-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:42:02 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Progressive Response <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Corporate Welfare, Eximbank, OPIC ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- The Progressive Response 6 August 1999 Vol. 3, No. 28 Editor: Erik Leaver ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in PR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Table of Contents I. Updates and Out-Takes *** CORPORATE WELFARE AND FOREIGN POLICY *** By Janice Shields *** EXPORT-IMPORT BANK *** By Janice Shields *** OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION *** By Janice Shields *** CORPORATE WELFARE RESOURCES *** II. Comments *** TIME FOR ABOLITION *** By Peter Weiss *** QUESTIONING THE WAR ON DRUGS *** By Paul Newlin -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- (Editor's note: With the House voting to pass a $792 billion dollar tax cut on Thursday and the Senate slated to vote on the measure late Thursday night, multinational corporations are posed to benefit once again. The Washington Post reported that multinational corporations are posed to gain $24 billion dollars in tax breaks over the next ten years through foreign tax credits. Other specific tax breaks are slated for arms exporters, oil and gas operators, and the steel industry. Unfortunately, these types of tax breaks are not new. A special report issued by the In Focus project this week notes that the U.S. government provides wealthy corporations with more than $167 billion dollars in "corporate welfare" every year. Accompanying the report are two briefing papers focusing on major corporate welfare programs, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank). In all three pieces, author Janice Shields, coordinator of the Corporate Welfare and TaxWatch projects of the Institute for Business Research, exposes the major benefactors behind these programs and outlines measures to curb the billions these corporations receive each year from taxpayers.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- *** CORPORATE WELFARE AND FOREIGN POLICY *** By Janice Shields The U.S. government doles out more than $167 billion annually in what critics dub "aid for dependent corporations (AFDC)." This corporate welfare includes: (1) cash payments by governments to businesses; (2) government provision of below-cost products and services, such as loans and insurance, to businesses; (3) tax breaks for businesses; (4) laws-and changes in laws-that help business bottom lines; and (5) government purchases of goods and services from businesses at inflated prices (though laws are supposed to prevent this). U.S. aid for international investors, exporters, and importers exceeds $32 billion annually and benefits such "needy" recipients as General Motors, Citibank, Archer Daniels Midland, and Boeing. The Market Access Program (MAP), for example, uses taxpayer money to reimburse corporate foreign advertising costs. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) supplies loans and insurance to companies investing abroad. Federal tax law allows exporters to exempt a portion of revenues from taxation. The Sugar Program, which limits U.S. sugar imports, increases the sweetener industry's income by keeping supplies lower, leading to higher prices. The validity of corporate arguments supporting their welfare programs is often questionable. For example, some executives claim that subsidies and tax breaks are needed to create or maintain U.S. exports and jobs. Proponents of MAP contend that these subsidies generate $16 in export revenue for every $1 in taxpayer costs. Yet, U.S. General Accounting Office studies could not document any increase in exports due to MAP expenditures. Similarly, the Congressional Research Service could not confirm the job creation claims of OPIC beneficiaries. The tax break that allows U.S. corporations to defer payment of more than $1.3 billion annually in U.S. taxes on foreign earnings until remitted actually encourages U.S. companies to invest overseas. Corporate welfare may also harm international relations, especially when companies force countries to compete against each other to attract businesses by offering more subsidies and tax breaks or when countries use subsidies and tax breaks to retaliate against each other's policies. For example, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture recently threatened to provide Export Enhancement Program cash bonuses to U.S. flour exporters as a signal to the European Union that he was concerned about European flour subsidies. Elements of both the progressive and conservative political camps are campaigning to cut corporate welfare, though they seek different outcomes. Progressives argue that the money should be used instead to provide housing, food, medical care, and education for truly needy families and children. Conservatives want to downsize government by cutting corporate welfare. If these subsidies aren't cut, each government agency that disburses corporate welfare and each company recipient should be required to provide detailed annual public reports disclosing the amount of welfare disbursed/ received, how the welfare was used, and how the taxpayer expenditure benefited the company and the public. Corporate welfare programs should be periodically reviewed and, if costs exceed public benefits, eliminated. Government agencies doling out corporate welfare should bar companies with bad labor, environmental, and social records from obtaining benefits; business "AFDC" recipients should be required to follow codes of good corporate conduct and to refund the welfare if they fail to meet their commitments, such as creating promised jobs. Total Federal Corporate Welfare for Exporters, Importers, and International Investors: $32,060.4 Million * Annual Subsidies for Exporters, Importers, and International Investors: $11,360.4 Million * Tax Breaks Benefiting Exporters, Importers, and International Investors: $19,100 Million * Laws Benefiting Exporters, Importers, and International Investors: $1,600 Million (The complete Special Report "Corporate Welfare and Foreign Policy" is available at: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/cw/index.html) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- *** EXPORT-IMPORT BANK *** By Janice Shields The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) is an independent U.S. government agency established in 1934 to create jobs through exports. According to Eximbank, its programs annually sustain an estimated 200,000 U.S. jobs directly among exporters and suppliers and another one million jobs indirectly among subsuppliers. To carry out President Clinton's strategy for export growth, Eximbank is focusing on "emphasizing exports to developing countries, aggressively countering trade subsidies of other governments, stimulating small business transactions, promoting the export of environmentally beneficial goods and services, and expanding project finance capabilities." Eximbank offers a number of insurance and financing programs that are supposed to increase U.S. exports, such as: (1) working capital guarantees that cover 90% of the principal and interest on commercial loans to creditworthy small and medium-sized companies needing funds to buy or produce U.S. goods or services for export; (2) export credit insurance policies that protect against both the political (e.g., nonpayment as a result of war, expropriation, cancellation of an export or import license) and commercial (nonpayment due to unanticipated competition or deterioration of markets) risks of a foreign buyer defaulting on payment; (3) guarantees of commercial loans (including both principal and interest) to foreign buyers of U.S. goods or services; and (4) direct loans that provide foreign buyers with fixed-rate financing for their purchases from the United States. To qualify for Eximbank support, a product or service must have at least 50% U.S. content and not affect the U.S. economy adversely. In 1998, Eximbank authorized loans totaling $103 million, guarantees of $6.2 billion, and insurance of $4.3 billion for total authorizations of $10.6 billion. This financing and insurance subsidized $13 billion in exports by 2,060 U.S. exporters in 1998. Eximbank claims to have supported nearly 11,000 transactions with $65.5 billion in authorized financing from 1994 through 1998, directly benefiting more than 2,000 communities in the U.S. Eximbank generated a net loss on its operations of $1.7 billion in 1998, compared to income of $390 million in 1997. A large portion of that loss came from an increase in the provision for credit losses, especially due to off-balance sheet risks for financial instruments (guarantees and insurance) not included in Eximbank's statement of financial position. The loss provision reflects the fact that the collection of some loans is doubtful and that Eximbank will most likely need to pay insurance claims and redeem defaulted loans it had guaranteed. More than 40% of Eximbank's 1998 financing and insurance authorizations supported four industries: (1) "key linkage industries," including mining, petroleum, and steel companies, which produce inputs for durable goods; (2) manufacturers of high-value-added products; (3) exporters of new capital goods, such as computers, telecommunications equipment, aircraft, and automotive equipment; and (4) companies that employ highly-skilled workers, including the chemical, engine, and railway industries. Problems with Current U.S. Policy Eximbank's original goals were to increase U.S. exports and create U.S. jobs. Yet, it's questionable whether those goals can be met effectively by Eximbank. According to a Congressional Research Service study, "most economists doubt...that a nation can improve its welfare over the long run by subsidizing exports. Internal economic policies ultimately determine the overall level of a nation's exports." Eximbank's methods of implementing President Clinton's export strategy are also suspect. The emphasis on exports to developing countries combined with the focus on sales of new capital goods may introduce inappropriate technologies into nations with high unskilled labor pools. Exports of mining, petroleum, and infrastructure equipment may help multinational corporations and developed countries access cheaper raw materials, with few benefits for the residents of developing countries. These big-ticket imports drain the treasuries and currency reserves of developing countries and create heavy debt burdens. Eximbank's financing and insurance allegedly counter similar programs offered by other countries to their exporters. Yet, a General Accounting Office (GAO) study found that U.S. subsidies don't just level the playing field, they tilt it in favor of U.S. exporters. Eximbank provides 100% unconditional political and commercial risk protection on most of the medium- and long-term coverage it issues. Similar European agencies generally require exporters and banks to assume a portion of the risks (usually 5% to 10%) associated with such support. Increasing exports by small businesses and of environmentally beneficial goods and services also are supposed to be the focus of Eximbank's activities. Eximbank, in fact, brags that 85% of its transactions involve small businesses. More telling, though, only 21% of the total dollar amount of its authorizations involve small businesses. While billed as promoting democracy, in some cases Eximbank may be exporting the means of repression. Eximbank's support for "dual use" exports-those with both military and civilian applications-has been increasing. According to a GAO study of Eximbank dual use export loans and guarantees between 1995-97, all nine loans given to Indonesia, Venezuela, and Brazil were to be used to purchase equipment for their militaries, including aircraft, trucks, and radio systems. The United States claims to oppose "tied aid"-foreign assistance linked to the purchase of exports from the country extending the assistance. Yet, Eximbank receives appropriations that allow the agency to provide tied-aid assistance (grants or interest subsidies) to U.S. exporters. Washington has cut programs for poor U.S. families and children at home, while increasing Eximbank assistance benefiting wealthy transnational corporations. According to the CBO, Eximbank's credit programs are among the most expensive run by the federal government. Toward a New Foreign Policy Eximbank should be privatized. If U.S. taxpayers support continued Eximbank operations, Eximbank and its beneficiaries should be subject to certain restrictions. Privatize Eximbank Organizations from the political left to the right, from the Corporate Welfare Project to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agree that Eximbank's activities should be privatized. The high cost of Eximbank's credit programs creates a tax burden for all businesses in order to cover subsidies that benefit only a few. Eximbank Chair and President James A. Harmon testified before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade in October 1998 that only 1% of U.S. exports are supported by Eximbank programs; in other words, 99% of U.S. exports compete without this assistance. Now, during a relatively robust U.S. economic environment, is the time to cut the 1% off the federal dole. Private alternatives to Eximbank already exist. For example, Norwest Bank in Minneapolis and Wells Fargo HSBC Bank in San Francisco are leading trade lenders for companies exporting to Latin America. As more private lenders, guarantors, and insurers enter the market, importers become more savvy too and shop around the world to lower their financing costs. To privatize its operations, Eximbank should sell its portfolio of loans, guarantees, and insurance on the open market. The taxpayer money saved by eliminating this agency should be redirected toward providing nutrition, housing, health care, education, and job training programs for poor people in the United States and developing countries. Place Restrictions on Eximbank Operations Corporate beneficiaries of Eximbank programs should face the same requirements as individual recipients of social payments (e.g., means testing and time limits on receipt of benefits). Currently, wealthy corporations like Boeing take advantage of Eximbank's taxpayer-subsidized and -backed programs indefinitely. Companies that benefit from Eximbank assistance should be required to show directly resulting net U.S. job creation. Beneficiary companies should be good corporate citizens. They should adopt and adhere to recognized codes of conduct such as the Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility established by a coalition of organizations in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. These principles require companies to set standards for corporate governance and advertising and to protect the environment, workers, and children. Companies should not be allowed to export dual-use products to military organizations. Recipient countries should enact and enforce labor, consumer and environmental protection laws, and Washington should ban Eximbank assistance to countries that fail to enact and enforce these laws. Potential economic gains should not supersede the preservation of human rights. Eximbank should provide an annual public accounting showing the financial and nonfinancial benefits and costs to U.S. taxpayers of each Eximbank program outstanding during that fiscal year, organized by beneficiary company. In recent years, the U.S. government has shifted its foreign aid budget to programs that assist domestic and foreign entrepreneurs. This puts decisions and money into private hands that may be more interested in personal gains. Eximbank and other foreign business programs should not be funded from the foreign aid budget and should not substitute for foreign aid that directly attempts to improve the circumstances of needy people. (The complete brief is available at: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol4/v4n18exim.html) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- *** OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION *** By Janice Shields The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) provides taxpayer-backed loans, loan guarantees, and insurance to U.S. businesses for investments in "politically risky" countries. According to OPIC, since 1971 the agency has supported $121 billion in overseas investments and has helped to generate $58 billion in U.S. exports. In 1998 alone, OPIC sponsored 47 projects in more than 30 countries. More than half of OPIC's portfolio is in the power and financial services sectors, and almost two-thirds is in the Caribbean, Central and South American, and Asia/Pacific regions. Loan guarantees usually go to large projects and vary in size from $10 million to $200 million. OPIC provides direct loans for projects involving small businesses and cooperatives. According to the OPIC program handbook, the agency is supposed to consider what contribution a proposed project might make to the economic and social development of the host country before approving loans or loan guarantees. The agency also sells insurance against: (1) currency inconvertibility-the deterioration in an investor's ability to convert profits, debt service, and other remittances from local currency into U.S. dollars and to transfer those dollars out of the host country; (2) the loss of an investment due to expropriation, nationalization, or confiscation by a foreign government; and (3) the loss of assets or income due to war, revolution, insurrection, or politically motivated civil strife, terrorism, or sabotage. In the mid-1980s, OPIC began to establish private funds that purchase shares of ownership in overseas investments. By 1998, OPIC had launched almost 30 of these funds, such as the Poland Partners Fund and Aqua International Partners, to provide capital for investments in low-income countries and former nonmarket economies. If borrowers default on loans or if insurance claims are filed, the risk ultimately is borne by the U.S. government and taxpayers. As of September 1998, OPIC estimated that its noncollectable loans would total more than $7 million, that its exposure to credit risk under its loan guarantees was $6.3 billion, and that its exposure to insurance claims was, conservatively, $6.9 billion. Problems with Current U.S. Policy Clinton's welfare "reform" limits the number of years that the needy poor can receive payments, yet some prosperous corporations, such as Citibank, obtain OPIC insurance and financing year after year. Poor families must prove financial need to receive assistance, but wealthy companies, such as Enron and Pepsi-Cola, feed at the OPIC trough. Individuals receiving government payments must find jobs, yet corporate beneficiaries of government programs often are not required to create jobs. OPIC may even help companies export jobs. Levi Strauss, for example, recently announced plans to shutter its U.S. plants and lay off thousands of workers while obtaining more than $29 million in OPIC insurance to set up garment manufacturing facilities in Turkey. In response to such cases, Congress requires OPIC to screen out projects that may adversely affect U.S. employment. The Congressional Research Service says it cannot substantiate OPIC's claims of U.S. job creation. OPIC's program handbook requires the agency to reject support for projects that would have an "unreasonable or major adverse impact on the environment." Yet OPIC has come under attack by environmentalists for insuring companies that pollute their host countries. For example, OPIC provided $100 million in insurance coverage for Louisiana-based Freeport-McMoran's gold-mining project in Indonesia, even though the project created as much as 120,000 tons of waste materials daily, dumping much into a nearby river and valley. As an international campaign targeting the mine's environmental impact grew in strength, Freeport decided to sever its ties with OPIC. But another partially U.S.-taxpayer-funded organization, the World Bank's Multinational Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), is stepping in to provide risk insurance to international investors. Ironically, some of OPIC's funds have generated returns of 140% for their private investors even though, according to Mildred Callear, OPIC's former acting president, "the idea behind the funds is to replace foreign aid." Replacing foreign aid, intended to meet the basic needs of the poorest people in developing and newly independent countries, with funds directed at entrepreneurs puts decisions in the hands of narrow local and foreign interests. For example, Coca-Cola is an investor in OPIC's Africa Growth Fund; one of that fund's early investments was in a bottling plant in Kenya. Toward a New Foreign Policy Private companies, not the federal government, should sell insurance and make loans and loan guarantees for overseas investments. If the federal government continues to provide these services, restrictions should apply. Eliminate OPIC The left and right, conservatives, libertarians, and progressives support privatizing OPIC for diverse reasons. Some are concerned about OPIC's obvious contradictions relative to "reforms" in the U.S. welfare system for needy individuals or the agency's impact on jobs and the environment. Others want to downsize government, sever the business/politics connection, and reduce potential taxpayer risks from OPIC loan defaults and insurance claims. OPIC's programs even seem to contradict government policy, as illustrated in a House of Representatives' committee report arguing that "genuine and sustainable development would be promoted far faster by the example and investment of real entrepreneurs." The federal government's promotion of private-led development with public subsidies and programs-such as OPIC-is hypocritical. To privatize OPIC, the government should sell its existing portfolio of loans, loan guarantees, and insurance on the open market. Recently, a consortium led by Exporters Insurance proposed to the administration and Congress a plan for privatizing most of OPIC's outstanding risk insurance policies. A 1995 report on the feasibility of privatizing OPIC, prepared at the request of Congress, identified several other insurance companies offering policies similar to OPIC's. Renew OPIC with Strict Requirements If OPIC survives, strictly enforced operating requirements should be imposed. Companies and funds benefiting from OPIC financing and insurance should be required to follow codes of conduct formulated by private groups and multinational entities such as the United Nations. OPIC and recipients of loans, loan guarantees, and insurance must not be permitted to hide behind claims of business confidentiality. Even the new draft environmental guidelines facilitate only communication of "non-business confidential information regarding the environmental impacts of major projects under consideration for OPIC insurance, finance or investment." Full transparency of OPIC activities should be mandated to ensure the accountability of both the agency and its business beneficiaries. (The complete brief is available at: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol4/v4n19opic.html) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- *** CORPORATE WELFARE RESOURCES *** Organizations The Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 Voice: (202) 842-0200 Fax: (202) 842-3490 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact: Steve Moore The Competitive Enterprise Institute 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 1250 Washington, DC 20036 Voice: (202) 331-1010 Fax: (202) 331-0640 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact: Jim Sheehan Export-Import Bank of the United States 811 Vermont Ave., NW Washington, DC 20571 Toll Free: (800) 565-3946 Fax: (202) 565-3380 Website: http://www.exim.gov Friends of the Earth 1025 Vermont Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 Voice: (202) 783-7400 Fax: (202) 783-0444 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact: Michelle Chan-Fishel Institute for Business Research P.O. Box 19793 Washington, DC 20036 Voice: (202) 387-5190 Fax: (202) 387-5190 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact: Janice Shields International Rivers Network 1847 Berkeley Way Berkeley, CA 94703 Voice: (510) 848-1155 Fax: (510) 848-1008 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.irn.org Contact: Juliette Majot Overseas Private Investment Corporation 1100 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20527 Toll Free: (800) 872-8723 OPIC InfoLine: (202) 336-8799 OPIC FactsLine: (202) 336-8700 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.opic.gov/home.htm Publications Rachel Burstein and Janice Shields, "A Probe Not Taken," Mother Jones, August 1997. Congressional Budget Office, Federal Support for Business (Washington, DC: CBO, July 1995) Export Programs: A Business Guide to Federal Export Assistance Programs (Washington, DC: Trade Information Center, 1996). "Global Industry: Insurers Rush In to Supply Political Risk Coverage," Journal of Commerce, August 13, 1998. William Greider, "The Ex-Im Files: How the Taxpayer-Funded Export Import Bank Helps Ship Jobs Overseas," Rolling Stone Magazine, August 8, 1996. Janice Shields, Why Business Leaders Should Oppose Government Subsidies (Washington, DC: Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1999 forthcoming). Janice C. Shields and James M. Sheehan, "OPIC: Washington's Emerging-Market Meddling," Investor's Business Daily, July 17, 1997. U.S. General Accounting Office, Export Promotion: Issues for Assessing the Governmentwide Strategy (Washington, DC: GAO, February 26, 1998). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- II. Comments *** TIME FOR ABOLITION *** By Peter Weiss Dear Editors, I think you and your colleagues do a terrific job with Progressive Response and I read your stuff as it comes out. However, and there's always a however, you still don't quite get it on nuclear weapons. Lisa Ledwidge's piece still has that arms control quality to it, with a little sigh and a nod toward abolition at the end. The approach should be exactly the reverse: Let's get behind abolition, which is building up steam at a respectable rate, but if you want to do intermediate steps like dealerting in the interim, we have no objection. For more information see a piece which I wrote for a new cybermagazine, Mytholisis, which is making its appearance on the Net this weekend (http://www.mytholisis.com). Hasta la abolicion, Peter Weiss -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- *** QUESTIONING THE WAR ON DRUGS *** By Paul Newlin I've looked over some of your articles, including the last Progressive Response on drugs, and I'm convinced (I always was) that the U.S. is exacerbating the narcotics problem in this country as well as the military problems in South America. It's also clear that working on demand would be more effective. It's so clear, in fact, that my question is why does the U.S. continue to throw money away to abusive militaries in a pre-doomed effort to fight drugs? Surely, even the republicans understand the drug war is a losing battle the way it's been fought for the past three decades. Yet the tax dollars keep going south. Why? Do we want to maintain the flow of cocaine to the inner cities? If so, why? Is it a racist conspiracy? Are we arming the South American nations to keep the hemisphere safe for capital? Where's the evidence for some overarching plan orchestrating the drug war? Drug addiction leads to crime, crime leads to rising costs associated with incarceration. The GNP would be better served if people in the inner cities got cleaned up and got jobs. A higher standard of living for the poor would be better for the rich, yes, no? Is it that the jail lobby is making it bankrolling congresspeople to keep the prisoners coming? What's the story, what's the evidence, what's the motive? Thanks, Paul Newlin -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post The Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/progresp/progresp.html and follow the instructions. For those readers without access to the www send an email message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words "join newusfp" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send an email message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words "leave newusfp" in the body of the message. Visit the Foreign Policy In Focus website, http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/ifbrfndx.html, for a complete listing of In Focus briefs and text versions of the briefs. To order policy briefs, our book Global Focus: A New Foreign Policy Agenda 1997-98, or for more information, contact the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. IRC Tom Barry Co-director, Foreign Policy Project Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) Box 2178 Silver City, NM 88062-2178 Voice: (505) 388-0208 Fax: (505) 388-0619 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IPS Martha Honey Co-director, Foreign Policy Project Director, Peace and Security 733 15th Street NW, Suite 1020 Washington, DC 20005 Voice: (202) 234-9382 Fax: (202) 387-7915 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." --Buddha + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. 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
