text:
Ron Paul on Budget & EconomyRepublican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President |
PAUL: That subject really doesn't interest me a whole lot. But the question is, what are we going to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It should have been auctioned off right after the crash came. It would have been cleansed by now. It should have been sold. We know how the bubble came about. It was excessive credit, interest rates held too low, too long, the Federal Reserve responsible for that. The Community Reinvestment Act, which is Affirmative Action telling banks they have to make these risky loans. And at the same time, there was a line of credit which allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, you know, make more money. And it was assumed that they would always be protected. I've talked a long time about cutting off that credit from the Fed. I was trying to prevent this stuff.
PAUL: That demonstrates how much out of touch the US Congress is with the American people because I'm supporting things that help the American people. But as far as working with other groups, I think my record's about as good as anybody's because I work on the principle that freedom and the Constitution bring people together.
SANTORUM: One of the reasons people like Rep. Paul is his economic plan. But he's never been able to accomplish any of that.
PAUL: It's not exactly a simple task to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic. What about change in monetary policy? We've had that for 100 years. And right now we're winning that battle. The American people now agree. About 75% of the American people now say we ought to audit the Federal Reserve, find out what they're doing and who are their friends that they're bailing out constantly.
PAUL: No, you have to let it liquidate. We've took 40 years to build up this worldwide debt. We're in a debt crisis never seen before in our history. The sovereign debt of this world is equal to the GDP, as ours is in this country. If you prop it up, you'll do exactly what we did in the depression, prolong the agony. If you do prop it up, you do what Japan has done for 20 years. So, yes, you want to liquidate the debt. The debt is unsustainable. And this bubble was predictable, because 40 years ago we had no restraints whatsoever on the monetary authorities, we had no restraints on the spending. And if you keep bailing people out and prop it up, you just prolong the agony, as we're doing in the housing bubble. We don't allow the market to determine what these mortgages are worth. If you don't liquidate this and clear the market, you're going to perpetuate this for a decade or two more.
A: If you want to get the economy going again, you have to get rid of price-fixing. And the most significant price-fixing that goes on, that gave us the bubble, destroyed the economy, and is preventing us fro coming out [of the recession], is the price-fixing of the Federal Reserve, manipulating interest rates way below market rates. You have to have the market determine interest rates if you want a healthy, viable economy.
Q: So you think the economy would be stronger if interest rates were higher right now?
A: You would have more incentive. You would take care of the elderly. They get cheated. They get nothing for their CDs. Why cheat them and give the banks loans at zero percent? And then they loan it back to the government at 3%. They are ripping us off at the expense of those on fixed incomes.
Q: Even though higher interest rates would make it much more expensive to borrow, mortgages.
A: What you want is the market to determine this.
PAUL: I haven't analyzed it enough to call him a crony or not. But there is a lot of crony capitalism going on in this country. And that has to be distinguished from real capitalism, because this "Occupation" stuff on Wall Street, if you're going after crony capitalism, I'm all for it. Those are the people who benefit from contracts from government, benefits from all of the bailouts. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve taxation, or they deserve to have all their benefits removed. But crony capitalism isn't when somebody makes money and they produce a product. That is very important. We have to distinguish the two. And unfortunately, I think some people mix that. But this, to me, is so vital, that we recognize what capitalism is versus crony capitalism. When you have crony capitalism, and that's why we're facing this crisis today.
A: Right. We had a fat Uncle Sam, put big government on a diet.
Q: That was in 1976. Things not only haven't changed, they have gotten dramatically worse. You've come up with a plan to cut $1 trillion. How fast can you do it & where would that money come from?
A: Of course, it all depends on the people's understanding and the Congress willing to go with this. But you could do it at one time. People say, well, it's impossible to do this. But we had a pretty good history of slashing spending after World War II. We brought 10 million people home and we slashed spending by more than 50% in cut taxes and the economy was revived. I was concerned in the '70s because I thought the situation was set-up because of the change of the monetary system, that it would lead to endless spending and endless debt and that's where we are.
CAIN: Yes, I do still say that. They might be frustrated with Wall Street and the bankers, but they're directing their anger at the wrong place. They ought to be over in front of the White House taking out their frustration.
PAUL: I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can't blame the victims. I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I'd go over to the Federal Reserve. The bailouts came from both parties. The banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved. But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks.
BACHMANN: It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans. They pushed the banks to meet these rules. We had artificially low interest rates. We had lending standards lowered for the first time in American history.
PAUL: We have made some inroads on the Federal Reserve. Last year, we got a partial audit of the Fed. We've learned a whole lot. They were dealing with $15 trillion, [of which] $5 trillion went overseas to bail out foreign banks. But we're getting to the bottom of it. If you want to understand why we have a problem, you have to understand the Fed, because the cause comes from the business cycle. We shouldn't be asking what to do exactly with the recession--obviously we have to deal with that--but you can't cure the disease if you don't know the cause of it. And the cause is the booms. When there are booms, and they're artificial, , they burst.
PAUL: Absolutely. I mean, there's no need to.
Q: No Freddie Mac, no Fannie Mae, nothing?
PAUL: No, that's where the distortions come. That's where the moral hazard & mal-investment come from. It was predictable. Unfortunately we've been living with Keynesian economics for many, many decades, and everybody who was right about predicting the bubbles were the Austrian economists. They said they were coming. And yet they're also saying--and I agree with them--that everything that we're doing right now is wrong. So what we did with the housing bubble, yes, we had too many houses. It was glaring in our face. The bubble was doomed to burst, and it came because of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, easy credit, and also the Community Reinvestment Act. So who got into trouble? Wall Street got the bailout. The middle class lost their jobs. They lost their houses. This whole system is all messed up.
PAUL: Well, we shouldn't have ever started it. I voted against it. But that sure wouldn't be high on my list. I would find a lot of cuts a lot of other places. We spend $1.5 trillion overseas in wars that we don't need to be in and we need to cut there, and then put this money back into our economy here. And that is the only way to achieve it. Then it still wouldn't be enough in order to get some people out. What we need to do is cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and all these departments, and get rid of them. Then we can do it.
PAUL: I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four members of Congress from Texas that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported all his issues and all his programs. But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message.
PAUL: Well, S&P didn't downgrade it because [Congress] couldn't come to a conclusion. They couldn't come to a conclusion because they didn't know what was going on. The country's bankrupt, and nobody wanted to admit it. And when you're bankrupt, you can't keep spending. And all these proposed cuts weren't cuts at all. What you have to do is restore sound money. You have to understand why you have a business cycle, why you have booms and busts. If you don't do that, there's no way you can solve these problems. And the booms and busts comes from a failed monetary system that--the interest rates that are way lower than--than they should be encourages malinvestment and debt. And to get out of that, all this other tinkering, you cannot do that unless you liquidate debt. You don't bail out the people that are bankrupt and dump the debt on the people. That is what's happened.
In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed--the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. It is obvious to most Americans that we need to reject corporate cronyism, and allow the natural regulations and incentives of the free market to pick the winners and losers in our economy, not the whims of bureaucrats and politicians.
We are talking about an awesome power. It is the power to weave illusions that appear real as long as they last. That is the very core of the Fed's power.
Of course not everyone is instinctively against this illusion-weaving power, and many even welcome it. Tragically, the innocent who understand little about the complexity of the monetary system suffer the most, while those who are in the know reap great profit whether the market is going up or down.
Even with a government guarantee, the system is always vulnerable to collapse at the right moments, namely, when all depositors come asking for their money. Banking legislation can be seen as an elaborate attempt to patch th holes in this leaking boat. Thus have we created deposit insurance, established the "too big to fail" doctrine, created schemes for emergency injections, and all the rest, so as to keep afloat a system that is inherently unstable.
A: That�s a mistake because we don�t have the money. But that doesn�t mean you have to do nothing I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. There�s a lot of things that we can do. But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place. And that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism.
Q: But what the Treasury secretary, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the president--what they�re saying is, this is no longer simply a bailout of these huge Wall Street firms. This is a bailout of Main Street, because people�s life savings.
A: No, you could look at it the other way. This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street, now, and dumping all the bills on Main Street.
A: Hardly. I mean, it�s just more of the same, more government, more programs, more spending, more regulations, trying to prop up a system that has been undermined. The market is saying it�s nonviable, and everything they�re doing is trying to patch it up. The bubble has been blown up. It needs to deflate, and they won�t allow it. So it�s a contest between deflation and inflation. Everybody in Washington wants to inflate because it�s painful to get off this dependency on perpetual deficit spending and inflation. So, no -- this is sticking it to Main Street and sticking it to the taxpayer.
A: No, no, we�re not better off. We�re worse off, but it�s partially this administration�s fault and it�s the Congress. But it also involves an economic system that we�ve had for a long time and a monetary system that we�ve had and a foreign policy that�s coming to an end and we have to admit this. The Republicans were elected in 1994 to change direction of the country, because people sensed there was something wrong, we were going the wrong direction, but we didn�t do anything. We were elected in the year 2000 to have a humble foreign policy and not police the world, and yet what are we doing now? We�re bogged down in another war. We�re bankrupting our country and we have an empire that we�re trying to defend which costs us $1 trillion a year. And the standard of living is going down today. It�s going down and the middle class is hurting because of the monetary policy. When you destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out.
A: Well, sure, indirectly. They shouldn�t stimulate it by interfering in the market rate of interest. That�s where our basic problem comes from. And when you do that, you get into these problems, and then everybody wants to solve the problem by printing more money and spending more money and asking the Federal Reserve to, you know, lower interest rates. And that just makes the problem that much worse. The government does have a responsibility: to lower taxes, get rid of regulations, and devise a monetary policy that makes some sense. But to continue to say that we just appropriate more money, which is more deficit, and then expect us either to borrow it or expect the Federal Reserve to monetize it, it makes our problems worse.
And then there�s never been a war fought without inflation and destruction and devaluation of a currency. And this is what we�re doing today to ourselves, is we�re literally spending ourselves into oblivion.
But nobody here is willing to even suggest that we cut something overseas. But we have to. We don�t need to cut anything here at home. I�d like to see things frozen. I�d like to see massive tax cuts. But we need deregulation.
So this is the kind of thing we need. We need the government out of the way, but it should have sound money, low taxes, less regulations, and a sensible policy where we�re not wasting our money overseas.
A: I think it�s absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice. It�s unnecessary. We can cut by looking at our foreign policy. We maintain an empire which we can�t afford. We have 700 bases overseas. We are in 130 countries. We cut there, and then we have a better defense of this country, and the people get that money and they get to spend it here at home. There�s no need to sacrifice.
A: You know, if anybody votes for the Republican Party, they�re voting for conservative values. They�re voting for less government, not more government. In the last seven years, we�ve gotten a lot more government. You know, in the year 2000, we ran on a pro-peace policy. We were condemning Clinton for warmongering, for nation-building and policing the world. And we did exactly the opposite. Now we�re mired down in the Middle East. America should be pro-peace, not pro-war. The war has created so much expenditures. We�re spending our money overseas instead of here. We�re neglecting our needs here. We�re bombing and building bridges overseas and we�re neglecting our bridges here at home. We�re supposed to be the fiscal conservatives. We�re not. This is why we lost the election last year, is because we didn�t stand by our principles of pro-peace and pro-liberty and pro-America.
A: We have to realize where the resentment comes from. I believe it�s related to our economy. When the economy is weakening and there�s resentment because of our welfare system; jobs are going overseas; pay is going down. There�s a lot of resentments because the welfare system is based on mandates from the federal government to put pressure on states like Florida and Texas to provide services which the local taxpayers resent. Some of our hospitals are closing. So it�s an economic issue, too. If we deal with the welfare state and a healthy economy and sound money and all this wasteful spending overseas, we would have a healthy economy; I think this problem would be greatly reduced.
So, we need to decide what we�re gonna do. Are we going to live within the law, or are we going to pretend the government can take care of everything possible? We are now nine trillion dollars in debt, we have a dollar that�s crashing, and we keep financing this by taxing, borrowing, and then, what do we resort to? We resort to printing the money!
We should look to the Constitution. We should make sure that we get rid of our central bank, the Federal Reserve, and have only gold and silver as legal tender. This is the reason our government gets so big, because we give them license to steal, license to inflate, license to tax, and license to borrow, and politicians will always do it.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply-- making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to �we the people.�
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It�s called the Constitution of the United States.
That�s when the true wealth of the country will become self-evident and we will no longer be able to afford the extravagant expense of pursuing an American empire. No nation has ever been able to finance excessive foreign entanglements and domestic entitlements through printing press money and borrowing from abroad.
Sadly, we rarely hear serious proposals for limiting the role of government to that of protecting liberty.
In the 20th century we have come to accept demands and needs as rights at the expense of someone else�s rights. Responsibility for our own acts and livelihood has been replaced by lawsuits demanding unrealistic settlements.
Government has come to mean something entirely different than what was intended by the writers of the Constitution. It is an entity capable of confiscating and distributing wealth ad infinitum. Government no longer serves the people by guaranteeing equal rights to all. Government is now expected to provide profits, medical care, jobs, homes, and food whenever the people demand these benefits as a right.
GINGRICH: Well, I think that having some kind of central bank is an important part of how you deal with monetary policy in the modern world. I think that it is a scandal that the Federal Reserve is secret. And I think, frankly, their monetary policy since the late 90s has been a major factor in the economic pain we're now going through.
Q: [to Paul]: Is Speaker Gingrich wrong to want to save the Fed? PAUL: Not exactly. Because my position isn't that I'd closed the door down immediately, you can phase it out. But there are some other things that we could do in a transition phase. For instance, and I'm delighted that mainstream is catching up with this, these days, for auditing the Fed. This is great.
Volcker assured me he would never lower reserve requirements to that degree or buy up worthless assets; just the authority to have free rein in raising reserve requirements at will. I said that, although I didn't expect that he would use these extreme powers, who knew if in the future we might just have someone who would. The future is now here.
The fact is that not only has this come to pass with Bernanke, but a great deal more authority has been usurped by Fed, while Congress says little about it. The Fed today has ominous powers that Congress barely understands. There is essentially no oversight, no audit, and no control. And the Federal Reserve chairman has no obligations to answer questions. Trillions of dollars can be created and injected into the economy with no obligation by the Fed to reveal who benefits.
A: Yes, by lower taxes and less regulation. They could do a whole lot by having sound money, where we don�t print the money out of thin air. That causes the business cycle. That causes your bubbles. We�re always dealing with the symptoms of the disease & never saying, �how did this come about?� It comes about because we have a Federal Reserve that creates money & prints it out of thin air. There is a lot of malinvestment. That�s the most important thing to understand about the inflation of the monetary system, is the malinvestment. Then, later on, people suffer. You wipe out the middle class. But the evil of it all is the vehicle for financing wars that we shouldn�t be in and a welfare state that we shouldn�t be doing. So, yes, we have a role to play, but it�s a negative role. We want the people to be free. We don�t want to manage the people and tell them how to live.
And what is being offered? Lower interest rates. Well, lower interest rates is the problem. Artificially low interest rates is the artificial stimulus which causes the bubble, which allows the inevitable recession to come.
We need to deal with monetary policy and not pretend that artificial stimulus by more spending is going to help.
The recession has been predictable. We just don�t know exactly when it will come. If you do the wrong thing, it�s going to last for a long time. The boom period comes when they just pour out easy credit and it teaches people to do the wrong things. There�s a lot of malinvestment, debt that goes in the wrong direction, consumers who do the wrong things, and businessmen who do the wrong thing.
So we have to attack this and understand the importance of Austrian theory of the business cycle. If you don�t, we�re going to continue to do this and the longer you delay the recession, the worse the recession is, and we�ve delayed a serious recession for a long time.
That�s where the crisis [in Social Security] is coming. You�re going to go up with all these cost of living increases but you�ll never keep up with the cost of living because the dollar�s going down, the cost of living is going up.
Our dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to the dollar of 1913, when the Federal Reserve took charge of it. And if you don�t deal with the dollar there will be no retirement for anybody. We�re going to have chaos.
And that is why you have to cut spending. That�s why we need a new foreign policy. We need to tie it to people over here in this country. That�s the only way we can solve the problem.
But even this amount of inflation inevitably introduces malinvestment as those getting the new money put it to uses that only later recessions show to have been unproductive. The Friedman approach may produce milder booms and recessions, but it nevertheless is inflationary and a product of the old discredited idea that government, rather than the market, should be planning the economy.
The politicians and many bankers, union leaders, businessmen, and bureaucrats who profit from inflation are glad, of course, to have the intellectuals justify their fraud.
The Constitution is clear about no paper money. Only gold and silver were to be legal tender. Since the states caused themselves harm whe they issued their own paper money, the states were prohibited as well from issuing paper currency in Article I, Section 10. So there you have it, plain and simple: paper money is unconstitutional, period.
The Constitution is silent on the issue of a central bank, but the Tenth Amendment is quite clear: if a power is not "delegated to the United States," it doesn't exist. There is no mention whatsoever of a central bank being authorized. Even is a central bank were permissible, it could not legally repeal the legal tender mandate for gold and silver coins.
Because of the runaway inflation of the continental dollar in the 1780s and the Founders' disdain for paper, no paper money was officially issued by the US government until the Civil War.
A: I supported Reagan in 1976, and there were only four members of Congress that did. And also in 1980. Reagan came and campaigned for me in 1978. I�m not sure exactly what he would do right now, but I do know that he was very sympathetic to the gold standard, and he told me personally that no great nation that went off the gold standard ever remained great. And he was very, very serious about that So he had a sound understanding about monetary policy. And for that reason, I would say look to Reagan�s ideas on money because he, too, was concerned about runaway inflation and what it does to a country when you ruin the currency. That�s what�s happening today. The dollar is going down and our country is going to be on the ropes if we don�t reverse that trend.
A: It�s absolutely a threat to our national security because we�ve spent too much, we tax too much, we borrow too much, and we print too much. When a country spends way beyond its means, eventually it will destroy the currency, and we�re in the midst of a currency crisis. Our dollar is going down rapidly as we speak. It�s because we have lived beyond our means. We can�t afford the foreign policy that we have. We have to cut back. We have to live within our means. If we�re going to spend money, we ought to spend it at home, and that is why we have to change this foreign policy. We can�t afford it to do what we�re doing today because it will destroy our dollar.
A: Yes. I think this is not a consequence of free markets. What�s happening is there�s transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. This comes about because of the monetary system that we have. When you inflate a currency or destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out, so the money gravitates to the banks and to Wall Street. See, that�s why you have more billionaires than ever before. Today this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn�t know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn�t know about it. We�re depending on the creation of money out of thin air, which is nothing more than debasement of the currency. It�s counterfeit. And it is a natural, predictable consequence that you�re going to have people benefit from it and other people suffer.
The first thing stabilizing attempts was the Common Market "snake," so-called because all the currencies moving up or down within predetermined limits called to mind the undulations of a moving snake. Begun in 1972, it was over by 1976, simply because several different governments, each with its own inflation rate, from the start moved away from each other, flinging accusations of bad faith at each other while they did.
The market has not been fooled by any of this. It knows how to value currencies--in terms of gold. And that valuation has been since 1971 embarrassing for every currency. One-tenth of an ounce of gold will today buy as many dollars as one ounce did 10 years ago.
He same conclusion is true if we consider price stability.
Bimetallism doesn't work either, as America learned painfully from a century's experience.
The dollar must be redefined as a unit of gold again, and gold coins should be encouraged to actually circulate among the public, to be used not simply as long-range investment but as a medium of exchange functioning as money.
All aspects of the interventionist system threaten freedom and social peace, but money is the major issue, since it is the life-blood of all economic transitions. If we are to reverse the trends of the past six or seven decades, honest money and monetary debasement must become top concerns of ordinary Americans.
Fifty years of systematic monetary destruction now threaten the existence of our constitutional republic. The American people are frightened by what they see, and they are demanding that the inflation stop. More citizens are realizing that Congress and the Federal Reserve have generated a flood of paper money with no intrinsic value.
It is rare to find anyone today who believes that wealth can come out of a printing press. The corporate bailouts, guaranteed loans, government contracts, and welfare gimmicks all have failed, and the people can no longer be duped.
Although many Americans today see sound money as the exception, and paper as the rule, the opposite is true. Even the American dollar had a connection with gold up until 1971. Since the severing of that tie, the debasement of the dollar has accelerated, with the money supply doubling. Prices have more than doubled in the last ten years, not to mention the economic distortions that accompanied this inflation.
There is no law of economics stating that only gold can be used as money in a free society. But gold has served as the principal medium of exchange throughout history because its value does not depend on a government fulfilling its promises, especially in times of crisis.
The dollar died on August 15, 1971; after that date, it had no independent value for anyone. The new rules, with the dollar now simply a managed fiat currency, ushered in even greater inflation, economic turmoil, and set the stage for total loss of confidence in the dollar This will happen eventually, and perhaps in the near future, though no one knows exactly when.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Biggert, R-IL]: The HAMP Termination Act would put an end to the poster child for failed Federal foreclosure programs. The program has languished for 2 years, hurt hundreds of thousands of homeowners, and must come to an end. This bill would save $1.4 billion over 10 years. To date, the HAMP program has already consumed $840 million of the more than $30 billion of TARP funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the administration predicted that 3 to 4 million homeowners would receive help.
HAMP has hurt more homeowners than it has helped. The program has completed about 540,000 mortgage modifications. Another 740,000 unlucky homeowners had their modifications cancelled.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Capuano, D-MA]: This is a program that I'm the first to admit has not lived up to what our hopes were. This program we had hoped would help several million people. Thus far we've only helped about 550,000 people. But to simply repeal all of these programs is to walk away from individual homeowners, walk away from neighborhoods. I'm not going to defend every single aspect of this program, and I am happy to work with anyone to make it better, to help more people to keep their homes, & keep their families together. To simply walk away without offering an alternative means we don't care; this Congress doesn't care if you lose your home, period. Now, I understand if that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal according to some people, so be it.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. LEWIS (D, GA-5): This bipartisan bill will provide the necessary funds to keep important transportation projects operating in States around the country. The Highway Trust Fund will run out of funding by September. We must act, and we must act now.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. CAMP (R, MI-4): [This interim spending is] needed because the Democrats' economic policy has resulted in record job loss, record deficits, and none of the job creation they promised. Democrats predicted unemployment would top out at 8% if the stimulus passed; instead, it's 9.5% and rising. In Michigan, it's above 15%. The Nation's public debt and unemployment, combined, has risen by a shocking 40% [because of] literally trillions of dollars in additional spending under the Democrats' stimulus, energy, and health plans.
We had a choice when it came to the stimulus last February. We could have chosen a better policy of stimulating private-sector growth creating twice the jobs at half the price. That was the Republican plan. Instead, Democrats insisted on their government focus plan, which has produced no jobs and a mountain of debt.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. PETER WELCH (D, VT-0): Citigroup supports this bill. Why? They're a huge lender. They understand that we have to stabilize home values in order to begin the recovery, and they need a tool to accomplish it. Mortgages that have been sliced and diced into 50 different sections make it impossible even for a mortgage company and a borrower to come together to resolve the problem that they share together.
Sen. DICK DURBIN (D, IL): 8.1 million homes face foreclosure in America today. Last year, I offered this amendment to change the bankruptcy law, and the banking community said: Totally unnecessary. In fact, the estimates were of only 2 million homes in foreclosure last year. America is facing a crisis.
Opponent's argument to vote No:
Sen. JON KYL (R, AZ): This amendment would allow bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages by lowering the principal and interest rate on the loan or extending the term of the loan. The concept in the trade is known as cram-down. It would apply to all borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent. Many experts believe the cram-down provision would result in higher interest rates for all home mortgages. We could end up exacerbating this situation for all the people who would want to refinance or to take out loans in the future.
Rep. MICHELE BACHMANN (R, MN-6): Of the foundational policies of American exceptionalism, the concepts that have inspired our great Nation are the sanctity of private contracts and upholding the rule of law. This cramdown bill crassly undercuts both of these pillars of American exceptionalism. Why would a lender make a 30-year loan if they fear the powers of the Federal Government will violate the very terms of that loan?
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): This country is facing what most economists consider to be the most serious and the most dangerous economic situation in our lifetimes. This package today is an $825 billion package that does a variety of things to try to reinflate the economy:
Opponent's argument to vote No:
Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-51): Most of us would agree that the recent $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is an illustration of how good intentions don't always deliver desired results. When Congress spends too much too quickly, it doesn't think through the details and oversight becomes more difficult. The lesson learned from TARP was this: we cannot manage what we do not measure. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
Sen. THAD COCHRAN (R, MS): We are giving the executive branch immense latitude in the disbursement of the spending this bill contains. We are doing so without any documentation of how this spending will stimulate the economy. Normally, this kind of information would be contained in an administration budget. For items that have a short-term stimulative effect, most of us will feel comfortable debating their merits as an emergency measure. But there is a great deal of spending that is not immediately stimulative.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): Last year, after we responded to the urgent pleas of the Bush administration to authorize the $700 billion deployment of Federal funds to unstick the credit markets, many of us became very unhappy, [because Bush] repudiated commitments to use a significant part of the fund to diminish foreclosures. If we do not pass this bill today, we will make no progress in what is the single biggest economic problem we've been facing, namely, the foreclosure crisis.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): There has been a lot of money spent to try to bail out the financial industry, and nothing seems to be working. I think it's mainly because we haven't admitted that excessive spending can cause financial problems, & excessive debt and inflation can cause problems.
Actually, the recession is therapy for all of the mistakes, but the mistakes come, basically, from a Federal Reserve system that's causing too many people to make mistakes. Interest rates are lower than they should be, so they don't save. That contributes to what we call "moral hazard" as well as the system of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac system. With the assumption that we're all going to be bailed out, people say, "Well, no sweat because, if there is a mistake, the government will come to our rescue." A private FDIC would never permit this massive malinvestment. There would be regulations done in the marketplace, and there would not be this distortion that we've ended up with.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): This economy is in the worst shape that it has been in since the Great Depression. This Congress voted 2 months ago to advance $25 billion to the auto industry to promote innovation. This $15 billion is an additional "bridge loan."
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): We all understand that the bankruptcy of either GM or Chrysler would have a cascading effect on other manufacturers. But I cannot support this plan because it spends taxpayer money without any real promise to return the industry to profitability. I see several glaring flaws. We are creating a new car czar to manage these companies from Washington; not a CEO, but a car czar. Second, this legislation actually imposes new and expensive mandates on our automobile companies. Third, this legislation imposes Federal Government management on the Big Three, the wisdom of Washington. It is clear that the management of these companies have made mistakes, many mistakes, but to set up a command and control Federal bureaucrat is exactly the wrong solution.
Rep. RON PAUL (R, TX-14): The problems that we are facing today date back to 1971. But we don't seem to want to go back and find out how financial bubbles form and why they burst. Instead, we just carry on doing the same old thing and never look back. We spend more money, we run up more debt, we print more money, and we think that is going to solve the problem that was created by spending too much money, running up debt, printing too much money. Today, we are talking about tinkering on the edges without dealing with the big problem.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. DAVID OBEY (D, WI-7): Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R, CA-41): Just 2 days ago we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution. Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked to swallow an additional $60 billion on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. The Democratic majority is describing this legislation as a "stimulus package" to help our national economy. But let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We should have debated each of the items included in this package.
It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. But what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to PAYGO means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will prove a further drag on our struggling economy.
Opponents argument for voting NAY: Rep. BARTON of Texas: [My first issue the bill is that by the bill's own definition], we don't have price gouging in the US today. We do have high prices. But the reason we have that price is not because of price gouging at retail. I am not aware of any pending State action on price gouging, and almost every State has State law to go after price gougers.
The second issue with the bill, it requires the declaration of a Presidential energy emergency. The bill doesn't give any definition as to why the President should declare an energy emergency; it doesn't define "unconscionably excessive"; it doesn't define when a "seller is taking unfair advantage."
I know there is a lot of pressure on the Congress doing something. I would state we would be better served to look at the underlying fundamentals that address the supply situation.
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit an individual to designate three dollars on his or her income tax return (six dollars on a joint return) to be used to reduce the public debt of the United States.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: Pres. Eisenhower apparently once said that he believed that there could be no surplus as long as our Nation was in debt. I come from that school of thought, and yet that is not exactly where we are right now in Washington.
Where we are right now is debating whether or not 90 percent or 50 percent, or some number in between, of these projected future surpluses should be allocated to the debt. What struck me is the fact that really more than just the Congress should be involved in that debate. It is for that reason that I introduce today the Taxpayers' Choice Debt Reduction Act.
What this bill would do would be to simply take the 1040, the tax return as we now know it. And right now, we can send $3 to the presidential campaign. This would create another box wherein we could send 3 bucks to debt reduction. That is not enough money to change our national debt, but it is enough money to make a small step in an important debate that we all ought to be a part of.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means; never called for a House vote.
Requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue, after March 22, 2006, to compile and publish on a weekly basis the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and components of the M3 that are not included in the measure of the M2 monetary aggregate.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Rep. PAUL: The monetary measure known as M3 consists of M1 (currency in circulation plus travelers' checks, demand deposits, and similar interest-earning checking account balances) plus M2 (M1 plus household holdings of savings deposits, small time deposits, and retail money market mutual funds balances except for balances held in IRA and Keogh accounts) plus institutional money market mutual fund balances and managed liabilities of deposits consisting of large time deposits, repurchase agreements, and Eurodollars.
The Federal Reserve Board has recently announced it will stop reporting M3, thus depriving Congress and the American people of the most comprehensive measure of the money supply. The cessation of Federal Reserve's weekly M3 report will make it more difficult for policymakers, economists, investors, and the general public to learn the true rate of inflation.
The Federal Reserve Board has claimed neither policymakers nor the Federal Reserve staff closely track M3. Even if M3 is not used by Federal Reserve Board economists or legislators, many financial services professionals whose livelihoods depend on their ability to obtain accurate information about the money supply rely on M3.
Knowledge of the money supply is one of the keys to understanding the state of the economy. The least the American people should expect from the Federal Reserve Board is complete and accurate information regarding the money supply. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the American people can obtain that information.
The House Committee on Financial Services (also referred to as the House Banking Committee) is the committee of the House of Representatives that oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries. The Committee also oversees the work of the Federal Reserve, the United States Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and other financial services regulators.
[The Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge is sponsored by a coalition of several hundred Tea Party, limited-government, and conservative organizations].
Despite our nation's staggering $14.4 trillion debt, there are many Members of the U.S. House and Senate who want to raise our nation's debt limit without making permanent reforms in our fiscal policies. We believe that this is a fiscally irresponsible position that would place America on the Road to Ruin. At the same time, we believe that the current debate over raising the debt limit provides a historic opportunity to focus public attention, and then public policy, on a path to a balanced budget and paying down our debt.
We believe that the "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan for substantial spending cuts in FY 2012, a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is the minimum necessary precondition to raising the debt limit. The ultimate goal is to get us back to a point where increases in the debt limit are no longer necessary. If you agree, take the Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge!
I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:
- Cut: Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
- Cap: Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
- Balance: Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.
Source: Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge 12-CCB on Jan 1, 2012 Paul co-sponsored Joint Resolution on Debt Limit
Disapprove of increasing the debt limit. Congressional Summary:JOINT RESOLUTION: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That Congress disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted on Jan. 12, 2012.
Congressional Vote:Vote #4 in the House: 239 Yeas; 176 Nays; Senate declined to vote on the Resolution.
OnTheIssues Explanation: On Jan. 12, 2012, Pres. Obama notified Congress of his intent to raise the nation's debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion, two weeks after he had postponed the request to give lawmakers more time to consider the action. Congress then had 15 days to say no before the debt ceiling is automatically raised from $15.2 trillion to $16.4 trillion. Hence the debt ceiling was increased.
In Aug. 2011, the US government was nearly shut down by an impasse over raising the debt ceiling; under an agreement reached then, the President could raise the debt limit in three increments while also implementing $2.4 trillion in budget cuts. The agreement also gave Congress the option of voting to block each of the debt-ceiling increases by passing a "resolution of disapproval." The House disapproved; the Senate, by declining to vote in the 15-day window, killed the Resolution. Even if the resolution were passed, Pres. Obama could veto it; which could be overridden by a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. The House vote only had 57% approval, not enough for the 67% override requirement, so the Senate vote became moot. The same set of actions occurred in Sept. 2011 for the first debt ceiling increase.
Source: HJRes.98/SJRes34 12-HJR98 on Jan 13, 2012 Paul signed Small Business Growth Act
Raise small business depreciation to $125,000. Bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the expensing of certain real property. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow small business taxpayers with gross receipts of $5 million or less to elect to expense certain depreciable real property in the year such property is placed in service. Limits the amount of such expensing allowance to $125,000, adjusted for inflation after 2009.
Source: H.R.3178 2009-H3178 on Jul 10, 2009 Paul signed 2010 Congressional endorsement list
Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve. A Liberty Candidate will Defend the Great American Principles of Sound Money and Constitutional Government, [such as the views of] Peter Schiff, Senate 2010 candidate from Connecticut, on the Economy: "Strong fiscally conservative principles and beliefs that our economic recovery should be left to the free market through businesses and individuals--not the federal government."
And [such as the views of] R.J. Harris, Congress 2010 candidate from Oklahoma on Ending the Federal Reserve: "What goes on at the Fed is a clear example of the infringement upon our liberty and national sovereignty through Congressional delegation of its authority. Now, the Fed refuses to even let us see how much and to whom our money has been loaned or how much they have indebted the American People. They do so by rightly asserting that they are a private entity and therefore do not have to comply with orders to open their books. Our Congress has completely lost control over the creation of money and credit and now we are all going to pay the price of that abrogation of their duty."
Source: 2010 Congressional endorsement list 2010-LC-BE on Sep 1, 2010
Page last updated: May 31, 2012


text:
Surprise! Assessing Early Signs of Life at Providence, Oregon & Iowa State
Posted by rtmsf on December 22nd, 2010Andrew Murawa is an RTC contributor.
Last week we spent some time praising the work of two of the most familiar faces in the college basketball coaching world, Rick Pitino and Bruce Pearl, in getting their teams off to sparkling starts in the aftermath of some rough off-court patches. Today, I'd like to recognize some perhaps less well-known coaches who have turned awful offseasons of a different sort into solid starts for their respective teams. At Providence, Oregon and Iowa State, the basketball programs all went through turbulent summers full of personnel changes and uncertainty, but thus far the coaches at each of those programs has fought through the adversity to earn a combined 29-9 record for the three schools, albeit against maybe some lesser competition. None of the three schools are necessarily expected to be major contenders for NCAA Tournament berths, but at least they've got their programs headed in the right directions after rough offseasons.
For Keno Davis and the Providence Friars, the offseason was an absolute nightmare – not that 2009-10 was all that great to begin with. The Friars lost their last 11 games of last season on the way to a 12-19 record, during which time junior guard Kyle Wright abruptly left the program. After the season was over, a new rash of bad news hit the Friars. First, it was announced that point guard Johnnie Lacy and center Russ Permenter would be transferring out of the program. Then, a couple days later, Lacy and freshman center James Still were charged with felony assault, leading to Still's eventual dismissal. A month later, the bright spot in the Friar program was extinguished when leading scorer and rebounder Jamine "Greedy" Peterson was kicked off the team. About a week later, assistant coach Pat Skerry left to head to Big East rival Pitt, and in the process, severely hurt Providence's recruiting with incoming 2010 recruit Joseph Young announcing that he would be staying closer to his Houston home for college. After Davis lost some face in refusing to allow Young out of his scholarship for a time, he was eventually released and allowed to enroll at the University of Houston. Next, 2011 commit Naadir Tharpe announced that he was withdrawing his commitment to the Friars and opening back up his recruitment. And finally, for good measure, Kadeem Batts suffered a disorderly conduct charge in July. In short, it was a miserable offseason.
But, in the face of all of that turmoil, the Friars are off to an 11-2 start to this season. Yes, they've dropped games to La Salle and Boston College, and for every win over a Rhode Island and an Alabama, there's a win over Central Connecticut and Prairie View A&M, but at least Coach Davis has not allowed the negative momentum of the offseason to boil over into a disastrous 2010-11 campaign. Senior wing Marshon Brooks has developed into a versatile threat (22.9 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 2.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 1.5 BPG, 2.0 3PG) and a team leader, while sophomores Vincent Council and Bilal Dixon are each developing into serious Big East-level talents. Council is among the top ten point guards in the nation in assists, with seven per game (he had 16 in a game against Brown), while Dixon has been killing the boards on both ends, to the tune of 9.7 rebounds per night (more than three of those on the offensive glass), and adding almost three blocked shots a night. While much more serious competition awaits the Friars come Big East play, Davis has focused on tightening things up on the defensive end where PC ranked in the bottom 100 teams in Division I last year in defensive efficiency; now PC ranks in the top 100. There is certainly a ways to go for this Friar team, and the talent level is still such that any dream of a run to an upper-division Big East finish should be tempered with, you know, sanity, but Davis has taken what was a disastrous offseason and settled things down in Providence to the point where the program is no longer in freefall and is playing up to their talent level. There are sure to be plenty of losses (and losing streaks) in conference play, but expect the Friars to beat a team or two that they have no business beating, and to be competitive on a regular basis.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Five years of atmospheric aerosol data are available as global aerosol maps from NASA's Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR). These 19 global panels show the seasonal-average distribution of atmospheric aerosol amount across Africa and the Atlantic Ocean; such global maps are also available for all other parts of the planet, and for monthly as well as seasonal time increments. The measurements capture airborne particles in the entire atmospheric column, for sub-visible sizes ranging from tiny smoke particles to "medium" dust (about 0.5 to 2.5 microns). Such particles are produced by forest fires, deserts, volcanoes, breaking ocean waves, and urban and industrial pollution sources.
MISR retrieves aerosol amount with high accuracy at mid-visible wavelengths, even over urban areas and bright desert source regions, in addition to obtaining some information about particle size and shape, from the varying scene brightness over nine different view angles and four wavelengths. These maps were generated from data acquired between March 2000 and November 2004, and show column-integrated aerosol optical depth (also known as optical thickness) averaged over half-degree by half-degree grid cell areas (about 60 kilometer rectangles at low latitudes). The color scale indicates the range of optical depths, from relatively clear skies in blue and purple, to hazier atmospheres in red, orange, yellow or green. Black pixels indicate missing results due to persistent seasonal cloud cover. The MISR aerosol algorithm uses both stereoscopic and spectral brightness techniques to identify and screen out cloudy pixels.
This five-year data sequence has special significance to the MISR Mission -- it is released this week to mark the fifth anniversary since MISR began taking science data, on February 24 2000. Despite easily identified changes from season to season, the seasonal patterns are remarkably similar from year to year. Between December and February there are relatively clear skies over north Africa, and the highest aerosol optical thicknesses (red pixels) are found across the Central and West African wet-tropical regions and the Gulf of Guinea. From March through May, very thick aerosols extend northwards across the deserts of Mali, Niger and Chad, while in southern Africa, this is the least hazy time of year. During June through August, there is persistent cloud cover along the Central and West African wet-tropical coasts (black pixels in the aerosol maps), and very thick aerosol concentrations extend both north-northwest over Mauritania, Western Sahara and Algeria, and south over the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Between September and November thick aerosol cover is limited to portions of southern Africa and the Congo, but moderately high aerosol optical thickness (green and yellow pixels) extends a bit farther west over the Atlantic.
Aerosols play an important role in the global atmosphere, directly influencing global climate and human health. Ground-based networks that accurately measure column aerosol amount and properties are sparse; satellite instruments can now complement these data, providing aerosol optical depth measurements covering long periods and large areas. One application of such data, when analyzed in conjunction with independent information about aerosol vertical distribution, is to help determine ground-level pollution concentrations. The results are being used to improve Air Quality Models and for regional health studies. To assess the human-health impact of chronic aerosol exposure, an accurate record of aerosol properties for ten or more years is needed. Global summaries of aerosol optical thickness from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument are available from the NASA Langley Atmospheric Sciences Data Center's MISR MISR Level 3 Imagery web site http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov.
The Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer observes the daylit Earth continuously from pole to pole, and every 9 days views the entire globe between 82 degrees north and 82 degrees south latitude. MISR was built and is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, for NASA's Office of Earth Science, Washington, DC. The Terra satellite is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology.


text:
PPG has appointed Shelley J. Bausch as vice president, global industrial coatings, effective as of 16 January. She will report to Viktor Sekmakas, PPG executive vice president.
PPG Industries has announced that Shelley J. Bausch will join the company as vice president, global industrial coatings, effective as of 16 January. She will report to Viktor Sekmakas, PPG executive vice president.
"We are delighted to welcome Shelley to PPG," Sekmakas said. "Her broad experience in leading global businesses and her strong background in supply chain operations, marketing and product management will be assets to the industrial coatings business and PPG."
Bausch joins PPG from Dow Corning, where she began her career in 1988. Most recently she was business vice president, finished products, based in Midland, Mich., leading a unit with more than 1,000 employees and 15 plants that served internal clients and delivered more than USD 2 billion of external sales. Previously she served as a global executive director and led the transformation of part of Dow Corning's commodity chemical business into a Web-driven business model. She also spent two years in Shanghai as global director, paper industry, and Greater China leader, process and performance industries, leading organizational design and staffing for the marketing, sales and technical service teams supporting the paper and process industry.
Bausch earned a bachelor's degree in biology and business administration from Alma College and an MBA from the University of Michigan.


text:
The Monkees -- Don't Blame Us For Tour Screwup
The Monkees Don't Blame US for MAJOR Tour Screwup!
The Monkees ain't too busy to put anybody down these days ... because they're coming out swinging against the people they blame for screwing up the rest of their concert tour.
Earlier today, the band announced they would be canceling the remaining 9 dates on their U.S. tour ... but they wouldn't explain why.
Now, TMZ has spoken with a rep for drummer/ lead vocalist Micky Dolenz -- who tells us, "Management had booked a number of dates with the venues without running them by the group first ... so we had to cancel the remaining dates."
The rep adds, "Micky is disappointed but his solo tour is still going strong for the rest of the year."
There are rumors that the tour was canceled because Micky had checked himself into rehab for a substance abuse problem -- but the rep tells us it's total BS ... saying, "It has nothing to do with any sort of substance abuse whatsoever."
We tried getting in contact with the main person responsible for booking the tour -- but we were advised by his company that the man "no longer works here anymore."


text:
New Movie Releases — January 2013
The holidays are just about over, but that doesn't mean you can't still have fun -- check out our guide to new movies hitting theaters this January!
January 4
'Texas Chainsaw 3D' -- Directed by John Luessenhop. Starring Alexandra Daddario and Tania Raymonde. A young woman inherits the home of a distant relative in Texas, only to discover she's also inherited a psycho killer with a chainsaw.
January 11
'A Haunted House' -- Directed by Michael Tiddes. Starring Marlon Wayans, Essence Atkins, and Nick Swardson. The Wayans brothers are back with a new spoof that takes on haunted houses and demonic possession.
'Gangster Squad' -- Directed by Ruben Fleischer. Starring Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, and Emma Stone. The LAPD struggles to keep the east coast mafia out of California in the 1940s and 50s.
January 18
'Broken City' -- Directed by Allen Hughes. Starring Mark Wahlberg, Russell Crowe, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. An ex-cop trails the wife of a New York mayor, only to find himself caught up in something even more complicated.
'The Last Stand' -- Directed by Jee-woon Kim. Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Johnny Knoxville, and Forest Whitaker. An escaped convict races to the Mexican border, and it's up to one aging sheriff and his inexperienced police force to stop him.
'Mama' -- Directed by Andres Muschietti. Starring Jessica Chastain and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau. A couple struggle to raise the husband's two nieces who lived alone in a forest for five years in this film presented by Guillermo del Toro.
January 25
'Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters' (3D and IMAX) -- Directed by Tommy Wirkola. Starring Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton. Inspired by the classic fairy tale, this film follows Hansel and Gretel, two bounty hunters who find and kill witches.
'Movie 43' -- Starring Emma Stone, Hugh Jackman, Chloe Moretz, Elizabeth Banks, Kristen Bell, Naomi Watts, Anna Faris, and Chris Pratt. 12 directors, including star Elizabeth Banks, weave together various stories in this ensemble comedy.
'Parker' -- Directed by Taylor Hackford. Starring Jennifer Lopez and Jason Statham. A thief is betrayed by his crew, so he takes up a new identity and teams up with a woman who has the information he needs to hijack the crew's latest heist.
'John Dies at the End' (Limited) -- Directed by Don Coscarelli. Starring Chase Williamson, Rob Mayes, and Paul Giamatti. A new drug allows its users to travel through space and time, but they come back as something inhuman. It's up to John and his friend to put a stop to the madness.


text:
Wow, we're seeing all kinds of good stuff from NYC Resistor today. [Caleb] found this link to [Hudson's] early work on a geeky wristwatch. It is based around an HDSP-2112 eight-digit alpha-numeric display. Each digit is a 5×7 array of LEDs, but the look of it really reminds us of [Woz's] Nixie Wristwatch. The nice thing about using a display like this one is it's much easier to drive and the power requirements don't really call for special consideration either.
The display happens to be nearly the same footprint as the Teensy 2.0. In fact, the display is a bit longer. That makes it a perfect backpack, bringing everything necessary to drive the display. Check out the video after the break to see it scrolling the time as words, and displaying numbers.
This needs to have an RTC and portable power source before you can wear it around. But the proof is there. Perhaps [Hudson] will spin his own board with a uC that includes RTC capability and a charging circuit for a tiny Lithium cell.


text:
Name: Justin Arnold
Sign: Gemini
Likes: Long walks on the beach
Superhero: Chuck Norris
Politics: It's complicated
As a lifelong resident of Alaska, I was raised to respect and utilize all the freedoms and opportunities our great state provides. This same Alaskan attitude toward freedom and opportunity has allowed me to run my own commercial fishing boat and provided the opportunity to work for myself. Most of my extensive family still lives in Homer, and runs various small businesses in town.
I graduated from Homer High in 2003. There was no yearbook slot for "most likely to run for city council," so I was completely unaware that 10 years later I would be participating in this election. I sometimes wonder if the school had involved my high school government class or perhaps our student council in any small part of the city's decision-making process if we wouldn't have more vested voters coming out of our schools. Perhaps I would have become more politically active sooner. It's a theory I intend to check into, should I win the election.
I'm a commercial fisherman and construction business owner by trade and a researcher at heart. I think that honesty, a willingness to crunch numbers and the ability to actually listen to people's wants and needs are key pieces to building a decent city council member. The people have been saying what they want for years: a less involved government, a less handsy TSA, and the ability to make basic decisions without being fined, taxed or forced to tolerate another slippery slope law.
That brings me to what comes next. My intention, whether I win a council seat or not, is to keep fighting against nonsense laws, and I will not serve special interest groups or pander to a nanny government who creates those laws in the name of "safety."
Any laws I vote for will be common sense and for the common good: I should always be able to easily explain to a voter why a law I voted on was necessary or for the betterment of Homer. Political decisions don't have to be dark and mysterious. Council decisions affect each Homer citizen, and the voting process and explanations for it should be completely transparent.


text:
Introduction to Attributed String Programming Guide
Attributed String Programming Guide describes the attributed string objects, instantiated from the NSAttributedString
class or the CFAttributedString Core Foundation opaque type, which manage sets of text attributes, such as font and kerning, that are associated with character strings or individual characters.
Who Should Read This Document
You should read this document if you need to work directly with attributed string objects.
Organization of This Document
This programming topic contains the following articles:
Attributed Strings describes the attributed string objects instantiated from
, CFAttributedString and CFMutableAttributedString.Creating Attributed Strings in Cocoa describes how to create attributed strings with data that you provide.
Accessing Attributes describes how to access text attributes.
Changing an Attributed String describes how to change characters and attributes in an attributed string.
Drawing Attributed Strings describes how to draw an attributed string in a view.
RTF Files and Attributed Strings explains how to read and write attributed strings to and from files of RTF data, and it describes Apple's extensions to the RTF language.
Word and Line Calculations in Attributed Strings describes how to work with attributed strings in editors.
Standard Attributes describes global
constants containing the attribute names.
See Also
For more information, refer to the following documents:
String Programming Guide describes the string objects that hold the Unicode character information in attributed strings.
Text Attribute Programming Topics explains how the text system handles the various kinds of attributes applied to strings of text.
Copyright © 1997, 2014 Apple Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Updated: 2014-02-11


text:
Francesco Mezzadri and Nina Snaith.
Francesco Mezzadri and Nina Snaith are Ph.D. students in Applied Mathematics at the University of Bristol, and are affiliated with the Basic Research Institute in the Mathematical Sciences (BRIMS) laboratory at Hewlett Packard Laboratories' Bristol campus.
They both have a background in Theoretical Physics, but have found that in their field of Quantum Chaos theory there is a deep overlap between Theoretical Physics and Applied Maths. Their research studies have many potential applications, in particular for making very tiny electronic components which could be used in ever-smaller computers and other electronic gadgets in the future, and so their links with industry are potentially important.
PASS Maths got together with the two of them at BRIMS to talk about where they're from, what they're doing and where they're going.
Academic history
Both Francesco and Nina did their pre-postgraduate studies overseas. Francesco comes from Parma, in Italy. He went to his local high school in Parma, and then took a Physics degree at the University of Parma. "Maths was always my favourite subject", he says.
Nina is Canadian, and went to high school in Southern Ontario, first in London (Ontario) and then in Hamilton. She took an undergraduate degree in Theoretical Physics at McMaster University in Hamilton. Unlike Francesco, she hasn't had a lifelong love of maths. "It was a bit odd for me, because my father is a mathematician. I actually decided when I was about four that the last thing in the world I wanted to become was a mathematician!" She liked doing the puzzles that her father gave her, but "maths class at school was fairly dull, so I didn't really think there was anything special to mathematics until I went to university and began to enjoy it."
Both of them are now taking Ph.Ds in Applied Maths at Bristol, in a research area known as Quantum Chaos Theory, or Quantum Chaology. To fund this further education, Francesco has a study grant from the European Union, and Nina has a scholarship from Canada.
Choosing a Ph.D.
Panoramic photograph of the University of Bristol precinct, taken from the University's Cabot Tower. (Image c/o The University of Bristol.)
Students with a good undergraduate degree usually have plenty of options open to them in industry. Why did Francesco and Nina choose to pursue their education further by taking on a Ph.D.? "Because I liked Theoretical Physics!", says Francesco. "It's what I like most to do, and I want to stay in research afterwards."
Nina was inspired by her extra-curricular activities at McMaster. "There was a very good system in Canada whereby students could work with a Professor at the University during the summer. I got to work in various different fields over the four years that I was there, and I just really, really enjoyed doing the Theoretical Physics work, and decided that this was what I wanted to continue doing."
Department of Mathematics, University of Bristol (Image c/o The University of Bristol.)
Francesco and Nina both started out in Physics, so why did they end up doing Ph.Ds in Applied Maths? Francesco argues that it's not such an unusual thing to do. "There's no definite border between Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, they almost overlap. My supervisor has a Ph.D. in Physics, but he's in Applied Maths now" he says. "Of course, there are some differences!" he adds.
Nina points out that this is particularly true in the UK. "Applied Maths, especially in England, seems to be a lot more like Physics than it would be, say, in Canada. There are people in Quantum Chaos in Physics departments, and there are some in Applied Maths. It doesn't really make a difference."
It seems that Francesco and Nina might well have ended up doing Ph.Ds in a Theoretical Physics department rather than Applied Maths if they'd gone to another University! Why did they choose to come to Bristol?
"When I finished I wanted to go abroad, and I knew that here in Bristol there was an important group in the same area that I did my dissertation in", says Francesco. Nina has a similar story: "there was one researcher at McMaster who was working in Quantum Chaos - Bristol has a big name in that field, so everyone's heard of them. So when I decided that [Quantum Chaos] was what I wanted to do, the researcher I was working with in Canada suggested to come here."
Career options
Both Francesco and Nina are hoping to stay in research once their Ph.Ds are finished. "I wouldn't mind industrial research", says Nina, "but I'd prefer being in a University where you're able to do more or less what research you want." Francesco, on the other hand, is keeping an open mind on the academia versus industry front: "there's time to think about what to do afterwards", he says.
Of course, neither of them will have to stay in research if they choose not to. Nina suggests that "with a Ph.D. in mathematics, you don't have to stay in academia doing mathematics. Employers in finance and computing and all sorts of things seem to appreciate a Ph.D. in Maths."
Francesco concurs. "A solid mathematics background is needed in many jobs, many professions, like in the computer industry and economics. In a Ph.D. you acquire a certain ability of problem-solving which is often needed in solving practical problems in a particular situation, even if you're not using the exact mathematical techniques you used in a Ph.D. A Ph.D. opens your mind, gives you quite an elastic mind, so you can easily move to another area of mathematics or elsewhere. You don't have to stay in academia."
In fact, Francesco makes clear that staying in academia is in no way an easy option compared with moving to industry. "It's very competitive. Permanent positions are hard to find, and you usually need to take several years of postdocs [short term post-Doctoral research positions] before finding a permanent job. It's competitive for positions, but if that is what you want to do, it's at least worth trying to do it."
Links with Industry
HP Laboratories, Bristol (image c/o Hewlett Packard)
Francesco and Nina are connected to the BRIMS lab via their Ph.D. supervisor, who holds positions both at BRIMS and at the University of Bristol. Nina is based at the University, but comes out to BRIMS for the weekly seminars there. Francesco says he is "more based at BRIMS - half time here, half time at the university." [You can find out more about BRIMS in this issue's feature article about the BRIMS Mathematics and Art Project, or visit the BRIMS website in person.]
The BRIMS connection has benefits for both of them. "Our research group is a minority in the department back at the University. We wouldn't get so many good speakers if it weren't for the connection with BRIMS", says Nina. Francesco agrees. "The BRIMS group is run like a university department, with visiting researchers, regular speakers and so on - it's a very active group". He says that for him there's another benefit to being partly based at BRIMS: "it's much easier to get around in a wheelchair here!"
So why would HP be interested in the work they're doing in Quantum Chaos? "Quantum Chaos has applications in systems for building CPUs and other small electronic devices", Francesco explains, adding that HP's interest in the area is "a long-term project, with a theoretical approach to practical applications." Although his own and Nina's work "doesn't have practical applications at the moment", he tells us that:
Quantum Chaology is the study of quantum systems whose classical dynamics are chaotic. The laws of quantum mechanics apply at a very small scale (atomic distances), and in order to describe an electron confined in a very small region, you have to use quantum mechanics. Depending on the shape of the region in which the electron is confined, its classical motion may or may not be chaotic. The study of this model is useful for the construction of mesoscopic devices which HP is interested in to produce small electronic devices.
Mesoscopic systems are systems that are not as small as a single atom, but small enough that properties can be very different from those in a larger block of material.
Voluntary exile
Francesco and Nina are both living in Bristol, far from their home countries. Are they happy about their decision to study overseas?
"I'd do it again", says Francesco. Some of his reasons are professional: "there are more opportunities here than in Italy." He's also found that "there's a different approach here to teaching and research, and to students. This has some advantages, some disadvantages. It's good to try it, to see what is good and what isn't." Francesco says there are personal benefits to studying overseas as well, in that "it's always useful to see what different people, and institutions, and cultures are like. It's an enriching experience."
Nina has also found things very different in the UK. "I didn't realise there could be such a difference in attitude before coming here!" This isn't all good - she says she finds it "much more stressful and competitive over here" than it was in Canada. "There's more pressure to keep doing really good research. I'm really glad to have tried different places though", she adds, "or I would have thought everywhere was the same."
Word to the wise
So, if you're a student interested in maths and physics, and even perhaps thinking about doing a Ph.D. one day, what do Francesco and Nina recommend?
"If you're keen on maths and physics, choose a maths or physics degree and see how you go. It's difficult at 16 or 17 to have clear ideas of what you want to do. Employers want people with those degrees, so you can always change your mind about the Ph.D. Do what you want to do; do what you really like!"
Many thanks to Florian Kammüller for his assistance with the visit to Bristol.


text:
This image is for reference purpose only, Photo May Slightly Different From Actual Item in Terms of Color Due to the Lighting During Photo Shooting or the Monitor's Display.
Other common names Bougainvillea 'Poulton's Special', Synonyms Bougainvillea 'Poultonii Special'
Genus Bougainvillea are scandent evergreen shrubs, sometimes thorny, with simple ovate leaves and clusters of small tubular flowers each enclosed by 3 showy, brightly coloured ovate bracts. Species 'Poulton's Special' is a evergreen climber to 5m, with ovate leaves and clusters of magenta-rose bracts surrounding small white flowers.
How to grow
Cultivation Under glass grow in loam-based potting compost in full light and water freely in summer and keep just moist in winter. Apply a balanced liquid fertiliser monthly. If container grown can be put outside in summer. Water sparingly in winter. May survive short spells down to 0C if kept fairly dry
Propagation Propagate by semi-hardwood cuttings in summer or softwood cuttings in early spring. Layering can be done in early autumn or spring. Suggested planting locations and garden types Wall-side Borders Patio & Container Plants
How to care
Pruning Pruning group 12 in early spring/after flowering.
Bougainvillea Variegated Plant
- Live plant along with Plastic pot
- plants height with pot is 1.5 feet and pot size is 5'' diameter.
- Plants nature is outdoor & love full sun.
- Required watering once in a day
- Annual Flowering & hardy plant


text:
I'm trying to sum up how I feel having watched the video on the Guardian website of Ian Tomlinson being bit by a policeman with a baton while he had his hands in his pockets and was walking away from them. I'd say anger, but I think the honest answer is: panic.
I watched it about 20 minutes ago and my heart is still racing. More than anything, it frightens me. That could have been me, minding my own business. If I had been tripped over in that way by a mob of coppers, however angry I might have been I would have been shitting myself. I think my heart could have taken it, but I don't know. I have absolutely no interest of putting it to the test – and absolutely no way of preventing it from happening if I ever get unlucky. This is what it feels like to be afraid of the state.
I never did believe the initial police account, but it just seems to get worse and worse. What is clear from the video is the level of contempt at least some of the police regarded the demonstrators (and in this case, even innocent bystanders). And when it blows up in their faces? They invoke the law of the playground: however much you might be in the wrong, never snitch. Even worse, they use their considerable PR machine to spread lies about the conduct of the protestors. This has happened again and again in the past; we know what they're like. And yet, with the honourable exception of the Guardian, the silence from most of the media has been deafening.
But parts of the blogosphere has been notably silent as well. I've just scanned the rightwing/libertarian blogs I could think of off the top of my head: Iain Dale, Guido, Coffee House, Comment Central, Dizzy Thinks, Conservative Home, Libertarian Party UK, Is there more to life than shoes, Telegraph Blogs, the Adam Smith Institue blog, Douglas Carswell, Nadine Dorries…* The top story on the Freedom Association blog at the moment is about the police handling of the G20 protests, complaining at the ignomious treatment of… the Adam Smith Institute Director who was questioned by police (numerous other of the aforementioned blogs have singled this incident out too – this is the martyr of 1/4 as far as they are concerned).
I'm not for a second suggesting that if you don't blog about this you don't care, but taken as a whole this is quite striking. These blogs obsessively complain about every possible infringement of the liberties of the affluent and articulate middle classes, yet when a blameless man in a dirty t-shirt dies not a single one of them has asked a question. Four hours since the Guardian released that video, not a single one has mentioned it. Daniel Finklestein, who chose to single out the Lib Dem MPs who were acting as monitors atthe protests, has been keeping mum.
When they've shouted about Damien Green or David Davis, I have tended to their side, and not been afraid to argue with lefties who can be eye-wateringly tribalist. Damien Green's treatment was unacceptable. David Davis' stance was honourable. But it is clearer than ever now that I could never expect an ounce of solidarity in return. Over the last few days, I've been given a salient demonstration of quite what the right really thinks about freedom in this country.
* In the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that LabourList has been resolutely silent on this topic as well, but it is very much not representative of the left in that respect (indeed in any respects – can it even legitimately be defined as leftwing?).


text:
The gear Govan used on the Aristocrats 2011 US Tour.
We recently caught up with Guthrie Govan before an Aristocrats gig to get a look at the gear he's using for the trio's gigs. Watch him take us through the rig and demo each of his pedals in our video Rig Rundown:
Guthrie is playing the third incarnation of his signature Suhr model. The guitar has basswood, rather than the mahogany used on his other models, with a plain maple top. Guthrie uses the basswood guitar for Aristocrats gigs because it has more frequencies, which is useful because each person in the trio needs to sound as big as possible. "I think of it as the mahogany plus more top-end stuff, plus more low-end stuff," he says. The guitar has a roasted maple fretboard, which helps maintain neck stability when Guthrie travels as all of the moisture has been baked out of the wood.
The guitar is outfitted with a Gotoh tremolo and a Tremol-No system. The pickups are Suhr FL (middle), Suhr SSV (neck), and Suhr SSH Plus (bridge). This guitar was also the one used on the Aristocrats debut album.
Guthrie uses 10-46 Rotosound strings and tunes to standard, with Drop D for a few songs.
When we caught up with Guthrie, he was using a Suhr Badger 30 amp with power scaling, which he turns all the way up for gigs. The cabinet has Vintage 30-style Warehouse speakers.
Guthrie says his pedalboard philosophy is, "not to be awesome. It's to be portable." The pedalboard is a tea tray that's the same size as his carry-on luggage, and he says that at times he opts for the pedal that's smallest, rather than the one that's his favorite. He uses a Suhr Koko Boost for dirt (volume boost on the left, midrange boost on the right), a TC Electronic PolyTune, a TC Electronic Flashback delay that's always on in the loop set to an Echoplex-style TonePrint, a TC Electronic Hall of Fame reverb in the loop used for "Flatlands," a Providence Anadime Chorus, Guyatone WR3 Wah Rocker ("It makes me sound like a duck, which I enjoy"), a Dunlop Jerry Cantrell Signature Cry Baby, and a volume pedal.


text:
I decided to capture a post that I made to Nikonians.com for the Flash Forum:
The question I was answering was that the person had tried verious diffusers and was asking why he didn't see much difference between them. The bottom line is that there isn't much difference between them until you put them in specific situations.
First, you have to understand exactly why diffusion is needed in the first place. The basic problem is that all the light from an undiffused flash comes effectively from a 'point' source. This means all the light hits the subject from one direction, and that's what makes it harsh. To soften the light hitting your subject, you have to make it hit your subject from multiple directions. This causes tiny shadows to form in multiple directions, that merge into one another adding definition to facial features giving your subject a more natural look.
To make the light from the flash hit your subject from multiple directions, you have to use a diffuser, and the bigger the diffuser, the more paths the light will follow while traveling to your subject, and the softer it will be.
When you are indoors and have a white ceiling (that is not too high), and white walls, you can make your flash really soft if you send the light in all directions, so it bounces off every wall and ceiling before arriving at the subject. Then, you get amazingly soft light.
So, any diffuser that will send the light in all directions indoors in a room with white walls and ceiling, will make equally soft light. The small snap-on diffuser that comes with the SB-800 will do a remarkable job of this if you simply point it straight up.
However, there is more to this. In addition to making your light soft, you normally want to send a bit of light directly toward the subject to make catchlights in the eyes and lift shadows on the face. This is called 'direct' light, and if the direct light is coming from a tiny source, then you are adding harsh light into the image, which cancels out some of the softening you have created with the bounce.
So, the overall quality of the light on your subject depends on controlling the softness of both the direct light and the bounced light and the ratio between them.
So, let's look at the various diffusers you mentioned. If a bounce card is used without any other diffusion, you may already see that the direct light will be coming from a source that is the size of the bounce card. If this card is small, then the direct light will be harsh. This is what happens with the pull-out bounce card in the SB-800. It makes very harsh direct light, so it provides no diffusion at all by itself. Only the light that gets around it and is allowed to bounce off walls and ceiling will be soft. You can make it do a good job by pointing it up and adjusting how much of the bounce card is sticking out.
With the Demb flash diffuser pro, it uses a larger bounce card which softens the light more than the small card in the SB-800. You can compare softness of bounce cards by comparing the area of the bounce cards. The SB-800 card is 1.4 x 1.75 or about 2.5 sq inches. I don't own a Demb Flash Diffuser Pro (DFDP), but from the pictures it looks like its bounce card is about 3 x 3 inches or 9 sq inches. This will provide slightly more softening of the direct light than the smaller SB-800 card. Then, the DFDP adds a 'Front Diffusion panel'. This adds about 2 sq inches to the overall size of the direct light source and will cause part of the light to scatter, assuming an inverted funnel shape towards the subject. By itself, this diffusion panel will not add any softening, because the active area is about the same size as a flash. However, if you are indoors, some of the scattered light may hit the walls and arrive back at the subject. This light will be soft, but much of it will hit the subject from the sides, so it won't soften the face that much. The DFDP is a very versatile system that can produce great results once you fully understand how to use it.
The Lumiquest Mini Softbox softens only the direct light. It produces no bounce, so the area of the active surface of the box can be used to compare it to bounce cards. From the website, it says it will fold flat to 3.25 x 4.5 inches. This is about the same size as the active surface of the box so the area is about 15 sq inches. Therefore this will provide more softening of the direct light than the DFDP.
Then there is the Light Sphere II (LS) which comes with its 'inverted dome'. With the dome installed, and with it pointed straight up, it will cause the flash to scatter in all directions. Light will then bounce off the ceiling and every wall in the room, just exactly like the small snap-on diffuser that comes with the SB-800. This makes the effective light source the size of the entire room. This could be a total effective area of 500 sq feet. Compare that size to any bounce card there is and you see that there is no comparison. You get extremely extremely soft light, probably only to be outdone by an overcast day, when the entire sky becomes the diffuser size.
However, the advantage of the LS over the small snap-on diffuser, is that its active cross-sectional size is about 3 x 4 inches or 12 sq inches. This means that its direct light will be much softer. The direct light from the LS is not as soft as the Lumiquest Mini Soft Box and about the same as the DFDP.
The real power of the LS is that when you have a good ceiling bounce, you can remove the inverted dome and take full advantage of it. This is when you get maximum softening. Not only do you get a maximum bounce off the ceiling, but you still get a bounce off the walls and nice soft direct light as well. You also have the option of tilting the LS backwards to reduce the direct light while still retaining maximum room bounce. This is why the LS works so well.
Lastly, I should point out that as you move farther from your subject, the apparent size of the source grows smaller and smaller. This makes the direct light get harsher and harsher. Once you are beyond about 15 feet, none of the diffusers will have much of a softening effect on the direct light. When you are 15 feet or more away, you have to rely entirely on the room bounce for softening. Then, if you are outdoors (and within 15 feet), where there is no bounce, you have to rely entirely on the softness of the direct light. This is when the Lumiquest Mini Softbox beats the DFDP and the LS.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


text:
ALFREDO ESTRELLA/Getty Images
They say crime doesn't pay, but over time, gangsters have proven otherwise.
In the early part of the 20th century, a gangster's profit was measured by how much liquor sales they acquired during prohibition. Since then, the narrative of gangsters transitioned into gambling and drug trafficking. In the seventies, gangsters made a fortune off heroin, in the eighties, cocaine, and today, marijuana.
Gangsters and their stories have been revisited through music, films, and more. Recently, Netflix scored another hit with viewers with the original series Narcos. The first season follows the dealings of the world's biggest drug lord, Pablo Escobar.
While it is difficult to determine the exact wealth of these masterminds, here are some of the richest and most dangerous gangsters of all time.
Frank Lucas ($52 Million)
Frank Lucas capitalized off the heroin trade in the 1960s and 1970s by using an East Asian connection during the Vietnam War. His method cut off the Italian mafia, who controlled the trade in Harlem, his home at the time. Originally from North Carolina, Lucas employed members of his family to take over the heroin trade in New York and New Jersey. Lucas later claimed to have sold one million dollars worth of heroin a day. His story was told in the 2007 film American Gangster, starring Denzel Washington.
Griselda Blanco ($2 Billion)
Griselda Blanco, also known as the "Black Widow" or "The Cocaine Queen Of Miami," was a drug lord for the Colombian Medellín cartel. Before Escobar's reign, she controlled the cocaine trade through violence and intimidation–making $80 million a month. After serving only 10 years in jail on drug charges, Blanco returned to her native Colombia in 2012. The same year, she was gunned down by a contracted killer.
Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno (Multi-Billionaire)
In the 1960s, Italian mobster "Fat Tony" Salerno made his millions running the numbers and drugs racket in East Harlem after other Italian mobsters left the area. With the exit of his competitors (due to the influx of Blacks and Latinos) "Fat Tony" was easily making tens of millions of dollars. As the front man for the Genovese crime family, Salerno was named America's Top Gangster by Fortune Magazine in 1986, thanks to his wealth of more than one billion dollars and influence. His likeness lives on ironically on The Simpsons, with the character Marion Anthony "Fat Tony" D'Amico.
Al Capone ($1.3 Billion)
Al Capone is perhaps the most notorious gangster of all time, and was also one of the richest. During prohibition, Capone controlled the illegal alcohol, prostitution, and gambling rackets in Chicago, which brought in $100 million a year. Capone's money allowed him to bribe police officials, judges, and even the Mayor of Chicago. Unfortunately, he could not bribe the IRS, who convicted him of tax evasion in 1932 and sentenced him to 11 years in prison.
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera ($5 Billion)
"El Chapo" is one of Mexico's most infamous drug lords; he controls the majority of cocaine and marijuana movements in several countries all over the world. His doings have also influenced crime in Chicago, where he has connections to Larry Hoover's Gangster Disciples. He is also the head of the Sinaloa cartel, which smuggles in billion of dollars from Colombia through Mexico and into the United States. Guzman became rich enough to make Forbes list of 1,000 wealthiest people in the world, as well as their top 60 most powerful people in the world. El Chapo has escaped prison twice and is currently on the run from the FBI.
Carlos Lehder ($2.7 Billion)
Lehder was one of the founders of the Colombian Medellín Cartel. While in prison, Lehder met Boston-born drug trafficker, George Jung, who helped him distribute cocaine from Colombia into the United States. Cocaine made Lehder so rich, that he owned his own island in the Bahamas and offered to pay off Colombia's debt–twice. Lehder was later extradited to the United States and sentenced to life in prison. His sentence was reduced after he agreed to testify against former Panamanian President Manuel Noriega in 1992.
Meyer Lansky ($600 Million)
Lansky was a Jewish immigrant from Poland who made a fortune off gambling, above and below the table. Lansky joined gangsters Charles "Lucky" Luciano and Ben "Bugsy" Siegel to run the organized crime mob called Murder Inc. Lansky was later indicted for tax evasion and fled to Israel. He returned to the U.S. to face charges and was acquitted in 1974. He died a free man in Miami at 83-years-old.
Joseph Kennedy Sr. ($300 Million)
Joseph Kennedy is the patriarch of one of America's most powerful and prestigious families. One of his sons became president, another district attorney and another, a senator. At his peak, Kennedy was one of the richest men in America, with too many conspiracies to count behind his name. Kennedy was already in the liquor business before prohibition, but according sources, became a bootlegger with ties to the New York and Chicago underworlds. Other theories claim Kennedy tipped off voters, rigged elections, and employed his gangster friends to scare politicians. Historian and biographer David Nasaw broke down some of these theories in the video above.
Pablo Escobar ($30 Billion)
Escobar is perhaps the most notorious drug lord of the modern era. He ran the Medellín Cartel, which imported billions of dollars of cocaine into the United States. Pablo's money brought him great power, as he was able to bribe officials or have them killed. In 1993, Escobar was killed by Colombian forces with U.S. assistance after he escaped from a Colombian prison. Audiences are currently looking back on Escobar's story on Netflix's original series, Narcos.
Amado Carrillo Fuentes ($25 Billion)
Amado Carrillo Fuentes was the head of the Mexican Juarez Cartel. He was known as "Lord Of The Skies" due to his private fleet of planes, which were used to import cocaine from Colombia to Mexico. Officials called him the most powerful drug trafficker of his era. He died while undergoing plastic surgery to alter his appearance in 1997.
Check out more facts about the gangsters and the stories of Kenichi Shinoda, Jose Figueroa Agosto, and more in the gallery below.
VIDEO CREDIT: YouTube
The Myth, The Legend, The Star? Why We Should Examine El Chapo's Influence Beyond His Prison Breaks
The New & Returning TV Shows You Have To Watch This Fall
Don't Miss Our Hottest Stories! Get The NewsOne Flip App for iPhone: Flip, Skip — Or Send Us a Tip!
The Richest & Most Dangerous Gangsters Of All Time was originally published on newsone.com