Militarization of Space - It Should Think About Cyberspace.

The "Star War" was initiated by Late President Ronald Reagan .

In the book "War & Anti-War" written by Alvin Toffler, he have mentioned that with the advance of Digital Technology & Bio-Tech.. the War would be of the difference forms. .. However, he said .. in any War situations.. There is An Anti-War moment to check in the balance. I salute Alvin for his wsidom of "Tao".

Before, China opened ups, the Military Competitions is between Soviet Union & USA. However, as we enter the
the century. Economy Growth of China is always at the 1st place in the world. They are also taking steps to de-Militarized their Military forces & moving towards Technology base Military forces.

As a independant person, I have travel & visit many parts of China As well as living in Western world & Asia, South East Asia.. I have studied the history of Chinese culture on my own accord. I have study the cultural influence of

Lao Tze

Jiang Thai Gong

Qwei Ku Tze

Confucius

Mencius

Sun Tze

Conming

Tang Thai Zhong (Li Shi Ming)

Gengiskhan

Liu Poi Wen

Yong Zheng

Mao Tze Dong

Deng Xiao Peng



In fact, all the later Stratgies or the Ruler of China. Have follow one Guru strategies.. That is:

Lao Tze... "Military Force is A Dangerous Means" then even for

Sun Tze....he have going into few hundreds of battle.. But finally he still advise his King...."Kill No More".

The Emperor Yong Zheng.. He said only those who have the heart of the people then have everything below the Heaven.

Now, looking at the China history back to the 1960-1980. it is on the record that the Rich Chinese Culture of going for War with Peace in their mind. When they achieved their Military Objectives.. then they withdrew back to their country. This is written in the history as on the war with

Soviet Union

India

Vietnam

These is exactly what the Guru's Strategy

"Go To The War To End A War!!" &

"To Punish Is To Teach!!" As Well As,

"To Touch Is The End!!"


Now let's us looking at the more positive side of the situations. In fact it would be a excellence opportunity for the Powerful, Nations to pool their Investments & Resources of Military Space for the collabraqtions of:

"Disaster's" Preventions & Recovery,

Agriculture

Environmental Protections

Poor Nations Assistance

Anti-Terrorism

Space Program's Collabrations..etc.

That would make peace & make the people in the World living in Nirvana.

Militarization of Space

The Washington Post has a report on the Pentagon's recent moves to militarize space. The article is framed within the context of arms control, particularly as it relates to a set of recent conferences on space militarization. Representatives from Russia, China, and an assorted group of thinktanks have recently issued statements condemning Washington's policy agenda in this area, and the article approaches the issue from that perspective.

In any case, the Post story touches upon one of the most important aspects of security policy in the 21st century: space. The global economy has increasingly come to rely on the use of satellites in Earth orbit for communications, commerce, and travel. This space infrastructure is also vital to American intelligence agencies and the armed forces. Satellite reconnaissance (although in some ways being eclipsed by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles) is essential for monitoring potential hostile agents, safely tracking troop movements and exercises, and a variety of other important intelligence gathering tasks. The US military is extremely reliant on space infrastructure; the functions of aerial attack, communications, command, logistics, and movement are all irrevocably tied into the constellations of US satellites. Should this space infrastructure ever be destroyed or suffer massive damage, the consequences to both the global economy and American security would be tremendously detrimental. Worldwide depression, massive US losses, and global destabilization are all within the realm of possibility. Meanwhile, the exploitation of space for offensive purposes promises to yield rich rewards; the Pentagon, for example, is currently exploring technology that would enable America to launch decisive aerial attacks both through space (originating in the United States itself) and from space.

The Pentagon is developing a suborbital space capsule that could hit targets anywhere in the world within two hours of being launched from U.S. bases.

It is therefore exceedingly critical that this space infrastructure be protected from all potential threats. Furthermore, considering the significant advantages granted to any military force through space infrastructure, the ability to deny a wartime enemy use of space infrastructure is similarly important. It is therefore in the essential national interests of the United States to develop systems of this nature, and thus to militarize space. Recognizing this truth, strategic planners at the Pentagon have mapped out a comprehensive future plan for satisfying American interests in space. Described in a series of recent documents (beginning with the 2002 report on national defense strategy and continuing), this map includes both offensive and defensive components.

A series of Pentagon doctrinal papers, released over the past year, have emphasized that the U.S. military is increasingly dependent on space satellites for offensive and defensive operations, and must be able to protect them in times of war.

The Air Force in August put forward a Counterspace Operations Doctrine, which described "ways and means by which the Air Force achieves and maintains space superiority" and has worked to develop weapons to accomplish such missions.

On March 1, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed a new National Defense Strategy paper that said the use of space "enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation." A key goal of Rumsfeld's new strategy is "to ensure our access to and use of space and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."

The US push to militarize space is being rapidly propelled along due to two factors. First is the rise of China as a competitor in space. Beijing is actively seeking to neutralize the American advantage in space, and thus correspondingly to enhance its military power relative to that of the United States. Since Washington's domination of space currently provides US forces with greatly augmented strength and capabilities, China can gain significantly by reducing Washington's ability to leverage this advantage. An international agreement not to militarize space would leave the American satellite constellations vulnerable and unprotected, a weakness that China could then exploit with the anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons it's certainly developing. Even the mere threat of downing the US satellite system could be enough to keep American out of a Chinese-Taiwanese war. China is also undertaking a crash program to exploit the benefits of space for itself. It's participating in a European rival to the GPS system, working on developing space launch technology, and generally preparing to make its own forays into space. When its technology is sufficient, China will almost certainly make an attempt at militarizing space for Chinese interests. The US is concerned about this, and wants to head Beijing off. Read More.....

Power Politics: Aerospace, Defense, & Energy Archives

United Nation Reforms

This 60 years old worldwide organization certainly need a reform.

No doubts that United Nation have in the past 60 years contributed in area like

Human Rights

Women Charters

Populations Control

3rd World & Underdevelope Nations Assistance Programmes

Peace Keeping - Security Council

UNESCO

World Health Organization

..etc.

The task for the UN is not easy as it is always viewed as the figure head or "Staff" organization. UN existence & operations is highly dependant on its members contributions.

For the past 50 years the super power's have much more saying in the organization. However, from 1990.. China have been paying more important role in the UN activity & financial contributions.

I can foresees that China would be the biggest contributor in terms of financial as well as manpower from hereon.

UN need to reform includes more Power & Actions over the following:

Anti-Terrorisms

Environment Protections these includes:

Air; Water; Ozone Depiction; Green House Effects..

Aids Education & Control

Disaster's Task Force Deployments

Cybersphere Crimes Preventions

Reformulation of UN World Peace Military Force.


That means that the members countries need to put an act altogether in synergy, to contribute money & kinds & getting things work for the betterment of the world.

Annan Drafts Changes For U.N.
Use of Force, Terrorism Among Issues Targeted

By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday will propose establishing new rules for the use of military force, adopting a tough anti-terrorism treaty that would punish suicide bombers, and overhauling the United Nation's discredited human rights commission, according to a confidential draft of a report on U.N. reform.

The 63-page draft report represents Annan's most ambitious effort to restore international confidence in an organization that has been traumatized by divisions over the Iraq war and battered by revelations of financial impropriety and sexual misconduct by its personnel. But he faces an uphill battle to secure backing for some of his more controversial proposals from key members, including the United States, which opposes Annan's advocacy of the International Criminal Court.

Annan said his proposal provides a unique opportunity to update the 60-year-old organization to address today's most serious challenges. And he said promoting it would be one of his "highest priorities" in the run-up to a September summit at the opening of the General Assembly session.

"These are reforms that are within reach," Annan wrote. "If we act boldly -- and if we act together -- we can make people everywhere more secure, more prosperous, and better able to enjoy their fundamental rights." he wrote.

Annan's report, titled "In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights For All," calls for expanding the 15-nation Security Council before year's end to ensure more democratic representation on the United Nations' most powerful institution. Its findings were first reported in today's Los Angeles Times.

"A change in the council's commission is needed to make it more broadly representative of the international community as a whole," Annan wrote.

While Annan said he would leave it to governments to determine the structure of an enlarged council, he backed efforts by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, which are seeking permanent Security Council seats, to ensure that an agreement cannot be blocked by a single member that opposes their candidacies.

"It would be far preferable for member states to take this vital decision by consensus," Annan wrote. "But if they are unable to reach consensus, this must not be an excuse for postponing action."

Two proposals are under consideration by states that would increase the membership from 15 to 24.

Annan cast his report as an attempt to reconcile the security interests of wealthy countries, which want the world body to focus on combating terrorism and stemming weapons proliferation, and poor nations, which are more concerned with the consequences of poverty and disease. He noted that a catastrophic terrorist act in a major Western city could cripple the economies of poor nations on the other side of the world while an outbreak of disease in a poor region could spread to the developed world.

"The rich are vulnerable to the threats that attack the poor, and the strong are vulnerable to the threats that accost the poor," he wrote. "Whatever threatens one threatens all."

Annan said that wealthy countries must dramatically increase development aid and debt relief to poor countries that govern responsibly. He also pressed poorer countries to combat corruption aggressively and to promote private-sector investment. "In an era of global abundance, our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that persist between rich and poor."

The contentious international debate that preceded the Iraq war led to "declining public confidence in the United Nations" by supporters of the war, who believed the organization had failed to enforce its own resolutions, and opponents, who faulted it for failing to stop the war.

Annan urged that the Security Council forge agreement on "when and how force can be used." He proposed that it adopt a resolution setting out principles -- including a determination whether the military option is proportional to the threat -- that would guide it in making the decision whether to go to war.

U.N. officials said they expected stiff resistance to the proposal from the Bush administration, which has reserved the right to use force unilaterally for national security interests.

But they say that Washington appreciates Annan's support in the report for the Bush administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, which was established to halt illicit trafficking of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The United States is also amenable to Annan's call for an anti-terrorism convention that would define terrorism as any act that is "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants" to intimidate a community, government or international organization. Annan wants such a convention to complete its work next year.

Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, declined to discuss specifics, saying, "We are looking at the report, and we will give it every consideration."

Efforts to adopt an anti-terrorism convention have been stymied by Arab governments, which have resisted labeling anti-Israeli militants, including Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, that have targeted civilians as terrorists.

Annan also called for strengthening the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. But he said that the Commission on Human Rights, which has recently included countries such as Sudan, Cuba and Libya with histories of rights violations, has "been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism." He said that some states have sought membership on the commission "not to strengthen human rights, but to protect themselves against criticism, or to criticize others." In its place, Annan proposed creating a smaller Human Rights Council, whose members would be appointed by the General Assembly. But he said the members "should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards."

Most Americans No Good At Investing -- To Revamp & Simplify The Whole System Please!!

In fact America would not be the 1st to allows it people to utilized Social Security for Private Investment into Stocks & Bonds. Singapore have allowed its citizen to use part of their Central Providents Funds to invest in Stocks & Bonds, I believe back in 1986 after the Black October.

Singapore citizen also have been using their Central Providents Funds for buying home rather leasing of homes, as the News homes there be it from private or government are all 99 years lease.

Well anyone who have experience the losses in stocks & Shares in 2001-2002 certainly cannot forget their dreams become bubble bust. As written earlier. The only way for people to be confidence in utilizing their Social Security to invest is through:

1. The Education program

But most importantly is

2. Revamp & simplified the Social Security System.

Most Americans no good at investing
By Adam Shell, USA TODAY

NEW YORK — Robin Neil Haberle, 45, wants the chance to manage every penny of his Social Security payroll taxes. The marketing professional from Media, Pa., cites the main reason he backs President Bush's plan to create private accounts: "I've proven to be a more prudent investor than the federal government. I know what I'm doing."

But Haberle is not your ordinary investor. In fact, when it comes to managing money, studies done by a leading human resources firm to track the financial acumen of the masses show that most Americans don't know what they are doing. That's a big negative for Bush, whose plan is based on his belief that most Americans want to, and are capable of, building a profitable portfolio made up of stocks and bonds.

"I have a Ph.D., have belonged to an investment club for 10 years and have studied the market — and even I have invested badly over the years," says Marjorie Abrams, 67, a retiree from Gainesville, Fla. "What will those who don't understand the market do with their savings? How much time can they be expected to devote to it?"

Certainly not the long hours logged by professional Wall Street analysts, traders and money managers. Research confirms that a huge swath of U.S. workers have little or no interest in serving as their own personal portfolio managers.

Six out of 10 Americans (59%) think it is a "bad idea" for the government to let workers invest some of their Social Security taxes in stocks and bonds, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll done Friday-Sunday. Nearly one-quarter (23%) said they are "uncomfortable" with the idea of managing their own investments, and just 27% said they pay "a great deal" of attention to their investments. (Related: Social Security, Medicare solvency not getting any better.)

A study by Hewitt Associates that analyzed the 2003 investment behavior and account activity of 2.5 million employees eligible for 401(k) plans exposes a trove of investment mistakes by average investors:

•Three out of 10 employees eligible for 401(k) plans don't participate, Hewitt says. That means investors are passing up free money in the form of matching contributions from their employers.

•Despite horror stories about employees at scandal-scarred companies such as WorldCom and Enron having their 401(k) accounts wiped out because they had all their money riding on their own company's stock, 27% of 401(k) investors still have more than half of their money in their employer's shares.

•And proving that investors are hardly hands-on, only 17% made 401(k) transfers in 2003.

Another Hewitt study, done in fall 2004 with Harvard University and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, found that a "non-saving mentality" persists. The study focused largely on "low savers," those who do not stash enough in their 401(k)s to earn the company match. When "low savers" learned they were passing up $1,200 a year in matching contributions, one-third said they intended to raise their savings rate. Only 15% actually did.

No doubt, there are lots of people who consider themselves savvy investors and think, as Bush suggests, that they can earn bigger returns managing a slice of their own Social Security money. But there is a far larger, more vocal group that views stocks as a tough way for amateurs to make money.

One investment adviser who has seen many investors make costly mistakes says privatizing Social Security would have "catastrophic" consequences. "The general public tends to play up their investing success while ignoring the lessons of their losses," says Christopher Harriman Dann of the Olson Dann division of LaSalle St. Securities. He says nine times out of 10, investors' long-term performance lags behind the market by a wide margin.

A study released in April 2004 by Dalbar, a financial services market research firm, confirms Dann's theory. The research, which analyzed mutual fund money flows the past 20 years, found that the Standard & Poor's 500 index had annual gains close to 13% during that period; the average investor earned just 3.5%.

"Keep Social Security the way it is," says Fred Berlack, 61, of Oceanside, Calif. "The average Joe has little or no investing skills."

2000 collapse changed minds

How one views Bush's plan to create personal Social Security accounts depends partly on one's view of the stock market. Indeed, the stock market slump from 2000 to 2002 that wiped out $8.5 trillion in market value, according to Wilshire Associates, sapped the confidence of many do-it-yourself investors. It turned them off of the stock market, made them more risk-averse and confirmed what some experts have been saying for a long time: Most mom-and-pop investors are not cut out to manage their own money.

"The typical 401(k) investor is a much different animal than someone who opens an account with a broker and makes a decision to be an active investor," says Lori Lucas, Hewitt's director of participant research. "Most investors don't feel they're up to the challenge."

Bob Pozen, chairman of MFS Investment Management and a member of the presidential commission formed to address Social Security reform, says concerns about investors not being smart enough to manage their own money "are overblown." Even though the Bush administration has not yet issued a final proposal, Pozen stresses that investors will likely not be inundated with a dizzying array of choices.

Many experts such as Lucas say it is important that any plan put forth be simple and essentially mistake-proof. They recommend a short menu of options and say a plain-vanilla balanced fund with a pre-determined mix of stocks and bonds based on one's age would make the most sense. In addition, balanced funds would serve as a relatively low-risk default option for people who don't want to make their own investment decisions.

There are growing signs that do-it-yourself investing is not everybody's favorite pastime, including:

•Falling participation in Washington state's hybrid plan. In 1996 and 1997, when the bull market was in full swing, Washington gave its teachers an option of staying in the traditional pension plan or switching to a hybrid pension plan — 50% of assets in a traditional pension and 50% in a private account. Seventy-four percent opted for the hybrid plan. But when public employees were offered the same choice in 2002 and 2003, after the slump, only 11% chose the hybrid offering.

In a further sign of how reluctant investors are to go it alone, the teachers union has a bill before the state Legislature to make the hybrid plan, now mandatory, optional for new employees. Since the hybrid plan for public employees went optional, only 5,400 of the 37,000 new members, or 15%, selected the hybrid plan, says Washington state retirement director John Charles.

"I'm sure the market was a major factor," Charles says. "The feeling prior to 2000 was the market was always going to go up. Our members thought they could get better returns than the professionally managed pension funds. But now they don't want to take on the risks of investing themselves."

•Lower returns for do-it-yourself pension investors. Nebraska, which pioneered private accounts for public employees in the early 1960s, scrapped the accounts for new hires in 2003 after a study that showed returns on individual accounts were lower than those posted by professionally run state pension programs. Replacing them: a cash-balance plan run by pros with a guaranteed 5% return and the potential to earn more.

The state is basically shifting back toward traditional pensions, says Anna Sullivan, executive director of Nebraska's Public Employees Retirement Systems. "Frankly, people have too many other things to do than manage money. They are busy working and taking the kids to soccer games and Cub Scouts."

•401(k) money left on the table. One theory as to why people don't invest in 401(k) plans is they can't afford it. But a study co-authored by Harvard University Ph.D. candidate James Choi found that "ignorance" and "procrastination" may be more to blame.

The fall 2004 study found that 66% of workers over 59½ who don't participate in their 401(k) — people who could stash money in their 401(k) and yank it the next day without penalty — still said they didn't plan to ever sign up.

"These people basically had free money available to them but didn't take advantage of it," Choi says. "It is akin to walking past a $100 bill and leaving it on the sidewalk."

•Frequent mistakes by investors in the federal government's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The simplicity and success of TSP, a retirement savings plan available to federal employees that offers five investment options, is often cited as a model for Social Security. The theory is that if people are given a small menu of diversified, plain-vanilla investment choices, they will be less likely to make mistakes.

Not true, says Kathy Bostjancic, senior economist at Merrill Lynch, who found that many TSP investors "unwisely" shifted assets into stocks near the market peak in 2000 and had too little in stocks at the bottom three years later.

"The president's plan to privatize Social Security ... suggests that if you empower people, they will take initiative, have more investment dollars in their own name, and have a bigger stake in the future of the United States," Bostjancic says. "And that is OK if people feel they are capable of investing their own money. But our research shows that people don't feel comfortable managing their own money."

Going to the pros for advice

That might explain the growing preference for financial advice. In 1995, 21% of new mutual fund sales were direct transactions between the fund company and retail investors. In 2003, that number dropped to 13%, according to the Investment Company Institute. In contrast, sales through financial advisers rose from 59% in 1995 to 65% in 2003. ICI data also show that 71% of fund investors tend to rely on the advice of a professional when making decisions to buy and sell funds.

Underscoring how some individuals need their financial hands held, a survey conducted six months ago by Hewitt found that one-third of the 621 respondents didn't know what investments were available to them in their 401(k) plan. And only 2% said they believe they are "very knowledgeable" about investing.

Proponents of Bush's proposal, which would give workers 55 and younger the option of diverting a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes and opening an account in their own name, say it has clear benefits.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan backs private accounts, saying they would bolster the savings rate and serve as a wealth-building vehicle for less-affluent Americans. Private accounts also would give workers an opportunity to earn larger returns than the current system and help build wealth that can be passed on to heirs.

So why aren't more Americans excited? "People are suffering from cognitive dissonance," says Woody Dorsey, president of Market Semiotics, which studies how psychology drives investment decisions. "People probably like the idea of controlling some of their money, but at the same time they don't trust their ability to invest."

If so many people had not lost so much money when the bubble burst in 2000, Bush's push to create private accounts might be garnering more support.

"Timing is everything," says Bob Barbera, chief economist at ITG Hoenig. "There would have been more broad-based support back in 1997, 1998 and 1999, when everyone and his sister was watching TV to find out what Internet stocks to buy, and 30% was considered a good return for low risk."

Of course, had Bush's bold plan been enacted during the heady '90s, many new accounts likely would have slipped into the red once the stock market turned south in March 2000.

Therein lies the problem. The worst stock meltdown since the Depression era gave people a greater appreciation of the emotional and financial value of a safety net, a powerful concept that fostered the creation of Social Security back in the 1930s.

"Everyone knows you do better in stocks over the long run, but in moments of despair it can be helpful for an economy and its citizens to know there is something that's not at risk," Barbera says.

Strategy Questions Loom for Bush in Retirement Push -- His Hand Are Tied!!

Like any other developed countries. the pension fund system is very ill!! The Isue become worst is that the people who propelled the economy is reaching the retirement age. The 1st batch of Baby Bloomer are suppose to retire on Jan 1, 2008., then follows by the declining, contributor's of these pension fund from the X generation & the Web generation. The situation would be worst then what people espected

The issue of Social Security for this Nation is even more serious then any other country. As the system have been changing from time to time over those years of "Revisions". This have according to

Lao Tze said: Governing A Big Nation; Is Like Frying A Small Fish!!

Then with the Congress, House of Senate As well as 2 opposing Political parties holding on their own Political Interests & views, these made the President of this country almost Paralysis on his initiatives to put solutions forward.

Well it is the time to "Do More & Talk Less", as 2008 is just at the corner. Put all personal or political agenda aside & get the Social Security & Income Tax issue resolved before it is too late!!

Strategy Questions Loom for Bush in Retirement Push
1 hour, 16 minutes ago

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (Reuters) - Seven weeks after launching a drive to remake Social Security (news - web sites), President Bush (news - web sites) has visited 18 states and traveled thousands of miles but has had little success in getting the public to warm to his idea of private accounts or in enticing Democrats to bring forth ideas.

Experts say Bush is getting closer to some crucial decisions on how far he wants to go to broker a compromise he might be able call a victory in his effort to change the national retirement system.

One dilemma for him is that some ideas that might appeal to Democrats could risk infuriating his conservative Republican base.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the final leg of a two-day western tour, Bush again made a plea for both parties to come to the table.

"In order to solve this problem, it's not going to be a Republican idea or a Democrat idea," Bush said. "It's going to be American idea brought forth by both either Republicans or Democrats or both."

Traveling with Bush in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado was Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a one-time Republican rival to Bush, who played on his reputation for bipartisan appeal as he called Social Security an issue that "transcends party identification."

So far, Democrats are focusing their energies on fighting the centerpiece of Bush's plan -- allowing workers to shift part of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. They say such accounts would drive up the federal debt and undermine the traditional Social Security program.

Bush first rolled out some details of his proposal in his Feb. 2 State of the Union address. Since then, public opinion polls show no major movement in support of his plan.

'ADD-ON ACCOUNTS'

One way some analysts believe Bush could win over Democrats would be to embrace so-called "add-on" accounts funded outside of the Social Security system. Many Democrats favor such accounts. The powerful senior citizen lobby, the AARP, has no objections to them.

"The president has sounded a bit more conciliatory," said political analyst Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas. But he said Bush may need to make a much more dramatic shift in his approach to lay the groundwork for a compromise.

Bush has acknowledged private accounts alone won't permanently fix what he warns are serious financial strains facing Social Security as the huge baby boom generation prepares to retire.

He has floated ways to rein in its costs, such as tying the growth in future benefits to inflation rather than faster-growing wages, but has not offered specifics.

To reach out to Democrats, he has also signaled a willingness to discuss such ideas raising the $90,000 cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. He has been careful not to rule out "add-on" accounts, though he and his aides call his own approach of accounts funded through Social Security important to any plan.

Peter Ferrara, head of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a conservative think tank, called overtures like the signal of openness to a rise in the payroll tax cap -- which would effectively boost taxes on the wealthy -- a sellout. He vowed to lobby Republican lawmakers to defeat them.

This week marks a crucial time for Bush's Social Security effort. Lawmakers spending their Easter break meeting with constituents to gauge their views on Social Security. During a recess in February, many Republicans were shocked to be hit with a barrage of concerns from constituents.

Bush has a little over a month left in the 60-day 60-city blitz in which he and his aides are fanning out around the country to try to draw attention to Social Security's financial problems. The administration calls this the "early phase" of the Social Security effort.

At a Bakersfield, California, forum on Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) claimed some progress on that.

"One of things that I think has been heartwarming is the extent to which I believe the American people now -- the vast majority as we look at the polls -- understand we do have a problem," Cheney said. "This is not something somebody cooked up."

But Susan MacManus, political scientist at the University of South Florida, said that as his campaign wraps up, the pressure will grow for Bush himself to put out more specifics.

"Then it will be time to pass the ball back to Congress," she said.



Yahoo! News - Strategy Questions Loom for Bush in Retirement Push

Indonesia - The Balance of Power In South East Asia

The appended article is written by Winston Marshall of:

Power Politics

I am born 10 years before Singapore Independent. Singapore joint Malaysia in 1963 Aug 31st.

Then later in 1965 Aug 9th, Singapore become independent. Anyway, I will share my observations & Memory on these later.

I can recalled those day Lee used to come to my Dad shop for meeting almost on a weekly bases. I have been in born a political observer since I was 6th years old. I have witness the

Riots

Confrontations & Insurgencies

Political Struggle between Parties & Countries in the Regions


The Isreal assitance in setting up the Army is a known facts for those days in Singapore. But the Air Force & Marine were trained by the British. I can recalled that the British have withdrew the Airforce totally in 1979.

The things that happen then & now be it in South East Asia, Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America...etc. There are no difference on the basic Conflicts issues:-

Interests

Idealogises

Religion

Challenge of Power

Be it Chinese, Malay or Indonesian even Thais; Burmese; Philippinothey have in common is that all these race are through many thousand years of ehnic groups integrations. But due to the history have not been properly recorded. Therefore it create an opportunity for those intend to be Rule's or Political leader's to capitalized it as an issue. So that they can rally the support of their respective people in their country. That create the opportunity for their ex-Soverign Government Nation's & other Military Gears manufacturing nation's a multi-billions dollars business opportunity.

I have lives in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia... I have friends relatives in all these countries... It is not my interest to see that these countries due to the certain Politicians ulterior motives & pushing our friends & relatives to war. Be it the war in the Region or even in the case of What Winston have said, the super power in the making of China & India.

Looking at the blood relations from the people in South East Asia.. be it Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Vietnam ...Singapore... you see that their people have blood relations from both India & China. Now looking at the China & Indian Culture.. there is no history inscripted that the Chinese & Indian Race with such a strong civilization & cultural back ground; have proven that the Parents & Heirs are killing each other!!

Yes, you may see that the news paper reporting that the people .. parents & children are fighting in court over Money!!!!! Never, in the history hard written that these 2 great race with more than 6,000 of civilization have been killing their own bloods. After all be it Chinese or Indian, their "God" is their Ancestors. It have been past on generations after generations that their respective Ancestor's are their Living "God" who give them the Power of this Live!!

Therefore.. the Best Balance of Power in South East Asia is their own people.. the whole Asia is a big family by itself. Leave the family alone!!

Indonesia

I have previously touched on the paradigm of an arms race in Southeast Asia, particularly between Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Since the demise of the Soviet Union and the breakdown of bipolar stability, the region been suffering from a power vacuum. China and India are becoming increasingly assertive over the area, but as of yet lack the credible ability to apply force. Partially in response to the explosive growth of these two Asian giants, the three aforementioned countries place military defense as a top priority. Singapore has, with Israeli help, built up a technologically advanced, very efficient, and very powerful defense force. As it stands, the island is effectively invulnerable from amphibious assault. It also possesses enough naval power to enforce its interests throughout the area; natural resource concessions, piracy, and orderly commerce are all key issues. As such factors apply equally to Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur has spent a great sum of capital improving its stock of weaponry as well. Indonesia has also sought to do so, but over the past decade has been stymied by a variety of factors.

Perhaps most importantly, the country became an international pariah for its humanitarian abuses and tyrannical rule. Ever since Washington, Jakarta's main backer for many years, imposed an arms embargo 13 years ago, the country's forces have been in decay. Improvements have come at a far slower pace than those in neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Furthermore, severe corruption among government officials and the military-industrial complex has crushed efficiency, and the government has been poorly managed. Indonesia's military forces remain fairly capable, but are rapidly aging and insufficient for the nation's demands. The type of gunboat diplomacy it's been using with Malaysia, for example, can only go so far unless its backed up with credible hard power. Unless it reforms, Jakarta in the future will be evicerated by rival powers.

So it's within that political context that recently elected Indonesian President Susilo Yudhoyono has set out to reestablish strong ties with the United States and greatly strengthen his decaying country. I have written very positively of Mr. Yudhoyono in the past, and I firmly stand by that assessment today. The President has taken real steps to accomplish his bold agenda, and has shown a determination to reform. Irrespective of whether he's able to effectively root out corruption (or if he merely suppresses it), I foree strong economic growth and vibrant foreign investment in Jakarta's future. Following from this, and the warming of ties between Indonesia and America, it appears that Mr. Yudhoyono will almost certainly succeed in modernizing the military and building up hard power. A very assertive foreign policy is sure to accompany this change.

One question to be asked is whether strengthening military and diplomatic ties is in Washington's best interest. After all, helping Indonesia to improve militarily would mean reducing the relative power of an important American ally, Singapore. Yet this concern is relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. US power would always be greater than either Indonesia or Singapore. So Washington could continue to maintain leverage over the balance of power. Furthermore, allowing Indonesia to strengthen itself militarily may actual result in greater regional stability. Granted, a powerful Indonesia may bully its neighbors. However, it would be resistant to Chinese pressure and, with increasing economic integration, could play a positive role in securing commerce and cracking down on piracy.

The other risk in warming relations is somewhat more real. In doing so, some argue, the United States will release the pressure currently on Jakarta in response to its human rights abuses. Senior military officers indicted by UN prosecutors in relation to alledged war crimes in East Timor have yet to be handed over by the Indonesian government. Continuing abuses in the fight between the central government and separatist insurgents have also provoked international outrage. Many believe that maintaining the current system, whereby the military exercises significant influence over government policy, will necessarily lead to more abuses.

That's a valid point. By lending military and diplomatic support to the regime in Jakarta, the United States may very well allow the regime to carry on unsavory practices. However, engagement with the government would foster greater liberalism and accountability in the country. After all, to accomplish the goal of modernizing Indonesia under the framework of liberalism would require reform in governance. The eventual transfer of military control to civilian authorities, the more expansive rulesets Indonesia would have to abide by, and the influence of a Western presence would all advance the cause of good governance and accountability. The very positive effect of American intervention in Aceh province following the recent tsunami disaster is proof enough of that.

While the costs to the US of support for Indonesia are marginal, the benefits are far larger in magnitude. The most obvious benefit is the revenue that would accrue to US companies for arms sales and defense integration contracts. This may turn out to be quite substantial. The most important benefit, however, would be in the form of Indonesian stability and prosperity.

As is, the Indonesian state is economically and politically unstable. It's fractured, and the civilian central government lacks the authority it should have for proper administration. Corruption is rife, and the country is a hotbed for piracy; both the traditional kind and that of intellectual property. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim state, and a central base for many radical strands of Islam. It's a destabilizing factor in an already tense region.

Restoring strong ties between Washington and Jakarta would help the government to stabilize the country and promote economic prosperity. Diplomatic support would lend credibility to the central government in its mission to centralize power. Military cooperation would lead to a more powerful central government in the hands of more responsibile civilian leadership. Coordination between international groups and the Indonesian police would help in the effort against piracy. Furthering economic ties, such as with a trade agreement, would help the country to expand economically. US influence could be useful in bolstering the authority and legitimacy of the legal system. Positive American action, like that in Aceh, would vastly improve Washington's image in the eyes of those 200+ million Muslims. Not to mention that the US could eventually gain another ally for the day when it must compete with India and China as equals in the Asian theater.

Thus it becomes clear in the final calculus that the benefits of a good Indonesian-American relationship far outweigh the costs.

Power Politics: Asia Pacific Archives

Medicare: The next riddle for the ages -- Bubble Economy

In my opinions, the Medicare system problem of this world is really a by product of the so call Bubble Economy!!


Looking at the cost of Medical Insurance, who is the winner, the Insurance Providers'!!

Who is the loosers?? Is the Peoples'!!

Who are the one that suffer?? The People!!

Be it Doctor's, Patients', Health Care staffs'....all are people.

The one that who gain the most is those Insurance Providers' & the Presient's & CEO's of these corporations & Drugs corporations.

As Lao Tze said:

Too many rules that help to create the complications of life.

It is time to go back to the basic & emptiness to solve these issues.

Otherwise it would be never end!!

For now, it is for sure that the trend of toward self-diagnostic era as we moving into Knowledge Based Economy!!!!!

Medicare: The next riddle for the ages
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — As President Bush and Congress try to fix Social Security, the other huge federal program for seniors faces insolvency even sooner. But when it comes to Medicare, the politicians have no prescription. (Graphic: Medicare by the numbers)

The national health program for Americans 65 and older faces all the demographic difficulties that have made Social Security the president's No. 1 domestic priority: aging baby boomers, fewer workers paying taxes in the future, and a system that will soon be unable to deliver on its promises. Social Security's fiscal problems escalate in about 2018, when it is projected to begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes; Medicare reached that milestone last year.

Medicare's problems are compounded by soaring health care costs, which are running at more than twice the general rate of inflation. And they're made less predictable by future medical technologies whose emergence, impact and cost are impossible to foresee.

The steps Congress could take now to restrain Medicare's growth are politically perilous. Deny end-of-life care? Restrict eligibility? Reduce treatments? Raise costs? No one in Congress is willing to take them on, and there are few options the public might accept.

"Social Security is merely the warm-up for a very big struggle over how to reform Medicare," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. She laments that while the Social Security debate is in full throttle among policymakers, Medicare "is a discussion we haven't even started."

Overhaul unlikely this year

The daunting job of fixing the seniors' health care program was underscored last month by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who told a Senate panel that Medicare is "several multiples more difficult than is Social Security."

Bush said last month that Medicare's problems can wait. "Obviously," he said, "I've chosen to deal with Social Security first."

That's also the preferred order of business in Congress. Lawmakers voted in 2003 to add prescription-drug coverage to Medicare, a program now estimated to cost more than $700 billion over 10 years. But Congress has not proposed any way to slow Medicare's growth.

"Social Security is solvable," says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's trying to bring together Republicans and Democrats for a plan that includes new private investment accounts. "I just don't know how to do Medicare."

More than 41 million Americans depend on Medicare to pay for doctors' visits and hospital bills. Beginning next year, it will cover part of their prescription-drug bills as well. The program's $325 billion cost is dwarfed by the $517 billion spent on Social Security. But Medicare is projected to grow by 9% a year through 2015, while Social Security's annual growth rate is estimated at 5.6%. By comparison, general inflation is projected at 3.2%.

Political considerations make it unlikely that Bush or Congress will try to overhaul Medicare this year.

By tackling Social Security instead, Bush is addressing a longtime ideological goal he has held since at least 1978. It also has been gaining momentum among conservative Republicans; they envision a nation of investors who will share other Republican goals, such as reducing or eliminating taxes on capital. They also see it as a way to appeal to voters in their 20s who may not be thinking about retirement but who stand to gain the greatest return from investment accounts.

Bush just won a hard-fought victory on Medicare in 2003, when the prescription-drug benefit was added. He wants it to take effect next year before making further changes and has no interest in reopening a battle he already won. Bush argues that treating more diseases with drugs will reduce future medical costs. But the Congressional Budget Office projects no net savings to Medicare as a result of the drug benefit.

Solutions carry risks

Treasury Secretary John Snow agrees that Medicare is a bigger problem than Social Security, "with the added complexity of rising health care costs." He says the administration is tackling the problem with proposals to encourage people to save money to pay their own health care bills, and to limit medical lawsuits. The problem, he says, is escalating costs throughout the entire health care system.

"Medicare is an important issue and does present the country with significant long-term fiscal issues. It's a very large potential liability we face there," Snow says. "We're not overlooking the problem by any means. We're addressing it."

As President Clinton discovered in 1993-94, restructuring the USA's health care system is difficult. Imposing sharp cost-saving limits on health care to seniors is likely to provoke a backlash from Medicare patients who find themselves denied life-extending treatments that are available to others who can afford them.

"Society is not likely to tolerate large discrepancies in health care for different groups," says William Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution, a think tank. "We're not going to stick seniors with year 2000 health care quality while the rest of us are enjoying 2050 health care quality."

There are a number of lesser steps that have been suggested to restrain Medicare's cost. But each has a downside that makes it politically unlikely:

•Cut payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers. Congress has regularly cut payments to providers other than drug companies and has faced pressure to repeal those reductions. If federal payments are cut too much, doctors could refuse to treat Medicare patients, just as some decline Medicaid patients.

Congress imposed a formula in 1999 that sets physicians' rates based on spending targets, but it usually sets aside the targets. Medicare was supposed to spend $77 billion on physicians in 2004 but spent $85 billion. To avoid physician rate cuts of 4.5% in 2004 and 3.3% in 2005, Congress voted to give physicians an increase of at least 1.5% in both years.

•Increase seniors' premiums, deductibles or co-payments. For many seniors, Medicare premiums and health care costs not covered by Medicare consume a big share of their Social Security checks. Actuarial studies by Medicare show that on average, premiums and cost-sharing amount to 34% of the average Social Security benefit.

Medicare patients now pay $78.20 a month, deducted from Social Security checks, for Medicare supplemental insurance (Part B) that covers doctors' visits. That covers 25% of the program's cost; the government pays the rest.

Medicare's hospital coverage (Part A) has a deductible of $912. The Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which starts next year, is expected to include premiums of about $37 per month and a $250 deductible.

•Reduce the number of treatments that Medicare will cover. Eliminating coverage of expensive, high-tech treatments could produce a backlash when recipients are denied care.

Medicare now covers all medical treatments that are "reasonable and necessary," regardless of cost. The new prescription-drug benefit will even cover Viagra and other impotence drugs. Previous efforts to let Medicare consider cost in determining what is "reasonable and necessary" were unsuccessful

•Restrict eligibility. Congress could raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67, to match Social Security. That would save Medicare $28 billion a year and reduce the number of beneficiaries by 11%, according to the Urban Institute. But it would hit low-income workers hardest, leaving many 65- and 66-year-olds without health insurance, the study found. The political pressure is in the opposite direction — to make Medicare available sooner to people who want to retire early from jobs that provide health coverage.

•Adopt free-market solutions. The president and Republicans in Congress want to use competition — between insurance plans, doctors, hospitals and within the pharmaceutical industry — to bring down medical costs. They also favor expanding tax-deductible health savings accounts that will let consumers finance more of their medical expenses from their own savings. The 2003 Medicare law provided incentives to steer seniors into managed-care plans backed by Medicare, such as HMOs. But those incentives were expensive, and the government pays more to cover a senior in an HMO than for one in traditional Medicare.

•Improve efficiency. Computerized records and other technology, slow to come to medicine's front lines, hold the promise of savings. But they are not likely to bring significant change immediately.

The biggest challenge

The real answer for Medicare, many on both sides argue, lies in improving the nation's entire health care system. Determining which treatments work best and are most cost-effective, and eliminating coverage of treatments deemed ineffective, could produce savings and improve medical outcomes. Treatments that can extend and improve life at age 70 might not be as good a bet when a patient is 90. Yet limits on care could trigger a strong reaction from those who find themselves or their loved ones unable to get treatment.

"The problems affecting Medicare and Medicaid will be much more difficult to solve than Social Security," says David Walker, comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office. "We need to reconsider how we define, deliver and finance health care in this country, both in the public and the private sectors. We need to weigh unlimited individual wants against specific societal needs."

Contributing: Dennis Cauchon

USATODAY.com - Medicare: The next riddle for the ages

Greenspan Admits Tax Cut Error -- He is Forced To Admit!!

Appearing before a Senate select committee on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan was forced to admit that his support for tax cuts had turned out to be mistaken!!!!!

Read the statement above.. It is english language right??

So, my understanding is straight forward.. He is under pressure to admit that his support to the Tax Cut!!


In fact the world economy & Taxations System is gearing for a big melt down. Baby Bloomer's need to decide the best system for them to live till they died.

In my next article. I would share my thoughts on the Taxations System for the Aging Baby Bloomers Era.

Greenspan Admits Tax Cut Error
By Michael Gawenda Washington

With a $4 trillion deficit and benefit cuts looming, the US Federal Reserve chief says cutting taxes was wrong.

US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's controversial tax cuts.

The tax cuts led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($A506 billion).

Instead of a projected surplus of $US5.6 trillion by 2011, a deficit of $4 trillion is expected if Mr Bush gets his way and the tax cuts are made permanent. They are due to expire in 2008.

Mr Greenspan's defence of the tax cuts was always viewed as highly unusual for a Reserve chairman who is mandated to be non-political and whose major responsibility is to determine interest rates and help keep inflation in check.

Democrats have long seen him as a partisan figure.

Appearing before a Senate select committee on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan was forced to admit that his support for tax cuts had turned out to be mistaken.


He had mounted the seemingly extraordinary argument in 2001 that the budget surpluses were too big and US foreign debt would be paid off too quickly.

Under vigorous questioning by Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Greenspan, looking uncomfortable, said he had been mistaken in his view about ever-increasing surpluses.

"We were confronted at the time with an almost universal expectation amongst experts that we were dealing with a very large surplus for which there seemed to be no end," he said.

"I look back and I would say to you, if confronted with the same evidence we had back then, I would recommend exactly what I recommended then. Turns out we were all wrong".

"Not all of us," said Senator Clinton.

Mr Greenspan did not steer clear of partisan politics, saying that he supported Mr Bush's call for reform of social security, including partial privatisation.

He warned that surpluses in the social security trust fund would quickly evaporate once baby boomers started to retire. He argued for private investment accounts funded by diverting part of the tax paid by employees and employers into the social security trust.

He said there was an urgent need for a review of current commitments to ageing Americans, and the Government must give people time to prepare for the fact that they might have to work longer, save more and spend less.

Mr Greenspan said current projections showed that spending on social security and health care for ageing Americans would consume 13 per cent of US economic output by 2030.

"These projections make clear that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years," he said.

Mr Greenspan's enthusiastic support for social security reform because of unsustainable budget deficits infuriated Democrats, who have not forgiven him for supporting the Bush tax cuts, which they had always argued would use up the Clinton surpluses.

Recent polls show support for Mr Bush's social security reforms is dwindling, with less than 40 per cent of Americans convinced he is on the right track.

Greenspan admits tax cut error - World - www.theage.com.au

Raise retirement age, Greenspan tells panel - To 70th??

In my article On Mar 15, 2005. I did state my view on extending the retirement age. till 75th-80th!!


This is the only way out not only for American.. This is also for the whole world. Just imagine if the Baby Bloomer are all reitred at 60th.. What would happen to the World Economy?????

So these is a really significant issue for for all of us to address.

Raise retirement age, Greenspan tells panel
By Kevin G. Hall Knight Ridder News Service

WASHINGTON - • Alan Greenspan didn't support any specific legislation, but indicated that there may be little choice but to encourage older Americans to stay in the work force.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Tuesday to consider raising the retirement age to help fix Social Security's funding problems, and he made it clear that benefit cuts should be part of any solution.

Greenspan also told the Senate Select Committee on Aging that lawmakers should give themselves a 2008 deadline to fix the system. That's when the first wave of 76 million baby boomers begin to retire.

Over the past two months, Greenspan has walked a fine line in testimony before several House and Senate panels, offering advice but stopping short of specific recommendations. But Tuesday he offered more direction, such as saying it is logical to have older people work longer.

"Increasing labor-force participation seems a natural response to population aging, as Americans are not only living longer but are also generally living healthier," Greenspan said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has introduced legislation that would increase the Social Security retirement age to 68 and index future benefits to life expectancy so that earlier retirees would get smaller initial benefits. Greenspan didn't support any specific legislation, but indicated that there may be little choice but to encourage older Americans to stay in the work force.

"Rising pressures on retirement incomes and a growing scarcity of experienced labor could induce further increases in the labor-force participation of the elderly and near-elderly in the future," he said.

While Social Security runs an annual cash surplus today, by 2018 the yearly cost of pension benefits will exceed annual revenues, and by mid-century revenues will cover only 73 percent of benefits. Unless changes are made, Social Security's funding gap eventually will worsen federal budget deficits, Greenspan warned.

Raising taxes could be part of the solution, but Greenspan warned against relying too heavily on that. To fully fund current commitments in 2050, he said, Congress would have to raise the payroll tax to about 18 percent from the current 12.4 percent, split equally between workers and employers. Such a move could "severely inhibit economic growth," he said.

The Fed chairman again offered qualified support for President Bush's proposal to allow younger workers to divert some of their payroll taxes to personal retirement accounts that invest in stocks and bonds. Such accounts could boost national savings, which would help finance investment and economic growth, he said.

Star-Telegram | 03/16/2005 | Raise retirement age, Greenspan tells panel

Greenspan: Benefit Cuts Necessary -- This is Only Short Term!!

The Issues of Baby Bloomers retirement is a big concern especially 2008 onward. Which by then; those born on & after 1948 would be retired.

In my opinion, Looking at the retirement Benefit cuts is only for short term.

The other issue that all would be facing is the decline of the Social Security contributors of the X Generation & Web Generation.

Now looking at the life span of Baby bloomer's say would be at 100-110. Then there would be even greater financial payout & social issues for these Baby Bloomers.

You see our parents are living till 70th-90th years old which there is a growing base of Baby Bloomers to support their retirement. However, these Baby Bloomers like us have the contracture pool of Social Security funds to support. Couple witht he cost of living & inflations. the social security funds would not be enough for the minimum life style that we used to live on.

Therefore, for the long term the only solutions is:

To extend the retirement age till 75th - 80th years old for the baby bloomer's

Further the research on Nanotech applications to sustain the health & wellness conditions for people, so that Baby Bloomers would have a extended middle age & fighting fit life to self-support of their life & country economy.


Greenspan:Benefit Cuts Part Of Soc Sec Solution
March 15, 2005
By Rob Wells and John Godfrey Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Tuesday Congress should plainly explain to taxpayers that benefit cuts are likely to occur under any plan to restructure Social Security.

Greenspan, in prepared remarks before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, cited the estimated $10.4 trillion unfunded liability for Social Security over the indefinite future. The problem is worse with Medicare, where that program's shortfall is "several multiples" of the Social Security deficit.

"These numbers suggest that either very large tax increases will be required to meet the shortfalls or benefits will have to be pared back," Greenspan said.

"Because benefit cuts will almost surely be at least part of the resolution, it is incumbent on government to convey to future retirees that the real resources currently promised to be available on retirement will not be fully forthcoming," Greenspan said.

Greenspan added that tax hikes would be "problematic" to close the financial gap within Social Security.

Greenspan spoke about the need to evaluate promises to retirees.

Failure of Congress and the administration to address the imbalances between our promises to future retirees and society's ability to meet those promises "would have severe consequences for the economy."

"Unless the trend is reversed, at some point these deficits would cause the economy to stagnate or worse,"he said.

He also discussed the need to build savings to benefit the broader economy.

"When we evaluate our ability to meet those promises, focusing solely on the solvency of the financial plan is, in my judgment, a mistake," he said.

"In addressing Social Security's imbalances, we need to ensure that measures taken now to finance future benefit commitments represent real additions to national saving," he said.

He again endorsed the notion of personal investment accounts within Social Security.

President George W. Bush has proposed to allow workers born after 1950 to invest up to 4 percentage points of their Social Security payroll taxes into stocks and bonds through new private investment accounts. This will require the Treasury to borrow $754 billion over the next decade to finance the transition costs to the new system.

Greenspan said there are a variety of options to constructing private accounts. "Some types of accounts are virtually indistinguishable from the current Social Security system," he said.

On the other hand, accounts that do transfer funds to the private sector could force Congress to act to solve the nation's long-term fiscal problems.

"The major attraction of personal or private accounts is that they can be constructed to be truly segregated from the unified budget and, therefore, are more likely to induce the federal government to take those actions that would reduce public dissaving and raise national savings," Greenspan.

One way to help Social Security's solvency would be to divert current Social Security surpluses into accounts dedicated solely for the retirement program. Last year, for example, Social Security tax revenues exceeded benefits by about $150 billion.

But setting these funds aside just for Social Security would have exacerbated the current federal budget deficit, Greenspan said.
-By Rob Wells and John Godfrey, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6601; John.Godfrey@dowjones.com

Smartmoney.com: Breaking News: Greenspan: Benefit Cuts Necessary

Tung Chee Hwa Resigns - Hong Kong Chief Executive

From my observations on both Internal & External positions, Tung Chee Hwa resignation is a good thing for himself & for the Hong Kong people.

Be it for Health reason or Stress.. According to the Sun Tze strategies in "Art of War ", the Number 36 strategy is to go away.... is the top strategy after all.

For 7th years of in the office, things are not as easy for him for both end. Be it his Bosses in Beijing or Hong Kong people.

Hong Kong returned to China in 1997, then few months later the Global economy crisis hit. The financial crisis & Hong Kong currency are putting on the 1st test between Beijing & Hong Kong. Looking into the solution then, without the help of China.. Hong Kong may have even fall harder then any of the 4 little Dragon of Asia.

Indeed, Hong Kong is much more fortunate to have the motherly backing of Beijing. Any finger pointing issues is just the personal whim than the National & the people unity & the stability of the family.

As the old saying; the Prosperity & longevity of the country is highly dependant of the 3 Harmony:-

Heavenly Timing

Geographical Advantage

People Harmony



Think about without the huge Domestic Market of 1.5 Billions populations instead of the minority political interest, I am certain that Majority of Hong Kong people know what their needs & espectations are.

Tung Chee-hwa is citing poor health and stress as reasons for his resignation.

Tung Chee-hwa's frustrating and unpopular career as Hong Kong's leader is over.

Sources in Beijing say the Chinese Communist Party's politburo has accepted his resignation as chief executive due to poor health and stress.

The beleaguered Tung will announce his departure immediately after his nomination as vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) is approved on March 12.

The resignation has sparked intense debate in Beijing over how to handle the succession. Crucial articles of the Basic Law are unclear in the face of what is an unprecedented political crisis.

Poised to take over the job is Chief Secretary for Administration Donald Tsang, the sources added, although no firm decision has been made.

The same sources say there is opposition by some pro-Beijing political parties in Hong Kong to Tsang.

Tung handed in his resignation before the Lunar New Year. It was approved following an emergency meeting of the politburo.

The resignation ends days of intense speculation that began when it was learned that Tung would become a vice-chairman of the CPPCC, a position equivalent to that of a state leader.

The position is seen as a face-saving gesture to Tung for eight years of loyal service to the mainland.

In the corridors of power, there were heated debates over whether to let Tung serve out his remaining two years in office or pick a new chief executive through the Election Committee for a five-year term.

A source told The Standard Tung wanted to quit on more than one occasion after the last July 1 mass demonstration.

He told top officials his health has been deteriorating and that he took painkillers just before he delivered his policy address in January this year.

Earlier attempts by Tung to quit were rejected, but central authorities decided to let him go, hoping the move would lead to more popular support for the government in Hong Kong.

By stepping down, Tung saves Beijing from having to defend an increasingly unpopular leader whose tenure in office has been marked by policy failures, popular discontent and massive public protests increasingly focused on his inept rule.

Tsang, consistently rated as one of the territory's most popular officials, is a professional civil servant and a logical choice to succeed Tung because he carries little of the baggage of failure that has marked the current administration.

Hints of Tsang's elevation first came in December last year when President Hu Jintao publicly shook hands with him in Macau, echoing the famous gesture offered by former president Jiang Zemin to Tung in 1996, shortly before Tung was tipped to be Hong Kong's first post-colonial ruler.

Since he was handpicked by Jiang, it is unlikely that a change in Hong Kong could have occurred prior to Hu consolidating his power in office late last year.

Beijing has grown increasingly frustrated with Hong Kong's political troubles.

Calls for universal suffrage and the continuing popularity of pro-democracy politicians at the polls have underscored the failure of Tung's government to secure popular support and led Beijing to worry openly about his effectiveness. In December, Hu gave Tung's government a rare and embarrassing public dressing down in Macau, calling for unity, greater competence and improved governance.

Through it all, Tung has remained stoic to the point of stony silence in the face of his critics, while never breaking ranks with his superiors in Beijing.

In keeping with usual practice, Tung's office remained silent on his future and refused to comment again Tuesday.

In order for Tsang to take over and serve out the remainder of Tung's second term, sources said, he will step down as chief secretary and stand for office under the current electoral rules for a term that will end in 2007.

If Tsang is able to serve until 2007, then the constitutional reform process that is currently underway to amend the rules for the election of the chief executive could still go forward, sources said.

Beijing is faced with one major headache in finalizing a transition: the legalities of choosing a successor.

Mainland experts specializing in the Basic Law have been instructed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) to study Article 52 and Article 53 of Hong Kong's mini-constitution to search for a way forward.

``Beijing is still undecided on which way to go to choose a chief executive. Some key advisers argue that the next chief executive should only serve until 2007,'' a source said.

The source said an interpretation of Articles 52 and 53 by the NPC is a must and will prevent any legal challenge.

Others disagreed, arguing that under the Basic Law, the Secretary for Justice can map out the electoral arrangements for the new chief executive who would then serve a full five-year term.
The Standard - Tung resigns - Top Stories

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Joint SoCal Business StartUps 

China: Law Would Allow Action Vs. Taiwan - Rule of Family!!

In the Art of War Sun Tze said:

The Ultimate Victory In the War is not having to go to the War!!

& Without having to loose a single soldier's & people!!

Now let's us examine the Geographical relationship with the 2 locations. Taiwan originally is part of the earth plate of Southern China.

The settlement of mainland "Chinese" to Taiwan even far back to Sung Dynasty, However, I believe it may be even earlier. Then in Ming Dynasty, Dutch army have occupied for some 60 years, not till the Admiral Zhen Shen Kong of Ming Dynasty driven the Dutch Imperial Force.

Then Later the Prince of "Ching Dynasty", both the Prince "Chien Long" later he become the emperor of "Chin" & Prince "Jia Zhing" have traveled from Beijing to Taiwan Just before the end of "Ching" Dynasty, as the government is weak & also due to the war between the 8 Nations, then their imperial government have not have time & resources to take care of Taiwan.

With the North Eastern part of China have been facing the War between Russia & Japan, the Empress Doweger have order to cut losses by given the Land of Siberia & Eastern seaboard 3 provinces to Japan, according the history, Taiwan is colonized by the Japan for some 60 years. In additional she also given Money & Gold to Russia & Japan. As well as the Lease teritory of the 8 Nations.

When Generalsimo Chiang retreated to Taiwan, he had conscripted all those boys that 16th & above from Thong Shang Island; my late parents home town; to become his force in Taiwan!!

Looking at the language & dialects that people in Taiwan speaking now is mainly Mandarin & Tai Yi; where there is no difference between Thong Shang Yi & Taiwan Dialect!! As explained that the Thong Shang people for the past 2,000 years are fishermen & they have set up their homes in Taiwan.

If one examine the Food, culture & Religion of Taiwan, you would discovered that it is more than 100% is identical to those in the Southern province of China & especially Thong Shang Island.

Let us now look at the Economic positions, the 4 Dragons of Asia after 1997 economic crisis. All their competitiveness in Economy is lossing to China. But the Businessmen in these counties do sees the opportunity of Greater China as their Domestic Market & their base for their survival. With the Race & Language & culture advantages, these businessmen have returned to China as far back as 1980's.

When I travel in China, I have found that there are more Taiwanese Businessmen that who have settled in China & make a success in life, even they might not make it in Taiwan, they Make it in China. There is more advantages for then both in terms of opportunities & Living standard. These is more so for the Taiwanese & than those Chinese Businessmen from, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Philippines, Australia!!

Even if we looking back into the history Korea were the protective state of China in the Last dynasty of China!!

I stronly believed that the Taiwan people have their roots from China & they have relatives & friends in China, it is not the will & interest of the people in both places to see that they have to go to War because of the difference in opinions between a big family.

Knowing that Chinese culture is always family culture & Economy; come 1st, & also the issue of Face value. The peace & prosperity of both land is what the Chinese people & Chinese Race of the world.

Therefore, my opinion is that be it the Power or Political play between both, the Chinese Family afairs is best settle by the family.

China: Law Would Allow Action Vs. Taiwan
China Unveils Law Authorizing Military Action if Taiwan Seeks Formal Independence
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN The Associated Press

Mar. 8, 2005 - China unveiled a law on Tuesday authorizing military action to stop rival Taiwan from pursuing formal independence, but said an attack would be a last resort if peaceful means fail.

Taiwan immediately lambasted the legislation, calling it a pretext for attack that "gives the (Chinese) military a blank check to invade Taiwan."

"Our government lodges strong protest against the vicious attempt and brutal means ... to block Taiwanese from making their free choice," Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, which handles the island's China policy, said in a statement.

Chinese leaders say the law is meant to curb what they claim is an effort by Taiwan's president to make the self-ruled island's independence permanent. The legislation drew strong and immediate protest from Taiwan as an attempt to dominate the island.

The proposed law, read out before China's figurehead parliament by one of the body's leaders, doesn't give details of what developments might trigger an attack on Taiwan. The two sides have been separated since 1949 but Beijing claims the self-ruled island as its own territory.

The communist mainland has threatened repeatedly to invade if Taiwan tries to make its independence permanent, and the new law doesn't impose new conditions or make new threats. But it would codify the legal steps required before China would take military action.

"If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Wang Zhaoguo, a leader of the National People's Congress, as he read from the law.

A leading member of Taiwan's parliament called on Chinese leaders not to act rashly, saying they should "rein in the horse before the precipice."

"We will not accept any resolution to allow the Chinese communists to unilaterally decide Taiwan's future," said Chen Chin-jun, a member of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party. "We will reject China's annexation and safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy."

Chinese officials say the law was prompted in part by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's plans for a referendum on a new constitution for the island. Beijing worries that it might include a declaration of formal independence.

"Every sovereign state has the right to use necessary means to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," Wang said.

The United States has appealed to both sides to settle Taiwan's future status peacefully and says it doesn't want to see either change the status quo unilaterally. Washington is Taiwan's main arms supplier and could be drawn into any conflict over the island.

A final vote on the law is scheduled for March 14. It is certain to pass, because the NPC routinely approves all legislation already decided by Communist Party leaders.

Wang repeated Chinese complaints that Taiwanese independence activists are a "serious threat to peace and security in the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole."

The legislation lays out legal requirements for taking military action, saying the Chinese Cabinet and the government's Central Military Commission "are authorized to decide on and execute nonpeaceful means and nonpeaceful measures."

China and Taiwan have no official ties and most direct travel and shipping between the two sides is banned. But Taiwanese companies have invested more than $100 billion in the mainland and the two sides carry on thriving indirect trade.

Until recently, China military was thought to be incapable of carrying out an invasion across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. But Beijing has spent billions of dollars in recent years on buying Russian-made submarines, destroyers and other high-tech weapons to extend the reach of the 2.5 million-member People's Liberation Army.

Chinese leaders have appealed repeatedly in recent months for Taiwan to return to talks on unification. But they insist that Taiwanese leaders must first declare that the two sides are "one China" a condition that Chen has rejected.
ABC News: China: Law Would Allow Action Vs. Taiwan

About US Economy & Tax

I am going for a trip.. Shall be back by Sunday..

I would be writing my comments on the subject On my Return.