Bumbling Brown Bears Brunt of British Taxpayer Revolt: Better Bag Bodacious, Bogus Green Taxes Before its Too Late!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/may/04/tax.economy




Brown to scrap tax rises in bid to calm voter fury


Gaby Hinsliff and Jo Revill


The Observer,


Guardian.co.uk

Sunday May 4 2008

[This picture is a genuine Labour party poster from the 2005 Hodge Hill by-election)
Unelected chairperson of the Labour Party, Hazel Blears, has got into hot water recently by stereotyping immigrants and suggesting the public associated them with anti-social behaviour. This came only days after the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown said he wanted to see ‘British workers for the British jobs’. See Socialist Unity Blog at: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=528.]

Gordon Brown is poised to scrap a series of unpopular tax rises as part of sweeping changes to stave off a dangerous revolt over the rising cost of living which last week dealt Labour its worst electoral hammering in 40 years.


Today the Prime Minister will respond to a growing suburban uprising by signalling moves to help motorists and other consumers. His intervention comes amid a fresh assault over the 10p tax rate change, which backbenchers warn could destroy his premiership.

Frank Field, the renegade ex-minister who forced Brown into offering compensation for the abolition of the 10p rate, said dismal local election results had shown poor families did not trust the Prime Minister to deliver on what Field described as an 'Alice in Wonderland' scheme to give them their money back.


He spoke as Tory strategists vowed last night to make the 10p rate and the rising cost of living the heart of their campaign in the forthcoming by-election in Crewe and Nantwich, claiming tax was a 'huge issue' among working-class Labour voters in the seat left vacant by Gwyneth Dunwoody's death. It was announced late last night that her daughter, Tamsin Dunwoody, had been chosen as the Labour candidate for the contest on 22 May.


The question of the Prime Minister's leadership was also raised openly for the first time since the vote; Labour backbencher Graham Stringer said ministers were privately discussing whether there should be a challenge to Brown.


The Manchester Blackley MP told Sky News: 'I think Gordon is going to be the leader of the Labour party. There is no real tradition of regicide. But it would not be true to say that these conversations aren't going on between ministers and Labour backbenchers about whether there should be a challenge. There is a public display of loyalty and there is private despair.'

Last night Downing Street sources hinted the 2 per cent rise in fuel duty due in the autumn may not go ahead, in a concession to tight household budgets. Asked if it would be scrapped, a senior source said: 'We could do that, although it would not have any effect until October. We will reserve judgement until later this year.'


Brown is also expected today to highlight the role of the Competition Commission investigation into supermarkets in protecting families from high prices, promising that ministers will ensure stores do not keep prices artificially high.

Ministers also want Brown to rethink green taxes - including motoring charges and proposed 'pay as you throw' schemes for household rubbish - and to sideline his passion for Africa and the climate to focus on domestic worries.


Internal polling in London found Ken Livingstone's green policies, such as new charges for gas-guzzling cars, alienated older voters, while the environment was at best a low priority for others, suggesting that, as families' budgets shrink, so does their willingness to pay to save the planet.

'My colleagues will say Labour has got to be brave on green issues, but the public are really feeling the pinch,' said one senior minister. Downing Street sources hinted last night that trials of household-rubbish taxes may never be widespread, adding that Brown was 'fairly sceptical' about the idea.


The moves will be welcomed by MPs clamouring for practical measures to relieve pressure on family budgets. But Brown will face a fresh attack from Field when the ex-welfare minister tables a Commons motion this week criticising the response to the 10p tax crisis and demanding detailed, specific compensation measures be published before the next vote on the bill in mid-June. He has warned that the issue must be clarified or Labour could lose Crewe.


A by-election defeat could precipitate a crisis. Brown faces a 'triple whammy' with the poll in May, followed by the vote on the finance bill in June and a vote on detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days. Defeat in all three could trigger a vote of no confidence, ending his leadership without the need for a contest.


Describing the issue as 'potentially immensely dangerous' for Brown, Field said: 'What I thought [Brown] was going to say was "we are going to use every muscle in our bodies to find ways of compensating you". Instead of that, we had a garbled statement in the Commons which nobody could understand. I just think the 10p issue is going to be a live rail.' Writing in The Observer today, he warns the issue must be clarified before the by-election, adding: 'Failure to act clearly and decisively will, I fear, lead to further electoral disasters.'


Friends said Field was furious that the compensation package did not match what he had been privately led to expect. However, sources close to Brown said ministers would publish specific proposals early if they could.

Also writing in The Observer, former Downing Street strategist Matthew Taylor admits Labour is in a 'deep hole' and calls on Brown to focus on a few specific promises while delegating issues like prisoners' pay or plastic bag bans to his cabinet. He admits: 'It might not work. Then again, maybe nothing will.' Despite this, an Observer survey of MPs with marginal seats in London found no appetite for a change of leader after Boris Johnson's surprise win in the mayoral election. Gareth Thomas, the International Development Minister, who is defending a 2,028 majority in Harrow West, said: 'Gordon's the man for the job. We can carry on under him and win the next election, but we have been given some tough messages [by voters].'


However, the former Labour leadership challenger Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham, said Labour had not yet 'calibrated the language' to show it understood people's vulnerability. 'We talk about challenges when people are really struggling. It looks as if we are not emotionally in tune with them,' he said. 'We are losing our traditional supporters.'


Wounding losses in May and June could provoke a no-confidence vote in short order. 'The end for Mrs Thatcher came very quickly: she never thought it was going to be over the issue that blew up,' said one veteran backbencher.


Ministers will spend the weekend discussing the implications of Johnson's victory. Hazel Blears, the Local Government Secretary, rang Johnson on Friday and promised a constructive working relationship, but the government is considering whether to impose greater scrutiny on a Johnson administration over critical issues such as the Crossrail project or the Olympics budget.

Freedom Means Responsibility

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120485275086518279.html

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Freedom Means Responsibility


By George McGovern

March 7, 2008; Page A15


Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.


Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.


With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.


There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.


The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.


Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states. Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.


Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending."


With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.


Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.


Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it.


Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.


Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.


The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else

.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.

Liberty vs. Socialism: Can't US Politicians See The European Welfare State Writing On the Wall??

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/COMMENTARY/162106


Liberty vs. socialism


March 8, 2008


By Walter E. Williams


The Washington Times


- A fortnight ago, I wrote about Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282 that would have imposed fines or revoked licenses of food establishments that served obese people. Fortunately, the measure died in committee.


State Rep. Ted Mayhall, one of the bill's sponsors, said he wanted to bring attention to the fact that "Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program." His sentiments were expressed by quite a few readers who didn't necessarily support such a bill but opined that if a particular behavior or lifestyle imposes costs on others through tax-supported health care, government had a right to intercede.


Similar justification was used for laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists and bicyclists. After all, if one exercises his liberty to ride without a helmet and has an accident and becomes a vegetable, society must bear the expense of taking care of him. The fact that an obese person becomes ill, or a cyclist has an accident, and becomes a burden on taxpayers who must bear the expense of taking care of him, is not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism where one person is forced to take care of another. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death?


You say, "Death. Aren't you exaggerating, Williams?" Say he tells the agents of Congress he will pay his share of constitutionally mandated government functions but refuses to pay the health costs of a sick obese person or a cyclist who becomes a vegetable, what do you think the likely course will be? First, he would be threatened with fines, imprisonment or property confiscation. Refusal to give in to these sanctions would ultimately lead to his being shot by agents of Congress.


Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal liberty. Think about all the behaviors and lifestyles that can lead to illness and increase the burden on taxpayers. A daily salt intake exceeding 6 grams can lead to hypertension. A high-fat diet and high alcohol intake can also lead to diabetes. A sedentary lifestyle can lead to several costly diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and heart failure.


There are many other behaviors that lead to a greater health care burden, but my question is how much control over your life you are willing to give government in the name of reducing these costs? Would you want government to regulate how much salt you use? What about government deciding how much fat and alcohol you consume? There are immense beneficial health effects of a daily 30-minute aerobic exercise.


Would you support government-mandated exercise? You might argue that it's none of government's business how much fat, salt or alcohol a person consumes, even if it has adverse health care cost implications. I would ask: Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to helmet laws and proposed obesity laws? Last year, The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act was introduced in Congress. It's a measure to prevent schools from serving "junk foods" such as pizza, burgers and French fries. If the government protects children from "unhealthy" meals at school, would you want government to also protect them from unhealthy meals at home?


[SEE: Brown's 'Get Fit' Towns: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud - http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html By James Woudhuysen, Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort UniversitySpiked OnlineMonday 5 November 2007 -- Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.]


[SEE ALSO, In Looney Britain, Citizens Don't Even Have 'Property Rights' in Themselves!! , http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/in-looney-britain-citizens-dont-even.html . British PM Urges No-consent Organ HarvestingBy Patrick HennessyArticle published Jan 14, 2008 January 14, 2008 \LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LONDON —Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday threw his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to remove organs from dead patients without explicit consent.Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Brown said such a move would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year. The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of a national register or family members objected. But patients' groups said they are "totally opposed" to Mr. Brown's plan, arguing it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.]

When I was 14 or 15 years old, smelling myself, I thought I could take over the house. My mother told me that as long as she paid the bills, I would do what she said. That's great for a parent-child relationship, but do we want the same relationship between government and its citizens?


Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University.


[PROFESSOR WILLIAM'S ARTICLE WAS PROMPTED BY THE NEWS REPORTS THAT FOLLOW]:


http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1dc81ea6-d115-46ac-9603-e362c0ebee64&rss=59


Bill Bans Obese Patrons From Mississippi Restaurants


Jackson, Miss. - The lawmakers who sponsored Bill No. 282 say they're not trying to discriminate against the overweight in Mississippi, they're trying to start a dialogue about how to fight the problem of obesity in the Magnolia State.


The proposed law would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve food to the obese.


Critics say government shouldn't try to be the food police and they say this latest attempt at public health legislation leaves a bad taste in the mouth.


"What kind of crap is that?" asks James Kelley of Clarksdale, Mississippi. "What do I think about it? Leave people alone. Let them eat what they want. Let them be."


Dedra Holley from Robinsonville, agrees. "How can you be serious?" she says. "So if they discriminate against obese people who are they going to discriminate against after that? People with long hair? Short hair? White people? Black people? I mean, that's absurd."


You'd be hardpressed to find any Mississippian who supports the idea. Even the man who sponsored the bill, Representative Ted Mayhall, says it should never pass.


"I do not have any intention of this becoming law," says the Desoto County Republican. "I don't think it has a Chinaman's chance. I'm against intrusive government. I don't think that's what we're here for and what we should be doing."


So why draft such controversial legislation?


"The reason I put the bill in," says Mayhall, "was to call attention to the seriousness of the obesity epidemic in Mississippi."


Mayhall says 30-percent of adults in Mississippi are obese. The state ranks number one in the nation for obesity three years running.


And with Mississippi's Medicaid program $168 million dollars in the red this year, Rep. Mayhall says illnesses related to obesity, including diabetes, are draining the state's budget.


His efforts to raise awareness about the issue have the national media calling with questions and constituents calling him out. By noon Friday, his answering machine was flooded with some not-so-nice messages and his cell phone was ringing constantly.


One caller told him, "Why don't you move to China or Russia instead of the U.S. Last I heard, this was still a free country."


There are plenty of skeptics who say Mayhall's plan to spark a change in the eating habits of Mississippians won't work.


"I don't think it's going to put a dent in the whole problem," says Dedra Holley. "I just can't believe it will."


"You're not going to be able to force someone to do something they're not ready to do," says James Kelley of Southaven. "Is this a Communist state?"


Despite the verbal attacks and all the doubters, Mayhall, a 68 year-old former pharmaceutical rep, says he's determined to stir up the debate.


"I'm a big boy," he says. "I can take anything that comes. I don't care. If it'll save three or four lives, it's well worth it."


Before Mayhall and Representatives John Read and Bobby Shows introduced their legislation, they got the green light from Mississippi's Public Health chairman and from Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.


No one expects the bill to pass. They do expect a lively discussion in subcommittee about ways the state can solve its' obesity problems.




http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080203/NEWS/802030374


Some say obese bill has fat chance

By Natalie Chandler

February 3, 2008


A bill that would force some Mississippians to back away from the buffet, or any restaurant, has begun its trip through the 2008 Legislature.


House Bill 282 would prohibit restaurants from serving food to anyone who is obese, based on criteria from the state Department of Health.


Restaurateurs and an advocacy group say the legislation is a waste of time, and even one of the lawmakers pushing it doesn't expect it to travel very far.


State Rep. Ted Mayhall, R-Southaven, said he's simply hoping to "call attention to the problem."


"No one's doing anything about it," Mayhall said, referring to obesity. "They just keep on going to the buffets and eating."


Obesity makes people more susceptible to diabetes, which puts a further strain on the state's financially-challenged Medicaid program, he said.


A 2007 report put that state's obesity rate at 30.6 percent - the worst in the nation.
Mayhall said the bill has been referred to a House subcommittee. If it advances, it would be discussed in the House Public Health and Human Services Committee.


Dr. Ed Thompson, state health officer, has previously said Mississippi's obesity rate cost Medicaid alone $221 million each year.


On Saturday, Thompson said the Department of Health is monitoring the bill as it does all proposed legislation that could affect public health policies. However, Thompson said the department has "no position on the bill."


"The bill was not discussed with us but we will work with the sponsors to see if we can answer any questions along the way," he said.


The legislation would require the Department of Health to "prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments."


The department would be responsible for making sure restaurants follow the law, which would go into effect July 1. Permits could be revoked for failing to comply.


"I've seen a lot of crazy laws, but this one takes the cake. Literally," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom. "Whether it is menu labeling laws, taxes on fattening foods, or Mississippi's new "you're too fat to eat here" proposal, the food police have gone too far."


Mississippi also ranks "dead last" in the country for physical activity, Wilson said.
"Maybe the state's Legislature should do something to help people burn more calories instead of pretending that eating out is a cardinal sin," he said.


McDonald's restaurant owner Mike Rutzer of Greenville agreed.


"It just staggers the imagination to think what our government will come up with next," he said. "It's discriminatory. Now we're picking and choosing who to serve?"


Jackson restaurateur LeRoy Walker said lawmakers should focus on "health care, education, overall economic reform for our state. People on the Coast are still impacted from Hurricane Katrina."


"I think the individual who may have some challenges with their weight needs to govern themselves accordingly with the choices they put on their plates," he added.


DeShawn Walker, who was eating an early dinner with his mother Saturday evening at Big Mama's Country Cooking Buffet in south Jackson, said the bill equals discrimination.
"It's wrong," he said. "And I think it would make restaurants lose money, too."


Walker's mother, Patricia, shook her head at the bill's premise.


"You can't tell nobody how to eat. People have got to decide for themselves to lose weight," she said. "But, you know, some people are big and happy."


David Simmons of Ridgeland had similar feelings toward the proposed legislation.


"(Obesity) is a problem, I know. But it shouldn't be the government's role to dictate what people are eating, just like government shouldn't dictate smoking or drinking," he said.


Mayhall acknowledges the bill is "bad legislation" and that it "won't go anywhere."
But he said, "The intent was to get it in committee and call attention to the problem."

Winning the Day in Latin America and Defeating Chavez’s Dream: How the US-Peru FTA is combating Bolivarianism and Regional Socialism

http://www.gwdiscourse.com/worldwatchblog/2007/12/19/winning-the-day-in-latin-america.html

Winning the Day in Latin America and Defeating Chavez’s Dream: How the US-Peru FTA is combating Bolivarianism and Regional Socialism


By: Osman Aziz


December 19, 2007


Recent developments in Latin America, chiefly the passing of the US-Peru FTA on December 7 and the nationwide referendum on Chavez's socialist dream harbors significant undertones for a region that is emerging on the global stage.



In a way, two competing ideologies are meeting face to face in a heated battle to see who emerges as victor. Chavez's defeat in Caracas points to the mollification of a backlash in Latin America, namely one against the meddling of foreign elements of western influence. So the question boils down to this: why is capitalism and free trade, as opposed to the socialist doctrines of Chavez, Morales, and Cuba, winning the day in Latin America?



Populist leaders such as Chavez and Morales have long relied on a political platform that vindicates the US and its supposed interests in exploiting Latin America. This popularity has been undercut, at least specifically in Venezuela, by rampant inflation that has placed the value of food and bare necessities far higher that the average Venezuelan can afford. Although the situation in Venezuela has been mitigated by the presence of massive oil revenues flowing into the nationalized oil company PVDSA, Chavez's utter hatred for the private sector has contributed to faulty social programs and an underestimation of market forces.



"In Venezuela's case this has been exacerbated by Mr. Chavez's ideological hostility to the private sector, which has involved selective nationalization and intermittent threats to private property. While many private companies (and banks) have done well out of the boom, they have been loth to make long term investments. Imports have risen fourfold over the past four years, while GDP has expanded by only half over the same period." [1]



Although Venezuelans have prospered marginally from Chavez's social programs and his redistribution of oil funds, the very fact that a sustainable paradigm of free trade and the protection of private property are being fundamentally undercut by Chavez's regime has contributed to a sense of fear in Venezuela over long term investments. Since no guarantee or promise exists that any form of investment by private capital will actually yield returns (due to the tenuous nature of the protection of private interests in Venezuela), many Venezuelans have resigned themselves to poor economic and investment prospects for the foreseeable future.



However, this trend hasn't been the norm in other parts of Latin America as is evidenced by the Heritage's foundation "Index of Economic Freedom". The annual report, which documents different factors that contribute to the overall nature of economic freedom found that the Americas has maintained a sustainable level of economic freedom that has contributed to the rise of per capita GDP over the last decade or so. However, the report also found that protectionist policies being adopted by numerous regimes in the region threaten the integrity of such sustainability by subjecting it to unfair practices that deter foreign investment.



"The recent rise of populists like Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez threatens to widen the freedom gap in the Americas even more. The Americas has been the second-highest region in terms of freedom since 1999, when it was the world leader. That was before Argentina's economic implosion and the protectionist policy responses that followed, notably the weakened average trade score." [2]




The question that now faces a region such as Latin America is what definitive direction it seeks to pursue in the next few years. The passing of the US-Peru FTA recently may be an indicator that the socialist backlash that seemed to be taking hold in South America is losing its grip. Additionally, an indication of growth, coupled with a political atmosphere that may be conducive to free trade is potentially turning the tide. The nature of the US-Peru FTA and what it seeks to bring to the table is a complex matter. Some argue, such as Congressman Sandy Levin of the House Ways and Means Committee, that the agreements do not go far enough in enforcing labor law rights in Peru. Specifically, he argues that provisions under the FTA do not address the underlying ineptitudes of the current condition in Peru.



" I favor a U.S.- Peru FTA, but this Agreement is bad for U.S. standing in the Latin American region. In negotiating trade agreements, the U.S. should not once again be locking in the status quo, but given constructive opportunities, helping to leverage change. The use of the standard, "enforce your own laws" in relationship to workers and their rights, when change is vitally needed, puts us on the wrong side of people who know the current law is not working to their benefit." [3]



Although Levin raises legitimate concerns with regards to the nature of labor rights in Peru and elsewhere in Latin America, his lack of consideration for the fact that such an FTA would open up Peru for considerations in complying with international labor standards, a consideration that would have been pounced upon by leaders such as Morales and Chavez as "neo-imperialist," is frankly questionable.



Conflicts within the Ways and Means Committee over the nature of an ITUC report on the status of labor rights in Peru was a major point of contention. According to a release by the WAMC on the issue of labor rights, it was related that the ITUC report in question actually provided for "legally binding amendments" which restricts Peru from reneging on its labor rights provisions. If the Peruvian government was to be found not in compliance with such binding amendments, the US government would have the mandate to challenge the Peruvian government in the same tradition of a commercial treaty violation. [4] Regardless, the widespread acceptance that the US Peru FTA garnered in the Peru legislature itself is evidence unto itself of the willingness of the government of Peru to comply by the universal force of free trade and trade liberalization.



The overall effect that the US-Peru FTA will have in quelling the increasing tide of socialism across the landscape of Latin America is, at best, minimal. However, unlike most efforts being made to combat this trend, the FTA's being negotiated with the Latin American region are profoundly symbolic for the area as a whole.



With such virulent anti-American rhetoric such as that originating from Chavez, Latin America deserves the chance to partake in the global market by making its resources, both physically and intellectually, open to the greater global financial dynamic. It's high time that such populist movements as that of Bolivianarianism be shelved by the promises of sustainability that are inherently bound in the spirit and practice of Free Trade Agreements and international trade.


* Osman Aziz works as an undergraduate intern at the ITSSD


[1] The Economist. The wind goes out of the revolution. December 8th, 2007
[2] 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. Economic Freedom in Five Regions. (2007)
[3] Sandy Levin on the US-Peru FTA
[4] House Ways and Means Committee. LABOR REPORT SHOWS IMPORTANCE OF STRONG LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE PERU FTA. (October 29, 2007)

Latin Economic Freedom Declines

http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1987


Latin Economic Freedom Declines


Latin Business Chronicle - Special Reports


BY CHRONICLE STAFF


January 15, 2008


Economic freedom in Latin America is declining, according to a new survey by the Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones.



"The lack—and in some cases, erosion—of economic freedom in the Americas reflects reversals of free-market policies and a failure by some governments to persevere in pursuing economic freedom," say the editors of the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, which was released today.



11 of 20 Latin American nations surveyed saw a decline in their scores compared to the 2007 index, according to a Latin Business Chronicle analysis of the data.



BRAZIL AND MEXICO



Brazil, Latin America's largest economy, saw its overall score fall by 0.8, while Mexico - the region's second-largest economy - boosted its score by 1.2. Heritage classifies both economies as "Moderately Free."



Chile is still ranked as the freest economy in Latin America, followed by El Salvador and Uruguay. Meanwhile, Cuba is ranked as the most repressed economy, followed by Venezuela and Haiti.



Corruption, inflation and weak property rights are the major trouble areas for regional economies, they say. "The recent rise of populists like Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez threatens to widen the freedom gap in the Americas even more," the report says.



CAFTA BEST



Measured by trade groups, CAFTA is the freest and ALBA the most repressed, a Latin Business Chronicle analysis shows. CAFTA's average score was 62.72 points. Mercosur had the second-best result, with an average score of 61.13 points. The Andean Community followed, with 58.22 points. ALBA had 48.78 points. However, within ALBA there are big differences, with Nicaragua's score of 62.7 points considerably higher than that of Cuba, 29.7 points.



Among nations that saw declining economic freedom were Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica - typically seen as investor-friendly nations - and Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua - which are run by investor-hostile governments.



And - despite increased moves curtailing private enterprise - Venezuela actually boosted its score compared to last year. Other nations that improved their score include Uruguay, Peru, Paraguay and Haiti.



"The typical ...Central/South American nation stands out positively in terms of limited government taxation and expenditures, as well as strong labor freedoms. The other five freedoms are also slightly stronger in the Americas than they are elsewhere, with lighter trade, investment, financial, and regulatory burdens," the report says.



DOMINICAN REPUBLIC



The Dominican Republic improved its score, but continues to be ranked among the worst countries in Latin America despite having a government widely seen as pro-business. The low score is mainly due to weak property rights and widespread corruption, but also still-high inflation.



"The court system is inefficient, and red tape is common," the report says. "The government can expropriate property arbitrarily. Most confiscated property has been used for infrastructure or commercial development. Although the government has slowly improved its patent and trademark laws, the enforcement of intellectual property rights remains poor."



And corruption is perceived as significant, it points out. "Official corruption is pervasive," it says. "Despite recent reforms, Dominican and foreign business leaders complain that judicial and administrative corruption affects the settlement of business disputes."



The Dominican Republic received a low score in the monetary freedom category thanks to inflation still being too high (averaging 10.7 percent between 2004 and 2006) and price controls to electricity and fuel, subsidies of some agricultural products and electricity generation. "An additional 10 percentage points is deducted from the Dominican Republic’s monetary freedom score to account for policies that distort domestic prices," the report says.


© Copyright Latin Business Chronicle