Bill Mitchell — Subsidiarity – a European Union smokescreen to justify failure

One of the various smokescreens that were erected by the European Commission and the bevy of economists that it either paid or were ideologically aligned to justify the design of the monetary union around the time of the Maastricht process was the concept of subsidiarity.

In 1993, the Centre for Economic Policy Research (a European-based research confederation) published its Annual Report – Making Sense of Subsidiarity: How Much Centralization for Europe? – which attempted to justify (ex post) the decisions imported from the 1989 Delors Report into the Maastricht Treaty that eschewed the creation of a federal fiscal capacity. It was one of many reports at the time by pro-Maastricht economists that influenced the political process and pushed the European nations on their inevitable journey to the edge of the ‘plank’ – teetering on the edge of destruction and being saved only because the European Central Bank has violated the spirit of the restrictions that a misapplication of the subsidiarity principle had created. It is interesting to reflect on these earlier reports. We find that the important issues they ignored remain the central issues today and predicate against the monetary union ever being a success....

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Subsidiarity – a European Union smokescreen to justify failure
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Ramanan — Federal Government And Regional Balance Of Payments

To summarize, the point of the above analysis is that the financial sector as a whole cannot achieve this on its own. It takes a federal government to not only affect demand in all regions but also keep their debts in check. The workings of finances of a federal government affects the asset and liability positions of any region as a whole. The financial sector cannot take up the task of a federal government.

The Case of Concerted Action
Federal Government And Regional Balance Of Payments

Ramanan

Jean Tirole — "Europe’s Future Is Federal"

The Maastricht approach has failed up to now. To understand why, let’s consider the four obstacles in its way: uniformity, complexity, implementability and limited solidarity.

The author favors federalism but doubts it is possible at this point.

Social Europe Journal
"Europe’s Future Is Federal"

Jean Tirole

William Hogeland — Ted Cruz and Patrick Henry

Ted Cruz misrepresents Patrick Henry. For US history buffs and those interested in American History and contemporary US politics.

Hysteriography
Ted Cruz and Patrick Henry
William Hogeland

Robert Parry — Will the Right’s Fake History Prevail?

History lesson.

Constortium News
Will the Right’s Fake History Prevail?
Robert Parry

Steven Rosenfeld — Congressional Radical Right-Wingers Relive Confederacy Fantasies

II have been saying for some time that the US is now engaged in a civil war reminiscent of the run-up to the Civil War. Steven Rosenfeld draws the historical parallels.

I don't see this as one side being right and the other wrong. It's two very different visions for America that were in conflict from colonial times owing to different temperaments, cultures, and institutional arrangements that make federation difficult — as is clear from American history, e.g., as recorded in the Federalist papers. Without Alexander Hamilton America would almost certainly be a confederation now and world history very different, possibly with Germany as hegemon since WWI. While Hamilton prevailed, it was at the cost of a Civil War that has not yet been resolved and is in the process of being revisited.

For this reason, the attempt to force a strong political union is often unwise and premature. If America has still not been able to agree upon a common vision for a strong union, how could the EZ ever hope to chiefly on the basis of a currency union?


AlterNet — Tea Party And The Right
Congressional Radical Right-Wingers Relive Confederacy Fantasies

Steven Rosenfeld

Bob Blum — The Dark Side of the Roberts' Ruling

Here's what really happened.

But the spin omits a darker side to the controlling opinion authored by the chief justice—a side that when exposed shows that little has changed in the overall long-term political and constitutional direction of the Roberts Court. That direction remains very much on target, aimed at shifting the balance of constitutional authority away from the federal government, at least as far as social programs are concerned, in favor of more conservative and cash-poor state governments in a return to a pre-New Deal era form of federalism that in the process advances and protects the interests of corporations above all other segments of society....

Roberts ruling is a crucial victory for the anti-federalist because it established "the Roberts rule" as a new standard with respect to federal constitutional powers. “All of this represents ...a fundamental departure from how most law professors viewed constitutional law.” The Constitution is a framework of institutional rules for governing. This framework stands in need of interpretation and this falls to the Supreme Court. Landmark decisions establish rules governing "the rules."

So although conservatives are railing against Chief Justice Roberts for selling them out to [fill in favorite conspiracy theory], this ruling was a big victory for conservatives and states-righters.

Read it at Truthdig
The Dark Side of the Roberts' Ruling
by Bob Blum