America looks back on the 10th anniversary of September 11
By Carlos T. Mock
September 10, 2011.
To say that every American was affected in some way by the attacks onSeptember 11, 2001, is the same as to say the sky is blue.However, each American has weathered the response differently as time goes on...
I still remember that terrible morning when my partner, Bill Rattan, woke me up because a plane had hit one of the World Trade Towers. We were both glued to the TV as we saw a second plane hit the second Tower, and then the incredible collapse of both towers, all there for all Americans to absorb. Not soon after, the plane crash at The Pentagon and the fourth plane which was headed for Washington, D.C., targeting either the Capitol Building or the White House, but crashed in a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to retake control of the airliner. There were no survivors from any of the flights.
I remember being numb, having a sense that this was a joke—someone was repeating The War of the Worlds hoax by Mercury Theatre on the Air—performed on Halloween, October 30, 1938 and aired over the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) radio network. Directed and narrated by Orson Welles, the first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast were presented as a series of simulated "news bulletins,”which suggested that an actual alien invasion by Martians was currently in progress—someone was playing a hoax, we could not accept that this was really happening.
For about an hour, I was in denial...then the realization that this was not a hoax became clear to both of us: nearly 3,000 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks. Among the 2,753 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center were 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority, and 8 private emergency medical technicians and paramedics. Another 184 people were killed in the attack on the Pentagon. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.
For the first time in history SCATANA (Plan for the Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids) was invoked, establishing an ATC Zero condition, closing all airspace and immediately grounding all non-emergency civilian aircraft in the United States, Canada, and several other countries, and so stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the world. The Federal Aviation Administration closed American airspace to all international flights, causing about five hundred flights to be turned back or redirected to other countries. Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded
planes and stranded passengers.
We got mad, really mad; and both Bill and I wanted the US to obliterate the Middle East. As the culprits were identified, we supported the American invasion of Afghanistan and hoped the US would bring to justice the infamous Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, our then President George W. Bush got distracted with a war we didn’t need and invaded Iraq.
The politics of the events of September 11, 2001 will be discussed and re-examine under the microscope of history, but in the meantime our lives went on.
As a gay man, I love a great deal. To encourage travel, the airlines sold their seats for pennies. I remember that on September 15, I booked five trips to Puerto Rico—where I’m from—and three trips to Europe, and two trips to South America: all of them for under two thousand dollars. We didn’t book anymore, because there was no room in the calendar. So while the world went to war, while the hunt for Osama bin Laden was going on, we were traveling at bargain prices; and decided to completely live in denial. Funny, but when I found out that I was HIV positive I reacted the same way for two years: denial: The sky was cloudless and blue....
The problem with denial is that eventually you have to come back to the real world, and just like I started treatment for my HIV, I started dealing with “The War on Terror.” I’m 55 years old, and I consider myself somewhat intelligent, but to watch president Bush screw the American economy, while carrying a war of necessity and a war of choice—neither of which was funded—and going from a country that was admired and respected in the world to a country that became the laughing stock of the world was too much to tolerate: Thunderstorms became the forecast...
I lost it when Bush used same sex marriage to get re-elected in 2004. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force described the election results as “a right hook to the chin ... but certainly not a knockout.” Said Oregon activist Roey Thorpe, “On the road to equality and freedom, there are always setbacks.”
Oregon represented gay-rights groups’ best hope for victory, but an amendment banning same-sex marriage prevailed there with 57 percent of the votes, leaving some activists in tears. Similar bans won by larger margins in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah.
More than 20 million Americans voted on the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio. In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon was in Michigan, where the ban got 59 percent.
Faced with four more years of “W” (we never thought he actually won in 2000) and being declared second class citizens by The American electorate, we felt we had to leave our country: category five hurricanes were coming....
I talked with the Spanish consulate and was ready to make a move to Barcelona, but we were stopped by the fact that we needed to have insurance. Since we were both HIV positive, our insurance was Medicare, which is not accepted in Europe, or anywhere else outside the US: So we boycotted Christmas in 2004 and sent out black cards to each person we had addresses for: explaining why we felt there would be no Christmas in 2004. It was the first time I felt I didn’t want to be an American citizen, but had no where to hide. I started calling myself Puerto Rican and denying Bush was my President.
As we suffered the atrocities committed by the Bush administration, The Daily Show became our nightly relief—we wish to thank Jon Stewart for the free therapy. Every time we heard the word “nucular” by “W” it was as if someone was stabbing us with a dagger. But when Mr. Stewart made fun of it, we were healed a little...
Then came 2008 and we had hope. Even though we were both for Hillary, we were glad to see the Democrats take the White House and both Houses of Congress: Bright skies...
Unfortunately, Obama was not the President we had hoped for. First of all, he was against marriage Equality: and worst of all, he turned out to be a sucker. His inability to lead and his naiveté in dealing with The Republicans proved fatal. The 2010 elections were a disaster: and the birth of the Tea Party moved the Republican Party to the extreme right: to a point where “W” seemed to be a moderate.
Obama was unable to end the Bush tax cuts in the budget negotiations and was ineffective in dealing with the Tea Party in the debt ceiling bargain. The US became the world’s laughing stock, Congress’s approval rating went down to 12% and Standard and Poor’s downgraded the American debt from AAA to AA+: Severe Thunderstorms warnings....
Then Osama bin Laden, was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, shortly after 1 a.m. local time by a United States Navy Seals special forces. The operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear, was ordered by United States President Barack Obama and carried out in a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operation by a team of United States Navy SEALs, with support from CIA operatives on the ground. The raid on bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan was launched from Afghanistan. After the raid, US forces took bin Laden's body to Afghanistan for identification, then buried it at sea within 24 hours of his death. Al-Qaeda confirmed the death on May 6 with posts made on militant websites, vowing to avenge the killing. The attack was done without permission or knowledge from the Pakistani government, who condemned the action as an invasion of their sovereign status. However, to this day, the main Bush ally in the “war against terror,”who received over 2 billion dollars a year from American taxpayers, has not been able to explain their ignorance—or worse, aid—in the hiding of Osama bin Laden in plain view, just a few miles from the West Point of Pakistan: sunny weather, with cloud coverings...
We thought the death of Osama Bin Laden would put closure to the 9/11 tragedy. We were also encouraged when the Obama administration finally moved to revoke Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, so now GLBT Americans can serve freely in the armed forces, and the President is coming our way towards Marriage Equality. New York State became the fifth and largest state to legalize same sex marriage, and the mood is finally moving toward Equal rights for the GLBT community. However, the economy is doing poorly and even though the Republicans are doing everything possible to harm our economy so that Obama becomes a one-termpresident, unemployment has not recovered and we may be nearing a double dip recession. That does not bode well for Mr. Obama chances in 2012. The truth is that Americans will ALWAYS live under the shadows of the 9/11 tragedy and the two wars we are still fighting are proof of that. We should bring everyone home: Bin Laden is dead—we can rebuild our economy if we just choose to spend all that reconstruction money used in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan right here in the US. We may even be able to balance the budget: So the weather for 2012 is yet to be determined...
Dr. Mock has published five books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Make more of a fuss over Puerto Rico
Make more of a fuss over Puerto Rico
By Carlos T Mock
June 22, 2012
I was five years old when President Kennedy visited Puerto Rico. I remembered it like it was yesterday. The Island declared it a holiday so that everyone could come and see the Presidential entourage parading through the streets of San Juan. They even named a room after him at the Governor’s Mansion (La Fortaleza).
It takes a pretty distracted country to forget about a colony. But I think it’s fair to say that the people of the US have managed to pull off just such a feat of collective amnesia when it comes to Puerto Rico.
I was reminded of this when Barack Obama toured our Homeland for a few hours on Tuesday. It marked the first official visit by a US president to Puerto Rico in half a century and that is a remarkable statistic.
After all, the US owns Puerto Rico – and has - since 1898. The island was conquered during the Spanish-American War and is today a self-governing “commonwealth” of the US. Its people are US citizens: they share common citizenship, currency , and defense (just ask how many young Puerto Ricans have given their lives for American causes). Puerto Rican elect their local officials, but they are unable to vote for the president and members of Congress who oversee matters including defense policy and agriculture because they don't pay federal income taxes—although local taxes are as high as in the US.
Nor does the international community show much interest in the plight of Puerto Ricans, either. Conditions on the island are tough unemployment exceeds 16 per cent and drug violence has produced a higher murder rate than that of Mexico. But Puerto Rico just hasn’t made the list of disputed territories that tug on the heartstrings of the global chattering classes – even of the anti-US variety.
Not everyone in Puerto Rico has been happy with these arrangements. In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate President Harry Truman, setting off a gun battle on the streets of Washington that left a police officer and one would-be assassin dead. In 1954, other Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the gallery of the House of Representatives, wounding five members of Congress.
Two years ago, Governor Luis Fortuño was propelled to a landslide victory on the island with a mandate to take the “commonwealth” through a series of referendums to try to resolve the association between Puerto Rico and the US—perhaps creating the 51st state.
The charismatic 51-year-old Republican, who is thought to have national political ambitions, has since pushed an ambitious reform program. He has cut spending, increased university fees and sold off assets, including an airport and a toll road concession.
Puerto Ricans mourn when they talk about being fired from their job in the Puerto Rican government. Like many of the 12,000 state employees who lost their jobs during a tough austerity program on the island, they thought they had a position for life. So, many Puerto Ricans are angry, and the governor’s approval rating is slipping in advance of next year’s election. “What is the cost of balancing the budget?” asked Eduardo Bhatia, a Democrat in Puerto Rico’s senate.
Now plagued by a steadily worsening murder rate, more Puerto Ricans are second-guessing their evening plans, contemplating moving to the mainland (the latest “brain drain”) and sending away for gun permits in larger numbers to protect themselves. And the police are rolling out new strategies they hope will bring things under control.
So far this year, there have been 525 murders in Puerto Rico, a number that is outpacing last year’s 983 homicides, the second-highest ever, and the 995 in 1994. New York City, with a population a bit over twice that of Puerto Rico, reported 199 murders through the middle of this month, with a total of 536 in 2010.
High murder rates are not unusual in Puerto Rico. Between 1980 to 2005 the average annual homicide rate was 19 per 100,000 in Puerto Rico and 8 per 100,000 on the mainland.
The silence about Puerto Rico at home and abroad is particularly peculiar because Puerto Ricans have played such a prominent role in the media capital that is New York. Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans came to the city during the last century. Some came in search of works; others were given a one way ticket and no support, to make the local government of the then Luis Muñoz Marín, look good at reducing poverty statistics in the Island. But it created havoc in NYC, stories which were captured in 1956 By Pedro Juan Soto in his short story collection: “Spiks.” There has been further immigration to the mainland, the so call “brain drains” of the 80’s, 90’s, and just recently: making it impossible to imagine the New York area or its sprawling Spanish-speaking barrios without them.
But for all the familiarity New Yorkers have developed with the local Puerto Rican community there has been a profound lack of connection with the history of Puerto Rico or the conditions on the island that drove its residents so far away. Even New Yorkers with immigrant backgrounds are not above viewing the Puerto Rican influx as some sort of historical accident – like the Puerto Rican Day parade that blocked Jerry Seinfeld and his friends in one of the episodes of his television situation comedy.
After all these years, Puerto Rico remains a mystery to the people who own it. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 50 years for someone to notice us....
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock
June 22, 2012
I was five years old when President Kennedy visited Puerto Rico. I remembered it like it was yesterday. The Island declared it a holiday so that everyone could come and see the Presidential entourage parading through the streets of San Juan. They even named a room after him at the Governor’s Mansion (La Fortaleza).
It takes a pretty distracted country to forget about a colony. But I think it’s fair to say that the people of the US have managed to pull off just such a feat of collective amnesia when it comes to Puerto Rico.
I was reminded of this when Barack Obama toured our Homeland for a few hours on Tuesday. It marked the first official visit by a US president to Puerto Rico in half a century and that is a remarkable statistic.
After all, the US owns Puerto Rico – and has - since 1898. The island was conquered during the Spanish-American War and is today a self-governing “commonwealth” of the US. Its people are US citizens: they share common citizenship, currency , and defense (just ask how many young Puerto Ricans have given their lives for American causes). Puerto Rican elect their local officials, but they are unable to vote for the president and members of Congress who oversee matters including defense policy and agriculture because they don't pay federal income taxes—although local taxes are as high as in the US.
Nor does the international community show much interest in the plight of Puerto Ricans, either. Conditions on the island are tough unemployment exceeds 16 per cent and drug violence has produced a higher murder rate than that of Mexico. But Puerto Rico just hasn’t made the list of disputed territories that tug on the heartstrings of the global chattering classes – even of the anti-US variety.
Not everyone in Puerto Rico has been happy with these arrangements. In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate President Harry Truman, setting off a gun battle on the streets of Washington that left a police officer and one would-be assassin dead. In 1954, other Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the gallery of the House of Representatives, wounding five members of Congress.
Two years ago, Governor Luis Fortuño was propelled to a landslide victory on the island with a mandate to take the “commonwealth” through a series of referendums to try to resolve the association between Puerto Rico and the US—perhaps creating the 51st state.
The charismatic 51-year-old Republican, who is thought to have national political ambitions, has since pushed an ambitious reform program. He has cut spending, increased university fees and sold off assets, including an airport and a toll road concession.
Puerto Ricans mourn when they talk about being fired from their job in the Puerto Rican government. Like many of the 12,000 state employees who lost their jobs during a tough austerity program on the island, they thought they had a position for life. So, many Puerto Ricans are angry, and the governor’s approval rating is slipping in advance of next year’s election. “What is the cost of balancing the budget?” asked Eduardo Bhatia, a Democrat in Puerto Rico’s senate.
Now plagued by a steadily worsening murder rate, more Puerto Ricans are second-guessing their evening plans, contemplating moving to the mainland (the latest “brain drain”) and sending away for gun permits in larger numbers to protect themselves. And the police are rolling out new strategies they hope will bring things under control.
So far this year, there have been 525 murders in Puerto Rico, a number that is outpacing last year’s 983 homicides, the second-highest ever, and the 995 in 1994. New York City, with a population a bit over twice that of Puerto Rico, reported 199 murders through the middle of this month, with a total of 536 in 2010.
High murder rates are not unusual in Puerto Rico. Between 1980 to 2005 the average annual homicide rate was 19 per 100,000 in Puerto Rico and 8 per 100,000 on the mainland.
The silence about Puerto Rico at home and abroad is particularly peculiar because Puerto Ricans have played such a prominent role in the media capital that is New York. Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans came to the city during the last century. Some came in search of works; others were given a one way ticket and no support, to make the local government of the then Luis Muñoz Marín, look good at reducing poverty statistics in the Island. But it created havoc in NYC, stories which were captured in 1956 By Pedro Juan Soto in his short story collection: “Spiks.” There has been further immigration to the mainland, the so call “brain drains” of the 80’s, 90’s, and just recently: making it impossible to imagine the New York area or its sprawling Spanish-speaking barrios without them.
But for all the familiarity New Yorkers have developed with the local Puerto Rican community there has been a profound lack of connection with the history of Puerto Rico or the conditions on the island that drove its residents so far away. Even New Yorkers with immigrant backgrounds are not above viewing the Puerto Rican influx as some sort of historical accident – like the Puerto Rican Day parade that blocked Jerry Seinfeld and his friends in one of the episodes of his television situation comedy.
After all these years, Puerto Rico remains a mystery to the people who own it. Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 50 years for someone to notice us....
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, April 8, 2011
The American Solution for Puerto Rico
The American Solution for Puerto Rico
By Carlos T Mock
April 8, 2011
“There are only two ways to be Puerto Rican: either you were born there, or its soul runs through your veins.” Carlos T Mock
It’s been a long time since most Independentistas in Puerto Rico have theorized that the way for Puerto Rico to achieve its independence would come from Washington, D. C. They believe that independence would be most convenient to both The USA and The Republic of Puerto Rico.
However, The White House Interagency Committee reported on March 16, 2011, its plans for the colony. The White House wishes are a two-part referendum: in the first referendum they would ask Puerto Ricans if they want a continuous association with the USA, either through Statehood or the Commonwealth (ELA). The second referendum would ask Puerto Ricans if they desire to brake their relationship with the USA: either via Independence or a loosely association with the federal government.
In the present Island conditions: dependent, federalized, and traumatized by an economic crisis never seen before in our generation, the results would lean toward the first option: decide between Commonwealth and Statehood. This in part would lead to a virtual tie, giving the powers that be in Washington D. C. an excuse to do nothing and keep the colony as is.
The American Solution for Puerto Rico is to maintain the colony just the way it has been for 113 years—not desiring to relinquish the political advantages nor the commerce the Island provides for the American Republic.
The White House Interagency Committee Report would federalize the island even further. A new model of annexation would ensue. Education, health, security, communications, energy, and even the judicial branch of the colony would be controlled directly from Washington D. C. as delineated by the Report taking over the Colony’s internal forms of government.
I’ve always believed that Puerto Rican Independence will only be achieved when Puerto Ricans come as a nation and decide to personally fight for that end. It is imperative that the country achieves a Patriotic and National Unity. Once we accept that independence will not come from Washington, perhaps we will not only achieve our Unity, but also we’ll start working on the necessity and viability of a Puerto Rican Republic.
The next step would be to demand that Puerto Rico be recognized as a Caribbean and Latin American independent entity. We would demand the government of the United States to accept its responsibility for subjecting our country to 113 years of colonialist abuse, to release all of our political prisoners, and we would ask for indemnification for damages caused to Puerto Rico:
Damages such as: destroying our agriculture, using our land for military bases without paying for them, sacrificing our youth as lab rats in their imperialistic wars, the poisonous damage to the Vieques and Culebra residents caused by the US Navy target practice in those islands, forcing us to use their merchant marine at higher prices as they impede our commerce with the rest of the world, and finally taking the productive and working soul of our people and turning them into unproductive and useless individuals.
We propose to use the millions of dollars from this indemnification to establish the nascent Republic of Puerto Rico and to repair the damage of 113 years of colonial abuse.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock
April 8, 2011
“There are only two ways to be Puerto Rican: either you were born there, or its soul runs through your veins.” Carlos T Mock
It’s been a long time since most Independentistas in Puerto Rico have theorized that the way for Puerto Rico to achieve its independence would come from Washington, D. C. They believe that independence would be most convenient to both The USA and The Republic of Puerto Rico.
However, The White House Interagency Committee reported on March 16, 2011, its plans for the colony. The White House wishes are a two-part referendum: in the first referendum they would ask Puerto Ricans if they want a continuous association with the USA, either through Statehood or the Commonwealth (ELA). The second referendum would ask Puerto Ricans if they desire to brake their relationship with the USA: either via Independence or a loosely association with the federal government.
In the present Island conditions: dependent, federalized, and traumatized by an economic crisis never seen before in our generation, the results would lean toward the first option: decide between Commonwealth and Statehood. This in part would lead to a virtual tie, giving the powers that be in Washington D. C. an excuse to do nothing and keep the colony as is.
The American Solution for Puerto Rico is to maintain the colony just the way it has been for 113 years—not desiring to relinquish the political advantages nor the commerce the Island provides for the American Republic.
The White House Interagency Committee Report would federalize the island even further. A new model of annexation would ensue. Education, health, security, communications, energy, and even the judicial branch of the colony would be controlled directly from Washington D. C. as delineated by the Report taking over the Colony’s internal forms of government.
I’ve always believed that Puerto Rican Independence will only be achieved when Puerto Ricans come as a nation and decide to personally fight for that end. It is imperative that the country achieves a Patriotic and National Unity. Once we accept that independence will not come from Washington, perhaps we will not only achieve our Unity, but also we’ll start working on the necessity and viability of a Puerto Rican Republic.
The next step would be to demand that Puerto Rico be recognized as a Caribbean and Latin American independent entity. We would demand the government of the United States to accept its responsibility for subjecting our country to 113 years of colonialist abuse, to release all of our political prisoners, and we would ask for indemnification for damages caused to Puerto Rico:
Damages such as: destroying our agriculture, using our land for military bases without paying for them, sacrificing our youth as lab rats in their imperialistic wars, the poisonous damage to the Vieques and Culebra residents caused by the US Navy target practice in those islands, forcing us to use their merchant marine at higher prices as they impede our commerce with the rest of the world, and finally taking the productive and working soul of our people and turning them into unproductive and useless individuals.
We propose to use the millions of dollars from this indemnification to establish the nascent Republic of Puerto Rico and to repair the damage of 113 years of colonial abuse.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, March 25, 2011
An Obsolete coinage system and how to reduce the deficit without loosing one single job
An Obsolete coinage system and how to reduce the deficit without
loosing one single job
By Carlos T Mock, MD
March 23, 2011
From Barcelona, Spain
The first proof that our coinage is obsolete is that use of the
Kennedy half-dollar, Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea dollars is not as
widespread as that of other coins in general circulation; most
Americans use quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies only. In 1982 the
US mint had to change the composition of the copper penny. Due to an
increase in copper prices, the penny was costing 1.7 cents to mint so
the mint changed its composition from copper 95% and tin 5% to a core:
made of zinc 97.5% and a plating made of copper 2.5%.
The lack of use of the dollar and fifty cents coins costs an average
of 500 million dollars/year to the US mint. Coins last in circulation
for an average of thirty years, but bills only last an average of six
months. The fact that Americans refuse to use these coins, means that
the US must print more one dollar bills than necessary.
Any person that has a wish to reduce our deficit should take a look at
this obsolete coinage system and might come up with the following
solutions:
The reason the Kennedy half dollar is not used is because it is too
big. Reduce its volume by one half, and not only will it be cheaper
to print, but it will easier to carry in our pockets. The second
solution to our problem is that we need to eliminate the one, two, and
five dollar bills from circulation. For God’s sake, a pack of
cigarettes costs more that five dollars these days—isn’t it time we
printed a five dollar coin?
To encourage the use of these new coins and to make them easy to
identify and use, we would keep them between the size of a current
nickel and a current quarter but so as we don’t confuse their value
and to be clearly identified by the public I propose the use of
alloys. Just like the Euro and Mexican coins, the one 1 and 2 and 5
dollar coins would be two-toned. The "gold" would be an alloy made of
75% copper , 20% zinc and 5% nickel. The "silver" alloy would be
75% cupronickel and 25% nickel. The 25, and 50-cent coins would be
made from a proprietary alloy known as "Nordic gold, made of 89%
copper, 5% aluminum, 5% zinc and 1% tin.
We could either have a competition by the public to create the new
coins, or we could have the mint use its artists.
I believe that it is long overdue to return President Eisenhower to
the one dollar coin. I think Reagan could be a candidate for the five
dollar coin, and perhaps Truman for the two dollar coin.
If we force this changes on the American public, the treasury would
save 3 to 5 billion/year EVERY year, depending on how quickly the
change is made. The changeover period during which the former
currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the new
currency lasted about two months in the case of the Euro. In our
case the official date on which the national currencies ceased to be
legal tender would vary from State to State.
Not only we would not lose one job from this proposal, but we would
create jobs, because we would have to adapt all of our machines to the
new coinage. After firing teachers, policemen, firemen, and public
employees to balance our budgets, I think this simple solution should
be considered before we implant more pain on our American citizens.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
loosing one single job
By Carlos T Mock, MD
March 23, 2011
From Barcelona, Spain
The first proof that our coinage is obsolete is that use of the
Kennedy half-dollar, Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea dollars is not as
widespread as that of other coins in general circulation; most
Americans use quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies only. In 1982 the
US mint had to change the composition of the copper penny. Due to an
increase in copper prices, the penny was costing 1.7 cents to mint so
the mint changed its composition from copper 95% and tin 5% to a core:
made of zinc 97.5% and a plating made of copper 2.5%.
The lack of use of the dollar and fifty cents coins costs an average
of 500 million dollars/year to the US mint. Coins last in circulation
for an average of thirty years, but bills only last an average of six
months. The fact that Americans refuse to use these coins, means that
the US must print more one dollar bills than necessary.
Any person that has a wish to reduce our deficit should take a look at
this obsolete coinage system and might come up with the following
solutions:
The reason the Kennedy half dollar is not used is because it is too
big. Reduce its volume by one half, and not only will it be cheaper
to print, but it will easier to carry in our pockets. The second
solution to our problem is that we need to eliminate the one, two, and
five dollar bills from circulation. For God’s sake, a pack of
cigarettes costs more that five dollars these days—isn’t it time we
printed a five dollar coin?
To encourage the use of these new coins and to make them easy to
identify and use, we would keep them between the size of a current
nickel and a current quarter but so as we don’t confuse their value
and to be clearly identified by the public I propose the use of
alloys. Just like the Euro and Mexican coins, the one 1 and 2 and 5
dollar coins would be two-toned. The "gold" would be an alloy made of
75% copper , 20% zinc and 5% nickel. The "silver" alloy would be
75% cupronickel and 25% nickel. The 25, and 50-cent coins would be
made from a proprietary alloy known as "Nordic gold, made of 89%
copper, 5% aluminum, 5% zinc and 1% tin.
We could either have a competition by the public to create the new
coins, or we could have the mint use its artists.
I believe that it is long overdue to return President Eisenhower to
the one dollar coin. I think Reagan could be a candidate for the five
dollar coin, and perhaps Truman for the two dollar coin.
If we force this changes on the American public, the treasury would
save 3 to 5 billion/year EVERY year, depending on how quickly the
change is made. The changeover period during which the former
currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the new
currency lasted about two months in the case of the Euro. In our
case the official date on which the national currencies ceased to be
legal tender would vary from State to State.
Not only we would not lose one job from this proposal, but we would
create jobs, because we would have to adapt all of our machines to the
new coinage. After firing teachers, policemen, firemen, and public
employees to balance our budgets, I think this simple solution should
be considered before we implant more pain on our American citizens.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Friday, March 11, 2011
Puerto Rican Students protest rise in tuition fee
End of February, 2011
Puerto Rican Students protest rise in tuition fee
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Months of unrest at the University of Puerto Rico seemed to be reaching a finale. Scores of students were arrested or injured by riot police officers. Faculty and staff members held a two-day walkout. The president of the university resigned, the police who had occupied campus were withdrawn and an interim president arrived.
But there were only three days of peace.
On the morning of February 17, students blocked the stairs to classrooms in the social science department with trash cans and chairs, and also closed down the humanities department. At the social sciences building, students said only one professor had tried to get through the blockade.
The spark for the university’s problems was a budget cut that required students to pay a new $800 fee, increasing their costs by more than 50 percent.
“It is the same situation that many universities in the United States are facing,” said Miguel A. Muñoz, the interim president. “Our budget is about $1 billion, and we have been cut about $200 million. We need the $800 fee to cover the deficit, and our tuition is so low, $51 a credit, that it’s almost a gift.”
The tuition is indeed far lower than most other flagship public universities. But Puerto Rico is poorer than the mainland United States, and two-thirds of the students have incomes low enough to qualify for Pell grants.
As at many public universities elsewhere in the United States, students here worry that the new fiscal realities will restrict who can attend.
Student leaders estimate that at least 5,000 of the university’s students were not able to pay the fee this semester. And the administration acknowledges that there are now fewer than 54,000 students this semester, compared with about 60,000 last semester.
But the students have flexed their muscles. A two-month strike last spring shut down the university’s 11 campuses. And since the current strike began in December — this time, largely at the main Rio Piedras campus in San Juan — people across the island have been riveted by television and YouTube videos of violent confrontations between students and the police.
Many students were outraged that the police had been called to the campus.
“Calling in the police, for the first time in 30 years, was one of the most rash decisions they could have made,” said René Vargas, a law student who represents the student body on the university board of trustees. “The university’s intransigence and refusal to talk to students has worsened the whole situation. The students presented a 200-page document suggesting alternatives and ways to increase revenues, and the trustees have not even been willing to look at it.”
Whether or not they approved of the police presence, many students said they found it frightening.
“I didn’t go to class when I saw the police because I was scared of getting hurt,” said Carmen Gonzalez, a senior majoring in English literature who supported the protesters. “On television I saw people getting hurt, and if you’re in class and you hear those police helicopters, you can’t concentrate.”
Some students are rethinking their protest approach. “Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” one said.
Many students complained about the university’s decision to put several academic programs, including Hispanic studies, “on pause,” meaning they are not accepting new undergraduates.
Some faculty members and students say that local politics have played a large role in the university’s problems.
Puerto Rico has its first Republican governor in decades, Luis G. Fortuño, a pro-statehood conservative who has cut the number of public employees by about 17,000. Last weekend, while the protesters were marching in the streets, Mr. Fortuño was in Washington as a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action conference.
Even in the lull from protests early this week, students and faculty members alike said they had no illusion that the situation had been resolved.
“We still have a very volatile situation,” said Maritza Stanchich, an English professor who has supported the students. “This all started out over anger about the new fees that were being imposed, but the issues have expanded to the style of governance and the lack of negotiation.”
While it is hard to predict what will happen next, some students may be changing their approach.
“What a lot of people are saying, and I believe too, is that we should be thinking about a movement of protest now, not really a strike,” said Omar Oduardo, a Student Council representative who spent Thursday at the social sciences department lobby, discussing the situation.
“Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” he added, “and it’s time to go outside the university, to the legislature and the community, to work for change
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Puerto Rican Students protest rise in tuition fee
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Months of unrest at the University of Puerto Rico seemed to be reaching a finale. Scores of students were arrested or injured by riot police officers. Faculty and staff members held a two-day walkout. The president of the university resigned, the police who had occupied campus were withdrawn and an interim president arrived.
But there were only three days of peace.
On the morning of February 17, students blocked the stairs to classrooms in the social science department with trash cans and chairs, and also closed down the humanities department. At the social sciences building, students said only one professor had tried to get through the blockade.
The spark for the university’s problems was a budget cut that required students to pay a new $800 fee, increasing their costs by more than 50 percent.
“It is the same situation that many universities in the United States are facing,” said Miguel A. Muñoz, the interim president. “Our budget is about $1 billion, and we have been cut about $200 million. We need the $800 fee to cover the deficit, and our tuition is so low, $51 a credit, that it’s almost a gift.”
The tuition is indeed far lower than most other flagship public universities. But Puerto Rico is poorer than the mainland United States, and two-thirds of the students have incomes low enough to qualify for Pell grants.
As at many public universities elsewhere in the United States, students here worry that the new fiscal realities will restrict who can attend.
Student leaders estimate that at least 5,000 of the university’s students were not able to pay the fee this semester. And the administration acknowledges that there are now fewer than 54,000 students this semester, compared with about 60,000 last semester.
But the students have flexed their muscles. A two-month strike last spring shut down the university’s 11 campuses. And since the current strike began in December — this time, largely at the main Rio Piedras campus in San Juan — people across the island have been riveted by television and YouTube videos of violent confrontations between students and the police.
Many students were outraged that the police had been called to the campus.
“Calling in the police, for the first time in 30 years, was one of the most rash decisions they could have made,” said René Vargas, a law student who represents the student body on the university board of trustees. “The university’s intransigence and refusal to talk to students has worsened the whole situation. The students presented a 200-page document suggesting alternatives and ways to increase revenues, and the trustees have not even been willing to look at it.”
Whether or not they approved of the police presence, many students said they found it frightening.
“I didn’t go to class when I saw the police because I was scared of getting hurt,” said Carmen Gonzalez, a senior majoring in English literature who supported the protesters. “On television I saw people getting hurt, and if you’re in class and you hear those police helicopters, you can’t concentrate.”
Some students are rethinking their protest approach. “Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” one said.
Many students complained about the university’s decision to put several academic programs, including Hispanic studies, “on pause,” meaning they are not accepting new undergraduates.
Some faculty members and students say that local politics have played a large role in the university’s problems.
Puerto Rico has its first Republican governor in decades, Luis G. Fortuño, a pro-statehood conservative who has cut the number of public employees by about 17,000. Last weekend, while the protesters were marching in the streets, Mr. Fortuño was in Washington as a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action conference.
Even in the lull from protests early this week, students and faculty members alike said they had no illusion that the situation had been resolved.
“We still have a very volatile situation,” said Maritza Stanchich, an English professor who has supported the students. “This all started out over anger about the new fees that were being imposed, but the issues have expanded to the style of governance and the lack of negotiation.”
While it is hard to predict what will happen next, some students may be changing their approach.
“What a lot of people are saying, and I believe too, is that we should be thinking about a movement of protest now, not really a strike,” said Omar Oduardo, a Student Council representative who spent Thursday at the social sciences department lobby, discussing the situation.
“Maybe stopping classes is working against the movement,” he added, “and it’s time to go outside the university, to the legislature and the community, to work for change
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Comments by a struggling author
Comments by a struggling author
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago, IL
March 2, 2011
With the announcement of Border's Bankruptcy Chapter 11 filing on February 16, 2011, the death of the American publishing industry has been sealed.
The Big chain stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble were the demise of the small independent bookstores--the “Walmarts of the book industry.” Now they are becoming dinosaurs. Book store chains have been under severe pressure from discount sellers such as Amazon and Walmart in the mass market, along with the rapid growth in popularity of electronic book readers. Borders and rival Barnes & Noble have both been investing in new technology to better compete in the digital marketplace.
So where does that leave small publishing companies and the struggling new writers?
The big publishing companies ONLY want to publish celebrities. Donald Rumsfeld, Sara Palin, and George W. Bush are but a few examples of the trash that the big publishing companies are investing in and marketing. These books are a waste of the trees that died for the books to be sold. They are trash and lies for a specific readership that is either moronic or fanatics to certain ideals and need to be reassured so as not to crumble when the truth be known.
The second kind of books that are being published deal with religion. The best example of this is The Shack: which was written by the protagonist's best friend, William (Willie) P. Young. The book is boring, repetitive and overly complex. Nothing makes sense and I thought it was going to be a parody, since God is portrayed by a Black woman. But to hear the same things over and over again from page 88 to page 238 was hard to follow. To me it is irrelevant whether “the miracle” that happened to the protagonist is true or not. The author told the story in such a bad way that unless your religious beliefs coincide with those of the author, you will be terribly disappointed. Again the publisher is looking for morons or fanatics to reassure.
The third kind of books that are being promoted deal with vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural mumbo jumbo. The best example of this is the Twilight Series. Having read most of Ann Rice's books, I experienced how the vampire books got from good and erotic to verbose and boring. Ms. Meyer is unfortunately the later version of Ms. Rice. I believe that the audience Ms. Meyer is witting for is high school girls, which might explain her poor performance. Bella and Edward's story can be summarized in two paragraphs. A very insecure girl moves to Forks in Washington State; escaping her mother who recently remarried, to live with her father, the town sheriff. She meets a very awkward boy, Edward and slowly falls for him. She finally guesses that he is a vampire, and their relationship grows until Edward places Bella in great danger. After some chasing around, Bella is saved by her boyfriend. How Ms. Meyer got almost 500 pages to tell us this baffles me. She is extremely boring, I believe this book is an insult to our youth. They deserve better.
It is not a coincidence that no American novelist has won the Nobel prize in literature since 1993, when Toni Morrison from Ohio did. Instead the artistic and literary talent has shifted to Latin America, Europe, and Asia—Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa won the 2010 Nobel price in Literature—Mexican Octavio Paz in 1990, The Spanish Camilo José Cela in 1989, Colombian Gabriel García Márquez in 1982, and Chilean Pablo Neruda in 1972. No American has won this coveted price since 1962, other than Toni Morrison in 1993. The best books I’ve read in a long time are by:
Spanish Matilde Asensi: El Último Cato (The Last Cato), Todo Bajo el Cielo (Everything under the sky), El Origen Perdido, (The Lost Origin), and el Salon de Ámbar (The Amber Room).
Dominican Junot Díaz: The Brief Wondrous life of Oscar Wao (La maravillosa Vida Breve de Oscar Wao) Winner of the 2008 Pulitzer Price
Spanish Julia Navarro: La Biblia de Barro (The Mud Bible), Hermandad de La Sábana Santa (The brotherhood of the holy Grail), and La Sangre de los Inocentes (The Innocents’ Blood).
Spanish Arturo Pérez Reverete’s El Club Dumas which was used to create the script for the movie “The Ninth Gate.”
Spanish Javier Sierra: La Cena Secreta (The secret supper), Las Puertas Templarias (The Templar Doors), La dama Azul (The Blue Lady), and The Seville Communion.
Spanish Carlos Ruiz Zafón: El Juego del Angel (The Angel’s Game) and La Sombra del Viento (The Shadow of the Wind)--my favorites!!!
Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa’s best: La Fiesta del Chivo (The Goat’s Party)--close second
Not to mention the talent from Afghanistan: Khaled Hosseini’s Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns
From Sri Lanka: Shyam Selvadurai’s Funny Boy and Cinnamon Gardens
And, finally, from Sweden: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson
I think that unless the American publishers start looking for and promoting talent, instead of promoting bad literature and cultist themes by celebrities, the death of the struggling author will come along with the death of our literature. We are not just behind in math and science—our youth are being poisoned by the terrible choices made by our publishing companies.
Countries like Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Sweden are producing better literature than we are.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago, IL
March 2, 2011
With the announcement of Border's Bankruptcy Chapter 11 filing on February 16, 2011, the death of the American publishing industry has been sealed.
The Big chain stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble were the demise of the small independent bookstores--the “Walmarts of the book industry.” Now they are becoming dinosaurs. Book store chains have been under severe pressure from discount sellers such as Amazon and Walmart in the mass market, along with the rapid growth in popularity of electronic book readers. Borders and rival Barnes & Noble have both been investing in new technology to better compete in the digital marketplace.
So where does that leave small publishing companies and the struggling new writers?
The big publishing companies ONLY want to publish celebrities. Donald Rumsfeld, Sara Palin, and George W. Bush are but a few examples of the trash that the big publishing companies are investing in and marketing. These books are a waste of the trees that died for the books to be sold. They are trash and lies for a specific readership that is either moronic or fanatics to certain ideals and need to be reassured so as not to crumble when the truth be known.
The second kind of books that are being published deal with religion. The best example of this is The Shack: which was written by the protagonist's best friend, William (Willie) P. Young. The book is boring, repetitive and overly complex. Nothing makes sense and I thought it was going to be a parody, since God is portrayed by a Black woman. But to hear the same things over and over again from page 88 to page 238 was hard to follow. To me it is irrelevant whether “the miracle” that happened to the protagonist is true or not. The author told the story in such a bad way that unless your religious beliefs coincide with those of the author, you will be terribly disappointed. Again the publisher is looking for morons or fanatics to reassure.
The third kind of books that are being promoted deal with vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural mumbo jumbo. The best example of this is the Twilight Series. Having read most of Ann Rice's books, I experienced how the vampire books got from good and erotic to verbose and boring. Ms. Meyer is unfortunately the later version of Ms. Rice. I believe that the audience Ms. Meyer is witting for is high school girls, which might explain her poor performance. Bella and Edward's story can be summarized in two paragraphs. A very insecure girl moves to Forks in Washington State; escaping her mother who recently remarried, to live with her father, the town sheriff. She meets a very awkward boy, Edward and slowly falls for him. She finally guesses that he is a vampire, and their relationship grows until Edward places Bella in great danger. After some chasing around, Bella is saved by her boyfriend. How Ms. Meyer got almost 500 pages to tell us this baffles me. She is extremely boring, I believe this book is an insult to our youth. They deserve better.
It is not a coincidence that no American novelist has won the Nobel prize in literature since 1993, when Toni Morrison from Ohio did. Instead the artistic and literary talent has shifted to Latin America, Europe, and Asia—Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa won the 2010 Nobel price in Literature—Mexican Octavio Paz in 1990, The Spanish Camilo José Cela in 1989, Colombian Gabriel García Márquez in 1982, and Chilean Pablo Neruda in 1972. No American has won this coveted price since 1962, other than Toni Morrison in 1993. The best books I’ve read in a long time are by:
Spanish Matilde Asensi: El Último Cato (The Last Cato), Todo Bajo el Cielo (Everything under the sky), El Origen Perdido, (The Lost Origin), and el Salon de Ámbar (The Amber Room).
Dominican Junot Díaz: The Brief Wondrous life of Oscar Wao (La maravillosa Vida Breve de Oscar Wao) Winner of the 2008 Pulitzer Price
Spanish Julia Navarro: La Biblia de Barro (The Mud Bible), Hermandad de La Sábana Santa (The brotherhood of the holy Grail), and La Sangre de los Inocentes (The Innocents’ Blood).
Spanish Arturo Pérez Reverete’s El Club Dumas which was used to create the script for the movie “The Ninth Gate.”
Spanish Javier Sierra: La Cena Secreta (The secret supper), Las Puertas Templarias (The Templar Doors), La dama Azul (The Blue Lady), and The Seville Communion.
Spanish Carlos Ruiz Zafón: El Juego del Angel (The Angel’s Game) and La Sombra del Viento (The Shadow of the Wind)--my favorites!!!
Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa’s best: La Fiesta del Chivo (The Goat’s Party)--close second
Not to mention the talent from Afghanistan: Khaled Hosseini’s Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns
From Sri Lanka: Shyam Selvadurai’s Funny Boy and Cinnamon Gardens
And, finally, from Sweden: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson
I think that unless the American publishers start looking for and promoting talent, instead of promoting bad literature and cultist themes by celebrities, the death of the struggling author will come along with the death of our literature. We are not just behind in math and science—our youth are being poisoned by the terrible choices made by our publishing companies.
Countries like Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Sweden are producing better literature than we are.
Dr. Carlos T Mock is a native Puerto Rican who resides in Chicago, IL and Three Oaks, MI. He has published four books and is the GLBT Editor for Floricanto Press in Berkley, CA. He contributes columns regularly to Windy City Times in Chicago, Ambiente Magazine in Miami, Camp Newspaper in Kansas City. He's had several OP-Ed published at the Chicago Tribune. Inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame October 18th, 2007. He can be reached at: http://www.carlostmock.com/
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The greatest threat to America’s economic well-being: its deteriorating and unsustainable fiscal condition.
The greatest threat to America’s economic well-being: its deteriorating and unsustainable fiscal condition.
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago
January 24, 2011
America’s debt is piling up at a rate not seen, outside of the Second World War, since record keeping began in 1792. Federal debt has nearly tripled in the past 10 years, from $3,500bn to more than $9,000bn. The ratio of debt to gross domestic product has doubled. Federal debt, of course, is the dollar-for-dollar product of deficits. Each of the past three years has seen trillion-dollar deficits, each larger in both absolute and proportionate terms than ever recorded before 2008.
Unfortunately, this picture gets worse. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the debt to GDP ratio will hit 90 per cent by 2020; the International Monetary Fund projects that it will reach 115 per cent. These are levels usually associated with Italy or Greece. The US will reach them within nine years.
The Solution: a negotiated agreement between the president and congressional leadership. The scale of deficit reduction needed to stabilize the US debt to GDP ratio, however, is large – between $200bn and $300bn annually. That means reducing entitlements and discretionary spending (anathema to congressional Democrats) as well as defense cuts and higher taxes (seen as toxic by Republicans). Bridging those differences promises to be a Himalayan task and is unlikely today. Only Mr. Obama can begin to change this dynamic.
This is the right moment because, for all the commentary on deficits and debt, the danger is greater than most Americans understand. Not even the US can indefinitely run up debt at the current, astronomical rate. If our leaders do not rein it in, global financial markets will ultimately force a solution. In other words, adjustment will either be done by the US or to it. The latter scenario would mean The American economy will be changed; by larger than necessary changes, indiscriminate, and imposed virtually overnight. No one can predict when markets might move on America, but it is a question of when, not if.
The result would be an age of American austerity. No category of federal spending, from defense to Medicare, would be spared. Taxes on most or all individuals and businesses would rise. Economic growth would slow. The consequences for America’s international role, and for world stability, would be profoundly negative.
Those who claim the debt crises that have struck Greece and Ireland recently and so many others cannot hit America should study the events of 1979. That was the period of stagflation, the Iranian oil embargo and President Jimmy Carter. The US dollar had been weakening for months but, when Mr. Carter proposed a larger than expected budget deficit, markets revolted. The dollar plunged, global markets fell and an international rescue of the dollar was required. Within days, the US was forced to halve its budget deficit and the Federal Reserve had to raise rates sharply. America was not immune from global financial rejection then, and it is not now.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T Mock, MD
Chicago
January 24, 2011
America’s debt is piling up at a rate not seen, outside of the Second World War, since record keeping began in 1792. Federal debt has nearly tripled in the past 10 years, from $3,500bn to more than $9,000bn. The ratio of debt to gross domestic product has doubled. Federal debt, of course, is the dollar-for-dollar product of deficits. Each of the past three years has seen trillion-dollar deficits, each larger in both absolute and proportionate terms than ever recorded before 2008.
Unfortunately, this picture gets worse. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the debt to GDP ratio will hit 90 per cent by 2020; the International Monetary Fund projects that it will reach 115 per cent. These are levels usually associated with Italy or Greece. The US will reach them within nine years.
The Solution: a negotiated agreement between the president and congressional leadership. The scale of deficit reduction needed to stabilize the US debt to GDP ratio, however, is large – between $200bn and $300bn annually. That means reducing entitlements and discretionary spending (anathema to congressional Democrats) as well as defense cuts and higher taxes (seen as toxic by Republicans). Bridging those differences promises to be a Himalayan task and is unlikely today. Only Mr. Obama can begin to change this dynamic.
This is the right moment because, for all the commentary on deficits and debt, the danger is greater than most Americans understand. Not even the US can indefinitely run up debt at the current, astronomical rate. If our leaders do not rein it in, global financial markets will ultimately force a solution. In other words, adjustment will either be done by the US or to it. The latter scenario would mean The American economy will be changed; by larger than necessary changes, indiscriminate, and imposed virtually overnight. No one can predict when markets might move on America, but it is a question of when, not if.
The result would be an age of American austerity. No category of federal spending, from defense to Medicare, would be spared. Taxes on most or all individuals and businesses would rise. Economic growth would slow. The consequences for America’s international role, and for world stability, would be profoundly negative.
Those who claim the debt crises that have struck Greece and Ireland recently and so many others cannot hit America should study the events of 1979. That was the period of stagflation, the Iranian oil embargo and President Jimmy Carter. The US dollar had been weakening for months but, when Mr. Carter proposed a larger than expected budget deficit, markets revolted. The dollar plunged, global markets fell and an international rescue of the dollar was required. Within days, the US was forced to halve its budget deficit and the Federal Reserve had to raise rates sharply. America was not immune from global financial rejection then, and it is not now.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Is there the will to save the euro?
Is there the will to save the euro?
By Carlos T MOCK
Chicago, IL
As Estonia became the 17th member to join the Euro on January first, 2011, we ask ourselves; is it worth it?
To outsiders, it may look a strange moment for the eurozone to be admitting new members when the single currency is embroiled in what some observers consider to be a battle for survival. Yet, Estonia’s eagerness to join despite the crisis provides a reminder of the euro’s appeal to some countries on the eastern fringe of Europe eager to cement their place in the west. While the debt crisis has sparked renewed debate over the merits of monetary union, Andrus Ansip, Estonia’s prime minister, says Europe must not lose sight of the bigger picture. “Every one in Estonia understands that the European Union started as a peacekeeping project and that the common market and the euro is a continuation of that,” he says.
Will the eurozone survive in its current form?
There are several reasons why markets have reacted poorly to Europe’s recent crisis management efforts. First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. To address these questions, we need to consider three more precise issues. First, how likely is a wave of sovereign defaults? Second, will the eurozone make the changes needed to prevent these? Third, could the eurozone survive them?
Sovereign defaults:
Ireland: Ireland’s government has avoided immediate disaster by mustering just enough votes to pass its emergency budget. But now it must decide what to do next. Here, €6bn ($9.4bn) in new austerity measures are unlikely to be enough to put it back on the right path. Instead a more radical option should be seriously considered: leaving the euro. Sovereign default, massive bank recapitalizations, and sharply falling real wages are all given as reasons why peripheral euro area countries should hang on to monetary union. Yet, in Ireland’s case, all three are going to happen anyway. If Ireland’s government continues to guarantee bank debt, a restructuring of sovereign debt seems inevitable in 2013, when the present bail-out expires. Ireland simply has too much overall debt. A high-interest loan from the European Union and International Monetary Fund will only serve to buy a little more time. Further bank recapitalization is also so certain in Ireland that the EU, IMF, European Central Bank and Irish government have already set aside €35bn of the new €85bn bail-out package expressly for this purpose. On wages, given it is unable to devalue its currency Ireland must undergo an internal devaluation to regain competitiveness by cutting wages and bringing down prices. Real wages are therefore expected to fall over the next few years. All of this is pessimistic, but there is an optimistic case too: if Ireland withdrew from the euro it would actually have reasonably good prospects for growth. It has a highly skilled labor force, open labor and product markets and a fairly robust export sector. The export sector would be bolstered by an immediately devalued new Irish currency.
Spain: On December 15, Moody’s, said it may downgrade Spanish government bonds because of the country’s likely difficulty in raising large sums of money next year, the problems of its savings banks and the debts incurred by its autonomous regions. Spain was downgraded by Moody’s from the agency’s top rating of triple A by one notch less than three months ago because of weak economic growth, the difficulty of cutting the budget deficit and higher borrowing needs. In a statement on Wednesday, Moody’s said it was putting Spain’s current Aa1 ratings for local and foreign currency government bonds on review for possible downgrade, and was also reviewing the rating of the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, known as the Frob from its Spanish initials. The markets reacted swiftly to the news. The euro fell 0.5 per cent against the dollar to $1.3319 and yields on Spanish 10-year bonds challenged euro-era highs with an 8 basis point jump to 5.6 per cent. Madrid’s Ibex 35 stock index fell 1.4 per cent and the broader FTSE Eurofirst 300 lost 0.3 per cent as the region’s banks came under pressure because of their exposure to eurozone sovereign debt. The announcement by Moody’s comes at a bad time for Spain, one day ahead of its last scheduled bond auction of the year and just as it is struggling to restore international confidence in its economy and its banking system. On Tuesday, Spain sold €2.5bn in treasury bills but had to pay more than one percentage point more in interest than it did only a month ago.
Portugal had to pay extremely high premiums to sell short-term debt in a further sign of the problems in the eurozone debt markets. Lisbon borrowed €500m of three-month bills, paying an average yield of 3.40 per cent compared with a yield of 1.82 per cent at the previous auction on November 3. The auction attracted bids of 1.9 times the amount offered compared with a bid to cover ratio of 2.2 in November.
Thus the question is whether these countries can avoid sovereign debt restructuring. The salient characteristic of lending to sovereigns is the absence of collateral. Thus, the safety of the creditors depends on their ability to sell debt to others at reasonable prices. If this confidence disappears, liquidity dries up and sovereigns are driven into default. What, then, determines confidence? The short answer is: sustainability. That itself depends on the relationship between prospective economic growth and the real rate of interest. The lower the growth and the higher the interest rate, the bigger the primary fiscal surplus (before interest payments) needs to be – and so the greater the political costs of achieving it. The bigger these costs, the less confident will investors be and the higher the interest rates will become. This, then, creates a vicious spiral. Vulnerable peripheral eurozone member countries now suffer from troubled financial systems, high fiscal deficits, rapidly rising ratios of debt to gross domestic product, elevated interest rates, poor prospective growth and the absence of a central bank that is sure to make the debt market liquid. Poor growth prospects, in turn, are partly due to loss of competitiveness. If these indicators were applied to normal emerging countries, a default would seem inevitable.
Will changes be made?
The answer is: probably not. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has ruled out two of the most widely backed ideas for combating the eurozone debt crisis. She saw no need to increase the size of the European Union’s €440bn rescue fund and said that the bloc’s treaties did not allow for the creation of a Europe-wide bond. Ms Merkel’s comments on Monday came as finance ministers from the six-country eurozone were gathering in Brussels for a regularly scheduled meeting where the need for more measures was debated behind closed doors.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has called for calm in the European Union after an angry attack by Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, who accused Berlin of being “un-European” and “a bit simple” in making some areas “taboo” in EU negotiations. At the same time she repeated her rejection of Mr. Juncker’s proposal for jointly guaranteed eurobonds to help finance the most debt-laden members of the currency union. “The discussion does not help us,” she said after meeting Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister. Although Berlin remains adamant that Mr Juncker’s eurobond proposal cannot work without significant treaty change, there are signs that the German government may be prepared to seek some compromise on another plan: to raise the funds available in the eurozone rescue mechanism – the €440bn ($580bn) European financial stability facility – to enable the full amount to be payable for countries in difficulty. Under the present arrangement the fund can borrow €440bn on the bond market but can only pay out about two-thirds of the amount to troubled governments, mainly because it has to maintain a cash buffer to guarantee its triple-A status. An amendment to use the full €440bn is one proposal under consideration in Brussels and other eurozone capitals, although Germany has rejected as unnecessary any increase in its overall size. Mr. Juncker’s outburst, in an interview with Die Zeit, the German weekly newspaper, was the most dramatic demonstration to date of the worsening tempers within the EU. He accused the German government of rejecting his eurobond proposal “before it had been properly studied” and was baffled by Germany’s way of “erecting taboo areas in Europe and not even considering the ideas proposed by other people”.
The German rejection leaves the European Central Bank’s aggressive purchase of eurozone sovereign debt as the main weapon for the EU in fighting to keep the two most vulnerable countries, Portugal and Spain, from being forced into a bail-out. One reason is that the creditors want them. True, Germany has suggested this should apply only to future debt. But, in capital markets, the future is always now. Moreover, the funds now on offer are not enough to finance all weak countries for long enough to avoid defaults, particularly since the latter will need to deflate and restructure their way back to growth. As Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute argued in a recent paper for the London-based Legatum Institute, prospective growth is of the essence. But, in the absence of exchange rate flexibility and in the presence of high interest rates, cutting fiscal deficits on its own may well exacerbate slumps.
Could the eurozone survive a wave of debt restructurings?
The more a break-up looks possible, the higher the risk of a self-fulfilling dynamic. For this reason the European Union cannot afford doubts about the viability of the euro to spread and strengthen. What justifies these doubts? First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. Many countries across Europe are making sacrifices in the name of the single currency. The early lessons from Greece are that harsh reforms do not necessarily weaken governments if the population regards them as necessary. But a backlash is likely when conditions set for assistance are inadequate or unfair – as was the case with the strings attached to the cost of the emergency loans offered to Ireland. This is why European leaders must urgently devise a strategy to help foster growth in crisis-affected countries, before the euro is blamed for their difficulties.
Still worse, once a country has been forced to restructure its public debt and seen a substantial part of its financial system disappear as well, the additional costs of re-establishing its currency must seem rather smaller. This, too, must be clear to investors. Again, such fears increase the chances of runs from liabilities of weaker countries. For skeptics the question has always been how robust a currency union among diverse economies with less than unlimited mutual solidarity can be. Only a crisis could answer that question. Unfortunately, the crisis we have is the biggest for 80 years.
“Tell me how this ends,” was the question posed by General David Petraeus about the Iraq war. European leaders are asking the same question as they contemplate the crisis in the eurozone. Having failed to construct a firebreak in Greece, the Europeans are hoping that they can stop the euro crisis in Ireland. But, even as an Irish rescue package is put together, the bond markets are already looking with unhealthy interest at Portugal. After Portugal, Spain is assumed to be next. And, if a really big economy such as Spain needed to call the financial fire brigade, the whole future of the euro would be in serious peril. The question of “how this ends” is therefore obvious and urgent – but also fiendishly difficult to answer. It is like watching a three-dimensional game of chess – in which the financial, economic and political levels all interact with each other. My current best guess is that the single currency will indeed eventually break up – and that the euro’s executioner will be Germany, the most powerful country and economy inside the European Union.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
By Carlos T MOCK
Chicago, IL
As Estonia became the 17th member to join the Euro on January first, 2011, we ask ourselves; is it worth it?
To outsiders, it may look a strange moment for the eurozone to be admitting new members when the single currency is embroiled in what some observers consider to be a battle for survival. Yet, Estonia’s eagerness to join despite the crisis provides a reminder of the euro’s appeal to some countries on the eastern fringe of Europe eager to cement their place in the west. While the debt crisis has sparked renewed debate over the merits of monetary union, Andrus Ansip, Estonia’s prime minister, says Europe must not lose sight of the bigger picture. “Every one in Estonia understands that the European Union started as a peacekeeping project and that the common market and the euro is a continuation of that,” he says.
Will the eurozone survive in its current form?
There are several reasons why markets have reacted poorly to Europe’s recent crisis management efforts. First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. To address these questions, we need to consider three more precise issues. First, how likely is a wave of sovereign defaults? Second, will the eurozone make the changes needed to prevent these? Third, could the eurozone survive them?
Sovereign defaults:
Ireland: Ireland’s government has avoided immediate disaster by mustering just enough votes to pass its emergency budget. But now it must decide what to do next. Here, €6bn ($9.4bn) in new austerity measures are unlikely to be enough to put it back on the right path. Instead a more radical option should be seriously considered: leaving the euro. Sovereign default, massive bank recapitalizations, and sharply falling real wages are all given as reasons why peripheral euro area countries should hang on to monetary union. Yet, in Ireland’s case, all three are going to happen anyway. If Ireland’s government continues to guarantee bank debt, a restructuring of sovereign debt seems inevitable in 2013, when the present bail-out expires. Ireland simply has too much overall debt. A high-interest loan from the European Union and International Monetary Fund will only serve to buy a little more time. Further bank recapitalization is also so certain in Ireland that the EU, IMF, European Central Bank and Irish government have already set aside €35bn of the new €85bn bail-out package expressly for this purpose. On wages, given it is unable to devalue its currency Ireland must undergo an internal devaluation to regain competitiveness by cutting wages and bringing down prices. Real wages are therefore expected to fall over the next few years. All of this is pessimistic, but there is an optimistic case too: if Ireland withdrew from the euro it would actually have reasonably good prospects for growth. It has a highly skilled labor force, open labor and product markets and a fairly robust export sector. The export sector would be bolstered by an immediately devalued new Irish currency.
Spain: On December 15, Moody’s, said it may downgrade Spanish government bonds because of the country’s likely difficulty in raising large sums of money next year, the problems of its savings banks and the debts incurred by its autonomous regions. Spain was downgraded by Moody’s from the agency’s top rating of triple A by one notch less than three months ago because of weak economic growth, the difficulty of cutting the budget deficit and higher borrowing needs. In a statement on Wednesday, Moody’s said it was putting Spain’s current Aa1 ratings for local and foreign currency government bonds on review for possible downgrade, and was also reviewing the rating of the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, known as the Frob from its Spanish initials. The markets reacted swiftly to the news. The euro fell 0.5 per cent against the dollar to $1.3319 and yields on Spanish 10-year bonds challenged euro-era highs with an 8 basis point jump to 5.6 per cent. Madrid’s Ibex 35 stock index fell 1.4 per cent and the broader FTSE Eurofirst 300 lost 0.3 per cent as the region’s banks came under pressure because of their exposure to eurozone sovereign debt. The announcement by Moody’s comes at a bad time for Spain, one day ahead of its last scheduled bond auction of the year and just as it is struggling to restore international confidence in its economy and its banking system. On Tuesday, Spain sold €2.5bn in treasury bills but had to pay more than one percentage point more in interest than it did only a month ago.
Portugal had to pay extremely high premiums to sell short-term debt in a further sign of the problems in the eurozone debt markets. Lisbon borrowed €500m of three-month bills, paying an average yield of 3.40 per cent compared with a yield of 1.82 per cent at the previous auction on November 3. The auction attracted bids of 1.9 times the amount offered compared with a bid to cover ratio of 2.2 in November.
Thus the question is whether these countries can avoid sovereign debt restructuring. The salient characteristic of lending to sovereigns is the absence of collateral. Thus, the safety of the creditors depends on their ability to sell debt to others at reasonable prices. If this confidence disappears, liquidity dries up and sovereigns are driven into default. What, then, determines confidence? The short answer is: sustainability. That itself depends on the relationship between prospective economic growth and the real rate of interest. The lower the growth and the higher the interest rate, the bigger the primary fiscal surplus (before interest payments) needs to be – and so the greater the political costs of achieving it. The bigger these costs, the less confident will investors be and the higher the interest rates will become. This, then, creates a vicious spiral. Vulnerable peripheral eurozone member countries now suffer from troubled financial systems, high fiscal deficits, rapidly rising ratios of debt to gross domestic product, elevated interest rates, poor prospective growth and the absence of a central bank that is sure to make the debt market liquid. Poor growth prospects, in turn, are partly due to loss of competitiveness. If these indicators were applied to normal emerging countries, a default would seem inevitable.
Will changes be made?
The answer is: probably not. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has ruled out two of the most widely backed ideas for combating the eurozone debt crisis. She saw no need to increase the size of the European Union’s €440bn rescue fund and said that the bloc’s treaties did not allow for the creation of a Europe-wide bond. Ms Merkel’s comments on Monday came as finance ministers from the six-country eurozone were gathering in Brussels for a regularly scheduled meeting where the need for more measures was debated behind closed doors.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has called for calm in the European Union after an angry attack by Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, who accused Berlin of being “un-European” and “a bit simple” in making some areas “taboo” in EU negotiations. At the same time she repeated her rejection of Mr. Juncker’s proposal for jointly guaranteed eurobonds to help finance the most debt-laden members of the currency union. “The discussion does not help us,” she said after meeting Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister. Although Berlin remains adamant that Mr Juncker’s eurobond proposal cannot work without significant treaty change, there are signs that the German government may be prepared to seek some compromise on another plan: to raise the funds available in the eurozone rescue mechanism – the €440bn ($580bn) European financial stability facility – to enable the full amount to be payable for countries in difficulty. Under the present arrangement the fund can borrow €440bn on the bond market but can only pay out about two-thirds of the amount to troubled governments, mainly because it has to maintain a cash buffer to guarantee its triple-A status. An amendment to use the full €440bn is one proposal under consideration in Brussels and other eurozone capitals, although Germany has rejected as unnecessary any increase in its overall size. Mr. Juncker’s outburst, in an interview with Die Zeit, the German weekly newspaper, was the most dramatic demonstration to date of the worsening tempers within the EU. He accused the German government of rejecting his eurobond proposal “before it had been properly studied” and was baffled by Germany’s way of “erecting taboo areas in Europe and not even considering the ideas proposed by other people”.
The German rejection leaves the European Central Bank’s aggressive purchase of eurozone sovereign debt as the main weapon for the EU in fighting to keep the two most vulnerable countries, Portugal and Spain, from being forced into a bail-out. One reason is that the creditors want them. True, Germany has suggested this should apply only to future debt. But, in capital markets, the future is always now. Moreover, the funds now on offer are not enough to finance all weak countries for long enough to avoid defaults, particularly since the latter will need to deflate and restructure their way back to growth. As Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute argued in a recent paper for the London-based Legatum Institute, prospective growth is of the essence. But, in the absence of exchange rate flexibility and in the presence of high interest rates, cutting fiscal deficits on its own may well exacerbate slumps.
Could the eurozone survive a wave of debt restructurings?
The more a break-up looks possible, the higher the risk of a self-fulfilling dynamic. For this reason the European Union cannot afford doubts about the viability of the euro to spread and strengthen. What justifies these doubts? First, questions about the ability of the EU to make decisions. This is a matter of governance. Second, questions about the lack of a fiscal union. This is a matter of design. And third, political sustainability in times of harsh adjustment. This is a matter of remedial action. Many countries across Europe are making sacrifices in the name of the single currency. The early lessons from Greece are that harsh reforms do not necessarily weaken governments if the population regards them as necessary. But a backlash is likely when conditions set for assistance are inadequate or unfair – as was the case with the strings attached to the cost of the emergency loans offered to Ireland. This is why European leaders must urgently devise a strategy to help foster growth in crisis-affected countries, before the euro is blamed for their difficulties.
Still worse, once a country has been forced to restructure its public debt and seen a substantial part of its financial system disappear as well, the additional costs of re-establishing its currency must seem rather smaller. This, too, must be clear to investors. Again, such fears increase the chances of runs from liabilities of weaker countries. For skeptics the question has always been how robust a currency union among diverse economies with less than unlimited mutual solidarity can be. Only a crisis could answer that question. Unfortunately, the crisis we have is the biggest for 80 years.
“Tell me how this ends,” was the question posed by General David Petraeus about the Iraq war. European leaders are asking the same question as they contemplate the crisis in the eurozone. Having failed to construct a firebreak in Greece, the Europeans are hoping that they can stop the euro crisis in Ireland. But, even as an Irish rescue package is put together, the bond markets are already looking with unhealthy interest at Portugal. After Portugal, Spain is assumed to be next. And, if a really big economy such as Spain needed to call the financial fire brigade, the whole future of the euro would be in serious peril. The question of “how this ends” is therefore obvious and urgent – but also fiendishly difficult to answer. It is like watching a three-dimensional game of chess – in which the financial, economic and political levels all interact with each other. My current best guess is that the single currency will indeed eventually break up – and that the euro’s executioner will be Germany, the most powerful country and economy inside the European Union.
Dr. Mock has published four books with Floricanto Press, Berklety, CA. His articles have appeared on publications like The Chicago Tribune and several gay and lesbian newspapers. He was inducted in The Chicago GLBT Hall of Fame in 2007. He can be reached at: www.carlostmock.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
