Report: NJ property taxes hit the poor hardest

ASBURY PARK, N.J. - People with lower incomes tend to pay a higher percentage of New Jersey's highest-in-the-nation property taxes, according to a study by Gannett New Jersey.

The study is contained in an eight-part series, "Fighting New Jersey's Tax Crush," which began Sunday.

New Jersey has the fifth-highest median income in the country, but property tax rates vary widely in the state's 566 municipalities. The disparities arise from the fact that New Jersey relies heavily on property taxes to pay for local government.

Because cities and older suburbs have more lower-income and elderly residents who need more government services, and because those communities have lost more of their tax base as wealthier homeowners have left for newer suburbs, lower-income residents often are stuck with the bill.

The Gannett study found a family earning $40,000 would pay 14 percent of its income to property taxes, while a family earning $126,000 would pay seven percent.

"Spending needs are often greatest where resources are least," Henry A. Coleman, a professor at Rutgers University's Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, told Gannett.

Because income and race are closely linked, Gannett found that the more minorities in a municipality, the greater the likelihood that property taxes will take a bigger chunk of income.

The gap between rich and poor is most evident in northern New Jersey. A 2005 study by the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan found that the New York-northeastern New Jersey area is the most economically segregated of the country's 25 largest metropolitan centers.

New Jerseyans also don't fare well compared to the rest of the nation in the amount they spend on non-mortgage housing expenses, which include utilities and maintenance as well as taxes.

According to the U.S. Census, residents of Passaic and Hudson counties in northern New Jersey who own their homes and don't pay a mortgage spend 21 cents of every dollar they earn on housing costs , the highest rate of the nation's 1,882 counties. Ocean County is fifth at 20 cents per dollar.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/20090927_ap_reportnjpropertytaxeshitthepoorhardest.html

Lying Propaganda

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009

 

Lying Propaganda

 

            Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story" will be released next month. I've neither seen nor read reviews of the film, except for a short piece in the London Telegraph (9/6/09) titled "Michael Moore film calls capitalism evil." Aware of Michael Moore's previous films, I know that it will be at best a misleading story about capitalism. So let's do some defensive mental preparation, not about the film but what is and what is not capitalism.

            Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts and ensure rule of law.

            There has never been a pure free market capitalistic system just as there has never been a pure communist or socialist system, where there is government ownership of the means of production and each individual has equal access to society's resources. However, we can rank economies as to whether they are closer to capitalism or closer to communism or socialism. If one ranked countries according to whether they were closer to the capitalistic end of the spectrum or the socialistic or communistic end, then ranked countries according to per capita GDP and finally rank countries according to Freedom House's "Map of Freedom in the World," he would find a pattern that is by no means a coincidence. The people in those countries closer to the capitalist end of the economic spectrum have far greater income and enjoy greater human rights protections than those toward the socialist and communist end.

            According to the London Telegraph article, Moore's film features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor. This is pure nonsense and revealed as such by asking, "If you're an unborn spirit, condemned by God to a life of poverty but allowed to choose the country in which to be poor, would you choose a country near the communist end of the economic spectrum or the capitalist end?" If you chose the United States, you'd find that according to the government surveys, the typical "poor" American has cable or satellite TV, two color TVs, and a DVD player or VCR. He has air conditioning, a car, a microwave, a refrigerator, a stove, and a clothes washer and dryer, and whether he has health insurance or not, he is able to obtain medical care when needed. Try to find that in Cuba, Russia, China or North Korea. If we buy into the nonsense of Moore's priests, the world's poor people are incredibly stupid. Whether fleeing legally or illegally, their destination country is likely to be closer to capitalism than their departure country.

            Most of our country's serious problems can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House and not at capitalism. Take the financial crisis. One-third of the $15 trillion of mortgages in existence in 2008 are owned, or securitized by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Housing and the Veterans Administration. Banks didn't mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn't mind buying these repackaged loans because they assumed that they would be guaranteed by the federal government: read bailout by taxpayers. Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans and neither would they have been bailed out if they did so.

            Social Security, Medicare and its coverage of prescription drugs have an unfunded liability that exceeds $100 trillion. When those roosters come home to roost, they will make the financial meltdown we've been though look like child's play.

            Not withstanding all of the demagoguery, it is capitalism not socialism is that made us a great country and its socialism that will be our undoing.

            Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/LyingPropaganda.htm

Stop giving aid to African governments

Dambisa Moyo, a woman Jeffrey Sachs calls "cruel" for her views, who has been slandered a "baby killer" and might seem hypocritical due to her receiving a scholarship that allowed her to go to Harvard from Zambia, is calling for the world to stop sending aid to Africa. Well, not Africa itself, but to the governments.

Her facts:

From her interview with Wired Magazine 17:10

Europe and the US have sent billions to aid to horrible regimes. Corrupt leaders have seen way more cash than needy citizens. Endless loans left the continent with crippling debt. And most of Africa is actually poorer today then it was a few decades ago, when aid dollars began to increase.

She calls what Bono does "glamour-aid" and says, “For me and millions of other Africans who spend a lot of time in long lines voting, we expect African leaders to offer an opinion on how they see the future of the continent,” she explains, “so it is worrying for Bono to be the ostensible face of Africa.”

She's been accused of wanting aid completely cut off in five years, but what she's recommending instead is tapering off aid to the governments in Africa as fast as possible but replace it with direct investment and trade- even with China- and accessing the capital markets, and microfinance.

Moyo on CNN

Moyo in Wired

Her book Dead Aid

Michael Moores New Movie: Capitalism a Propaganda Story

By Gary Reed

Is Michael Moore America's Leni Riefenstahl?

Michael Moore, the professional freedom-hating socialism-hugging documentary filmmaker strolled onto the Jay Leno show to push his latest misnomered movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story."

Not only did he show up but he showed off his utter ignorance of economics in general and capitalism in particular.

And he, like many people on the political right and virtually everyone on the left, labeled capitalism as evil even as he clearly demonstrated that the evil belongs to government.

Then, because of ignorance or the willful refusal to discern the difference between capitalism and corporatism, he committed one of the most mindlessly simple-minded, obviously oblivious, childlike economic fallacies of all time.

But let's start with the title, "Capitalism: A Love Story." Moore's explanation is, "The love refers to how the wealthy love their money except this has a new twist. They not only love their money now, they love our money."

(Jay Leno responded, "Right.")

But the simple act of loving money, anybody's money, never hurt anyone. The simple act of loving anything never hurt anyone. Or ever helped anyone either. Some people, frequently liberals, love to say they love the poor and the downtrodden and the disadvantaged but don't personally do anything about it because it's the act of loving that gives them the reward of superiority they're looking for.

So the title is pretty much meaningless.

Then, going for another catchy catchphrase, Moore says, "capitalism is actually legalized greed."

Huh? Let's think about this. How is "legalized greed" an indictment of capitalism? Capitalism can't "legalize" anything. Capitalism doesn't have legions of politicians passing laws requiring you to shop in their stores. They don't have cops and sheriffs and US Marshals and SWAT teams to arrest you for failing to buy their electric nose hair trimmers and their moccasin insoles with their Magically Massaging Molecules or their Triple-Threat McWendyKing Burger Bombs with Secret Sauce.

"Legalizing" is an act of government. If he thinks "capitalism is evil" (as he apparently says in the film) because they buy politicians, why aren't politicians evil for selling their power to capitalists?

Why didn't Moore title his movie "Government: A Love Story" on the premise that government is evil because government loves power?

But this isn't meant to be an exhaustive review of Michael Moore's little hatchet job flick. It's only meant to spotlight his most egregiously idiotic economic nonsense in his Jay Leno Show interview.

Here's the relevant transcript of Moore with Leno lapping up the silliness. (Transcripts and videos are all over the net. This one came from The Nation sans accompanying commentary.)

MOORE: That's insane. We live in a democracy. We're supposed to have like fairness and equality. And, you know, when you have a pie on the table, you know, something you and I know something about.

LENO: Right. We've both had pie on the table.

MOORE: But when you have a pie on the table, there's ten slices, and one guy at the table says, 'Nine of those slices are mine...

LENO: Right.
MOORE: And the other nine of you, you can fight over the last slice,' I mean, that's essentially the kind of economy we have now.

This is known as the fallacy of the "zero-sum game" view of wealth.

Even though the "zero-sum" concept that society has only one pie and everyone must fight over that pie has been refuted over and over and over by economist after economist, this absurdity just never seems to die.

And here we have Michael Moore huffing and puffing and pumping new life into it.

Since the "economic pie" is treated as though it was always there and it was always the same size, the only question in the minds of the Michael Moores of the world is how to equitably distribute the slices.

But wait. Where did that pie come from in the first place? Well, duh, maybe someone baked it. And if one pie can be baked, why can't hundreds or thousands or millions of pies be baked? Big pies, little pies, pizza pies, cream pies for throwing in the faces of economic clowns?

Neither pies nor wealth are static sums; they must be created.

It's a very telling fallacy: the collectivist's concept of the national economy is represented by a single pie while capitalists envision a vibrant economy of unlimited pies.

If government gets out of the way those awkwardly overlooked capitalist bakers will bake as many tasty pies for the lowest possible prices that the competitive free market will bear until everyone who wants a slice gets a slice. Governments don't create pies. Governments don't actually create anything. All they have is the power to stifle creation.

Get government's Simple Simon out of the path of the Pie Man and Michael Moore's puzzling problem disappears.

Capitalists are creators. Governments are takers. It really is that simple.

Beyond that, the one thing Moore and virtually everyone else save a few laissez-faire conservatives and economic-savvy libertarians just don't comprehend is that capitalism does not exist in America, and has not existed for many decades, if in fact it ever did.

What we have is the incestuous copulation of corporate money and government power that long ago produced what was once called a "mixed economy" and has now become the mutant known as Statist Corporatism.

Big Government power joined at the hip with Big Corporate cash has corrupted both government and capitalism.

And yet Moore, unable or uninclined to see the mutually destructive connection of that grotesque pairing that destroys economies everywhere it's allowed to happen, continues to mindlessly embrace big government as a savior while condemning capitalism as the Great Satan.

If there's any doubt about Moore's political position, take note of this quote from a recent AP article:

According to Moore, "the revolt you think I am calling for has actually begun. It began Nov. 4," when President Barack Obama was elected.

(Wait. Isn't Obama rich? Doesn't that make him one of "the wealthy" that "not only love their money now, they love our money"?)
In any case, libertarians know he has it exactly backwards. The so-called Obama revolt is not a revolt, it's merely one more incarnation of the same old anti-freedom totalitarian groupism that has plagued mankind since the beginning of misty history. The real revolt is libertarianism.

Real capitalism frees while corporatist statism enslaves. Yet Moore is a self-proclaimed Obama statist. Doesn't he know there will be nothing to prevent some statist bureaucrat in the future from deciding that Michael Moore should not be allowed to make movies?

Or maybe he has nothing to worry about. Maybe "Capitalism: A Love Story" makes Moore the American Leni Riefenstahl (Adolf Hitler's favorite propaganda filmmaker).

Poor Mike. He shoulda taken a crash course in Econ 101 before rolling his first foot of film.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1449-Dallas-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m9d20-Michael-Moores-new-movie-Capitalism-A-Jive-Story

 

The Imperial Origins of State-Led Development

The Imperial Origins of State-Led Development

By William Easterly

Lenin said “Imperialism is the Last Stage of Capitalism.” Globalization protesters routinely link American imperialism to promotion of capitalism overseas. For example, Naomi Klein’s 2008 book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism draws a vivid connection between American interventions overseas (like the CIA overthrowing Allende in Chile, or today’s Iraq) and the promotion of free markets (“neoliberal economics”).

It’s plausible that there are sometimes connections between military interventions and the economic interests of the intervener. Yet it is not so obvious that imperialism promotes free markets. Historically, the most egregious imperialism, such as the British Empire, actually promoted state-led development rather than free markets.

This is yet another insight of Suke Wolton’s book on the colonial invention of “development” that I discussed yesterday. Propagandists like Lord Hailey offered the necessity of state-led efforts to promote development as yet another justification for the continuation of British colonial rule during and after World War II. This is not so surprising – when the “state” is the colonial ruler, and you want to convince people that poor societies need the colonial ruler, then you want to emphasize the paramount role of the “state” in development. According to Hailey, the state’s “primary function” was the “improvement of the standards of living … in the Dependencies.” The government was the “most active agency for promoting social welfare and improving the general standard of living.” Private enterprise is never mentioned in the British colonial propaganda covered by Wolton.

So it was not such a surprise that the early development theories in the 40s and 50s, in the political environment created by colonial pro-state propaganda, said that countries could not break out of their “poverty trap” without a coordinated state effort at a “Big Push.”

What about imperialism and attitudes toward development today? One intriguing thing I wonder in the light of both today’s post, and yesterday’s post on colonial racism and paternalism, is the affection of today’s British public and academics for paternalistic and state-led theories of development somehow related to the British colonial past? As compared to the lack of sympathy for such theories among the American public and academics, when America lacks much of a colonial past and traditionally criticized colonialism?

Of course, the US has been no slouch as an imperialist lately. Yet today’s US imperialism does not obviously promote free markets. The US quickly abandoned a brief experiment with trying to create the perfect free market in Iraq (correctly derided by Naomi Klein) after the insurgency arose. Now in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there is heavy reliance on the aid-military-state complex to promote development. It is true that American companies have benefited from both interventions, but NOT from free market opportunities in either country. No, they grow fat on aid-government contracts.

So imperialism is not so clearly linked to capitalism and free markets after all; historically there has been a closer link between colonialism/imperialism and state-led approaches to development. People who like Imperialism are fond of a big military state presence, so it’s not so surprising that they are also fond of a big economic state presence.

http://blogs.nyu.edu/fas/dri/aidwatch/2009/09/the_imperial_origins_of_statel.html

The CIA’s Thinning Blue Line

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000003200933
According to informed sources, a leading candidate to run the CIA’s huge Kabul station has no experience in the Middle East or South Asia.

Now, firsthand familiarity with a region, not to mention an ability to speak the local language, is not the alpha-and-omega for running a station with as many as 250 case officers (the men and women who recruit spies), plus support staff.

A good feel for, and deep experience in, the spy business can be just as important, or more important, than speaking Urdu.

But if my tipsters are correct, it would indicate that the CIA’s bench remains thin, eight years after the 9/11 attacks. Is it still so hard to find good senior managers who know Sunnis from Shia?

Sources say the attrition of talented, experienced operatives from the CIA’s Clandestine Services Division remains high, though not as severe as during the second Bush term, when the doors spun full time with the gold rush for contractor jobs.

The reasons are not easy to pin down.

The lure of doubling a salary with one of the intelligence contractors remains high, of course.

Then there’s the stress on family life.

And then there are the pencil-headed bureaucrats common to any government agency, including the CIA, who drive good people out — or prevent them from coming back.

Recently an experienced former case officer who’d grown restless with a job in private industry and wanted to come back was told he was welcome — but the agency wouldn’t pick up the expense of moving his family back from the West Coast. He told them to hell with it.

Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon 1 DAY b4/9-11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

Washington's Lies

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

 

Washington's Lies

 

            President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, "Williams, you don't show much trust in the White House and Congress." Let's check out their past dishonesty.

            At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

            Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services." Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

            Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

            The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

            Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here's what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ... beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year." Here's Congress's lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay." Let's repeat that last sentence: "That is the most you will ever pay." Compare that to today's reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

            The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you ... The checks will come to you as a right." First, there's no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

            We can thank public education for American gullibility.

            Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/Washington'sLies.htm

A Basic Misdiagnosis On Health Care

My Dad worked hard his entire life, helping to put me and my sisters through college. But a stroke left him paralyzed on one side of his body, unable to speak and barely able to walk let alone continue to work. The insurance company refused to pay for the necessary speech therapy that might have helped my Dad talk again.

So I understood the pain of a woman who attended a town hall meeting hosted by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

As you’ll see in the video she pleads with Coburn to help her husband, who she says suffers from traumatic brain injury. It’s difficult to listen to her words amidst the sobbing, but it is clear that her husband’s insurance company has denied him some type of coverage.

The senator, who is also a physician, tells her, “Yeah, we’ll help. The first thing we’ll see what we can do individually to help you through our office. But the other thing that’s missing in this debate is us, as neighbors, helping people that need our help. The idea that the government is the solution to our problems is an inaccurate, a very inaccurate statement  . . . ”

So he both told her that the government isn’t the answer and invited her to his government office. That’s confusing enough, but what’s more perplexing is that Coburn seems to be telling the woman to go beg her neighbors for help.

Neighbors might be able to bring that weeping woman a casserole or maybe even press a few dollars into her hand. But neighbors most likely wouldn’t be able to provide her husband with the proper rehabilitation, no more than I could have given to my Dad.

And why presume that the neighbors are in a better position than she is? Nearly 50 million American citizens don’t have health insurance.

Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses, according to a nationwide study released in June by the American Journal of Medicine.

One aspect of the health debate that is under-discussed has been how the people who seem fine with the status quo actually are carrying an unseen load — they’re paying for the doctor and hospital visits of the people who don’t have insurance. It’s not some faceless corporation, or some accounting write-off but dollars out of the pockets of regular working families.

According to a Families USA report released earlier this summer, a regular family with health insurance pays an additional $1,000 annually in premiums to recompense for health care for those without coverage. An individual with private coverage also pays an additional $370 a year. The experts who study the system call it cost-shifting. All the uninsured sick people need to know is that they won’t be turned away from the emergency room; all the working insurance card-carrying population may know, or at least think about, is that their out-of-pocket costs are going up.

People are drowning under mounting health care costs and a faltering economy.

Is it the government’s job to make things better?

Click to finish reading. 

I,Government

D.W. MacKenzie
October 2002

I am government — the institution known the world over to all who pay taxes, get subsidies, and face regulation.

Coercion is both my vocation and my avocation; it is in my very nature to compel others to do that which they otherwise would not do. My nature should then be of great concern to you as I impinge on your liberty. My nature affects your life profoundly. Indeed, there is little in your life that escapes my grasp. I am also a mystery to many. Some see me as benevolent, though I murdered 119 million people in the twentieth century.1 Some see me as omniscient, though I face an insurmountable knowledge problem in trying to comprehend the society I seek to control.2 Some see me as an absolute necessity, though people have lived in societies without me.3 But those whom I use seldom recognize any of this. These naïve convictions grant me an unwarranted place in society. These misconceptions have imposed great hardships on ordinary people, though they have served an elite of rulers well.

I, government, inspire wonder and awe in many. Some persist in this admiration even when confronted with my worst atrocities.4 It is in my interest that you never truly understand me, for if you did, you would see that, at the very best, I am merely the defender of your personal and property rights and, at worst, the most efficient violator of these rights. In fact, if all did come to know my true nature, they would view me with distrust rather than with wonder. If you all knew what I have done throughout history, you would look on me with contempt rather than with awe.

I benefit few at the expense of the many. Small groups organize easily, and large ones do not. Hence if I serve any interests other than those of actual rulers, I serve narrow interests.5 I grant monopoly privileges to influential industrialists and trade associations. I do this with tariffs and import restrictions that hobble foreign competitors. I do this with regulations that place burdens on new businesses. I do this with licensing laws that restrict access to professions. Of course, these interests pay me to get what they want. Sometimes they pay me simply to leave them alone.6

My form is difficult to comprehend as well. I am vast and complex. No one can fathom me in all my complexity. I comprise a gargantuan array of agencies, statutes and regulations, and discretionary policies. No one would have the time or the intellectual capacity to know me fully even if he were to try. There is little point in trying anyway. One person can do nothing to me. No significant election has ever turned on a single vote, so voters have no obvious incentive to learn about me.7

I waste resources. I employ labor in tasks that people do not want to pay for. My bureaucracies are rife with individuals who get paid to perform tasks that generate no value to others.8 Some of these tasks are even odious-things that people would pay to stop. I do supply some useful things, but at a high cost. My schools cost more than private ones (which get better results). My postal service loses billions each year and cannot compete with the private sector.9

I cause industrial depressions. My central banks disrupt commerce by distorting interest rates with inflated money supplies. This inflation causes unsustainable economic expansions that lead to crashes. I compound this problem with wage controls, welfare, and anti-firing laws that hinder labor markets.

I devastate the environment. Where I reign supreme, the earth is a commons that all want to use and none want to care for. In Eastern Europe I created some of the worst environmental disasters the world has seen.10 When I care for animal herds their numbers dwindle.11

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/i_government.htm