Deposed Libyan leader vowed ‘never to leave the land of his ancestors’, denying claims he had already fled to Niger If you are a recently deposed Arab dictator, on the run but still trying to galvanise armed resistance to your enemies, then Misha’an al-Jabouri is the man to call. Jabouri, an Iraqi exile who runs al-Rai satellite TV in Syria, had Muammar Gaddafi on the line at 4am on Thursday, rallying his supporters, attacking his opponents as “rats and scumbags “, vowing “never to leave the land of his ancestors”, and denying claims he had already fled Libya for neighbouring Niger. The former MP was self-effacing about his scoop and unembarrassed about throwing a media lifeline to the world’s most wanted man. It was the fourth time he has spoken to Gaddafi – sounding “strong and confident” – since Tripoli fell to the Nato-backed rebels last month. Jabouri was taking a break after finishing his late-night show when the colonel rang. “I am sure he was calling from Libya though I can’t say exactly where he is,” Jabouri told the Guardian by phone from Damascus. Saif al-Islam and Mutasim, another of Gaddafi sons, were also still in Libya, but not with their father, he said. “Gaddafi does not like making recordings and we were worried that Nato might be able to trace his location,” he added. Jabouri says the station’s role was to support the fight against all foreign occupations – in Iraq, Palestine or Libya. “Our channel has relations with all the leaders of resistance in the Middle East,” he said. “I was against Saddam Hussein but when Iraq was occupied I fought the occupation. Now it is the same with Gaddafi.” Gaddafi’s messages have been aired on another channel called al-Muqawamah [The Resistance], possibly using an outside broadcast van whose Libyan operators, Jabouri confirmed, were trained by al-Rai staff. “I do not know if the transmission is carried out from a house, a tent, a desert, or the centre of Tripoli,” he told the Saudi-owned paper al-Sharq al-Awsat, “but I know that it is difficult to detect.” Al-Muqawamah only began broadcasting on 1 September, airing statements by Gaddafi and Saif-al Islam. Otherwise it just shows loops of archive footage of attacks against coalition troops in Iraq. BBC Monitoring believes al-Muqawamah may in fact have been based in Syria. Nilesat, the Egyptian satellite TV provider, has denied transmitting either station after coming under pressure from Nato governments to stop carrying Libyan state channels such as al-Jamahiriyah TV. A third pro-regime channel called al-Uruba [Arabism] – also the name of a Tripoli football team – has broadcast several Gaddafi messages. It went off air in late August, though Jabouri said at the time that it would shortly resume service from Cyprus or Venezuela. Jabouri said al-Rai had been able to build on the expertise he had acquired running the now-defunct al-Zawra channel, which Iraq’s Sunni resistance used to broadcast satellite statements and programmes, and had escaped US jamming. Arab sources say Gaddafi invested heavily in recent years in radio and TV infrastructure, including mobile outside broadcast units, long before the February uprising in Benghazi, probably based in Sirte, still a stronghold of the old regime. “Gaddafi has always been obsessed by the media,” said an Arab observer who knows Libya well. “In the Arab world coups often began at the TV station.” Arabic media have quoted “informed sources” as saying that Gaddafi bought al-Rai for $25m and arranged for an associate, Ahmed al-Shater, to become chairman of its board. Jabouri dismissed this as “propaganda”, but admitted Libya had paid him smaller sums, totalling less than $1m. “Gaddafi is not generous,” he said, “but we would have supported him anyway. We are proud of our record.” In 2008 Jabouri and his Syrian wife were hit by US sanctions prohibiting Americans from doing business with them and freezing their US assets. The move followed accusations that al-Zawra was showing footage of attacks on US soldiers in Iraq. Jabouri clearly feels secure in Syria, where the Assad regime has far bigger problems than al-Rai. It seems unlikely to heed US and British complaints about helping Gaddafi keep in touch with supporters in his hour of greatest need. Muammar Gaddafi Libya Syria Niger Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Africa Television industry Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, has a new country song calling for the U.S. to bring home troops sent into war after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “In an endless war / Tell me please how many more have to die / Before my sweet boy comes home,” Scarborough sings in “Reason to Believe.” The accompanying music video was created by JAM, a production company owned by Scarborough and Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski. It was released by Sony Records. “It’s critical that we remember the heroes of 9/11 and those who are still fighting in an endless war,” Scarborough told The Huffington Post . “They need to come home. It’s time.” But Scarborough wasn’t always against the war effort. “I’m waiting to hear the words ‘I was wrong’ from some of the world’s most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types,” the MSNBC host said in April 2003 . “I just wonder, who’s going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: ‘Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong’? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war…” “Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don’t call them ‘elitists’ for nothing.”
Continue reading …
Nasa says chances of its dead 20-year-old satellite, due to fall to Earth later this month, hitting anyone are 3,200-1 Nasa says one of its dead satellites will soon fall to Earth but there is very little chance that it will hit anyone. The space agency does not know when or where its 20-year-old satellite will drop. It will probably be in late September but could fall in October. And it could land anywhere south of Juneau, Alaska, and north of the tip of South America. Nasa says there is only a one in 3,200 chance of satellite parts hitting someone. Experts say not to worry. In the more than 50 years of the space age, no one has ever been hurt by falling space debris. The 5.4-tonne satellite was used to monitor the atmosphere. Most of it will burn up during re-entry. Only about 550kg of metal should survive. Nasa Space United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Nasa says chances of its dead 20-year-old satellite, due to fall to Earth later this month, hitting anyone are 3,200-1 Nasa says one of its dead satellites will soon fall to Earth but there is very little chance that it will hit anyone. The space agency does not know when or where its 20-year-old satellite will drop. It will probably be in late September but could fall in October. And it could land anywhere south of Juneau, Alaska, and north of the tip of South America. Nasa says there is only a one in 3,200 chance of satellite parts hitting someone. Experts say not to worry. In the more than 50 years of the space age, no one has ever been hurt by falling space debris. The 5.4-tonne satellite was used to monitor the atmosphere. Most of it will burn up during re-entry. Only about 550kg of metal should survive. Nasa Space United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Time Taps Patti Davis to Insist Reagan Debate Shows Candidates, Except for Huntsman, Lack Character
September 8, 2011 No CommentIf Time magazine were really interested in what a conservative Reagan family member thinks of the GOP 2012 presidential field as it stands now in terms of living up to his father's political legacy, it could have easily asked conservative commentator Michael Reagan for his thoughts on last night's primary debate at the Reagan Presidential Library. Instead, the magazine tapped liberal Reagan daughter Patti Davis who, predictably, concluded that none of the candidates, with the possible exception of left-leaning Jon Huntsman, fit the bill: From “Looking for Ronald Reagan — and Not Finding Him” (emphasis mine): Last night's Republican debate took place at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, an expansive space containing a former Air Force One jet. If you walked out of the hangar-like building and turned left, went up a path past a wide grassy area with a canyon below and miles of sky above, you would reach my father's burial site. On the stone tomb you would read these words: “I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” My father said that, and other memorable things, with an earnestness, a resonance, and a sincerity that came from a deep well within him. Note to Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and especially Newt Gingrich — you can invoke my father's name until your tongues fall out, but you will never be anywhere near his shadow. This isn't a political pronouncement on my part. I didn't agree with all of my father's positions and policies, and I would never consider myself a political commentator. I'm the daughter of a man with deep character, who left a huge imprint on this world. He lived a large and meaningful life and I learned over many years that I had to share him with America. But before that — before politics and the presidency — I listened to his stories about being a poor boy in the Midwest, about standing up to racism and learning from his parents that God has a purpose for everyone and everyone is precious in God's eyes. (See TIME's photo essay “Front-Row Seat at the Reagan White House.”) That character is what drew people to my father, whether or not they agreed with his politics. That character is what we are starving for , that many of us had hoped we would find — but are now disappointed that we are not — in President Obama. I think my father, if he were here, would also be disappointed in this administration. But here is the important part: he would never have expressed that with anger and vitriol and snarky soundbites. The Republican candidates tonight appeared to be auditioning for a reality show, not for the lofty position of leading America through and out of these terribly troubled times. Ironically, the one man on stage who did comport himself with dignity, John Huntsman, is now being dismissed as having not made an impact. The moment he brought the discussion back from airport security to the sweeping poverty and economic panic that is gripping this country was, I thought, profound. It was something my father would have done. But that moment isn't making the news. The zingers like Perry's Ponzi-scheme comment, in reference to Social Security, are getting more attention. Maybe the candidates should have wandered over to my father's gravesite before going on stage. Maybe they should have lingered over the words carved in stone there. The moment that would have broken my father's heart was the moment when applause broke out at the mention of more than 200 executions ordered by Rick Perry in Texas. It was stunning and brought tears to my eyes. This is what we've come to? That we applaud at executions? I remember the first time my father ordered an execution when he was Governor. He and a minister went into a room, got down on their knees and prayed. The real shame of our times is that there doesn't seem to be anyone on the political horizon with that compassion in his or her heart.
Continue reading …
Growth in care orders attributed to greater alertness by social workers and lower risk threshold after high-profile Haringey case Record numbers of “at risk” children are being taken from their families and placed into care, official figures show , as social workers respond to what they regard as increasing neglect and emotional abuse of vulnerable youngsters. The rapid growth in care orders is attributed partly to social workers being more prepared to intervene to protect young children from persistent exposure to domestic violence, and parental mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse. Experts also believe the “Baby Peter effect”, following the death of Peter Connolly in Haringey, has persuaded many local authorities to lower the risk threshold to remove a child, in the hope that this will reduce the chances of a high profile child death. The latest figures, published by Cafcass, the children’s court advisory service reveal a rapid and unexpected acceleration in court applications in recent months, following a steady rise over the last three years. There were 894 care applications in March alone, the highest monthly total since records began in 2001. Between April and August more than 4,000 care applications were made in England – nearly 9% up on the same period last year. Local authorities fear the rapid increase in children being taken into care is becoming financially unsustainable. Some councils have gone over budget on child protection this year as they are being forced to massive cuts. In 2008-09 there were 6,488 care applications. Last year there were 9,184, which on current projections will be comfortably exceeded by the end of March. Almost all result in the child being taken into care. Cafcass chief executive Anthony Douglas said local authorities were right in taking more children at risk of significant harm into care. “This data represents children’s lives, and the rise in numbers shows a greater awareness of the life-threatening situations some children live in, day-by-day, with no light on their horizon.” He said that the case of 17-month old Peter Connelly , who was on Haringey council’s child protection register when he was killed by his mother and two of her male friends in 2007, still loomed large. Subsequent inquiries found that safeguarding officials believed Peter’s situation did not meet the threshold for taking him into care, believing he was safe with his mother. “Since then, many local authorities have lowered the threshold they use for making a court application to remove a child, and kept that threshold lower.” Matt Dunkley, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services said the increases reflected a greater understanding by social workers of the dangers of leaving children in chaotic family environments where they were at risk of neglect or of witnessing domestic violence, and that, anecdotally, these risks had increased. “Social workers would say that the economy is placing more pressure on families who are least able to cope. They would say that the sheer number of parents abusing drugs and alcohol has increased.” He added that the figures would be even higher but for the fact that the family courts were “clogged up, ” limiting the numbers of applications. Cases can typically take between 12 and 18 months to go through the courts, although ministers hope that a review of the family justice system will lead to the process being limited to 30 weeks. Councils are looking to shift their focus towards “early intervention” policies such as parenting support projects in the hope that this will reduce the number of children at risk of being taken into care. But government cuts, including a 20% reduction in the early intervention grant funding, has made this shift more difficult. A Department for Education spokesman said: “We are aware that care applications remain at very high levels, but there is no evidence that children are being taken into care unnecessarily. It’s vital when decisions are made to take a child into care that the family justice system can respond quickly and effectively. We know that there are unacceptable delays in the system at the present time. The Family Justice Review , which is due to report later in the year, is taking a radical look at how these processes could be improved.” Baby P Child protection Social care Young people Local government Patrick Butler guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rule dating back to emergence of HIV and Aids no longer deemed necessary but one-year deferral still applies Gay men will soon be able to give blood after a ban on them donating, dating back to the emergence of HIV and Aids in the mid-1980s, was scrapped by ministers. The ban, which permanently prevented gay men from being donors, was lifted after a team of experts said it was no longer required to stop the spread of infection through blood. The change – agreed by health ministers in England, Scotland and Wales – means gay men who have not had sex with another man for at least a year can donate from 7 November, as long as they have not taken part in other behaviour that might constitute a risk to patients receiving blood. However, those who have had anal or oral sex with another man in the preceding 12 months, with or without a condom, will remain ineligible to join the 2 million people who already donate blood. They have been put into the same category of risk as other groups such as sex workers, anyone who has had sex with a sex worker or intravenous drug-user in the past year, and women who have slept with a man who has had sex with another male. The decision follows a review by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (Sabto), which concluded that the latest evidence suggested the ban was no longer justified. The controversial rule had long been criticised as outdated and discriminatory. Organisations representing gay men and working with those with HIV or Aids welcomed the decision. “The removal of the ban to a one-year deferral is great news but it’s going to leave some gay men frustrated that they still can’t donate blood,” said Carl Burnell, chief executive of the gay men’s health group GMFA. Anne Milton, the public health minister, said it was important that everyone complied with the donor selection criteria. The Terence Higgins Trust also welcomed the change. “Thirty years on from the devastating, tragic and fatal arrival of HIV and AIDS there has been a growing sense that the lifetime ban was no longer ‘right’,” said Sir Nick Partridge, the chief executive. “Set against the hundreds of other deferral criteria, this was the one that drew the eye and seemed unfair and unreasonable.” The new regulations “will ensure the safety of the blood supply for all of us while also being fair and equal in their application”, he added. But veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said gay men who always used condoms should not be barred from donating. “Although the new policy is a big improvement on the existing discriminatory rules, a 12-month ban is still excessive and unjustified,” he said. Sabto member Professor Deirdre Kelly said the recommendation took account of new data that had emerged since the body’s last review in 2006, as well as scientific and technological advances. Gay rights Health Equality Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Youth Justice Board says half of under-18s facing riot charges had no previous contact with criminal justice system The influx of child prisoners accused of involvement in last month’s looting and rioting has contributed to an 8% increase in the juvenile prison population in England and Wales. That calculation is based on Youth Justice Board (YJB) figures which show 170 riot offenders aged under 18 are now in custody, adding to the 2,075 child prisoners recorded in June, the latest statistics available. A Ministry of Justice report out on Thursday suggests a lower tally; it says there are 125 juveniles behind bars for riot offences, with 21 sentenced and 104 on remand. The Guardian has learned that two-fifths of children in custody have had no previous connection with youth offending teams – a marker of criminal behaviour which resulted in a court order. The YJB, which has responsibility for the administration of youth justice in England and Wales, says that half of under-18s brought in front of the courts on charges of rioting and looting last month were completely unknown to the criminal justice system and only 10-15% of juvenile rioters had any sort of gang affiliation. The statistics on minors, who comprise 20% of all those convicted of riot offences, undermine claims from justice minister Kenneth Clarke that the riots were caused by a hardcore criminal underclass . Campaigners have warned the sudden rise in the number of children in jail was a possible breach of the UK’s commitment to protect children’s rights. Article 37 in the UN convention states that custody should only be used “as a last resort”. Andrew Neilson, assistant director at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “We were very concerned that there was a rush to custody. Normally young people would be recognised as vulnerable and different and that would be reflected… and that wasn’t happening. It’s been a one-size-fits-all approach. “Pushing someone from no contact at all to a youth offending institute, which is the deep end is a very risky thing [and]… this is one of the most disproportionate impacts of the riot sentencing” “The overuse of remand and some of the sentencing certainly puts in doubt the government’s claims that child custody is used as a last resort.” John Drew, the chief executive of the YJB, said there was a crisis in young offenders’ institutions (YOIs) because of the sudden spike in the prison population. Offenders, especially in London, have had to share cells or have been moved to prisons hundreds of miles away from home. He said one of the YJB’s biggest concerns was the threat of violence against naive entrants to the prison system. Therefore, all those on riot sentences have been categorised as vulnerable, a measure normally reserved for a small minority. “We’ve suddenly gained 80 or so youngsters who have not been anywhere near the criminal justice system before,” Drew said. “They go into custody and there all sorts of codes and ways of getting through a sentence that is alien to them. So the establishments have treated them all as vulnerable and have responded to try to help them understand what is expected of them from prison officers and what may or may not be acceptable in terms of how the other inmates will expect from them. But inevitably it’s a new mixture… It’s a real challenge to our staff.” Drew said he knew of a “couple of instances” of violence involving new entrants. An incident in Cookham Wood young offenders institute left two children in hospital. A report sent to the Guardian by the Howard League for Penal Reform, suggested that turf wars had broken out in one YOI. The summary of a phone conversation with a young offender reported by a solicitor working with the Howard League read: “Prisoners who were involved in the riots have been advised to walk around in pairs and to not be out in the landing on their own. Other prisoners are saying that the rioters have ‘destroyed their turf’ and beatings have been going on all day. It was difficult to hear on the telephone as screaming and shouting could be heard in the background.” In a major speech a week after riots , David Cameron announced he would declare “a concerted, all-out war on gangs and gang culture” which he believed were the root cause of the looting and destruction of property across English cities. In interview at the YJB’s Pimlico offices, Drew clashed with home secretary Theresa May, warning that any relaxation in the strict anonymity rules governing the identification of young offenders would only allow young offenders to revel in their criminal status. A week after the riots, May said the Crown Prosecution Service”should be asking for the anonymity of juveniles who are found guilty of criminal activity to be lifted”. Drew believed that May was “responding to a public appetite” but that it was right that the lifting of anonymity remained “very rare”. “I started my working life with young offenders and the kids were crying out to be told they were young villains because they got status from that. Take that status away from them, try and treat them in a different way is probably the single most effective thing to do,” he said. Drew admitted that the situation with overcrowding was not ideal: “It’s a real dilemma and it is essentially about cost. We now have 2,150 under 18s in custody. In a perfect world, you would have a small YOI in every town.” “When you get an incident like this with a particular focus in London, it’s inevitable you’re going to get congestion. So, in the immediate aftermath, we had to move some children north. We tended to move kids who were on a sentence in order to make room for those remanded. But there’s no secret in that, we did have to move kids around. It is simply about supply and demand and our capacity to afford the ideal.” Youth justice Young people UK criminal justice UK riots Prisons and probation Crime Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Youth Justice Board says half of under-18s facing riot charges had no previous contact with criminal justice system The influx of child prisoners accused of involvement in last month’s looting and rioting has contributed to an 8% increase in the juvenile prison population in England and Wales. That calculation is based on Youth Justice Board (YJB) figures which show 170 riot offenders aged under 18 are now in custody, adding to the 2,075 child prisoners recorded in June, the latest statistics available. A Ministry of Justice report out on Thursday suggests a lower tally; it says there are 125 juveniles behind bars for riot offences, with 21 sentenced and 104 on remand. The Guardian has learned that two-fifths of children in custody have had no previous connection with youth offending teams – a marker of criminal behaviour which resulted in a court order. The YJB, which has responsibility for the administration of youth justice in England and Wales, says that half of under-18s brought in front of the courts on charges of rioting and looting last month were completely unknown to the criminal justice system and only 10-15% of juvenile rioters had any sort of gang affiliation. The statistics on minors, who comprise 20% of all those convicted of riot offences, undermine claims from justice minister Kenneth Clarke that the riots were caused by a hardcore criminal underclass . Campaigners have warned the sudden rise in the number of children in jail was a possible breach of the UK’s commitment to protect children’s rights. Article 37 in the UN convention states that custody should only be used “as a last resort”. Andrew Neilson, assistant director at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “We were very concerned that there was a rush to custody. Normally young people would be recognised as vulnerable and different and that would be reflected… and that wasn’t happening. It’s been a one-size-fits-all approach. “Pushing someone from no contact at all to a youth offending institute, which is the deep end is a very risky thing [and]… this is one of the most disproportionate impacts of the riot sentencing” “The overuse of remand and some of the sentencing certainly puts in doubt the government’s claims that child custody is used as a last resort.” John Drew, the chief executive of the YJB, said there was a crisis in young offenders’ institutions (YOIs) because of the sudden spike in the prison population. Offenders, especially in London, have had to share cells or have been moved to prisons hundreds of miles away from home. He said one of the YJB’s biggest concerns was the threat of violence against naive entrants to the prison system. Therefore, all those on riot sentences have been categorised as vulnerable, a measure normally reserved for a small minority. “We’ve suddenly gained 80 or so youngsters who have not been anywhere near the criminal justice system before,” Drew said. “They go into custody and there all sorts of codes and ways of getting through a sentence that is alien to them. So the establishments have treated them all as vulnerable and have responded to try to help them understand what is expected of them from prison officers and what may or may not be acceptable in terms of how the other inmates will expect from them. But inevitably it’s a new mixture… It’s a real challenge to our staff.” Drew said he knew of a “couple of instances” of violence involving new entrants. An incident in Cookham Wood young offenders institute left two children in hospital. A report sent to the Guardian by the Howard League for Penal Reform, suggested that turf wars had broken out in one YOI. The summary of a phone conversation with a young offender reported by a solicitor working with the Howard League read: “Prisoners who were involved in the riots have been advised to walk around in pairs and to not be out in the landing on their own. Other prisoners are saying that the rioters have ‘destroyed their turf’ and beatings have been going on all day. It was difficult to hear on the telephone as screaming and shouting could be heard in the background.” In a major speech a week after riots , David Cameron announced he would declare “a concerted, all-out war on gangs and gang culture” which he believed were the root cause of the looting and destruction of property across English cities. In interview at the YJB’s Pimlico offices, Drew clashed with home secretary Theresa May, warning that any relaxation in the strict anonymity rules governing the identification of young offenders would only allow young offenders to revel in their criminal status. A week after the riots, May said the Crown Prosecution Service”should be asking for the anonymity of juveniles who are found guilty of criminal activity to be lifted”. Drew believed that May was “responding to a public appetite” but that it was right that the lifting of anonymity remained “very rare”. “I started my working life with young offenders and the kids were crying out to be told they were young villains because they got status from that. Take that status away from them, try and treat them in a different way is probably the single most effective thing to do,” he said. Drew admitted that the situation with overcrowding was not ideal: “It’s a real dilemma and it is essentially about cost. We now have 2,150 under 18s in custody. In a perfect world, you would have a small YOI in every town.” “When you get an incident like this with a particular focus in London, it’s inevitable you’re going to get congestion. So, in the immediate aftermath, we had to move some children north. We tended to move kids who were on a sentence in order to make room for those remanded. But there’s no secret in that, we did have to move kids around. It is simply about supply and demand and our capacity to afford the ideal.” Youth justice Young people UK criminal justice UK riots Prisons and probation Crime Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Multibillion-dollar jobs plan faces stiff opposition from Republicans who are already branding it a re-election gimmick Republicans have signalled their opposition to Barack Obama’s multibillion dollar jobs plan, even before he was due to unveil it in a crucial speech to a joint session of Congress. Republican members of Congress said on Thursday morning that, based on leaks to the media, there was nothing new in the speech, which would be just a rehash of proposals Obama has put forward since his days on the campaign trail in 2008. Some Republican members even announced publicly they intend to boycott the speech, a rare snub for a sitting president. The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, dismissed Obama’s jobs plans as retreads. “What is surprising is the president’s apparent determination to apply the same government-driven policies that have already been tried and failed,” he said in a speech to the Senate. ‘”The definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein once famously put it, is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Frankly, I can’t think of a better description of anyone who thinks the solution to this problem is another stimulus. The first stimulus didn’t do it. Why would another one?” He added: “This isn’t a jobs plan. It’s a re-election plan.” Obama’s proposals, which will cost at least $300bn, include about $100bn in spending on construction of roads, bridges and other huge infrastructure projects as well as extra cash for states to prevent teachers, police and others being laid off. He is also proposing an extension of a payroll tax cut due to expire at the end of the year, an extension of unemployment benefit, and more training and subsidies for the long-term unemployed. The jobs plan is part of Obama’s attempt to reverse a rapid drop in the polls because of the 9.1% unemployment rate, up from the 7.8% when he took office in January 2009. A Gallup poll this week gave the president an approval rating of only 42%, perilously low for a president seeking re-election next year. Even though speeches by a president to a joint session of Congress are relatively rare, such is the polarisation in Washington that many Republicans said they intended to boycott it rather than participate in what they see as an election gimmick. The Republican Speaker, John Boehner, at a press conference in Congress on Thursday, urged his House colleagues not to mount a boycott, saying it would be disrespectful of the president. But Republican congressman Joe Walsh said speeches by the president at joint sessions of Congress should be saved for special occasions. It was time for action, not speeches. “You can’t lead this country by speeches,” Walsh said in an interview with CNN. The unhappiness of many Republicans is shared on the other side, with Democrats regarding Obama’s proposals as too timid and seeking a much more ambitious stimulus package. Fourteen million Americans are out of work, according to official figures . Almost all of Obama’s plans require congressional approval and he is to send the proposals to the Hill next week, setting up a third major clash with Republicans this year. A standoff between Republicans and the White House before the summer recess over the debt crisis left Washington paralysed for weeks, while earlier this year Republicans threatened to close down the federal government. House Republicans, reluctant to be cast as the villains, were in public unwilling to dismiss Obama’s plans out of hand. Boehner, at the press conference, said: “I’m hopeful that after the president gives his speech that we’ll be able to sit down, in a bipartisan way, and find common ground that will help improve our economy, and improve the job picture for the American people.” But behind the scenes, House Republicans, who voted against Obama’s first stimulus package and see little reason to vote for a second, were sceptical. A Republican congressional source said that if the president had been genuine about seeking a bipartisan approach he would have consulted them beforehand. The source said Boehner had written to the White House asking for a meeting this week but had not received a reply. If, as the White House expects, the Republicans boycott his speech, Obama is planning to go out on the road in the months ahead portraying his opponents as obstructionist. The president is to hold the first of a series of meetings on jobs in Richmond, Virginia, on Friday. Barack Obama Republicans US economy US elections 2012 United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …