Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 309)
OFT looks at car insurance costs

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued a ‘call for evidence’ on the car insurance market The consumer watchdog is to put motor insurance under the spotlight after drivers faced average premium increases of up to 40% in a year. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has issued a “call for evidence” as it looks to establish if any competition or consumer issues need to be addressed to improve the motor insurance market. The role of price comparison sites will be examined by the OFT as it gathers evidence, and particular focus will be given to reports suggesting premiums are significantly higher in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK. The “shoparound average” for annual comprehensive car insurance cover rose by 40.1% for the 12 months to 31 March, according to the AA’s British insurance premium index. Car insurance Insurance Motoring guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Michael Moore: I was the most hated man in America

In his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech, Michael Moore denounced President Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Overnight he became the most hated man in America. In an exclusive extract from his new book, Here Comes Trouble, he tells of the bomb threats, bodyguards and how he fought back ‘I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it … No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out [of him]. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ band, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore’, and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realise, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” Glenn Beck , live on the Glenn Beck show, 17 May 2005 Wishes for my early demise seemed to be everywhere. They were certainly on the mind of CNN’s Bill Hemmer one sunny July morning in 2004. Holding a microphone in front of my face on the floor of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, live on CNN, he asked me what I thought about how the American people were feeling about Michael Moore: “I’ve heard people say they wish Michael Moore were dead.” Hemmer said it like he was simply stating the obvious, like, “of course they want to kill you!” He just assumed his audience already understood this truism, as surely as they accept that the sun rises in the east and corn comes on a cob. To be fair to Hemmer, I was not unaware that my movies had made a lot of people mad. It was not unusual for fans to randomly come up and hug me and say, “I’m so happy you’re still here!” They didn’t mean in the building. Why was I still alive? For more than a year there had been threats, intimidation, harassment and even assaults in broad daylight. It was the first year of the Iraq war, and I was told by a top security expert (who is often used by the federal government for assassination prevention) that “there is no one in America other than President Bush who is in more danger than you”. How on earth did this happen? Had I brought this on myself? Of course I had. And I remember the moment it all began. It was the night of 23 March 2003. Four nights earlier, George Bush had invaded Iraq. This was an illegal, immoral, stupid invasion – but that was not how Americans saw it. More than 70% of the public backed the war. And on the fourth night of this very popular war, my film Bowling for Columbine was up for an Academy Award. I went to the ceremony but was not allowed, along with any of the nominees, to talk to the press while walking down the red carpet into Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre. There was the fear that someone might say something – and in wartime we need everyone behind the war effort and on the same page. The actress Diane Lane came on to the stage and read the list of nominees for best documentary. The envelope was opened, and she announced with unbridled glee that I had won the Oscar. The main floor, filled with the Oscar-nominated actors, directors and writers, leapt to its feet and gave me a very long standing ovation. I had asked the nominees from the other documentary films to join me on the stage in case I won, and they did. The ovation finally ended, and then I spoke: “I’ve invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction, yet we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it’s the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts: we are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush. Shame on you! And anytime you’ve got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up! Thank you very much.” About halfway through these remarks, all hell broke loose. There were boos, very loud boos, from the upper floors and from backstage. (A few – Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep – tried to cheer me on from their seats, but they were no match.) The producer of the show ordered the orchestra to start playing to drown me out. The microphone started to descend into the floor. A giant screen with huge red letters began flashing in front of me: “YOUR TIME IS UP!” It was pandemonium, to say the least, and I was whisked off the stage. A little known fact: the first two words every Oscar winner hears right after you win the Oscar and leave the stage come from two attractive young people in evening wear hired by the Academy to immediately greet you behind the curtain. So while calamity and chaos raged on in the Kodak, this young woman in her designer gown stood there, unaware of the danger she was in, and said the following word to me: “Champagne?” And she held out a flute of champagne. The young man in his smart tuxedo standing next to her then immediately followed up with this: “Breathmint?” And he held out a breathmint. Champagne and breathmint are the first two words all Oscar winners hear. But, lucky me, I got to hear a third. An angry stagehand came right up to the side of my head, screaming as loud as he could in my ear: “ASSHOLE!” Other burly, pissed-off stagehands started toward me. I clutched my Oscar like a weapon, holding it like a lone man trapped and surrounded in the woods, his only hope being the torch he is swinging madly at the approaching vampires. All I felt at that moment was alone, that I was nothing more than a profound and total disappointment. That night I couldn’t sleep, so I got up and turned on the TV. For the next hour I watched the local TV stations do their Oscar night wrap-up shows – and as I flipped between the channels, I listened to one pundit after another question my sanity, criticise my speech and say, over and over, in essence: “I don’t know what got into him!” “He sure won’t have an easy time in this town after that stunt!” “Who does he think will make another movie with him now?” “Talk about career suicide!” After an hour of this, I turned off the TV and went online, where there was more of the same, only worse – from all over America. I began to get sick. I could see the writing on the wall – it was curtains for me as a film-maker. I turned off the computer and I turned off the lights and I sat there in the chair in the dark, going over and over what I had done. Good job, Mike. And good riddance. Bombarded with hatred When we got back to our home in northern Michigan, the local beautification committee had dumped three truckloads of horse manure waist-high in our driveway so that we wouldn’t be able to enter our property – a property which, by the way, was freshly decorated with a dozen or so signs nailed to our trees: GET OUT! MOVE TO CUBA! COMMIE SCUM! TRAITOR! LEAVE NOW OR ELSE! I had no intention of leaving. The hate mail after the Oscar speech was so voluminous, it almost seemed as if Hallmark had opened a new division where greeting card writers were assigned the task of penning odes to my passing. (“For a Special Motherfucker …” “Get Well Soon from Your Mysterious Car Accident!” “Here’s to a Happy Stroke!”) The phone calls to my house were actually creepier. It’s a whole different fright machine when a human voice is attached to the madness and you think: “This person literally risked arrest to say this over a phone line!” You had to admire the balls – or insanity – of that. But the worst moments were when people came on to our property. These individuals would just walk down the driveway, always looking like rejects from the cast of Night of the Living Dead, never moving very fast, but always advancing with singleminded purposefulness. Few were actual haters; most were just crazy. We kept the sheriff’s deputies busy until they finally suggested we might want to get our own security, or perhaps our own police force. Which we did. We met with the head of the top security agency in the country, an elite outfit that did not hire ex-cops, nor any “tough guys” or bouncer-types. They preferred to use only Navy Seals and other ex–Special Forces. Guys who had a cool head and who could take you out with a piece of dental floss in a matter of nanoseconds. By the end of the year, due to the alarming increase of threats and attempts on me, I had nine ex-Seals surrounding me, round-the-clock. Fahrenheit 9/11: the fightback After the Oscar riot and the resulting persona-non-grata status I held as the most hated man in America, I decided to do what anyone in my position would do: make a movie suggesting the president of the United States is a war criminal. I mean, why take the easy road? It was already over for me, anyway. The studio that had promised to fund my next film had called up after the Oscar speech and said that they were backing out of their signed contract with me – if I didn’t like it, I could go fuck myself. Fortunately, another studio picked up the deal but cautioned that perhaps I should be careful not to piss off the ticket-buying public. The owner of the studio had backed the invasion of Iraq. I told him I had already pissed off the ticket-buying public, so why don’t we just make the best movie possible, straight from the heart – and, well, if nobody liked that, there was always straight-to-video. In the midst of all this turmoil I began shooting Fahrenheit 9/11 . I told everyone on my crew to operate as if this was going to be the last job we were ever going to have in the movie business. This wasn’t meant to be an inspirational speech – I really believed that this was going to be it. And so we spent the next 11 months putting together our cinematic indictment of an administration and a country gone mad. The release of the film in 2004, just a little more than a year after the start of the war, came at a time when the vast majority of Americans still backed the war. We premiered it at the Cannes film festival, where we were awarded the top prize, the Palme d’Or, by an international jury headed by Quentin Tarantino. It was the first time in nearly 50 years a documentary had won the prize. This initial overwhelming response to Fahrenheit 9/11 spooked the Bush White House, convincing those in charge of his re-election campaign that a movie could be the tipping point that might bring them down. They hired a pollster to find out the effect the film would have on voters. After screening the movie with three different audiences in three separate cities, the news Karl Rove received was not good. The movie was not only giving a much-needed boost to the Democratic base (who were wild about the film), it was, oddly, having a distinct effect also on female Republican voters. The studio’s own polling had already confirmed that an amazing one-third of Republican voters – after watching the movie – said they would recommend the film to other people. But the White House pollster reported something even more dangerous – 10% of Republican females said that after watching Fahrenheit 9/11, they had decided to either vote for John Kerry or to just stay home. In an election that could be decided by only a few percentage points, this was devastating news. The movie would go on to open at No 1 all across North America. And, to make matters worse for the White House, it opened at No 1 in all 50 states, even in the deep south. It opened at No 1 in military towns such as Fort Bragg. Soldiers and their families were going to see it and, by many accounts, it became the top bootleg watched by the troops in Iraq. It broke the box office record long held by the Star Wars film Return of the Jedi for the largest opening weekend ever for a film that opened on 1,000 screens or less. It was, in the verbiage of Variety, major boffo, a juggernaut. And in doing all of that, it had made me a target. The attacks on me that followed were like mad works of fiction, crazy, madeup stuff that I refused to respond to because I didn’t want to dignify the noise. On TV, on the radio, in op-eds, on the internet – everywhere – it was suggested that Michael Moore hates America, he’s a liar, a conspiracy nut and a croissant-eater. The campaign against me was meant to stop too many Republicans from seeing the film. And it worked. Of course, it also didn’t help that Kerry was a lousy candidate. Bush won by one state, Ohio. There was a residual damage from all the hate speech generated toward me by the Republican pundits. It had the sad and tragic side-effect of unhinging the already slightly unglued. And so my life went from receiving scribbly little hate notes to fullout attempted physical assaults – and worse. Living with bodyguards The ex–Navy Seals moved in with us. When I walked down a public sidewalk they would have to form a circle around me. At night they wore night-vision goggles and other special equipment that I’m convinced few people outside CIA headquarters have ever seen. The agency protecting me had a threat assessment division. Their job was to investigate anyone who had made a credible threat against me. One day, I asked to see the file. The man in charge began reading me the list of names and the threats they had made and the level of threat that the agency believed each one posed. After he went through the first dozen, he stopped and asked: “Do you really want to keep going? There are 429 more.” I could no longer go out in public without an incident happening. It started with small stuff, such as people in a restaurant asking to be moved to a different table when I was seated next to them, or a taxi driver who would stop his cab in mid-traffic to scream at me. The verbal abuse soon turned physical, and the Seals were now on high alert. For security reasons, I will not go into too much detail here, partly on the advice of the agency and partly because I don’t want to give these criminals any more of the attention they were seeking: • In Nashville, a man with a knife leapt up on the stage and started coming toward me. The Seal grabbed him from behind by his belt loop and collar and slung him off the front of the stage to the cement floor below. Someone had to mop up the blood after the Seals took him away. • In Fort Lauderdale, a man in a nice suit saw me on the sidewalk and went crazy. He took the lid off his hot, scalding coffee and threw it at my face. The Seal saw this happening but did not have the extra half-second needed to grab the guy, so he put his own face in front of mine and took the hit. The coffee burned his face so badly, we had to take him to the hospital (he had second-degree burns) – but not before the Seal took the man face down to the pavement, placing his knee painfully in the man’s back, and putting him in cuffs. • In New York City, while I was holding a press conference outside one of the cinemas showing Fahrenheit 9/11, a man walking by saw me, became inflamed, and pulled the only weapon he had on him out of his pocket – a very sharp and pointed graphite pencil. As he lunged to stab me with it, the Seal saw him and, in the last split second, put his hand up between me and the oncoming pencil. The pencil went right into the Seal’s hand. You ever see a Navy Seal get stabbed? The look on their face is the one we have when we discover we’re out of shampoo. The pencil-stabber probably became a convert to the paperless society that day, once the Seal was done with him and his 16th-century writing device. The lone bomber And then there was Lee James Headley. Sitting alone at home in Ohio, Lee had big plans. The world, according to his diary, was dominated and being ruined by liberals. His comments read like the talking points of any given day’s episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show . And so Lee made a list. It was a short list of the people who had to go. At the top of the list was his No1 target: “Michael Moore”. Beside my name he wrote, “MARKED” (as in “marked for death”, he would later explain). Throughout the spring of 2004, Headley accumulated a huge amount of assault weapons, a cache of thousands of rounds of ammunition, and various bomb-making materials. He bought The Anarchist’s Cookbook and the race-war novel The Turner Diaries. His notebooks contained diagrams of rocket launchers and bombs, and he would write over and over: “Fight, fight, fight, kill, kill, kill!” But one night in 2004, he accidentally fired off a round inside his home from one of his AK-47s. A neighbour heard the shot and called the police. The cops arrived and found the treasure trove of weapons, ammo and bomb-making materials. And his hit list. I got the call some days later from the security agency. “We need to tell you that the police have in custody a man who was planning to blow up your house. You’re in no danger now.” I got very quiet. I tried to process what I just heard: I’m … in … no … danger … now. For me, it was the final straw. I broke down. My wife was already in her own state of despair over the loss of the life we used to have. I asked myself again: what had I done to deserve this? Made a movie? A movie led someone to want to blow up my home? What happened to writing a letter to the editor? As the months wore on, even after Bush’s re-election, the constant drumbeat against me only intensified. When Glenn Beck said that he was thinking of killing me, he was neither fined by the broadcasting regulator nor arrested by the NYPD. He was, essentially, making a call to have me killed, and no one in the media at that time reported it. And then a man trespassed on our property and left something outside our bedroom window when I wasn’t home. It terrorised my wife. He even videotaped himself doing this. When the police investigated, he said he was making a “documentary”. He called it Shooting Michael Moore. And when you went to his website, and the words Shooting Michael Moore came on the screen, the sound of a gunshot went off. The media ate it up, and he was asked to appear on many TV shows (such as Fox News host Sean Hannity’s). “Coming up next – he’s giving Michael Moore a taste of his own medicine! Moore now has somebody after him!” (Cue SFX: KA-BOOM!) He then provided video and maps of how to illegally get on to our property. I will not share with you the impact this had, at that time, on my personal life, but suffice it to say I would not wish this on anyone. More than once I have asked myself if all this work was really worth it. And, if I had it to do over again, would I? If I could take back that Oscar speech and just walk up on the stage and thank my agent and tuxedo designer and get off without another word, would I? If it meant that my family would not have to worry about their safety and that I would not be living in constant danger – well, I ask you, what would you do? You know what you would do. President Bush to the rescue For the next two and a half years, I didn’t leave the house much. From January 2005 to May 2007, I did not appear on a single TV show. I stopped going on college tours. I just took myself off the map. The previous year I had spoken at more than 50 campuses. For the two years following that, I spoke at only one. I stayed close to home and worked on some local town projects in Michigan where I lived. And then to my rescue rode President Bush. He said something that helped snap me out of it. I had heard him say it before, but this time when I heard him, I felt like he was speaking directly to me. He said: “If we give in to the terrorists, the terrorists win.” And he was right. His terrorists were winning! Against me! What was I doing sitting inside the house? I opened up the blinds, folded up my pity party, and went back to work. I made three films in three years, threw myself into getting Barack Obama elected, and helped toss two Republican congressmen from Michigan out of office. I set up a popular website, and I was elected to the board of governors of the same Academy Awards that had booed me. I chose not to give up. I wanted to give up, badly. Instead I got fit. If you take a punch at me now, I can assure you three things will happen: 1) You will break your hand. That’s the beauty of spending just a half hour a day on your muscular-skeletal structure – it turns into kryptonite; 2) I will fall on you. I’m still working on my core and balance issues, so after you slug me I will tip over and crush you; 3) My Seals will spray mace or their own homemade concoction of jalapeño spider spray directly into your eye sockets while you are on the ground. As a pacifist, please accept my apologies in advance – and never, ever use violence against me or anyone else again. Eventually I found myself back on The Tonight Show for the first time in a while. As I was leaving the stage, the guy who was operating the boom microphone approached me. “You probably don’t remember me,” he said nervously. “I never thought I would ever see you again or get the chance to talk to you. I can’t believe I get to do this.” Do what? I thought. I braced myself for the man’s soon-to-be-broken hand. “I never thought I’d get to apologise to you,” he said, as a few tears started to come into his eyes. “I’m the guy who ruined your Oscar night. I’m the guy who yelled ‘ASSHOLE’ into your ear right after you came off the stage. I … I … [he tried to compose himself]. I thought you were attacking the president – but you were right. He did lie to us. And I’ve had to carry this with me now all these years, and I’m so sorry …” By now he was starting to fall apart, and all I could think to do was to reach out and give him a huge hug. “It’s OK, man,” I said, a big smile on my face. “I accept your apology. But you do not need to apologise to me. You believed your president! You’re supposed to believe your president! If we can’t expect that as just the minimum from whoever’s in office, then, shit, we’re doomed.” “Thank you,” he said, relieved. “Thank you for understanding.” “Understanding?” I said. “This isn’t about understanding. I’ve told this funny story for years now, about the first two words you hear when you’re an Oscar winner – and how I got to hear a bonus word! Man, don’t take that story away from me! People love it!” He laughed, and I laughed. “Yeah,” he said, “there aren’t many good stories like that.” Extracted from Here Comes Trouble: Stories From My Life by Michael Moore, to be published by Allen Lane on 19 September at £20. To order a copy for £16 with free UK p&p go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846. Moore will be performing live dates in the UK and Ireland from 16-25 October. See www.michaelmoorelive.com for details. Michael Moore guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Baha Mousa inquiry report to attack senior British army officers

Eight years after death of Iraq hotel worker in army detention, judge expected to criticise catalogue of failings An unprecedented, two-year public inquiry into the conduct of British soldiers in Iraq is expected to report stinging criticism of senior army officers and their legal advisers, and highlight the failure to pass orders down the chain of command. The inquiry’s report into the September 2003 death of Baha Mousa , a Basra hotel worker, is also understood to include scathing criticism of military intelligence officers and of the lack of training and preparation British troops received for the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The report by retired appeal court judge Sir William Gage, to be published on Thursday, is unlikely to accuse the army of systematic torture since his terms of reference are limited to the circumstances surrounding Mousa’s death. Lawyers acting for families of Iraqis detained by British troops, however, have since collected fresh material which they claim does point to widespread abuse. They are demanding another public inquiry into wider allegations surrounding the abuse of more than 200 Iraqi detainees held near Basra. They are also expected to demand the prosecution of individual soldiers or officials. Gage is expected to point to a catalogue of failings that led to the death of 26-year-old Mousa, who was arrested with nine other Iraqis at the Haitham hotel in Basra by soldiers of the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (QLR). Rifles, bayonets and suspected bomb-making equipment were found at the scene but there was no evidence that they had been used against British troops. Mousa died after 36 hours in detention. A postmortem found he had suffered asphyxiation and at least 93 injuries to his body, including fractured ribs and a broken nose. Sir Michael Jackson, Britain’s top general at the time, described the episode as “a stain on the character of the British army”. At the end of a six-month court martial , six members of the QLR, including the regiment’s commanding officer, Colonel Jorge Mendonca, were cleared of abuse and negligence. A seventh, Corporal Donald Payne, who pleaded guilty, was jailed for a year and dismissed from the army. The court martial judge accused the soldiers of closing ranks, a charge Gage might echo. Des Browne, then defence secretary, set up a public inquiry in 2008, when the MoD admitted soldiers had breached the terms of the Human Rights Act. The inquiry opened in 2009 and heard evidence from nearly 250 witnesses. It was told that British troops used interrogation techniques – hooding, deprivation of sleep, food and drink, subjection to noise and wall-standing – outlawed by the UK government in March 1972 after an investigation into interrogation in Northern Ireland. The Gage inquiry heard that senior officers were unaware of the 1972 ban and were confused or ignorant of their obligations under domestic and international law. The detainees’ closing submissions noted: “From the chain of command to the medical staff and even to the padre, no one was prepared to speak up for what was right and report what was wrong.” Eight or more civilians died in the custody of British troops in the weeks after the invasion of Iraq, despite frequent warnings by the army’s most senior legal adviser there about unlawful treatment of detainees, the inquiry heard. Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer described the way Iraqi detainees were intimidated and hooded by British soldiers as “repulsive”. He said that 10 days after the invasion in March 2003 he saw 20 or 30 detainees lined up with sandbags on their heads. He was shocked, he said, adding that it was “a bit like seeing pictures of Guantánamo Bay for the first time”. Mercer said he had a “massive row” with the commander of the Queens Dragoon Guards about the army’s legal obligations under the Geneva conventions and the European convention on human rights. He had walked out of a meeting between British officials and the International Committee of the Red Cross after being told by a “political adviser” to keep his mouth shut, he added. Gage heard evidence that military and civilian officials tried to downplay the significance of Mousa’s death and dissembled when MPs asked about the circumstances surrounding it. He also heard how the Ministry of Defence’s top legal advisers failed to seek the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, who was known to take the view that British troops in Iraq were bound by the Human Rights Act. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, is expected to tell the Commons on Thursday that the MoD and the army have learned lessons from Baha Mousa’s death and from evidence to the Gage inquiry. General Sir Peter Wall, head of the army, is also expected to make a statement. Baha Mousa Iraq Middle East Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
In Detroit’s Big 3 Auto Talks, AP ‘Forgets’ That GM and Chrysler Can’t Strike, UAW’s Conflicts of Interest

It's hard to figure out why Tom Krisher at the Associated Press bothered filing a report on the status of contract talks between Detroit's Big 3 automakers and the United Auto Workers. The only reason I can discern is that he wanted to brag about how he and his wire service pals have access to anonymously-sourced info about how the talks are going. Surprise: As has been the case almost always for about the past 30-plus years, It's coming down to the wire with the two sides supposedly far apart at two of the three companies. Knock me over with a feather. Krisher failed to inform readers of three quite important sets of facts. First (seriously), he never told readers that General Motors and Chrysler workers have no-strike contract clauses prohibiting them from job actions until 2015, i.e., only Ford is financially vulnerable. Second, he failed to note that the government still holds a significant (and probably board-controlling) share of GM, or that a UAW healthcare trust owns 46.5% of Chrysler (down from an original 55%). Finally, because he didn't disclose the ownership stakes, he failed to note the obvious conflict of interest the UAW has in negotiating with Ford, or the possible government-influenced pressure on the union to drive a hard bargain with Ford on GM's behalf. Here are several paragraphs from Krisher's report (bolds indicate language misleading readers into believing that a strike is possible at any one or more of the companies): AP Sources: UAW, Ford, Chrysler far apart in talks Ford, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers remain far apart in labor talks with just a week left before their contracts expire , two people briefed on the talks said Wednesday. Negotiators for the two companies and the union have started serious talks on wages in the past few days, even though the union's contracts with all three Detroit carmakers expire at 11:59 p.m. on Sept. 14, the people said. General Motors Co., on the other hand, has been talking pay with the union for about two weeks and is ahead of its crosstown rivals, said another person briefed on the talks. All three people asked not to be identified because the companies and union have agreed to keep negotiations private. Contracts between the UAW and Detroit's automakers are widely followed because they set the wages for about 111,000 autoworkers nationwide. They also set the bar for wages at auto parts companies and other manufacturers. This year's talks are the first since Chrysler and GM accepted government aid and emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2009. So far, talks between the union and the companies have been amicable, despite little movement on wages with Chrysler Group LLC and Ford Motor Co., two of the people said. The lack of progress raises the possibility that the contracts could be extended beyond next week's deadline. … Both sides must reach agreements and union members must vote on the deals before new contracts can take effect. UAW President Bob King has said he'd like to reach agreements with the companies before the contracts expire. … When union negotiators reach agreements with the companies, they may have a tough time selling them to the rank-and-file, many of whom want to win back lost pay raises and other concessions made to the companies during the financial crisis. … Ford workers are particularly sensitive about compensation after CEO Alan Mulally's $26.5 million pay package for last year and the company's restoration of merit raises for white-collar workers. As to the “concessions” referenced in the second-last excerpted paragraph, there were very few, at least at current workers at GM. I'm not saying that; now-retired UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said so in announcement to GM workers in May 2009: As to Mulally's pay, while it does seem excessive to yours truly, I'm not on the Board of Directors, and it's not my call. In any event, what Mulally made last year is not that far above what a few players in big-league sports make — and they don't run multibillion-dollar enterprises, and they didn't keep one of them from heading down the path to a government bailout that executives at the other two firms did. But getting back to AP's Krisher: Why even bother writing up such an embarrassingly incomplete report so heavily reliant on anonymous sources speaking in broad generalizations? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continue reading …
Rick Perry clashes with Mitt Romney in combative Republican debate

Texas governor opts for aggressive approach during 105-minute debate and dismisses social security as a ‘Ponzi scheme’ Texas governor Rick Perry opted for a combative approach in Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate, turning in a performance that is likely to consolidate his frontrunner status among conservatives, but alarm mainstream America with his denunciation of social security. Perry, in his first appearance in a Republican presidential debate since joining the race last month, defied pundits who predicted he would seek a quiet, safe approach. Instead, he clashed repeatedly from the opening minutes with his main rival, Mitt Romney, on issues such as jobs, health and social security. But millions of Americans are dependent on social security, and will have been worried by Perry’s dismissal of the welfare benefit as a ‘Ponzi scheme’, one that young people will pay into but will never get a return on. Asked if he wanted to reconsider his language, Perry stood his ground. “Maybe it’s time to have provocative language in this country,” he said. Romney said the country needed a president who would not do away with social security. The collision between Perry and Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, dominated the 105-minute debate, and left the other six candidates on the sidelines. With only months left until the caucuses and primaries to choose a Republican to take on Barack Obama for the White House next year, the polite skirmishing that marked the Republican debates before the summer disappeared in the first five minutes as Perry and Romney tore into each other. The debate confirmed it is now a two-horse race, with Michele Bachmann, who is in third place in the polls, the biggest loser of the night, as she was completely overshadowed by Perry and Romney. Republican strategists were divided afterwards on Perry’s strategy, with some predicting that his refusal to back down from his hard-right positions will win him the party nomination, and others expressing concern that such positions could alienate mainstream voters who will decide the White House race. Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who had been a campaign adviser to John McCain in the 2008 election, said Bachmann’s adventure in the race was coming to an end. She appeared tired, with much of the zest she had displayed before the summer missing. Perry, a Tea Party favourite, started off well in the debate, confident and bullish, but he may gone too far with his social security comments. Romney’s campaign team, speaking in the spin room afterwards, zeroed in on the social security issue, saying it made Perry unelectable in a White House race. “Funding for social security is in trouble and we have to fix it. That is different from saying social security is a menace to society” one of Romney’s advisers, Ron Kaufman, told MSNBC, the hosts of the debate. But Congressman Mick Mulvaney, a Perry supporter, said Perry was not suggesting changing social security for those in it but for young people. Obama’s former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who is likely to rejoin hthe president’s team as an adviser for the next election, said Perry would be vulnerable on the issue. “Social security is pretty fertile ground if you are Rick Perry, who has a lot of explaining to do,” Gibbs said. Tom Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, felt Perry’s views on social security will harm him. “Perry made explicit views – such as those on social security – that will very likely haunt him in the weeks and months ahead. His frontrunner status was built on a house of cards and he will struggle to retain it. “Romney may take advantage of that as the only alternative who appears to have some substantial support among Republicans – and a plausible chance in a general election.” Going into the debate, Perry, who is supported by the Tea Party, was the frontrunner, with 29% of support – according to an average of polls by the Real Clear Politics organisation – and Romney on 18%. Pundits had portrayed Perry as a poor debater, thin-skinned and prone to gaffes. But was quickly engaged in personal exchanges with Romney, who is closer to the centre than Perry. Towards the end, Perry was asked about 234 executions in Texas under his governorship and the audience, primarily Republicans, applauded. Perry explained why anyone killing children or police in Texas would face “ultimate justice”, a passage that will appeal to many in the Tea Party. The next debate will be on Monday in Tampa, Florida. Republicans Rick Perry United States US politics Mitt Romney Barack Obama Ron Paul Jon Huntsman Michele Bachmann Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Rick Perry clashes with Mitt Romney in combative Republican debate

Texas governor opts for aggressive approach during 105-minute debate and dismisses social security as a ‘Ponzi scheme’ Texas governor Rick Perry opted for a combative approach in Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate, turning in a performance that is likely to consolidate his frontrunner status among conservatives, but alarm mainstream America with his denunciation of social security. Perry, in his first appearance in a Republican presidential debate since joining the race last month, defied pundits who predicted he would seek a quiet, safe approach. Instead, he clashed repeatedly from the opening minutes with his main rival, Mitt Romney, on issues such as jobs, health and social security. But millions of Americans are dependent on social security, and will have been worried by Perry’s dismissal of the welfare benefit as a ‘Ponzi scheme’, one that young people will pay into but will never get a return on. Asked if he wanted to reconsider his language, Perry stood his ground. “Maybe it’s time to have provocative language in this country,” he said. Romney said the country needed a president who would not do away with social security. The collision between Perry and Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, dominated the 105-minute debate, and left the other six candidates on the sidelines. With only months left until the caucuses and primaries to choose a Republican to take on Barack Obama for the White House next year, the polite skirmishing that marked the Republican debates before the summer disappeared in the first five minutes as Perry and Romney tore into each other. The debate confirmed it is now a two-horse race, with Michele Bachmann, who is in third place in the polls, the biggest loser of the night, as she was completely overshadowed by Perry and Romney. Republican strategists were divided afterwards on Perry’s strategy, with some predicting that his refusal to back down from his hard-right positions will win him the party nomination, and others expressing concern that such positions could alienate mainstream voters who will decide the White House race. Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who had been a campaign adviser to John McCain in the 2008 election, said Bachmann’s adventure in the race was coming to an end. She appeared tired, with much of the zest she had displayed before the summer missing. Perry, a Tea Party favourite, started off well in the debate, confident and bullish, but he may gone too far with his social security comments. Romney’s campaign team, speaking in the spin room afterwards, zeroed in on the social security issue, saying it made Perry unelectable in a White House race. “Funding for social security is in trouble and we have to fix it. That is different from saying social security is a menace to society” one of Romney’s advisers, Ron Kaufman, told MSNBC, the hosts of the debate. But Congressman Mick Mulvaney, a Perry supporter, said Perry was not suggesting changing social security for those in it but for young people. Obama’s former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who is likely to rejoin hthe president’s team as an adviser for the next election, said Perry would be vulnerable on the issue. “Social security is pretty fertile ground if you are Rick Perry, who has a lot of explaining to do,” Gibbs said. Tom Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, felt Perry’s views on social security will harm him. “Perry made explicit views – such as those on social security – that will very likely haunt him in the weeks and months ahead. His frontrunner status was built on a house of cards and he will struggle to retain it. “Romney may take advantage of that as the only alternative who appears to have some substantial support among Republicans – and a plausible chance in a general election.” Going into the debate, Perry, who is supported by the Tea Party, was the frontrunner, with 29% of support – according to an average of polls by the Real Clear Politics organisation – and Romney on 18%. Pundits had portrayed Perry as a poor debater, thin-skinned and prone to gaffes. But was quickly engaged in personal exchanges with Romney, who is closer to the centre than Perry. Towards the end, Perry was asked about 234 executions in Texas under his governorship and the audience, primarily Republicans, applauded. Perry explained why anyone killing children or police in Texas would face “ultimate justice”, a passage that will appeal to many in the Tea Party. The next debate will be on Monday in Tampa, Florida. Republicans Rick Perry United States US politics Mitt Romney Barack Obama Ron Paul Jon Huntsman Michele Bachmann Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Rick Perry Doubles Down on His Social Security ‘Ponzi Scheme’ Charge – Takes a Swipe at Karl Rove

Click here to view this media It appears Gov. Rick Perry has decided to double down on his previous statements that Social Security was a “monstrous lie” and a “Ponzi scheme” for young people who are paying into the program now. Perry also went after Karl Rove who criticized Perry’s remarks on Social Security as being “toxic.” When asked to respond to Perry’s statements, Mitt Romney disagreed and although he said he agreed that the program had some funding problems, he felt the GOP should not be scaring seniors and that their nominee should be someone committed to saving the program rather than abolishing it. I think Perry just did his best to make sure he’s completely unelectable in the general election after his first debate. Even though Romney said he did not agree with Perry’s statements on Social Security, he did not bother to remind him the program is projected to be fully solvent until 2037 and after that expected to pay out roughly seventy five percent of benefits, nor did he remind him of that the actual definition of a Ponzi scheme is. HARRIS: Governor Perry, you said you wrote the book “Fed Up” to start a conversation. Congratulations. It’s certainly done that in recent weeks. In the book, you call Social Security the best example of a program that “violently tossed aside any respect for states’ rights.” We understand your position that it’s got funding problems now. I’d like you to explain your view that Social Security was wrong right from the beginning. PERRY: Well, I think any of us that want to go back and change 70 years of what’s been going on in this country is probably going to have a difficult time. And rather than spending a lot of time talking about what those folks were doing back in the ’30s and the ’40s, it’s a nice intellectual conversation, but the fact is we have got to be focussed on how we’re going to change this program. And people who are on Social Security today, men and women who are receiving those benefits today, are individuals at my age that are in line pretty quick to get them, they don’t need to worry about anything. But I think the Republican candidates are talking about ways to transition this program, and it is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there. Anybody that’s for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it’s not right. HARRIS: OK. Thank you, sir. Let me follow on that. You mentioned the phrase “Ponzi scheme.” Just this morning, your former political adviser, Karl Rove, said that type of language could be “toxic,” as he put it, in a general election. Vice President Cheney gave an interview today to ABC News, when he said it’s not a Ponzi scheme, “It’s a program that a great many people depend on.” My understanding is you’re standing by every word you’ve written in that book. Is that right? PERRY: Yes, sir. You know, Karl has been over the top for a long time in some of his remarks. So I’m not responsible for Karl anymore. But the fact is — HARRIS: Vice President Cheney though said it’s not a Ponzi scheme. You say it is. PERRY: Absolutely. If Vice President Cheney or anyone else says that the program that we have in place today, and young people who are paying into that, expect that program to be sound, and for them to receive benefits when they research retirement age, that is just a lie. And I don’t care what anyone says. We know that, the American people know that, but more importantly, those 25-and-30-year-olds know that. HARRIS: Governor, time. Thank you. Governor, time. HARRIS: Governor Romney, let’s be blunt. Let’s be blunt. Democrats are itching to use that kind of provocative language against Republicans, yet you acknowledge yourself that Social Security has funding problems. How do you have a candid question about Social Security without scaring seniors? ROMNEY: Well, the issue is not the funding of Social Security. We all agree and have for years that the funding program of Social Security is not working, and Congress has been raiding the dollars from Social Security to pay for annual government expenditures. That’s wrong. The funding, however, is not the issue. The issue in the book “Fed Up,” Governor, is you say that by any measure, Social Security is a failure. You can’t say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and those who have lived on it. The governor says look, states ought to be able to opt out of Social Security. Our nominee has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security, but who is committed to saving Social Security. We have always had, at the heart of our party, a recognition that we want to care for those in need, and our seniors have the need of Social Security. I will make sure that we keep the program and we make it financially secure. We save Social Security. And under no circumstances would I ever say by any measure it’s a failure. It is working for millions of Americans, and I’ll keep it working for millions of Americans. And we’ve got to do that as a party. HARRIS: Thank you, Governor. Governor Perry, a 30-second rebuttal. Governor Romney said Vice President Cheney is right and you’re wrong about Ponzi schemes. PERRY: Well, here’s — again, we’re not trying to pick fights here. HARRIS: Understood. PERRY: We’re about fixing things. You can either have reasons or you can have results. And the American people expect us to put results in place. You cannot keep the status quo in place and not call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme. It is. That is what it is. Americans know that, and regardless of what anyone says, oh, it’s not — and that’s provocative language — maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country and say things like, let’s get America working again and do whatever it takes to make that happen.

Continue reading …

For reasons that are still inexplicable, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library agreed to partner up with NBC News, parent organization of the uber-left-wing network MSNBC to televise tonight's Republican presidential debate. While NBC representative Brian Williams had more than his share of sneering biased questions, it was Williams's co-moderator, Politico editor John F. Harris who laid on the snark in his attempts to bait and attack the candidates. Such unbalanced questioning is par-for-the-course for Republicans competing at the national level. More often than not, they take it in stride. Tonight, though, Newt Gingrich was having none of it as he went full-on after Harris's attempts to insert Gingrich into a non-existent debate about an individual mandate to purchase insurance at the national level that Republicans simply are not having. Video and transcript follow.

Continue reading …
Giuliani: GOP Would Be ‘Truly Desperate’ to Nominate Me

Click here to view this media Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani took time out of discussion about the Sept. 11 anniversary Tuesday to evaluate his chances at getting the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. “I think if I were to run, I would have a chance of winning the presidency,” Giuliani said during remarks at the National Press Club. “But I would have a hard time getting nominated. I’m a realist and I understand how the primary system works. So I would like to see if there’s somebody that emerges that I think would be a strong candidate in the Republican Party for president. If somebody does emerge that I believe can win, I would probably support that person. If I think we’re truly desperate, I may run. Which is the way I got elected mayor of New York City. Do you know what my slogan was? ‘You can’t do any worse.’” “You just said you could not be nominated,” National Press Club President Mark Hamrick told the former mayor. “What is it about the Republican Party these days that would prevent that from happening?” “I didn’t say I couldn’t be. I said it would be difficult,” Giuliani replied. “We would have to be truly desperate.”

Continue reading …
Business leaders plead for more quantitative easing

• Institute of Directors calls for £50bn of new money • Fears of recession grow as industrial production falls Business leaders are urging the Bank of England to authorise another £50bn of quantitative easing when its monetary policy committee meets today in order to boost bank lending and prevent the economy slipping back into recession. The Institute of Directors says that without an extension of the current £200bn programme of money creation, there could be “dire consequences” for the government’s finances in lost taxes and higher social security spending. The warning follows figures from the Office for National Statistics that showed industrial production had unexpectedly contracted in July. The sharper than usual drop in output comes in the wake of a slide since the beginning of the year and numerous recent surveys suggesting that other sectors of the economy are losing momentum. Snapshots of the manufacturing and the services sector this week revealed the UK economy had slowed down to a point where many business leaders and economists fear the economy stands on the edge of a double-dip recession. Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors, said: “The time to launch QE2 has arrived. The downside economic risks are sufficiently great to warrant an extension in quantitative easing now, in order to avoid the risk of a double-dip recession. “We already have an L-shaped economic recovery and the hit to business and consumer confidence over the summer risks a slip back into recession, which could have dire fiscal consequences. Expanding QE by £50bn initially is a sensible and limited response.” The Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is expected to discuss a fresh injection of funds into the Bank’s quantitative easing programme after several of its members indicated they were warming to the idea. The growing clamour for a monetary response to the weak economic data followed a speech by the chancellor, George Osborne, in London, in which he said the government would stick to his tax and spending plans . Osborne said he would be downgrading his economic growth forecast and predicted a bumpy ride over the next year, but refused to accept criticism of his policies, which have been blamed for undermining business and consumer confidence. Jeremy Cook, chief economist at currency dealer World First, said that despite the clamour for QE, he expected the MPC would wait until November before reaching an agreement: “QE would represent a big shift in policy direction as it was only four months ago that three members of the MPC voted for an increase in interest rates. This is an indication of just how turbulent a summer it has been.” The European Central Bank, which also meets tomorrow to discuss monetary policy for the eurozone, is expected to keep its rates on hold at 1.5%. Thinktank The Work Foundation said the chancellor was abdicating his responsibilities by leaving policy to central bankers and private markets. In a report, Making the UK a Global Innovation Hub, it said Britain would need a 15-year plan directed by the government to put the economy on a more sustainable path. Will Hutton, a director of the Work Foundation and co-author of the report, said: “Britain’s patchwork of institutions, networks and public agencies is not fit for purpose. The state must take the lead on this because confidence among businesses is so fragile at present. The government has already recognised the importance of this agenda but the time has come to make it happen.” He said the task was to “create a network of institutions, processes and methodologies that will spur both the magic of innovation and the tough task of its development and commercialisation”. The thinktank has founded an offshoot, the Big Innovation Centre, supported by business donations, which will be launched by business secretary Vince Cable. Hutton added: “The private sector cannot shoulder the unknowable risks associated with the wholesale rebasing of the UK economy nor develop the appropriate architecture and networks alone. This requires the ongoing engagement of an enterprising state, harnessing the creative ability of both the private and public sector through open innovation. This cannot be done piecemeal. Britain needs to own this agenda and think big.” Quantitative easing Economics Interest rates Bank of England Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …