The Forgotten Issue with Chick-fil-A

Like many, I am upset over Chick-fil-A donating large amounts of money to lobby for anti-gay legislation that is based on the faith of the company's owner, Dan Cathy.

IMO Dan Cathy (President and founder of Chick-fil-A) is entitled to his freedom of speech and is entitle to donate HIS money as he sees fit because he is a person.  Indeed people are upset over how he exercises his freedom of speech and that is sad. People should be allowed to believe as they want just as those that disagree would be doing a better public service by seeking to understand a person’s beliefs and by educating the public on the specifics of the issue. Not doing so is a failure in society.  And just like the conservative furor over Oreo's, the protesting side too forgets about the recent, and not so recent past. These protesters attacking Cathy for exercising his freedom of speech threaten the credibility of protesting Chick-fil-A supporting anti-gay legislation with criticism that cannot even withstand the scrutiny of Sarah Palin. They’ve already lost.

The issue that should be focused on here is that unlike Cathy, Chick-fil-A is not a person. It is a business and regardless of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. The FEC, corporations are not people and are not entitled to exercise their freedom of speech. Corporate influence is one of the gravest threats to the US political system.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as bad advertising which is why I am bothered that protesters have allowed the issue to be made one of free speech. It will only compel others to patronize the offending institution while still others that don't give a shit about its practices one way or the other will not change their buying patterns. Educating the both sides of the debate would be a more constructive manner of affecting change in the system rather than the planned Kiss-In that will only likely affect employees and franchise owners.

Just as where many were already afraid to speak out against their employer, and in this case, franchises speaking out against corporate policy, the issue is made a bit more complex in today's uncertain economy. Affected employees my find prospects of finding new employment a bit scarce, especially for the people with only a high school diploma or less that makes up a the majority of the unemployed population. This of course emphasizes the problem of downward mobility and a shrinking middle class.

Beginning with an organization that Chick-fil-A made donations to, Exodus International, they went beyond shaping American politics to shaping politics in countries that are noted for human rights violations and acts of extreme cruelty such as Uganda that made it legal to execute homosexuals for being homosexuals. That's not supporting free speech. That's supporting state terrorism.

Exodus International is partly funded by the charitable arm of Chick-fil-A, the WinShape Foundation that also donates to several other anti-gay groups that also lobby here in the US and around the world. Exodus International though is the one that got the ball rolling on the Kill All Gays legislation based on a March 2009 presentation by Exodus International where they outlined the connection between homosexuality, child molesters, and HIV transmission. Based on the information they provided the Ugandan government felt that it was prudent to pass an anti-homosexuality bill that penalized behavior with either imprisonment for life, or execution depending on the severity and mitigating circumstances of the crime. The law was passed in October 2009 and there was a call to boycott Chick-fil-A because over their support in the matter and there has been inconsistent pressure in that regard since.

It wasn't until five months after the passage of the Uganda's Anti-Homosexual Law, following public outcry and a possible threat to their status as a 501(c)(3) in a March 2010 that Exodus International publicly distanced themselves from the Ugandan government with an open letter to the President of Uganda by saying, "Exodus International believes that every human life, regardless of an individual’s sexual behavior, is of inestimable worth to God and that defending this principle is foundational in offering a Christian response to any issue."

It's amazing how easily a God made in man's image changes his mind. The Biblical God would have stood by the Ugandan law requiring execution as it pretty much mirrors His own.

Just as in 2009 with Exodus International, it will take an all-around effort of educating the public to influence the corporate policy of Chick-fil-A. At the same time the invisible hand of government may do well to encourage Cathy to start a private foundation through which he can support anti-gay groups on his own.

The Police State Act: An Issue With Which Everyone Should Be Concerned

It would seem that the Large Capacity Magazine Ban has been inserted into the Cyber Security Act of 2012 in Section 2575 as a compromise move with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and is set for a debate tomorrow with a push towards a vote being made for later this week. Of course compromise is good. It's what politics are about in ensuring that we are equally represented, but this compromise is at the detriment to the people. Left or right, everyone would be equally disfranchised by this legislation.

I'm assuming of course that we are all aware of CISPA, but let's cover the finer points of the Large Capacity Magazine Ban in the Cyber Security Act of 2012. It's important to note that the magazine ban would ban the sale or transfer, public and private, of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Law enforcement or military? Let me repeat that, to anyone other than law enforcement or military. Take as long as you need to think that one over.

Law enforcement or military, but not you.

That being said most double stack magazines hold around 14 rounds so this ban would include popular concealed carry firearms like Glock, Beretta, and CZ. In turn I've read that many police departments require their officer's service weapons to be large capacity magazine and that is why you don't see cops carrying a Colt 1911, which is a combat tested gun. In fact the Colt 1911 is so popular with the military that the US Marines recently put in a $22.5 million order for their armories. This of course is not connected with the Department of Homeland Security March 2012 order of 450 million rounds from local manufacturer ATK. The ordered rounds were .40 caliber while the 1911 is a .45.

The more common civilian caliber is the 9mm for the estimated 80 million private owners in the United States. So let's say that you were one of these owners and you passed away. What happens to your semi-automatic? Better question, what would happen to your family?

Well...whoever would be heir to that firearm would be a felon since the private transfer of not the weapon, but the magazine would be illegal. Your wife your husband, your now adult child over the age of 21, anyone who comes into possession of that magazine after you would be a felon thus making them ineligible to own a firearm. I assume you would be expected to call the police so they could come collect it, thus it becomes a legitimate war of attrition.

Whether you are for or against the private ownership of guns, this is an important issue. Think about this quote from one of the key framers of the US Constitution, "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson said that. He also said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." But best of all he said, "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." He also said something about the "Tree of Liberty," but that is a conversation for another time.

Now I don't know about you, but I know quite a few liberal minded protesters that are pretty concerned with the government, today. Last night one even dropped the F-word, fear, and when a liberal fears the policies of a Democrat President, it's time to start having some frank conversations with your politicians. Here is a list of Utah's current Congressional delegation. Feel free to contact them regarding this issue. If you are outside of Utah, then you can lookup members of your own delegation HERE.

Tell them NO on CISPA, S.3414 and NO on the Large Capacity Magazine Ban, S. 2575. In the same call, tell them YES on another measure in the bill, the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act that would require law enforcement to get a warrant before tracking your movements surreptitiously.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Washington DC: 202-224-5251
• Salt Lake City: 801-524-4380
• Provo: 801-375-7881
• St. George: 435-634-1795
• Ogden: 801-625-5672
• Cedar City: 435-586-8435

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)

• Twitter
• Email
• Washington DC: 202-224-5444
• Salt Lake City: 801-524-5933
• St. George: 435-628-5514

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT 1st District)

• Email
• Washington DC: 202-225-0453
• Ogden: 801-625-0107
• Brigham City: 435-734-2270
• Salt Lake City: 801-532-3244

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT 2nd District)

• Twitter
• Email
• Washington DC: 202-225-3011
• Salt Lake City: 801-486-1236
• St. George: 801-627-0880
• Price: 435-636-3722

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT 3rd District)

• Twitter
• Email
• Washington DC: 202-225-7751
• West Jordan: 801-282-5502
• Provo: 801-851-2500

ObamaCare and You

“Obamacare is socialized medicine,” says the Republican Party. No, no — excuse me — socialized medicine is what we have now! People without insurance can go to an emergency ward or throw themselves on the mercy of a doctor, and the cost of all this uncompensated care is shared by all those who have insurance, raising your rates and mine. That is socialized medicine and that is what Obamacare ends."

~Thomas Friedman, May 26, 2012, New York Times

As an unemployed, uninsured single-father, I had hoped that the US Supreme Court would strike down the Affordable Care Act, but they didn't, so now it's time to adjust. The Affordable Care Act, or as the wags would call it, ObamaCare does nothing to help those in need of coverage that don't qualify for federal assistance, and in fact penalizes them for not being covered. This will only further erode an already suffering middle class.

Yes if you're younger than 26, you can get on your parents insurance, but how many in that age group have kids of their own? And yes if you have a pre-existing condition, you cannot be denied coverage. That is if you have access to health insurance. While relative unemployment sits just above 8%, real unemployment in America is around 15% combined with scores of the populations, just under half, living barely above the poverty line of $23,050 for a family of four making them ineligible for state assistance. People in that group will be on the hook for their own coverage. People in that group are going to be penalized. The President gave the insurance company customers, but he gave a huge chunk of America nothing!

The insurance companies only agreed to drop the pre-existing condition in exchange for agreeing to everyone being required to be insured. There is a voucher program being implemented for those making up to 400% above poverty level, but that voucher will only be equal to the monthly portion of the cost of the eligible employer-sponsored plan which would have been paid by the employer if you were a covered employee. Medical insurance can be expensive when you're working. Imagine if your not working, but still paying that same premium. When you're already covering housing, transportation, and food, then add one more obligation, that "and" could quickly become and "or," and you're forced to choose which one you don't need so much of.

Add to these concerns that a $2,000 penalty to employers that do not offer coverage to full-time employees and you'll see an accelerated push to already alarming employment trends. For one the penalty  in many cases will be the cheaper option for the employer over providing membership in a group policy. What exactly defined full-time employment may also change to further exclude employees to avoid the penalty altogether such as 36 hour work weeks just avoid full-time status, longer probationary periods for new employees, or as what's becoming popular in some sectors, contract 1099 workers with an option for a permanent position after one year making them their own entity responsible for everything that the employer would normally manage, except the workload that is.

The Affordable Care Act is a back-handed attempt to appeal to the masses that will hurt more than it helps, and will ultimately serve to further marginalize the middle-class. It's time to legitimately socialize medicine already and to start taking care of the people. The healthcare system as it stands or even as Obama has designed it to become, even with emergency care is far from a socialized system, and frankly it's a display of, for lack of a better term, proletariat ignorance and a slap in the face of 143 million Americans to suggest otherwise! Health care in America is one of the best, but it's the healthcare system that is a horrible representation of our society, and serves as an embarrassing reminder that we are incapable of taking care of our own people.

On June 27 I checked my Facebook and found a notice from a person on my Friend's List advertising a fund raiser for a person's cancer treatment. This is the forth such notice to cross my Facebook account since January, all for different people. One is for cancer treatments, and two are for traumatic brain injuries, and another for a chronic condition. All four are high-school graduates, one holds a middle management position, and two are unemployed. One that I know of does have medical insurance, but the coverage is inadequate which caused much of his therapy to end after 30 days and leaves the quality of his long term care in limbo. So if there is going to be any substantive insurance reform, how about we start with these four people?

TBI

• Ashton MacFarlane
• Jeremy Israelson

Cancer

• Brittany Wilson

Chronic Condition

• Amanda Quinlan

Follow me on Twitter @snokedawg

P.S. To add insult to injury,  one in three Americans is unable to visit a dentist and you realize that we have a real problem that making it illegal to not have insurance won't fix. Our leaders sold us out. Proud to be an Amerikan, yo...

P.S.S. Damn, post this article a few times in reply to people celebrating the Supreme Court decision and I get reported for spam? It's the online equivilant of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "Lalalalalalala." That's a fine defense to your argument.

Today's lecture with Baleigh: Reality Shows

So I'm scrolling through Hulu seeing if there's anything interesting.

Baleigh: Hey look, they have the new season of Punk'd!

Me: What? No! I hate the show. Well I don't hate it, but rich people playing pranks on rich people is not something that I want to watch.

In fact, do you know what would make a good reality show? If they took away Ashton Kutcher's home, his cars, drained his bank account and set him on the streets of America just to see how he'd handle it. We'd get to see Ashton Kutcher in the homeless shelter. Ashton Kutcher in the food line. I'd watch that. Hell, I'd watch the shit out of that!

Baleigh: You're mean. </sarcasm>

Me: No, it's just that people like him make me sick. There are three types of wealth: acquired, inherited, and given.

Acquired wealth is when someone comes up with an idea and markets it, which makes money for them.

Inherited wealth is when someone is left money by the person that acquired it. Sometimes they do well with it. Other times they don't.

And then there's just the given wealth for people like Ashton Kutcher who really did nothing to earn it beyond being pretty. He was a Calvin Klein underwear model before anything else, and people gave him money for it. It's not like he has talent anyway.

Baleigh: Like Paris Hilton?

Me: No. Her's was inherited wealth, and the only reason she got famous was because someone thought it would be a good idea to take two untalented, spoiled rich girls and put them on TV.

Baleigh: Remember when we watched House of Wax just to see her die?

Today's lecture with Baleigh: Music and Politics

So we're in the car listening to Public Enemy.

Me: So you didn't know that Flava Flav came from Public Enemy?

Baleigh: No.

Me: Ugh. OK, let's take it back. What did Ice T bring to the hip-hop scene?

Baleigh: I don't know.

Me: A hype-man! That's what Flava Flav did.

Baleigh: I don't care. Well, I knew that, but I don't care.

My poor child gets frequently lectured on the socially significant music of late 20th century artists like Public Enemy, Ice T, Beastie Boys, NWA, et.al. Occasionally others like Slayer, Megadeth, and early Metallica get thrown into the mix for their relationship to politics and the American war fetish. She says that doesn't care, but she listens.

It's at this point that we should maybe feel bad for her teenage self.

Losing the First Amendment

The print media may well be the foundation of the American political system. Since before Benjamin Franklin absconded from his indentured servitude as a printers apprentice and chose to live as a semi-fugitive, the printed media has served as a platform to incite discussions on fairness and equality. Men like Adam Smith that authored a series of pamphlets named “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” and John Locke with “The Second Treatises of Government,” laid the foundation for what the new world was to become.

During the framing of the US Constitution, a series of articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay that came to be called the Federalist Papers appeared in the newspaper, The Independent Journal and were designed to persuade the population into ratifying the US Constitution. It was from these writings that evolved our Bill of Rights that guaranteed among other things that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But regardless of this guarantee, our freedoms are fragile, and without due attention can be fleeting.

The Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine’s importance was in the limited available spectrum utilized by the various broadcast networks. The internet did not exist. Cable television was not available. There was radio, newspaper, and TV. We had television that consisted of Very High Frequency that covered channels one though 13, and Ultra High Frequency for channels 14 and higher. Channel one was later reserved for war purposes after 1941, which is why it is not accessible on your television today.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 to preserve fair and balanced reporting of important social issues. The mandate had little to do with providing equal time to contrasting viewpoints as it did require that those contrasting viewpoints be offered. As a child I remember a stuffy old man that would come on KSL Channel 5 for 30 seconds to lecture on whatever, that was the KSL television editorial commentator, Don Gale. He was honoring the Fairness Doctrine by providing a contrasting viewpoint. And later I found out, he was far from stuffy. Such voluntary compliance was a testament to the success of the program as noted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1974 with the caveat, "Should future experience indicate that the doctrine [of 'voluntary compliance'] is inadequate, either in its expectations or in its results, the Commission will have the opportunity—and the responsibility—for such further reassessment and action as would be mandated."

None of this is to say that the fairness Doctrine did not experience its own set of problems. Multiple Supreme Court challenges questioned the constitutionality of the program that was upheld under the understanding that electronic media has limited distribution while newspapers for their maturity had a more diverse and thus fairly competitive market. Ultimately in 1987 the US Supreme Court ruled in Meredith Corp. vs. FCC that the FCC was no longer held to enforcing the Fairness Doctrine as it was not a mandate of Congress.  In response an attempt was made by Congress to legislate the Fairness Doctrine, but was vetoed in 1987 by then President Ronald Reagan who felt embattled by the three major networks at the time, and was again stopped in 1991 with a promised veto by then President George H.W. Bush.

Later that year the FCC in a unanimous decision voted to remove enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine citing, “We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country's inception.”

In the period since 1987 we have met Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. We have met John Stewart and Steven Colbert. We have been witness to divisive media that pits American against American. We have seen the broad diversity of the public media again become distilled into the hands of a few media giants that control everything from the music we listen too, to the newspapers and magazines we read, to the TV we watch, the movies we enjoy, and the internet we surf. This is the very action that the Fairness Doctrine was intended to prevent.

As Justice Byron White wrote for the court in its unanimous 1969 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. vs. FCC decision, "A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

Jane Akre & Steve Wilson vs. Fox Broadcasting

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first significant overhaul of the Communications Act of 1934, which created the Federal Communications Commission. The new Act sought to broaden the field of the media industry by allowing anyone to "let anyone enter any communications business…" but it instead had the effect of concentrating media ownership that gave large news organizations a direct influence over local reporting.

Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson were a husband and wife journalism team working for Fox subsidiary WTVT in Tampa, Florida in 1997 when they began working on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and their use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in dairy producing cows. Monsanto responded with a threatened lawsuit if WTVT chose to air the story. WTVT responded by airing a Monsanto rBGH positive story. Ultimately Akre and Wilson were dismissed as a result and in a subsequent lawsuit won their claim under Florida’s whistleblowing statute, but lost under appeal as The Communications Act of 1934 did not specifically prohibit the distortion of news. At no point during the trial did Fox Broadcasting dispute their distortion of the news, they only cited that it was their prerogative to do so. The ruling gave Fox the permission to present the news however they saw fit, and this is the very reason that Fox News is not shown in Canada. Canadian stations with similar ambitious are also denied a broadcast license.

Espionage Act of 1917

The Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted shortly after the United States entered into World War I with the expressed intent to prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support U.S. enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. The draft originally proposed by the President Woodrow Wilson proposed a measure that included press censorship, but the House declined and Wilson begrudgingly signed the Act without the provision on June 15, 1917. The law was made to include the Sedition Act of 1918 eleven months later that included a broad range of offenses that are normally covered by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, but that specific provision was repealed in 1920. The Espionage Act itself still remains with infrequent updates and enforcement of the Act is at the discretion of the US Attorney General.

Notable persons prosecuted under the Act would include columnist and suspected spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Ethel was posthumously exonerated, though it was later revealed that Julius was indeed involved in passing information to the Soviets. Noted whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg, and US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning had also found their way into prosecution for very similar actions. Ellsberg was eventually hailed as a hero for his leaking information on the Viet Nam war while the case remains to be seen on Manning. Five other relatively recent cases have also found themselves under the magnifying glass. You may not know the names, but if you’ve been paying attention, you would know the stories: former senior executive at the National Security Agency, Tom Drake; Former FBI translator, Shamai Leibowitz; former State Department contractor, Stephen Jin-Woo; former CIA Agent, Jeffrey Sterling; former CIA Director of counter terrorism operations in Pakistan, John Kiriakou; and former Department of Justice Attorney, Thomas Tamm. 

Reporters as well are caught up and threatened in the dragnet approach of national security, most notable to me would be New York Times reporters, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau that were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2006 for a series of controversial investigative reports that they co-wrote about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications originating or terminating in the United States codenamed "Stellar Wind" and about a government program called Terrorist Finance Tracking Program designed to detect terrorist financiers, which involved searches of money transfer records in the international SWIFT database. SImilar to the New York Times, and Risen and Lichtblau, Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange remain beset by difficulty at the behest of State Department officials from being made to relocate their servers to having their funding blocked. At least eleven of those 13 names should be honored as national heroes rather than just Ellsberg's, not forgotten in the winds of history along with an unknown number to come. All of these individuals have provided rich context from which we are able to understand the workings of our government.

Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012

As evidenced by the above names, Washington and the military have long played politics in the media. A quick scan of your local TV listing would reveal any number of programs that air with the governments blessing so long as the government is portrayed in a positive light. Immediate examples on television would include NCIS and Army Wives. Examples of movies would be Top Gun, Transformers, Battle: Los Angeles, Battleship, Act of Valor. All play a subtle role in developing desired behaviors in the public and the enlisted ranks which all dance the edge of permissible propaganda that has been explicitly forbids targeting American citizens on American soil since 1948.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is being written into the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that would remove the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences similar to the removal of the distinction between foreign and domestic combatants in the FY2012 NDAA. Entirely too much we sit back and watch this happen. Though these laws may have originated in private, the smoke filled rooms where this kind of legislation once originated is happening before our very eyes. The smoke filled rooms of the past have become the House and Senate floors of today!

These bills are being passed with remarkable swiftness with nary a debate in the House and near unanimous votes in the Senate. Our politicians do not speak for us and those that we depended on to explain these issues for us are falling silent. This is not America, and this is not our representational republic. As President Abraham Lincoln said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” And he may well be right.

Channel one may soon be on your TV.

The State of the Economy and What to Expect From the Next G8

This past week we've been provided a snapshot of what topics may be discussed at the May 17-18 Group of 8 summit, which in a surprise move was relocated from Chicago to Camp David. The move itself was said to be, “more closely approximate the remote settings in which the G8 leaders prefer to gather,” as meetings in larger, urban areas tend to attract clamorous protests.

The snapshot that we've been provided though comes by way of two speeches, one delivered at The Brookings institution by Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde. The other at New York University by Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Janet L. Yellen. Both speakers discussed the state of global and U.S. economies with proposals on moving forward from our current situation.

“Only a few months ago, we seemed to be staring into the abyss. More recently, some data have [sic] indicated that the United States may be beginning to turn the corner,” said Lagarde who spoke inspirationally of the economic situation and quoted Nelson Mandela when she suggested that there is still much work to come beginning with that countries must limit their exposure to the financial vulnerabilities of their trading partners as has been occurring in the European Union where financial strains remain high. “A stronger global firewall will help complete the circle of protection for every country.”

On the day of Lagarde's speech, the International Monetary Fund posted that it had concluded its 2012 Article IV Consultation with Iceland. “Iceland is gradually emerging from its post-crisis recession. The economy expanded by 3 percent in 2011 driven by a broad-based rebound in consumption and a gradual pick-up in investment. Unemployment declined steadily and now stands at around 7 percent.” This comes just three years after Iceland allowed its banks to fail. On that same day Iceland announced that it would be forgiving much of the mortgage debt held by its citizens and indicting key members of the government and financial sectors for their roles in the economic collapse.

In her speech, Yellin referenced this stage of recovery with, “In addition, it's conceivable that the European situation could deteriorate and prompt a significant increase in global financial market stress. Such developments would likely have substantial adverse effects on U.S. economic activity and inflation.” Although inflation didn't appear to be the primary concern as she said, “significant headwinds are likely to continue to restrain aggregate spending, and progress in closing the remaining employment gap is likely to be quite gradual. Apart from sizable increases in gasoline prices, inflation has been subdued in recent months.” She added that she expects inflation to stay at or below the 2 percent projected by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

On the day of Yellen's speech, the Bank of France posted that there was no growth in the first quarter of 2012 and that there are no signs of a strong recovery in activity in the coming months. The Euro zone's second largest economy barely avoided a recession after it grew by 0.2% in the fourth quarter 2011.

Lagarde suggested that this moment is one of global redistribution. “Clearly, the rebalancing of the global economy—a shift in demand from external deficit to surplus countries—is key and something that the IMF has been advocating for some time.” She furthered this in citing global successes by referencing, “new forms of collaboration coming into play,” as seen in the BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—that have established a development bank to aid burgeoning economies. “The IMF recognizes it too,” she said. “We are at the very intersection of an increasingly global world.” From this she surmised that Western economies have something to learn in the way these markets work and that we would do well to look towards emulating some of these as a path to recovery.

“One, we need financial systems that support—not destabilize—the economy. This means repairing financial systems so they can deliver credit, growth and jobs.” Lagarde added, “This means better regulation and supervision, and coordination across countries, to prevent the recurrence of reckless risk-taking.”

“Two, we must improve competitiveness and have better functioning labor markets so that we can generate more jobs.” Lagarde's rational on this was that workers across the board, skilled and unskilled would need to accept that industry wage standards would have to be lowered to remain competitive in the global economy. “The focus should be on getting people back to work.”

“Three, as countries undertake the sometimes wrenching reforms that are needed, the social fabric is in danger of being stretched.” Lagarde cautioned, “So they must protect and reinforce appropriate safety nets.”

Recommendations from Lagarde did somewhat match those of Yellen in that to move from our current situation, our economy must begin to capitalize on its labor resources. “The level of private payrolls remains nearly 5 million below its pre-recession peak, and the unemployment rate stands well above levels that I, and most analysts, judge as normal over the longer run,” Yellen said on citing a ¾ point fall in unemployment in the first three months of the year to 8.25 percent. “FOMC participants' projections indicate that unemployment will decline gradually from current levels. Included in the figure as well is the central tendency of FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal unemployment rate, which ranges from 5.2 percent to 6 percent. The unemployment rate is expected to remain well above its longer-run normal value over the next several years.”

Without plotting the same course, Yellen cited the same reasons given in Legarde's speech.“Putting all the evidence together, I see no good reason to doubt that our nation's high unemployment rate indicates a substantial degree of slack in the labor market,” Yellen said. “Moreover, while I recognize the significant uncertainty surrounding such forecasts, I anticipate that growth in real gross domestic product will be sufficient to lower unemployment only gradually from this point forward, in part because substantial headwinds continue to restrain the recovery.”

In her discussing the near term economic outlook, Yellen cited three factors that prevent the U.S. Economy from returning to pre-recession levels where she first pointed to the housing market as a reason for an anemic recovery. “One headwind comes from the housing sector, which has typically been a driver of business cycle recoveries. We have seen some improvement recently, but demand for housing is likely to pick up only gradually given still-elevated unemployment, uncertainties over the direction of house prices, and mortgage credit availability that seems likely to remain very restricted for all but the most creditworthy buyers.”

On the financial markets, Yellen took her speech away from the conclusions of Lagarde's call for financial reform and instead offered tax revenue as a resource by stating, “A second headwind comes from fiscal policy. State and local governments continue to face extremely tight budget situations in light of the weak economy, depressed home prices, and the phasing out of federal stimulus grants, though overall tax revenues have been improving and that should continue as the economy expands further.”

Finally citing the global market as a reason, Yellen offered, “A third factor weighing on the outlook is the sluggish pace of economic growth abroad. Strains in global financial markets have eased somewhat since late last year, an improvement that reflects in part policy actions taken by European authorities. Nonetheless, risk premiums on sovereign debt and other securities are still elevated in many European countries, while European banks continue to face pressure to shrink their balance sheets, and concerns about the outlook for the region remain. A further slowdown in economic activity in Europe and in other foreign economies would inhibit U.S. export growth.”

Overall there is the divergence, Largarde asks a radical shift in monetary policy that would include slashing wages and other austerity measures, while Yellen recommends staying with existing policy set forth when the FOMC issued statements following its January and March meetings indicating that it “currently anticipates that economic conditions—including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run—are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.”