall captured on its own limited territory, about 15% is high-quality recycled water produced by its NEWater treatment plants, 10% comes from desalinated water, and around 40% is water imported from Malaysia.

As a result of the heavy dependence on Malaysia, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) of Singapore has been working for years to do two key things: reduce the demand for water by improving efficiency and cutting waste; and expanding alternative sources of supply. California could take a lesson from these two approaches. I know that water agencies (state, federal, local, and agricultural) argue the state is already doing these things, but compared to Singapore, California’s efforts are half-hearted.

For example, Singapore is working to reduce household water use and eliminate leaks. But their household water use is already a fraction of Californians (even accounting for the state’s huge outdoor water use). The figure below shows domestic water use in Singapore, with slight, but steady improvement over the last 14 years. More importantly, however, current domestic water use there is around 155 liters per person per day, or around 40 gallons per person per day. Domestic water use in California is over 130 gallons per person per day, more than three times higher. Even California indoor water use alone is higher than all domestic use in Singapore. “Unaccounted for” water in Singapore — a measure of system leaks and inefficiencies — is at the remarkably low level of under 7 percent.
Domestic water use in Singapore from 1995 to 2009 (liters per person per day) showing improving efficiency of use.

Domestic water use in Singapore from 1995 to 2009 (liters per person per day) showing improving efficiency of use.

On the supply side, Singapore has long ago run into peak water limits. They are effectively tapping all of the renewable supply of rain that falls in their territory, though some small new reservoirs let them squeeze every drop out of their catchments. So their efforts to expand new supply have focused on alternatives: highly treated wastewater that is used to satisfy a wide variety of demand, and desalination.

A $2.2-billion NEWater (wastewater treatment and recycling) plant soon to open in Changi will turn wastewater into high-quality supply, adding 800,000 cubic meters per day (over 200 million gallons per day) to Singapore’s water options. Combined with four existing plants, highly treated wastewater will be capable of supplying a third of Singapore’s total needs. In 2005, a desalination plant capable of producing 30 million gallons of water a day opened, and more are being considered.

But before moving to these options, Singapore raised the price of their water. They charge $1.17 per cubic meter for the first block of 40 cubic meters of water (around 10,000 gallons) and over $1.40 per cubic meter for water use above this level, along with substantial additional conservation fees and tariffs, with targeted subsidies for the poor.

What are the lessons for other parts of the world, including California? Price water properly, collect wastewater and treat it for reuse, move more aggressively to conservation and efficiency, and consider new supply options, such as desalination when it can be done economically and environmentally acceptable manner. Instead, we’re moving toward new costly and damaging surface storage reservoirs, cutting back on efficiency programs, failing to learn lessons that could help grow more food with less water, ignoring leaks and waste in old infrastructure, and continuing to fail to meter and price water properly. Maybe Malaysia has some water they can sell us now that Singapore doesn’t need it any more.

Peter H. Gleick: Co-Founder and President of the Pacific Institute

PEACE IN PARADISE CALLED KASHMIR??

A guide to Kashmir peace plans

Muzamil Jaleel examines some of the suggested solutions to the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan

For centuries, poets and travellers called Kashmir a paradise on Earth. But the paradise has become a tragic problem - a problem so complex that two countries have fought three wars over it in 50 years. Nothing divides India and Pakistan as Kashmir does, and nobody has suffered more in the process than the people of Kashmir.

For the time being, India and Pakistan seem to have miraculously escaped from another war, with tensions apparently eased at the borders. But the threat of a nuclear conflagration in the subcontinent reminds the world of the urgency of a resolution to this vexed problem. There have been nearly 40 official proposals for a solution, but not a single plan has yet been acceptable to all parties.
Kashmir's fate is still locked into the story of India's partition in 1947, when Pakistan was carved out as a home for Indian Muslims. The first war between the two countries was fought within months of their independence, while their armed forces were still under the command of British officers. Kashmir was divided - and remains divided - between the two countries.
India claims that Muslim-dominated Kashmir is an integral part of the country, a cornerstone of its secular democracy. Pakistan sees Kashmir as its "jugular vein" and believes its merger into Pakistan is simply an unfinished task of partition. As for the Kashmiris themselves, most would like to be left alone by both sides.
International border
One option suggested for Kashmir is to put the current division of the area on a more official footing, by turning the line of control between India- and Pakistan-administered Kashmir into an international border.
There are indications that India might accept this solution. Several Indian political parties have backed it, as has the chief minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah. However, such a plan would be unacceptable both to Pakistan and to many Kashmiris living on either side of the line of control.
Let Kashmiris choose
Another straightforward solution would be the implementation of United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, leading to a plebiscite which would give Kashmiris the choice of either Indian or Pakistani rule.
Fatally, for this plan, India is unlikely to walk into the almost-certain embarrassment of losing the vote. Equally importantly for India, there are fears that a plebiscite on Kashmir's future could set a precedent, fuelling the calls for similar referendums which are already being heard in north-eastern states, Punjab and even in the south.
Neither would all Kashmiris be happy to be given a choice of rulers. Many would want the third option of an independent Kashmir.
This raises the question of whether, although neither India nor Pakistan can afford to let the other side win Kashmir, could a solution be envisaged in which both would lose it?
Independence
The creation of an independent state of Jammu and Kashmir would have its own problems. The argument for self-determination is essentially that historically Kashmir was an independent entity until its incorporation into the Mughal empire in 1586.
The leader of the pro-independence Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, Amanullah Khan, suggests a five-phase formula for independence, to be overseen by a UN committee.
The committee, comprising representatives from a wide variety of countries, would work towards a referendum in 15 years, following a phased withdrawal of troops by both countries and the disarming of Kashmiri militants.
Even within Kashmir, however, a plebiscite leading to independence would not be welcomed by all.
Kashmir is not a homogeneous ethnic or religious unit, and the political aspirations of its people vary widely. Neither independence nor Pakistani rule would be acceptable to the Hindu-dominated parts of Jammu and the Budhist Leh in Ladakh, for example, which would never be in favour of secession from the Indian state.
Similarly, the Kashmiri-speaking Hindus or Pandits who have migrated out of the Kashmir valley demand a homeland with a union territory status - that is, direct rule from Delhi.
Religious segregation
In 1950 the Australian diplomat Sir Owen Dixon put forward a plan to redraw the boundaries of Kashmir on religious lines. He saw the river Chinab as a natural border.
This would have meant that most of the Muslim-dominated areas of what is Indian-administered Kashmir would go to Pakistan, but the Hindu-dominated area would have remained with India.
The plan met with opposition from those with pro-independence sentiments, but it had a more serious flaw. The large wave of migration caused by the imposition of such a border would involve the displacement of many thousands of people, which could itself lead to violence.
It seems unlikely that the international community would back a plan of this sort, which would involve the segregation of Hindus and Muslims who have been living for a long time as neighbours in many areas. As many as 800,000 people might be uprooted as a result of such a partition.
Partition
According to British Foreign Office files declassified recently, the United States and Britain were urging India and Pakistan to search for a partition solution in the mid-60s, soon after the Indo-China war.
The United States supported the creation of an independent Kashmir valley, but Britain feared that Russia and China would immediately exert communist influence over the new sovereign state.
The Soviets were also against an independent Kashmir, fearing that the US would hold sway there and use it as a base.
The talks also discussed the partition of Kashmir valley, but ultimately failed. They were followed by the outbreak of war.
The Andorra model
In 1998, a Kashmiri American businessman assembled a group of western policymakers and academics to set up the Kashmir Study Group. The group soon published a set of possible resolutions, including an innovative arrangement on the pattern of Andorra, the tiny state which lies on the borders of France and Spain.
It involved the reconstitution of part of Jammu and Kashmir as a sovereign entity, in the same way as Andorra, with free access to and from both of its larger neighbours. The part of the state which was to be reconstituted would be determined through an internationally supervised agreement involving the Kashmiri people, India and Pakistan.
The resulting entity would have its own secular, democratic constitution; distinct citizenship; a flag; and a legislature which would pass laws on all matters other than defence and foreign affairs.
The proposal relies on India and Pakistan overseeing the defence of the Kashmiri entity, and jointly working out its funding.
There would be no change in the present line of control, but the whole entity would become a demilitarised zone.
The plan does not try to avoid a particularly important question which has dogged the Kashmir dispute: the politics of ego and prestige attached to the claim on the area. Any real solution to the Kashmir problem would have to be immune to the suggestion that it amounted to a defeat for either of the warring neighbours.
Involving as it does no movement of borders, the Andorra proposal has at least the potential to secure both sides a limited measure of control over the entire Kashmir region, and attain for both populations a sense of victory. The feelings of Kashmiris too would be assuaged to a great extent. It may be the only possible solution in sight.
· Muzamil Jaleel, a journalist with the Indian Express, is on attachment to Guardian Unlimited