-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A> ----- Der Fuher Invades Yugoslavia House Denies Support for Airstrikes Ah, come on! Give war a chance! WASHINGTON (AP) -- Challenging President Clinton over Kosovo, a divided House withheld its support for NATO airstrikes late Wednesday after voting earlier to limit his authority to use ground forces. The House first voted 249 to 180 to make Clinton obtain congressional approval before sending ``ground elements'' to Kosovo or other parts of Yugoslavia. That action provoked a quick veto threat from Democrats. Then, in what was intended to be a largely symbolic vote, Democrats sought approval of a resolution to bestow after-the-fact blessings on the NATO bombing campaign. Even with the support of Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, it failed on a 213-213 tie. The votes came despite appeals by Clinton for the nation to speak ``with a single voice'' on the escalating conflict over Kosovo and a warning by Democrats that Congress was sending a mixed message to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. ``This is a gratuitous authorization,'' Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., said of the vote to support airstrikes now in their fifth week. ``Bombing for peace is wrong and it's not working.'' The Senate had voted bipartisan support for the airstrikes last month. The House vote caught both Democratic and Republican leaders by surprise. The administration said it would press ahead with its airstrikes. ``The House today voted no on going forward, no on going back and they tied on standing still,'' said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. ``We will continue to prosecute the air campaign and to stop the violence being perpetrated by Milosevic.'' Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., called the House vote an ``appalling lack of judgment and an appalling abandonment of the troops in the field. It is a day which this House will profoundly regret.'' A spokesman for Hastert, John Feehery, said, ``The speaker has been telling the president all along that he needs to make his case to the American people and to the Congress. This vote shows how he has to continue to make that case.'' Clinton told lawmakers he still considers a ground campaign unnecessary -- but promised to seek congressional approval if he changes his mind. Even as Congress debated limiting the war, the Pentagon announced the Air Force had alerted B-52 crews in the United States to be prepared for the possible deployment of 10 additional bombers to Europe to join the NATO air campaign. They would be among nearly 300 additional aircraft -- mostly fighters, refuelers and other support planes -- that NATO commanders have requested in order to accelerate the bombing of Yugoslavia. Suggesting the House-passed legislation was a veto candidate, Democratic leaders said the ``ground elements'' wording was so vague it could even apply to forces already in the region, or to the use of U.S. Apache helicopters in Albania. Republicans said the measure was intended only to apply to ground combat missions. ``We should not even be in the Balkans,'' said Rep. Floyd Spence, R-S.C., chairman of the Armed Services Committee. ``The national security of this country is not at stake.'' Meanwhile, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C., scheduled a hearing before his panel for Thursday to vote on a measure by a bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to authorize Clinton to use ``all means necessary,'' including ground troops, to prosecute the war. At a White House meeting shortly before the House vote, lawmakers said Clinton told them he would seek congressional approval if he decides a ground campaign is needed. ``I can assure you that I would fully consult with the Congress,'' he later told House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., in a letter. Republican leaders said they wanted to hold him to his word -- and fulfill their constitutional responsibility for warmaking. But Democrats said the vote, during the first extended debate on the crisis since the NATO bombing campaign began on March 24, interfered with Clinton's role as commander in chief and would send a message of mixed U.S. resolve. ``The language in this legislation is unnecessary,'' said Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri. He said the bill ``would be harmful to our effort.'' Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic ``will be listening carefully to what we say here today,'' Gephardt told colleagues. For his part, Clinton said the 19 NATO nations had expressed unity over the weekend and ``America must continue to speak with a single voice as well.'' Clinton also appealed to lawmakers for quick approval of his $6 billion request to pay for the conflict with Yugoslavia and urged them to resist Republican-led efforts to double it. ``We must get a Kosovo funding measure passed and to my desk now,'' Clinton said. Republicans want to add more money to meet longer-term needs of the Pentagon, including a military-wide pay raise. While Clinton told reporters that lawmakers should ``resist the temptations to add unrelated expenditures,'' members of Congress said that during their meeting with the president, he did not say a $12.9 billion House GOP package was too large. ``He did not give a figure or suggest the dollar amount was a controversy,'' said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee. ``I would have noticed.'' After the vote on ground troops, the House turned to two more extreme measures. It rejected, 290 to 139, a proposal to bring all U.S. forces home and rejected, 427-2, one to formally declare war on Yugoslavia. The two voting for war were Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Gene Taylor, D-Miss. Both were filed by Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif., who said he wanted to test the terms of the War Powers Act. ``This is indeed war,'' Campbell said. ``We are on the verge of ground troops. ... We are bombing bridges that we will be asked to rebuild tomorrow. Mark my words. You know that.'' Even though the ground-troop restrictions were sponsored by Republicans, the legislation was supported by 45 Democrats. Many argued that Clinton should seek congressional approval for a ground war, just as former President Bush had done in 1990 in winning support for the Persian Gulf War. Rep. Tony Hall, D-Ohio, called the choices before Congress ``a grab bag of conflicting resolutions about the war. Proceeding in this fashion is an embarrassment.'' Rep. William F. Goodling, R-Pa., an author of the GOP measure, said he introduced the legislation ``because I don't believe the president can conduct a war in Yugoslavia without the consent of Congress.'' At a Pentagon briefing to review the latest NATO airstrikes, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Wald declined to discuss specific additional deployments of bombers or other aircraft. The officials who disclosed the B-52 bomber alert spoke on condition they not be identified. Unlike the eight B-52s that have been launching cruise missiles at Yugoslavia since the start of the air campaign, the additional 10 bombers probably would drop 500-pound iron, or ``dumb,'' bombs on Serb troop concentrations. This would be a new tactic in the 5-week-old war, which so far has relied almost exclusively on precision-guided munitions to strike fixed targets such as buildings and missiles batteries. Associated Press, April 28, 1999 Political Prisoners Jim Norman's Letter to Warden of Manchester Prison 26 April 1999 Warden FCI Manchester P.O. Box 4000 Manchester, Ky 40962-4000 via fax to: 606-599-4115 Dear Sir: On or about April 12, 1999, I mailed to you a transcript of an interview with prisoner Charles Hayes (05930-320) for your comment. Having received no reply or acknowledgment after two weeks, I expect to proceed with the story. Your response is welcome at any time, but may now likely come after publication. In addition, the April 12 letter formally requested copies of Mr. Hayes' medical and government service records, which he indicated he would approve for release. Notwithstanding the fact that he has apparently been relocated (in what appears to be violation of his sentencing order by Judge Coffman), that document request remains and your prompt response is expected. Further, for the record, I would like to request a formal statement from your office as to the reason for Mr. Hayes' transfer, the location to which he has been transferred and the reason for sending him to that facility. Your prompt response would be appreciated. Cordially yours, James R. Norman Senior Writer 212-xxx-xxxx fax:: 212-xxx-xxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Address for Charles Hayes (as of 4/28/99) Charles S. Hayes 05930-032 Wake Forest Unit F.C.I. P.O. Box 1000 Butner, NC 27509 Charles Hayes on the cover of Media Bypass Currency Competition Dollars, Dollars, Everywhere Argentina's dollarization proposal puts currency competition on the table Competition between currencies has been proposed by some free market economists and was actually put forward by the British government as an alternative to a single European currency. It has been given a new relevance by Argentina's proposals for "dollarising" its currency. Currency competition is already a reality judged by the amount of foreign currency notes held for domestic purposes around the world. It is known as dollarisation because the vast bulk of such currencies consists of dollars. But it can apply to any currency. A recent International Monetary Fund study - Monetary Policy in Dollarised Economies - suggests that over half of all the $470bn of dollar notes are held abroad. Average foreign currency holdings of countries that have borrowed from the IMF since 1986 are equivalent to over 16 per cent of total "broad money" - banknotes plus bank deposits. Some individual countries hold very much more. The highest is Bolivia where 82 per cent of all money consists of dollars. Even in the UK over 15 per cent of broad money consists of foreign currencies. The IMF does not like foreign currency holdings because they complicate the setting of domestic monetary objectives. But the study tries to dissuade members from making dollar holdings illegal, as this would drive them offshore. Its main message is the long familiar one that dollarisation is a product of lack of confidence in domestic policies. It admits however that dollarisation has remained and even increased in several countries after "successful stabilisation". One halfway house is the currency board. This is based on an old British colonial system, but has been adopted by independent countries, of which Argentina is a prominent example. It has suffered less speculation against its currency than Brazil. Under a pure currency board the whole of a country's note issue and reserve deposits by banks have to be covered by holdings of dollars or other specified hard currencies. Countries with currency board features include Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Hong Kong and Bosnia. The most enthusiastic academic exponents of currency boards, Steve Hanke and Kurt Schuler, complain that Argentina does not have a pure currency board.* It has a central bank with limited independence in monetary policy and up to one-third of the monetary base can be backed by Argentine government bonds. There is of course always some chance that a currency board will be abolished by a future government. Because of this risk interest rates in currency board countries are higher than in the US. In Argentina this premium has recently been running at around 2 percentage points on short-term interest rates and it was much higher during Mexico's "tequila crisis" of 1995. Carlos Menem, Argentina's president, would like to get rid of the premium to stimulate the country's economy which has recently been flagging. He proposes replacing the peso altogether by the dollar. He claims that this would add 2 percentage points to the underlying growth rate. The official preference is for a negotiated agreement with the US, which might be take two or three years to implement. The Hanke paper proposed unilateral dollarisation of the Argentine currency within 30 days. Although not official policy, this is welcomed in Buenos Aires as a reminder that Argentina could go it alone if necessary. This would be technically possible quite soon as Argentine dollar reserves are already more than sufficient to cover the existing holdings of pesos and bank reserves. The operation is further simplified by the fact that the exchange rate is one peso to one dollar. Some 27 small countries, including Panama and Puerto Rico, are already dollarised in the Argentine manner sense and the idea is under discussion in Hong Kong. But dollarisation by Argentina, which has a population of 36m, would be an altogether bigger move. Prof Hanke claims that growth has been 50 per cent faster in 1953-1993 in countries which are dollarised or have currency boards than in countries with orthodox central banks, and that fiscal deficits have been 40 per cent less. Nevertheless, action in Argentina is unlikely until after the October presidential elections for which Mr Menem is not eligible to stand. It is far from clear what a successor would do, but at the very least the currency board features would be retained. The US is obviously wary. Larry Summers, US deputy Treasury secretary, has warned that the Federal Reserve would continue to base policy on US domestic needs without taking into account Argentina. The Fed would not be prepared to act as a lender of last resort. How tragic would these limitations really be? The position would be similar to that of a European country which had adopted the euro but had no seat on the European central bank. The ECB does, irrespective of voting, have to take into account conditions in the whole euro-zone. But countries such as Ireland or Portugal - which individually account for a small proportion of the euro-zone's gross domestic product - do not find their interests mattering much anyway. Curiously, Prof Hanke denounces orthodox central banking as a form of central planning. But dollarisation also depends on a central banker - the Fed. The legitimate reply is that the Fed has a better record at providing low inflation and economic and financial stability than the great majority of emerging economies. Current proposals do not provide for any monopoly of the dollar. Argentina is already one of the most liberalised financial economies in the world and its citizens can hold any currency they desire. The dollar's lead comes from the fact that this is what peso deposits and notes would initially be converted into. Its legal tender status would merely mean that contracts would have to be settled in dollars if the currency of settlement was unspecified. The main calculable loss from dollarisation would be "seigniorage", that is state profits from the note issue. This only represents however about 0.2 per cent of GDP. It is also objected that dollarisation would conflict with proposals for a "Mercosur" currency for Latin American nations. The simple reply is that adoption of the dollar is a more promising prospect. Could an economic Eurosceptic who opposed British membership of the euro because he did not believe in a "one-size fits all" monetary policy logically support dollarisation by Argentina? He just about could. For he could say that the operationally independent Bank of England has by now established a good monetary track record. There is therefore an alternative domestic route to low inflation which has gained credibility. The same could not yet be said even of the more successful emerging countries. The implications of widespread dollarisation are sweeping. If Argentina were to make a successful move, other countries would be likely to follow. US leaders can say that they would take no notice of Argentina in formulating monetary policy. But they could no longer be indifferent if the greater part of the world's effective supply of dollars - not merely currency notes - were held outside the US. We would in practice then be near a dominant world currency and the Fed would become a world central bank. This is not an honour to which it aspires, but it will still need to think about it - as we all will. *A Dollarisation Blueprint for Argentina, Cato Institute, Washington The Financial Times, April 29, 1999 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
