Last year this time, I started doing some research on something amazing titled, Global Co-Herence Project. I asked around on different blog to see what others thought about this ideology. Many called it “Dooms Day Theory: 2012 Rhetoric. Well I’m glad I didn’t take the advice of those person. I did further research and found the entire ideal amazing. On this blog you can read various post I wrote about the subject. I stated that it seems to me that there are 3 main division of Global Co-herence that explain the entire ideology. They are 1.) Geo-Magnetic (how the earth and magnetic fields work) 2.) A Metaphysical 3.) Social Consciousness (How we socially perceive our reality). I found that alot of the theories I was learning incorporated some aspects of Global Co-Herence. Theories by Jean Rousseau, John Herschel, John Locke, CARL JUNG, Mark Granvetter, David Gladwell, Kola Borehole,Thomas Hobbes, Howard Gardner, Richard Tarnas, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Harold Coulander, John Polkinghorne: and how could I not mention the original founders of the ideology behind HEARTMATH: Rollin McCraty, Doc Childre and Roger Nelson.
I still have alot of faith in Global Co-Herence and urge everyone to check it out. From the minute level, Heartmath can teach you how to reduce your stress level, which can work wonders on your body, mind and life. At the max. Global Co-Herence can help explain our human inter-connection. One of the ealrier examples given by Dr. Rollin McCraty, was he mentioned an event that effected the world. Think back to the day, Princess Diana died. Recall how you felt, that energy you individually felt was magnified by others around the world, feeling the same remorse and sadness. Princess Diana’s death created a collective conscious frequency, which affected our ionosphere. That example has remained in my mind, and has urged me to look farther into the great possibilities of Global Co-Herences.

The following is a Youtube short video explaining Global Co-herence.

If you are interested in finding out more about this amazing theory, visit: http://www.glcoherence.org

OBAMA PHONE (FCC Redistributing Opportunity)
By: Paul Goree

The joke around Washington D.C. and on “Obama Hate Radio Stations” is that President Obama and his administration is wasting tax payer dollars, on redistributing taxes to support the cost of free cell phones for all welfare recipients and medicaid recipients. This joke is still in spin as conservatives grasp for every bit of relevant policy enacted by Obama, to sensationalize it and turn it in some shock radio/journalism protest against President Obama and his ability to be President (second term).

The need for telephone service is nothing new, within the homes of many welfare recipients, who due to their below/or at poverty level status, cannot afford, what some might consider a luxury item of conveniency. Could you imagine your life without a telephone? If you wanted to empower yourself with employment, obtaining a job would be hassle and quite embarrassing as potential employers may wish to call you back, but have a forwarding number and are required to leave message at unknown numbers. Without a phone, emergency become more of a tragic event, as it becomes impossible to call out. And what about the working single mothers/fathers who just wants to call home and check on their children. The telephone is a very essential tool necessary for communication.

The Glenn Beck types of our times, would have you believe that welfare recipients are not worthy of telephone service, unless they pay for it themselves, like the rest of working America (myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2009/10/fw-free-obama-cell-phone-for-welfare.html) It no surprise to me that the information coming from these straight lace conservatives, is false and simply shock value spin, of what actually is going on.

The so termed, “Obama Phone” actually has nothing to do with President Obama, and simply reflects prior legislation achieved during his administration. The formation of what today is Safelink and América Móvil, (the distributors of the free cell phones) began with the 1934 Telecommunication act, which required telecommunication companies to finds some way to subsides services for the poor and rural areas. The thought then, was that companies would bypass rural areas and low income areas, in search of sales. In 1996, as part of the Telecommunication Act 1996, Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was created to formally oversee the distribution of service for poverty targeted groups. The FCC’s goal was to provide universal service for all Americans. This new revision was enacted by President Bush, with funds approved by President Clinton, from a legacy act pass by President Roosevelt, is over 80 years in the making. Finally this program is functioning as dreamed, and it’s a shame that it is being criticized wrongly just because it attempts to redistribute wealth to all Americans through social welfare.

Today, any welfare recipient (this includes Medicaid, Section 8, SSI, NSL, LIHEAP,TANF) or person who’s total annual income is below 135% of the state or federal guidelines, can simply call the Safelink 800 number or visit the Safelink website, where they easily fill out a form (less than 5 questions) to see if they are eligible for a free cell phone. The phone service continues with welfare eligibility, if the person decides to remove themselves or is removed from welfare, they are able to keep the phone free of charge, but will have to start paying monthly service fees.
There are two types of phone, Motorola 175 and the LG300.

The phone has the following service planes:
Option 1: 250 minutes – no rollover, 1 text message costs 1 minute
Option 2: 125 minutes – with rollover, 1 text message cost 1 minute
Option 3: 68 minutes – with rollover, 3 text messages cost 1 minute, international long distance to over 100 locations
The phone carries free insurance for replacement or lost/stolen phones, and the best part about this plan is that it’s absolutely free. Additional minutes can be purchased for the phone, if the recipient goes over their minutes.

This is what I call excellent social welfare. For a long time, welfare recipients (especially single working mothers/fathers) have worried about the need of a telephone, but could not afford the flux pricing telephone service often involves. Many believe that regular service client might find these free services unfair. I myself do not have a Safelink phone and pay about $250 a month on a family plan with Sprint. But I’m not complaining, because I like the ideal of redistribution. The FCC’s ideal of universal service helps those of us working or financially able to afford any phone of our choice, while still providing basic service to those who can’t. This provides proof that we can exist as within a Social Democracy and still have Capitalism function.

I am interested in hearing what you feel about the “Obama Phone”? Do you think it is good social welfare legislation? Or do you think the FCC revision is wrong and that those funds could be used to provide service some other way, than a free telephone? If you would like more information about Safelink, you can visit their website at Safelink.com or call them at 1-800-977-3768.

References:

1.)Bank, Justin The Obama Phone?, FactCheck.Org (Annenberg Policy Center), Oct 09/29/2009

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

2.)Free Cell Phone, Do You Qualify

http://www.prepaid-wireless-guide.com/free-prepaid-cell-phone.html

3.) Free Obama Cell Phone for Welfare Recipients, 10/25/2009,

http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2009/10/FW-free-obama-cell-phone-for-welare.html

4.) SAFELINK

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/safelink/home

President Obama, detailed his job creation plan September 8, 2011. In that speech he laid down some specifics as to what he wants to accomplish and how he plans on accomplishing job creation. The primary focus of the speech, suggested that the following are his intent:
1. Revamp Education
2. Infrastructure Improvements
3. Small business tax credits
4. Payroll tax cut for working Americans.

I will detail each of Mr. Obama’s intents, as to its economical possibility and my personal agreement or disagreement. Overall, I like the President, and believe he is doing as good as a job as prior Presidents (despite Obama Hate Radio campaign of the Glenn Beck type). However, I know for a fact that during his inauguration, he mentioned Infrastructure improvements as a possible job creation factor. Yet only a small percentage of actual jobs were created with funds received through the American Recovery Act 2009. Obama’s plan, called for $130 billion to states and local governments, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (Mishak) I was living in the state of Nevada at the time. Nevada received a total more than $2.1 billion in federal money for infrastructure projects, such as roads, bidges and higway improvements. Although the funds did preserved nearly 4,500 jobs.(Lieb) The funds did not create as many new job opportunities as Obama and his administration planned. For infrastructure, Nevada received $270 million in infrastructure grants, $201 million of which is for highways. It was reported that, these funds basically were used to maintaining the current job projects, that the state had back logged. Thus no new jobs were really created with these funds.(Molly) So it will be interesting to see if the Presidents, new infrastructure actual creates jobs and how it will be monitored.

Revamping education: in his speech the president made it clear that education is important to society, for it is an externality that is a spillover benefit to society. (Brux 84) I couldn’t agree with him more. The ideal that the American children have to be educated in run down buildings, is a terrible dis-justice to our nation. The President pointed out, that 44% of principles have voiced opinions, that the inadequate conditions of the school had a negative effect on the child’s education. To remedy this, the President stated that he intends to refurbish/or build 35,000 schools across the county. Putting to work, some of the 2,000,000 million unemployed construction workers. To ensure that these allocated funds are distributed correctly, the President stated that a National Infrastructure Bank would be establish to issue loans, based on two simple criteria. First, how badly is the project/school in need of service? Second, how will it affect the overall economy? This is inefficiency at its best, as detailed by Brux. (Brux 85) Again, the President is considering a spillover benefit that not only provides updated schools, but also helps the unemployment rate in many states, with construction employment.

The President continued his speech, expressing sentiments for economic growth. (Brux 4) The President, boldly stated to Congress, that if this bill is pasted, small business owners will see a difference tomorrow. His plan (upon passage of this bill) is to provide small business owners with a tax cut for hiring new employees. Small businesses will also have their payroll taxes cut in half. The Presidents, example was that if a small business hired 50 new employees that would amount to $80,000 in tax cuts. The President especially made this incentive an opportunity cost for Congress, when it comes to the employment of Veterans. (Brux 4) Small businesses would receive a $4,000 tax credit for hiring an unemployed Veteran. If the veteran was injured in the line of duty, that tax credit is increased to $9,000. The President, gave a brilliant, powerful example of opportunity cost again, when he state…” Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs?” (Opportunity cost Brux 4)

I thought it was interesting the way the President went on to detail global production factors,with the production possibilities curve. (Brux 2) The President used a global perspective, when explaining available consumer choices, scarcity, available resources, efficient use of resources, quality, quantity and out dated technology. (Brux 2) He brought up a good point, not only for American consumers, but also for the worlds manufactures: …”If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers. (Applause.) I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with the three proud words: “Made in America.” Not only will this remedy unemployment, but it will give a much needed boost to our GDP. (Brux 22)

Like many, I hoping that the Presidents intentions are seen through as Congress reflect upon their own Conservative verse Liberal ideologies and it relevance in economics. One of the primary reasons, I like Mr. Obama so much is his continued call for bi-partisan action. He believes that with bi-partisan action, the American Jobs Act can get passed. This would involve both Democrats and Republicans, to consider their own perspectives. Maybe they can walk the fence of bi-partisan action when it comes to economics and the welfare of our great nation.

I’d also like to mention, (seeming I have followed unemployment and Tier benefit allocation on this blog since 2008) that for the first time, the President sounded concern about the plight of 99′ers. Although he did not mention them by their “given id name, 99′ers” (too much of an shameful on part of Congress). He did state that something would be done to extend unemployment benefits to those who have not worked since this crisis began.

References:

Ball, Molly, “Nevada’s per person share low”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Feb 23, 2009

Brux, M. Jacqueline, Economic Issues and Policy, 2008 Thomas South-Western , Ohio

Lieb, A. David, “Obama jobs plan spits leaders of strapped states,” Associated Press, Sept 12, 2010

Mishak, Michael, “Not a cure-all, but stimulus money helped Nevada,” Las Vegas Sun, Dec 23, 2009

WOW the 21st century and I am feeling like the dreamt reality of BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN from 1935-1939. 1928 Harry McClintock performed his hit hobo country song, titled ‘The Big Rock Candy Mountain’ – uhm times seem so familiar!McClintock’s song is interesting, seeming that it demeans homeless persons and the extended unemployed (today’s 99ers). It jokingly suggest found comfort in miserable life conditions, twisted to the slacked false desires, of those displaced to long. It jokingly pokes fun of society’s warp views, in it’s attempt to define and stratify economic conditions, with undesirable characteristics. “…Where the handouts grow on bushes, and you sleep out every night.Where the boxcars all are empty, and the sun shines every day…”"…and the little streams of alcohol, come a tricklin’ down the rocks…There’s a lake of stew and a whiskey too…”
“…Ohh the birds and bees and the cigarette trees,the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings,in the big rock candy mountains…” and finally, the suggestive ending, “…I’ll see you all this coming fall, on the big rock candy mountain.” Let us pray that this economy recovers!!!

On this blog I have detailed many, what I term, “Scholar Hero’s”. A Scholar Hero is a person I admire, who has contributed to the great move for Social Economic Justice in the United States of America. Harry Hopkins is now a Scholar Hero, for me. This blog has been comparing 1935 to 2008-2011 with regards to unemployment. President Obama’s “so-so” duty of handling unemployment, has leads to further welfare recipients, and should be a great concern to all of us. What I found so amazing about Harry Hopkin’s is his acute decision making ability. Harry Hopkin’s, besides being advisor to FDR, was also the head of the Civil Works Administration (CWA), while Harold Ickes Sr. led the Public Works Administration (PWA). Both Administrations were part of the New Deal, however both had varied results.
Mr. Ickes approach to handling the unemployment issue of the nation, dealt with unemployment indirectly, using private contractors, instead of the federal government itself. This approach did not utilize all the funds authorized, resulting in little effect to the millions of unemployed persons. Those private contractors were not able to convince businesses to expand their employment, during the nation’s greatest depression (Charles Peters and Timothy Noah). It is believed that this failed method is the same method utilized by President Obama and his administration, with the use of stimulus funds, which have not had a great dynamic effect on the unemployed. After 3 years of continuous growth from 2008 to 2010, the unemployment level is idle at 9.1% (www.bls.gov).
Roosevelt, discontent with Mr… Ickes poor result, the first year, allocated 1/3 of Ickes budget to Harry Hopkins. Hopkin’s primary effective strategy was to place as many as possible, unemployed persons directly on the Federal Governments payroll. Roosevelt goal of getting 4 million people employed by the coming summer was reached and Roosevelt redeemed some respect for what critic’s termed, “Alphabet Agencies”. The reason, Hopkin’s was successful had nothing to do with intellect or superior genius. This is my reason for having great respect for the man. Unlike Ickes, who was so afraid of his duty in regards to sentiments from critics and the press, Hopkin’s was fearless and indifferent to what the critics and press had to say. Dyer times call for decisive decision making, and one has to rely entirely upon their natural instinct. Ickes although effect in some public work projects, most notably The New York Triborough Bridge and some questionable housing projects, was too cautious when making decision that effected millions of Americans. He was slow to attend to issues and always worried about regulations and critic response. This is the wrong way to be during national emergencies. The better characteristic is that which Hopkin’s displayed, simply following one’s heart and facing the problem head on, knowing that critics are always going to criticize (that’s their job): you on the other hand have to be able to implement, without doubt what you feel is right and will benefit the majority of the population. I think that’s an admirable characteristic and it inspires me to see it in Mr.. Hopkin’s, who dealt with Social Services.
I wish President Obama, would take a hint from Hopkin’s and follow his natural instinct. Like Hopkin’s, President Obama has a genuine love for this nation and we the people. With such a genuine state of being, fear is senseless. Obama and his administration, believe they have a good economic advisor, Alan Kruegen. Krugen is a micro-economist, focusing on job creation and individual aspects that affect the unemployed sector of America, during this recession.

REFERENCE:

1.)Timothy Noah and Charles Peters
Wrong Harry, Four million jobs in two years? FDR did it in two months. The Slate- Division
Of the Washington Post Company, Jan. 26, 2009

2.) www.bls.gov Bureau of Labor Statistics, national and regional unemployment rates

3.) Rachael A. Lund, Demolition of the Harold Ickes Housing Projects in Chicago, Illinois.
Associated Content from Yahoo. Aug 19, 2009 ASSOCIATED CONTENT FROM YAHOO CONTENT FROM YAHOO
4.) Wikipedia, Harry Lloyd Hopkins www.wikipedia.com

5.) Foster Kamer
Who is Alan Krueger, Obama’s Newest Economic Advisor Pick?
New York Observer, 8/29/2011

1776 In Our Dependence: For The People, By The People (Draft) 1.

By: Paul DeWitt Goree 7/2011 Las Vegas,NV

We celebrate this Independence Day, in the shadow of an America, where power for the people, by the people has come to represent an universal means, for all of humanity: globally.

As we celebrate 235 years of independence as an united nation. There are some pivotal events and accomplishment, which have secured our identity and nationalism. We began as rebels against unfair governance. We began as social refugees of oppression. We found truth in theorist such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacque Rousseau and countless others who have established, defined and fought/die in honor of what we all have collectively agreed as, just.

The just nature of individualism, liberty, and freedom to be, create, express: what one places as its core beliefs. I love Thomas Hobbes’s, ‘Natural Rights’. It is American in its total essence. To have the slightest assumption, that I, regardless of my birth, race, sex, intellect and effort: still has an equal right to all that is in existences in the universe. These notions are the basis of huge dreams, which provide all an opportunity to – Dream. America is the dream come true!

Being that varied dreams will amount to the sum of some realities. We can never merely accept anything completed. We are always in a state of evolving, awakening and revising. We are always open to amendment and accepting our social errors. We learn from our mistakes. We learn that we, regardless of prior acts, are ONE nation. Individuals representing the whole. Each of our portions, have the ability to DEMAND rights due to them. This has been a stream of empowerment by which individual expression is afforded.

We are inventive, we exam political platforms that deny, what we have intentional staked as our claim, Liberty: we remove the failing elements, and construct just sovereignty that works to its best capability. Of which alteration can be made, where have made bad judgment. We know our government operates like a link chain. Faults do exist, but as they exist, it is in our nature to identify them and eradicate them, thus assuring equal opportunity to all. I love how we, come into our own making. This is our industry, our worth, our determinism.

As we celebrate our independence venture, I want to exam a time line of some of our President and their administrations, that have contributed, extended and enacted legislation, associated with what Lyndon B. Johnson term, “The Great Society”. Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, William Clinton and current President, Barack Obama, have strived to provide the Federal. Government with the power it needs, to enact legislation, which aids the needs of the people.

A great society would be a society evolved from social and political injustices, into social harmony. For Johnson, (who took idealist truths from John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy) a great society regardless of its past, had to acknowledge and attended to that portion of the collective whole, which is not represented. That portion which is unable, denied or unaware of their social rights. It is the duty of the sovereignty to assist all within the society, an equal opportunity to achieve tools required, to pursue the American Dream.

A government for the people, by the people, could not simply ignore, what is unjust. A government for the people by the people could not idle in action, while some of the people are routinely being subjected to second class citizenship. No citizen should be second class in a nation of the people. So I want to detail the accomplishments of some of these most compassionate Presidents, which have attended to their political platform, which values co-operative assistance and equal opportunity.

Theodor Roosevelt (26th President 1901-1909 Republican) and his administration, were the instrumental creators of Work-Man Compensation. In 1908, during the last year of his administration, Theodor Roosevelt introduced the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. Other legislative enactments of Roosevelt, that provide evidence, that government should regulate industry, can be seen in Roosevelt passage of the Meats Inspection Act of 1906…The Square Deal President.

Woodrow Wilson (28th President 1913- 1921 Democrat) and his administration accomplished some reform for the labor industry. He implemented the 8 hour work day for employees. Extended the US Anti- Trust Act, with The Clay Anti-Trust Act, which defined the specific policy of the United States and its relationship with organization and the control of industry. Wilson enacted Income tax, The Federal Trade Commission and restrictive labor laws that protected children from unlawful labor practices.

Franklin Roosevelt (32nd President of the United States 1933–1945 Democrat) New Deal

Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President of the United States 1963-1969 Democrat) the Great Society

William Clinton (42nd President of the United States 1993–2001 Democrat) Welfare Reform Act

Barack Obama (44th President of the United States 2009) Health Care Act

This posting is a work in progress. I want to open with the word CHANGE. Change is a powerful word, for as detailed by Saul Alinsky:power is the ability to do. And what is done is resulted in change. We dually accept change and are fearful of change. Yet it is an event which occurs, leaving some powerless in their efforts and others powerful. For the most part we change for the better. During the 18th century, the world experience a change in political philosophy which resulted in the creation of The United States of America and the progression of liberty, freedom and individualism. Change was good during that century for those who, opened themselves to the possibilities of all that is within this universe. No longer would government or religion limit, any individuals quest for understanding of the Great Mystery of life. As centuries past, the progression of change is evident the ending result of it’s affaires. It affaires are directly linked enlightenment. “from the begining -1690 Enlightenment drew vociferous suppoerters and opponents…yet has always involved political stakes of changing nature over time.” Well it is now our time to contribute to the Enlightenment Change and here is what I (a Christian ) propose. 1.) The African – Yoruban Creationalism Story 2.) Mysterian Philosophical Theories 3.) Quantum Physics 4.) Quantum Mechanics 5.) The Church of Jesus Christ 6.) Global Co-Herence 7.) Social Democracy 8.) Social Networking 9.) John Polkinghorne, Bob Russell, Antonie Suarez , Sandra Barnes, Harold Coulander, Rollin McCarty, Roger Nelson, Doc Childre and Joyce Myers. I hope we evolve into a global state, where I can reside in Kenya (Diani Beach Africa) have children and we all retain our American citizenship.

WAS OBAMA’S LATIN AMERICAN TRIP SUCCESSFUL?
By: Paul Goree 3/24/2011

Keeping his State of The Union promise, President Obama’s recent trip to Latin America was an incisive move to reconcile past relationships, recognize developing nations, deliberate over current trade agreements and provide some much needed public relations for the United States and himself. Was this trip a success, and with the prevailing circumstances as they are, does this trip warrant any justification? Obama and his administration view Latin America as a world of emerging power, secure allies and developing economies, compared to the prior decades of which Latin America nations were plagued with civil war, drug cartels, and civil unrest. This is especially true of Brazil, whose favorable ties with the US diminished towards the end of Brazilian President Luzi Inacio Lula Da Silva. Lula Da Silva recognition of Palestine state based on 1967 boarders, during the ending months of his office; provoked harsh reaction with the US, who still believe only direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine can create peace. Obama and his administration are against the Palestine Nations world wide campaign for recognition, terming it Palestine B Plan- an alternative to dealing with Israel.

Relationship between the US and Brazil, under Lula Da Silva had deteriorated to the point, that Lula Da Silva commented that the US is behaving like an “Empire” and nothing had changed under the Obama administration, worth warranting. This of course cause the US to frown upon Lula Da Silva, but other factors such as Brazil’s attempt with Turkey to break a deal resolving the Iranian Nuclear Crisis, really place walls up between the US and Brazil. Despite the past issues Obama and new Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, were able to mend strained relations, as Obama toured poverty stricken shanty towns, played soccer and praised Brazil for its shift from dictatorship to democracy.

The primary purpose of this trip was to secure solid business opportunities for the United States, which some feel the President was to late in his arrival, considering China’s prevalent presence in Central and South America. In the face of China, Obama had to bureaucratically maneuver as he attempts to re-build old bridges and build new ones in the expanding Latin American market. For example it was only one year ago (12-8-2010) that Chile celebrated the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations with China. In 1970 China began what could come to be a very successful trade agreement with Chile, making Chile the first country in South America to acquire diplomatic agreements with China, resulting in bilateral Free Trade. Since that time, Chile-China have both benefited and enjoyed a prosperous exchange of culture, education, and economic boom. Chileans trade with China has increased drastically last year resulting in $17.7 billion US dollars. These increases have prompted Chinese President Hu Jintao and Chilean President Sebastian Pinera expanded business relations as the two met in Beijing on November 16, 2010 to sign 3 new economical agreements, with trade in agriculture, science, mineral development, light industry and household appliances. The cooperation has enable Chile to invest $120 billion dollars in its economy and to diminish poverty through out its nation.

Successes like this are what Obama and his administration are striving to obtain. But will these hopes materialize, is a question of unknown possibilities, considering some of these nations, bargaining request and American politics.
The bargaining request of some of these nations might seem possible to Obama, but with Congress bi-polar nature, filibustering is sure to paralyze the floor, unless Obama can triumph with his partisan’s notion. Some of this request includes Brazil, who desires a statement from President Obama, supporting Brazil for its bid to win a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, as Obama provided for India. Brazil would also like the US to end ethanol tariffs. It uses to be (pre 2010) that Brazil slapped the US with a 20% tariff on imported ethanol to increase its exported corn ethanol. But with global success of its sugar ethanol, Brazil felt confident to compete on the global exchange market and dropped import tariff. Thus now desire the US to drop exceedingly high import tariffs.

Chile on the other hand, would like the US to wavier Visa requirements for Chilean entrance into the US. This would give them immigration status equal to that of European nations. Chile would also like the US inspection and F.D.A. to streamline agricultural exports (removing prior restrictions if necessary) to an open US market. Considering the strain immigration trails going on within the US concerning immigration, I don’t think this is possible at this time.

El Salvador would like active US immigration reform and economical development to assist the ruined nation as it is recovering from a 12 year civil war that ended in 1992. El Salvador would like Obama to re-examine and ratify the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that was put into effect 2006. El Salvador President Mauricio Fune stated that, “he is gratified that Obama included his small country in the tour of Latin America.” And hopes cooperative diplomatic agreements can be obtained in the near future. Funes was elected in 2009, after a civil war in the country over threw the US supported government in 1980. Since that time, El Salvador has been slowly developing and has raised the eye brows of Washington D.C. as Funes restored diplomatic relations with Cuba and as Mexican drug cartels found refuge in El Salvador. For their part, El Salvador believe the US is partial the cause of the escalated drug trafficking and fueled violence. They point to the fact that as the US’s War on Drugs succeeded with control of Colombian and Mexican drug traffickers; it caused the cartels to descend into El Salvador and Guatemala to re-assume business. The El Salvadorian government points out more successful negotiations from former Presidents Reagan and Bush, that support the El Salvador Armed Forces with the best that America had, and committed military advisers/security assistance to assist with El Salvador as it attempted to control the growing narcotic problem in their county. Reagan and Bush’s effort cost the United States $ 6 billion dollars, and were conceived as marginally successful.

When it comes to the bargaining request of Colombia, much is to be said of the poor inefficient bureaucracy of the United State Congress, as they attempt to maneuver around and on behave of advocates. Colombia would like President Obama to ratify the Trade Agreement which has been on the table since 2006. These agreements with both nations have been idle because of intense coalition of anti-free trade groups (US labor unions and human right advocators) who both raise Colombian human rights and fair labor right questions, each time the agreement hits the house floor. Although Colombia has made significant improvements, these groups argue that the nation still is abased from workers union violence, which is what the US advocates point out as reason to deny approval of any trade agreements. Unlike other arguments against free trade, where competition and foreign imports are the problem-Colombia already has 90% export duty free in the US, because of policies adopted in 1991, that aided to legally motivate alternative productions within the nation, compared to narcotic production. This benefiting policy to Colombia is a beast of burden to American farmers who have lost 50% of the market share, resulting in $800 million dollars.

With all of these bargaining request was it really possible for Obama to get anything accomplished in Latin America? Well the President believes that with some trade re-alignments US exports to Latin America could support 2 million US jobs in the future. The trip also show cased Central and Latin America as global markets (as if they needed the publicity). The trip has demonstrated to the world, the political achievements accomplished by Central and Latin America as they have transition themselves from dictatorships to democracies (I think this is most prevalent). Obama stated that “those who argue that democracy stands in the way of economic progress, must content with the example of Brazil.” I tend to agree with the President, but would include all the emerging Latin America nations. On a more personal level, this trip provided an excellent platform for public relations for Obama as a true leader as he effortlessly juggled, the trip, family, and Libya (job well done, Mr. President). However, many question if this trip really built any new bridges with regards to economic development, as compared to the swooshing agenda of China? We will have to wait and see how the Congress attends to the President’s plans for diplomatic agreements with Latin America? I personally believe this is our window of opportunity, if we miss this and ignore Latin America as we have done in the past, China will pick up were we neglected.

References:

Aleman, Marcos. (3-19-2011)
El Salvador: Obama visit dispels fear over ties. Associated Press, www.mercurynes.com

Feller, Ben. (3-23-2011) Obama tours Rio: Lifts Brazil as a model for peace. USA Today

Kagan, Joshua (4-8-2010) Brazil Elimanates 20% Import Tariff on Ethanol.

Keating, Joshua (12-3-2010). Brazil Recognize Palenstine State. Foreign Policy.www.foreignpolicy.com

Sabatini, Christopher (12-21-2011). Economics of Colombia and Panama-US Free Trade. www.huffingtonpost.com

Shapior, Ari (3-23-2011). What did Obama Latin American Trip Accomplish?www.npr.com

Whitefield, Mini. (5-16-2011) Obama’s visit fuels in Latin American. the Spokesman-Review www.spokesman review.com

I recently read an insert from a dialogue between Henry Kissinger (during the Nixon Administration) and Chile’s Foreign Minister, Juan Gabriel Valdes. The dialogue went as follows: ‘Mr. Minister, you made a strange speech. You come here speaking of Latin America, but this is not important. Nothing important can come from the South. History has never been produced in the South. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo… You’re wasting your time. ‘I said ‘; Valdes recalls, ‘Mr. Kissinger, you know nothing of the South.’ “No” Kissinger answered, “and I don’t care.” Well considering today’s rapid changing global economy. Mr. Kissinger may eat the words once stated. Today that axis has shifted, in regards to economics. Beijing is where the axis now starts, then it is swept over to Seattle and the Pacific Rim and where it finally ends, would be in any of the promising nations of South America.

It might surprise some as to how much growth and business relationships have occurred between China and South American nations. Well it shouldn’t, seeming China is a nation serious about business, and it is business it intends to continue doing with Central and South American nations. Between 2000 -2009 China has increased imports from Latin America from $5 billion to $44 billion and increased exports from $4.5 billion to $42 billion. In addition, from 2002-2008 China increased total exports from 4% to 10%, whereas the USA, declined from 48% to 37%. These numbers prove dramatic changes in the world economy, as it seems to be making shifts. So what is it that Chinese government attempting to acquire, by extending lucrative trade agreements to Central and South American nations.

Raw materials, to increase its mercantilism. By definition, mercantilism is the process by which a nation buys raw materials from another nation/region. Then engage in profit drive production at home, to produce a finish product. Then re-export the finish product to the same region that the raw material derived from. This is China at it’s best. And seeming Central and South America has an abundance of natural raw resources, it only makes good business sense to follow through with luring trade agreements.

For Chinese investors, the projection of a successful investment, is consider based on a long term certainty. For example China’s SINOPEC (China Petroleum & Chemical) recently has made deals with Brazils REPSOL Oil for $7.1 billion dollars and Argentina’s OPC (Occidental Petroleum Corporation) for $2.45 billion dollars. Agreement like these occur swift and fast, as Chinese business investor, act quickly when conducting, investments of certainty. Another factor that aids in rapid business agreements between China and Central and South American nations, is lack of socio-political involvement. Whereas the United States is wedged with socio-political factors and U.N. sanctions, such as labor rights, environment protection and human conditions. China enters these nation, care free of any socio-political concerns.

For example, currently an US Trade Agreement with Colombia signed in 2006, is still pending approval because of labor issues and protection of Colombian resident. Another factor impeding the United States is N.A.F.T.A. N.A.F.T.A, requires side agreements before Congress will approve any trade agreements proposed. While the United States, idle in bureaucracy, Chinese policy promises these potential nations, the same merchant relationship, without the political hurdles. For the Chinese, all things aside, “BUSINESS IS BUSINESS”.

There are some advantages and disadvantages, that must be considered in this global exchange. Some advantages that benefit, the Central and South American nations involved, are:
1.)Improved Infrustructure . This is especially true for Brazil as it prepares for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics
2.)Improved technological advances
3.)Provide access to the global market

Some of the disadvantages for these nations, are:
1.) U.N. and USA efforts to support labor, human rights and environmental protection, could lead to sanction.
2.) Independence from the USA economical arena. The USA is the largest consumer market in the world, and exclusion from it is costly. 3.)Latin American economics are growing faster than Europe and could cause a hindrance on the world economy
4.)China lack to hire local workers. Chinese business agreements, require that Chinese Nationals occupy jobs, owned or invested in by the Chinese Government.

Interestingly enough, with all of this exciting news for Central and South America, Mexico is completely cut off from Chinese investments. Reason being, Mexico is attached with heavy (N.A.F.T.A) trade agreements with the USA, that prevent it from considering some of the offers, the Chinese propose. Under US trade agreement, Mexico is not allow to re-export finish products to the USA, unless the raw material was derived from the USA. This is especially hard on Mexico, seeming 80% of it’s external economy activity involves the USA. For example, in the textile industry. In order to have free trade agreement, within the USA, Mexico must require raw materials such as cotton from the USA. At this point they can mercantile with the USA market. But seeming cotton on the world market is much cheaper in nations such as India, Egypt and Asia. Mexico is bind to iniquitous trade agreements, globally. It is estimated that Mexico’s GDP drops 3% for every 1% drop in the USA.

However, Mexico is currently experiencing some counter revolutionary changes. From 2000 -2009, prior Mexico Presidents ( Ernesto Zedillo, Vicente Fox and Felip Calderon) have either been of the PRI or PAN Political Party, which primary platform was a democracy. It seems that these efforts have only resulted in a dysfunctional democracy and Mexican citizens in the up coming election (2012) could revert back to an Authoritarian Regime. Such a regime with the correct President could, remove the strangling economic hold, the USA has over the Mexican economy. Allowing Mexico to enter the world market as a free nation, by which I’m sure China will come with incessant offers.

As the United States looks towards the future and it’s position in the global economy. We must decide if we are going to let, garrote bureaucracy, erode our economy, as the world advances. I was very pleased with President Obama’s recently hospitality towards Hu Jintao during his recent visit to the United States. We can only pray, that more cooperative measures and agreements are made, to enhance both nations, as we face the future.

REFERENCES:
1.) Farnsworth, Eric “The New Mercantilism: China’s Emerging Role In The Americas” 2/2011 `Current History (Journal of Contemporary World Affairs) V.110, N.733 P.56

2.) Finan, W. William Jr. “Latin America: Next Top Model” 2/2011 `Current History (Journal of Contemporary World Affairs) V.110, N.733 P.83

3.) Gonzalez, Francisco “Drug Violence Isn’t Mexico’s Only Problem” 2/2011 `Current History (Journal of Contemporary World Affairs) V.110, N.733 P.68

4.) Sinopec of China buys $7.1bn stake in Repsol Brasil, 10/2010 www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11453539

5.) Sinopec Agrees to Acquire Occidental’s Argentina Unit for $2.45 Billion 12/2010 www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/sinopec-agrees-to-purchase-occidental-s-argentina-unit-for-2-45-billion.html