Click here to view this media Ali Velshi grilled anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist about his responsibility for Republicans being completely inflexible on raising taxes today on CNN’s Your Money, and you can read the transcript of that back and forth here , but it was the segments preceding and following that interview and David Gergen’s comments that had me irked after watching this. Norquist was painted as an extremist and a rigid ideologue, but what did we get for analysis surrounding that? David Gergen repeating one right-wing talking point after another on the “bloated welfare state” and how wonderful austerity measures will be for our economy and making excuses for these House Republicans playing hostage with raising the debt ceiling even as he admits he’s not quite sure if they’re insane enough to wreck our economy on purpose. David Gergen can always be counted on for some right-wing turd polishing and for helping to move that Overton window to the right. We need to be having some honest discussions about how to get our economy back on track and Americans back to work, but in our corporate media those discussions never include fixing our trade laws or not rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas and instead we’re being told that these politicians are somehow “principled” because they believe in myths and trickle-down economics. Sorry Gergen but I think it’s perfectly fair to villainize them when they’re doing things that harm Americans and our economy and doing them on purpose. VELSHI: David, you have been in the White House. You understand how people think. Why are some people so concerned, particularly those who are concerned with scoring political points — why is it this fealty to lower taxes overtaking the idea that this actually could have broader and more devastating effect, to not raise this credit limit? GERGEN: Well, I think, ultimately, the Republicans — at least I hope — will agree to go and lift the debt ceiling. Certainly, Speaker McConnell (SIC) has agreed to that. Certainly — I mean, Speaker Boehner has certainly. Mitch McConnell has over on the Senate side. But there is a strong sentiment among Republicans that the cuts that are on the table now are illusory, that there are some gimmicks in there, that just as we saw at the end of last year, we had this announcement about great, big budget cuts — when you really broke it right down, it didn’t turn out to be very much. VELSHI: Right. GERGEN: You remember that. Turned out to be peanuts. There’s a strong feeling that what they’re being asked to do is to agree to cuts that are not actually — that are actually quite modest, and then increase taxes, and in effect, to pay for the welfare state, a bloated welfare state. And they would like to shrink the size of the welfare state. This is ultimately a conversation, a debate, a debate, you know, a food fight over how big the American government should be. And you know, that’s why they’re not — that’s why they’re not doing it. But I — the question becomes — I cannot believe, at the end of the day, House Republicans will be so recalcitrant that they’ll take us into default. It just — I — I — that would be so much beyond what I think we’ve ever experienced, Ali, knowing we’re on the edge of Niagara Falls, knowing we’re on the edge of a precipice, I can’t believe they’ll take us over. VELSHI: You would think so and you would hope so. I don’t know. VELSHI: David, Grover Norquist is remarkably committed to what he’s talking about. But he — there is a problem here. There’s an underlying problem that politicians in America cannot do something that risks their seat because their voters won’t let them. And pledges like this contribute to a great deal of inflexibility in Washington. GERGEN: Well, Ali, listen, let me put my cards on the table. And Grover knows this. I have supported the Simpson-Bowles plan all along. I do believe that taxes need to go up as part of an effort — overall effort to get the deficits under control. But you know, in fairness, you know, Grover does have a point. And Simpson-Bowles itself said — it wasn’t one-to-one, a tax increase versus $1 in spending cuts, it was two-to-one in spending cuts versus tax increases. The Simpson-Bowles commission recognized that the — more central than taxes is the question of how much we’re now spending. We’ve taken the level of spending in this country from about 20 percent of GDP at the federal level up, as you well know, to 24 to 25 percent over the last two years, another year in sight for 25 percent. And what Republicans are saying is you got to sweat that down. And I believe that taxes ought to go up as part of this package, but I think it’s unfair to villainize the Republicans when, in fact, there is a very real possibility that the Senate will present a plan which will have $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion dollars in cuts and no tax increases, and that’s what the president is ultimately going to accept, and that may be where we come out at the end of the day. VELSHI: The problem — GERGEN: I just — I think — VELSHI: The issue is more political, David. GERGEN: I think to say that default versus tax increases is — is — it misstates the problem somewhat. VELSHI: Yes, well, I’m not sure why the two are in the same discussion. I would have really preferred that they deal with the debt ceiling, and they deal with spending and taxing entirely separately. But we’re not in that position, David. The reality is, in part because of people like Grover Norquist, we’re not in that position. A lot of people who otherwise would vote for an increase in the debt ceiling can’t do so because they are not in a position to compromise. GERGEN: Well, yes and no. I — it comes back, Ali, to what people fundamentally believe is the problem. And Republicans fundamentally believe that this underlying problem is we’ve allowed spending to go higher and higher, and they don’t want to raise taxes to pay for that. They would rather see it shrink down. The Democrats — I — you know, who — and I’m not trying to villainize Democrats, either. I think that they come from a very sincere place of really wanting to provide a stronger social safety net. They want to provide, you know, far more services to the country. And they believe that the rich ought to pay a lot more to get there to — to get there. VELSHI: Diane Swonk, is there any way to reduce our debt, to get into a situation where our deficits are not as big in a meaningful way to the tune of $2.4 trillion that we’re talking about without increasing some taxes? SWONK: Oh, there’s a way to do it. It’s whether or not that’s really going to be politically acceptable to the American public. The kind of pain that that would induce — and I agree completely with David on this one. The kind of pain that that would induce is not something that we’re really ready to swallow. There’s a balance in this country between spending and tax cuts. And it is more. We do need to cut spending more than raise taxes. VELSHI: David Gergen, thanks very much. David Gergen is CNN’s senior political analyst. Diane Swonk is a chief economist with Mesirow Financial.
Continue reading …
Santa Fe Residents Among Worst Dressed, GQ Says Uruguay 1 (5) Argentina 1 (4) ,Copa America 2011,Uruguay a Semifinales por Penales Argentina 1(4) – Uruguay 1(5) – PENALES – Copa América 2011 – “Cuartos de Final” – “Santa Fe” mindazkpage says: Pleasures Enjoyed by Residents of Cieolo Rancho Santa Fe http://t.co/uadbwKk
Continue reading …ABC Notes Dem Refusal to Budge on Medicare, CBS Gives Impression Dems Willing to Cut
July 16, 2011 No Comment
Continue reading …
Hinton, who has worked for Rupert Murdoch for over 50 years told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign Rupert Murdoch’s right hand man Les Hinton has resigned in the latest shock development in a saga that is still threatening to engulf the newspaper and TV baron’s empire. Hinton, who has worked for the media baron for more than 50 years told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign. “It is a deeply, deeply sad day for me. “When I left News International in December 2007, I believed that the rotten element at the News of the World had been eliminated “That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant,” he wrote in a letter to staff adding: “I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp”. Les Hinton, headed Murdoch’s British newspaper arm, News International, when the phone-hacking allegations the media empire first arose. His resignation comes just hours after his successor in the UK Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword as Murdoch made attempts to draw a line under the phone-hacking that was threatening to engulf his worldwide empire. Hinton had come under increasing scrutiny recently as a cascade of allegations indicated the problems at the centre of the scandal were more widespread than he had twice led a parliamentary committee to believe. In 2007 and 2009, Hinton told a select committee that the company had carried out a full investigation into the matter and was convinced just one of its journalists was involved. Murdoch said: “Les and I have been on a remarkable journey together for more than 52 years. That this passage has come to an unexpected end, professionally, not personally, is a matter of much sadness to me.” Hinton was parachuted into New York in 2007 after Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal and tasked with transforming the paper into the ‘Financial Times of America’. A trust and discreet lieutenant of Murdoch’s, he said in a statement, that he had “watched with sorrow from New York as the News of the World story unfolded”. “The pain caused to innocent people is unimaginable. That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant and in the circumstances I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp and apologise to those hurt by the actions of News of the World.” He added that “his testimonies” before the “culture, media and sport select committee were given honestly”. At the heart of the scandal were News International’s claims that the phone-tapping was the work of a “rogue reporter” – royal reporter Clive Goodman. In his statement, Hinton says at the time he believed that to be the case. “When I appeared before the committee in March 2007, I expressed the belief that Clive Goodman had acted alone, but made clear our investigation was continuing. In September 2009, I told the committee there had never been any evidence delivered to me that suggested the conduct had spread beyond one journalist. If others had evidence that wrongdoing went further, I was not told about it.” Les Hinton Rupert Murdoch News of the World Phone hacking News International News Corporation United States Wall Street Journal Lisa O’Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Hinton, who has worked for Rupert Murdoch for over 50 years told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign Rupert Murdoch’s right hand man Les Hinton has resigned in the latest shock development in a saga that is still threatening to engulf the newspaper and TV baron’s empire. Hinton, who has worked for the media baron for more than 50 years told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign. “It is a deeply, deeply sad day for me. “When I left News International in December 2007, I believed that the rotten element at the News of the World had been eliminated “That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant,” he wrote in a letter to staff adding: “I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp”. Les Hinton, headed Murdoch’s British newspaper arm, News International, when the phone-hacking allegations the media empire first arose. His resignation comes just hours after his successor in the UK Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword as Murdoch made attempts to draw a line under the phone-hacking that was threatening to engulf his worldwide empire. Hinton had come under increasing scrutiny recently as a cascade of allegations indicated the problems at the centre of the scandal were more widespread than he had twice led a parliamentary committee to believe. In 2007 and 2009, Hinton told a select committee that the company had carried out a full investigation into the matter and was convinced just one of its journalists was involved. Murdoch said: “Les and I have been on a remarkable journey together for more than 52 years. That this passage has come to an unexpected end, professionally, not personally, is a matter of much sadness to me.” Hinton was parachuted into New York in 2007 after Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal and tasked with transforming the paper into the ‘Financial Times of America’. A trust and discreet lieutenant of Murdoch’s, he said in a statement, that he had “watched with sorrow from New York as the News of the World story unfolded”. “The pain caused to innocent people is unimaginable. That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant and in the circumstances I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp and apologise to those hurt by the actions of News of the World.” He added that “his testimonies” before the “culture, media and sport select committee were given honestly”. At the heart of the scandal were News International’s claims that the phone-tapping was the work of a “rogue reporter” – royal reporter Clive Goodman. In his statement, Hinton says at the time he believed that to be the case. “When I appeared before the committee in March 2007, I expressed the belief that Clive Goodman had acted alone, but made clear our investigation was continuing. In September 2009, I told the committee there had never been any evidence delivered to me that suggested the conduct had spread beyond one journalist. If others had evidence that wrongdoing went further, I was not told about it.” Les Hinton Rupert Murdoch News of the World Phone hacking News International News Corporation United States Wall Street Journal Lisa O’Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Elizabeth Warren: Government Hasn’t Sufficiently Probed Foreclosure Abuses (VIDEO)
July 15, 2011 No Comment
WASHINGTON — A top Obama administration official on Thursday questioned the scope of the state and federal investigations into alleged mortgage abuses and “illegal” foreclosures perpetrated by the nation’s largest mortgage companies, marking the first time a senior White House official publicly broke ranks with the administration over the issue and raising fresh questions about the wisdom of the government’s rush to settle with the firms. Elizabeth Warren, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, told a congressional panel that government agencies may not have sufficiently investigated claims that borrowers’ homes were illegally seized by banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial. “I think there’s a real question about whether there’s been adequate investigation,” said Warren, the temporary custodian of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a new federal agency charged with protecting borrowers from abusive lenders. Her statement came in response to questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor who asked Warren why her agency needed to oversee such abuses when the U.S. Department of Justice is already probing such matters. Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, has long questioned whether the state and federal probes have been comprehensive, according to people familiar with her views. The investigations were launched last year amid news reports that the lenders were at times improperly repossessing borrowers’ homes and breaking state laws and federal rules in the process. But she had not publicly shared that view, which is widelyspread among individuals with direct knowledge of the probes, until the Thursday appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. She’s the first senior administration official to publicly question the thoroughness of the investigations led by the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, Federal Trade Commission, all 50 state attorneys general and more than 30 state bank regulators. The nation’s five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007 by taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by Warren’s agency. That estimate suggests large banks have reaped tremendous benefits from under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint frequent enough among borrowers that federal regulators have acknowledged the industry has fundamental shortcomings, including a penchant to abuse borrowers, and is in need of reform. Warren’s claim lends further credence to the view that the various government agencies are being reckless by negotiating an agreement with the five banks — the largest mortgage servicers in the country — that would settle accusations they abused homeowners and broke various laws in exchange for penalties and mortgage relief for struggling borrowers that could reach up to $30 billion. State and federal prosecutors are pressing to complete a proposed settlement with the five companies even though they’ve only initiated a limited investigation that hasn’t examined the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing, The Huffington Post reported Monday, citing interviews with more than two dozen officials and others familiar with the state and federal probes. Representatives of Justice, HUD and Treasury all declined to comment. Some officials, as well as others with experience sitting across the negotiating table with major banks, say the government is making a critical mistake that jeopardizes the public interest by seeking a deal before amassing a credible threat of successful prosecution by way of a comprehensive probe: In essence, they say, the government would give servicers a blanket pass for widespread alleged acts of fraud and extract too little in return, all while operating from a relative position of weakness. Though those working towards a quick settlement say the eventual agreement with the banks will only cover mortgage servicing deficiencies that harmed borrowers and foreclosure abuses like so-called “robo-signing,” many fear that the fines will be extracted in return for a broad release from mortgage-related liability. The banks are willing to pay higher fines in return for a comprehensive release from such claims, people involved in the talks said. “It’s got to be done right. We’re not going to do it and be subject to double and triple jeopardy,” said Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, about a proposed settlement agreement with state attorneys general during a conference call Thursday with analysts. “We’d rather litigate it.” Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, is probing whether mortgages bundled into securities were done in accordance with state laws, people familiar with the probe said. He’s also pursuing a variety of investigations to determine whether Wall Street firms cheated investors when selling them these securities, sources said. Schneiderman doesn’t want a proposed settlement agreement to interfere with his ongoing investigations, people familiar with his views said. People involved in the talks said they’re aware of his probes and would not construct a settlement agreement that would constrain his investigations. The government’s desire to settle rather than conduct comprehensive probes is due to a variety of factors, people with direct knowledge of the ongoing talks said. For one, the state legal officers are hindered by federal laws that restrict their ability to investigate national banks. Of the five companies being targeted, all but Ally are national banks. These institutions are overseen by federal bank regulators, particularly the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The two bank watchdogs issued their own reports earlier this year, castigating the companies’ faulty mortgage practices, but have said they can’t share specifics for individual firms, supervisory reports or any underlying documentation that formed the basis of their findings, citing federal rules prohibiting their disclosure. The federal bank regulators’ review examined just 2,800 loan files, or 0.1 percent of the nearly 2.9 million homes that received a foreclosure filing last year, according to calculations made using data from the OCC and RealtyTrac, a data provider. Only about 200 loans each were examined at banking behemoths JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi and Wells, Julie L. Williams, the No. 2 official at the OCC and the agency’s chief counsel, told a House panel last week. Those four firms collectively service $5.7 trillion in home loans, or more than half of all outstanding residential mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Some regulators have criticized their review. With near-exclusive oversight authority, the Fed and OCC have access to the most sensitive bank documents, but they said they were prevented from sharing them. Meanwhile, the state officials, who are charged with protecting their constituents, could push for expanded investigative powers, but they would likely face a hard slog in court. A 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case, Cuomo v. Clearing House, restricts state attorneys general from subpoenaing documents from national banks until they’ve filed lawsuits. The process of requesting documents prior to such action, known as pre-trial discovery, typically yields valuable information that can strengthen a prosecutor’s case. But thanks to that Supreme Court’s decision and another from 2007 — Watters v. Wachovia, which determined that state officials lack the authority to regulate subsidiaries of national banks, based on a policy known as preemption — the state prosecutors as a group are reluctant to pick a fight in court with the banks. It’s unclear whether they’d succeed. Also, their request for documentation would probably draw opposition from the OCC, people involved in the talks said. The OCC has intervened in several lawsuits launched by state officials in recent years on behalf of the banks it oversees. Other factors include the state of the housing market and the states’ financial resources. A thorough probe would likely take more than a year. Meanwhile, the housing market remains depressed as foreclosures continue to pile up, borrowers are falling behind at elevated rates and the so-called “shadow inventory” of distressed homes being kept off the market grows. If the state and federal officials wish to use the settlement talks as a vehicle to prevent foreclosures by using levies on banks to reduce monthly mortgage payments for troubled borrowers, time is slipping, people familiar with the matter said. Home prices are sliding and won’t begin to improve until next year, forecasts show. In addition, state officials are hobbled by their budgets. States had a cumulative budget deficit of nearly $84 billion in the 2011 fiscal year, according to an April report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. That gap is expected to swell to $86 billion for the 2012 fiscal year. Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general, recently announced that her office would be forced to curtail its housing-related probes due to budget cutbacks. Despite those headwinds, government officials are poised to extract as much as $30 billion from the five mortgage companies for their alleged abuses. Warren’s admission, which came in response to questions asking why her agency initially advised state and federal officials on mortgage issues, was overshadowed by an otherwise partisan and combative congressional hearing during which Republicans attacked the consumer advocate and longtime Harvard Law professor for trying to protect consumers from unscrupulous lenders. Separately, Democrats and Republicans on the committee agreed to request documents from major mortgage firms regarding improper foreclosures of borrowers in the military. The requests weren’t subpoenas, though. WATCH: * * * * * Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 1-917-267-2335.
Continue reading …
enlarge Alan Caruba is featured all the time on Tea Party Nation. What distinguishes Caruba’s screeds from others are two characteristics: They are always mean-spirited with racist overtones and they are always hysterical. Today’s little rant (again, no link because they’re behind a registration wall, but it is a direct copy/paste) has a very, very interesting declaration: How did the United States of America go from Thomas Jefferson, the brilliant author of the Declaration of Independence to Timothy Geithner, a very upwardly mobile student of government and monetary affairs? Suffice to say, as a public servant, he has served to the satisfaction of his mentors in numerous positions and also in liberal enclaves such as the Council on Foreign Affairs and a three-year stint at Kissinger Associates, learning from one of the most Machiavellian characters of the modern era. At the tender age of 42, he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The liberal elite take care of its own. Geithner is the ying to Obama’s yang. They are perfectly suited to each other because both get their jollies playing the great game of state, although it should be said that Geithner is far better prepared for that role having studied abroad, including two years, 1981-2 studying Mandarin at Peking University and Beijing Normal University. His M.A. is in international economics and Asian studies from John Hopkins University School of advanced International Studies. Obama’s education ended with a law degree from Harvard. Nobody knows what grades he made at Occidental, Columbia University or Harvard. He is often mistakenly referred to as a former professor of constitutional law at Chicago University, but in fact he was akin to a teaching assistant or adjunct, the lowest end of the academic ladder. Obama’s mentors included a known member of the Communist Party when he was growing up in Hawaii, various “Marxist professors” at Occidental and Columbia University, and Bill Ayers who gained fame as a domestic terrorist, a member of the Weather Underground who describes himself as a “Communist with a small c.” To bring matters full circle, Ayers is a retired University of Chicago professor. All this is by way of background to suggest that the debt ceiling will be increased because there is no alternative. And having surrendered, he spent the rest of the post smacking around Democrats, but it was halfhearted at best. I call that *winning*. Unfortunately, Charles Krauthammer is a little bit aggravated, but even he concedes they’ve lost the battle and the war. The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It’s time to act. Time to call Obama’s bluff. A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger. Aw, Charles. What part of President Obama’s “I-have-reached-my-limit” statement did you miss yesterday? Possibly, it was the part where he said he would not sign anything short-term. Because, as Lawrence O’Donnell explained on The Last Word last night, the President can veto that short-term thing at midnight on August 2nd and Congress will still have time to give him the one line increase resolution with the right numbers filled in. He is, however, right about the Republicans being outmaneuvered. They have been.
Continue reading …
Pegah Ahangarani, a supporter of the country’s opposition, was due to go to Germany to participate in TV coverage A popular Iranian actor and outspoken supporter of the country’s opposition movement has been arrested in Tehran after attempting to travel to Germany to take part in coverage of the women’s World Cup. Pegah Ahangarani, 27, was scheduled to go to Germany to participate in TV programmes about the Fifa tournament, but was picked up from her home in the capital by security officials on Sunday. Ahangarani fell foul of the Islamic regime when she publicly campaigned for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran’s 2009 presidential elections, but escaped arrest until recently because of her widespread popularity. She is the second woman to have been arrested in recent weeks in connection with the women’s World Cup in Germany. Maryam Majd , a prominent Iranian photographer and activist who had campaigned for women to be allowed to enter stadiums to watch football matches in Iran, was arrested in late June before going to Germany, where she wanted to work on a book about women and sport. Within days of Ahangarani going missing, Deutsche Welle – Germany’s international broadcasting service, which had invited her to Berlin – confirmed she had been arrested. “The Farsi-language service of Deutsche Welle, Germany’s international broadcasting service, has learned from people close to the actress that Ahangarani has been arrested,” the German news organisation said. “Deutsche Welle had set up a blog for Ahangarani, who enjoys broad popularity in Iran, to report on the women’s World Cup soccer championships currently being held in Germany.” At least four other women rights activists have been arrested in recent weeks, including Mahnaz Mohammadi , an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, Zahra Yazdani, a journalist, and campaigners Maryam Bahrman and Mansoureh Behkish. Ahangarani, the daughter of acclaimed Iranian filmmakers Jamshid Ahangarani and Manijeh Hekmat, has repeatedly pushed boundaries in her career as a young actor playing roles in a country where women are obliged to cover themselves from head to toe. At 15, Ahangarani featured in a controversial film, The Girl in the Sneakers, which touched the then taboo issue of a rebellious girl who wanted to have a boyfriend in an Islamic society. Girls in Iran are not allowed to have boyfriends, although the majority of young people rebel against it in today’s Iran. According to Deutsche Welle, officials in Tehran have confirmed that Ahangarani is currently being held by the security agents of the Revolutionary Guards. Ahangarani has contacted her family once since her arrest, when she told them she was unaware of her whereabouts or the charges against her. No information was available on where she was being held or whether she had access to legal representation. The London-based human rights organisation ARTICLE 19 has called on Iran to release Ahangarani and Mohammadi. “ARTICLE 19 calls on the Iranian government to immediately release Mohammadi and Ahangarani, and other artists and activists unjustly detained,” Agnes Callamard, the executive director, said. “The authorities must clarify the reasons for their arrests and ensure that the women have access to legal representation.” In recent years, several filmmakers and actors have been arrested or sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Director Jafar Panahi received a six-year prison term and 20-year ban on filmmaking last year, along with Mohammad Rasoulof, who was also sentenced to six years in jail. Ramin Parchami, a prominent actor, remains in custody after he was arrested in protests staged in February in solidarity with the uprisings in the Arab world. Iran Middle East Women’s World Cup 2011 Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
President says failure to increase borrowing would put up interest rates, in effect raising everyone’s taxes Barack Obama has warned that the US is “running out of time” to raise the limit on US government borrowing and that failure to do so will lead in effect to a tax increase for all Americans, because a downgrade of the country’s credit rating would cause an interest rate rise. The president’s warning was reinforced by a threat from the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s to strip the US of its AAA standing if no long-term political deal is reached to tackle government spending and debt. As Obama and Republican leaders in Congress continued to wrangle over the terms for approving an increase in the US’s $14.3 trillion (£8.9tn) debt ceiling by the 2 August deadline – with Republicans rejecting Obama’s demand that tax increases for the wealthy accompany sharp budget cuts – the president warned ordinary Americans of the seriousness of the situation. “This is not some abstract issue. These are obligations that the United States has taken on in the past. The Congress has run up the credit card and we now have an obligation to pay our bills. If we do not it could have a whole set of adverse consequences. We could end up with a situation, for example, where interest rates rise for everybody all throughout the country, effectively a tax increase on everybody,” he said. But Obama also told a White House press conference that while the situation was serious, it could be resolved. “We don’t have to do anything radical to solve this problem. Contrary to what some folks say, we’re not Greece, we’re not Portugal. “It turns out that our problem is we cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade … We fought two wars. We didn’t pay for them. We had a bad recession that required a recovery act and stimulus spending.” S&P, which follows Moody’s in warning of a possible downgrading of the US’s top credit rating, put America on negative watch on Thursday and said there was “at least a one-in-two likelihood” that it could downgrade its debt “by one or more notches … if we conclude that Congress and the administration have not achieved a credible solution to the rising US government debt burden and are not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future”. Obama said that political leaders “should not even be this close to a deadline on this issue”, but he stood firm in his opposition to Republican plans for $2.4tn in immediate spending cuts. The president said to achieve that level of savings without added tax revenues would require the “gutting” of social programmes that he could not support. He said that when ordinary Americans are asked to contribute more to retirement and healthcare programmes, then “millionaires and billionaires can afford to do a bit more”. Republican leaders in the US Senate appeared to be edging closer to an emergency deal with Democrats that would permit the president to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, but there was continued opposition from fiscal conservatives in the House of Representatives who view such an arrangement as a victory for the White House. Obama said that the Republicans had “boxed themselves in” with election commitments. The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives said it won control of the lower house of Congress in last November’s election with a mandate to sharply cut government spending without any increase in taxes. The Tea Party movement and fiscal conservatives intend to hold newly elected House members to that commitment, and warn that any deal with the president that does not include deep cuts or permits tax increases will be viewed as a betrayal. Obama described any temporary solution that did not tackle long-term spending problems as the least attractive option. “We have a unique opportunity to do something big. We have a chance to stabilise America’s finances for a decade, for 15 years or 20 years, if we’re willing to seize the moment,” he said. John Chambers, chairman of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee, also warned that an interim solution of the kind under discussion in the Senate would not be good enough and that Washington must tackle the long-term debt issue. “If you get a small agreement, that will lead to a downgrade,” he told Reuters. US economy Economics Financial crisis Banking US domestic policy United States Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …FBI’s inquiry over Rupertgate’s alleged hack attacks of 9/11 victims is timely, necessary, and important
July 15, 2011 No Comment(Here’s FOX News finally covering Rupertgate) I’ve been calling for News Corp. to be investigated in America and so have many other bloggers and that seems to taking hold across the political landscape. Finally, it’s happening, thanks to Rupertgate. Not that I trust Rep. Peter King, but I’ll take his words at face value: New York Rep. Peter King (R) has called on the FBI to investigate allegations that journalists working for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. hacked into the phones of victims of the September 11th attacks. “It is revolting to imagine that members of the media would seek to compromise the integrity of a public official for financial gain in the pursuit of yellow journalism,” King said in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller. “The 9/11 families have suffered egregiously, but unfortunately they remain vulnerable against such unjustifiable parasitic strains.” According to the U.K.’s Daily Mirror , a former New York City police officer who now works as a private investigator claims that News Of The World reporters asked him to get the phone records of dead victims of 9/11, from the days leading up to the attacks. “[The investigator's] presumption was that they wanted the information so they could hack into the relevant voicemails, just like it has been shown they have done in the U.K.,” a Mirror source said. Washington Post: The FBI has opened a preliminary inquiry into allegations that News Corp. employees sought to hack into the phones of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and tried to bribe law enforcement officers for information, U.S. officials said Thursday. FBI agents are reviewing information on the phone-hacking scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch’s British media operations and trying to determine if U.S. laws were broken, the officials said. Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News Corp., which is based in New York and has extensive U.S. operations. While it is unclear if the review will expand into a full investigation, the FBI’s involvement heightens the scrutiny faced by the media giant, which is under intense fire in Britain over allegations that its journalists hacked into the phones of thousands of people. The FBI probe also raises the politically delicate possibility that the Obama administration— which has questioned the objectivity of News Corp.’s Fox News — could bring criminal charges against employees of the network’s parent company. Murdoch is a political conservative, and last year he directed a $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association on behalf of News Corp. Murdoch’s UK rags have had a disastrous effect on England’s political landscape as they’ve boasted that they won many an election for their favorites. The scandal that has collapsed the British tabloid News of the World and rocked the News Corp. empire, brings into question the pervasive influence of Rupert Murdoch’s media holdings on British media and politics. The past five prime ministers have courted Murdoch assiduously in gaining and holding onto office — none more so than Labour’s Tony Blair. In plotting his path to 10 Downing St. in the mid-1990s, Blair once flew to an island off the coast of Murdoch’s native Australia to address an annual meeting of News Corp. That impressed Murdoch, who threw his support behind Blair’s New Labour movement. I think they should have been investigated when Roger Ailes unleashed the NY Post’s Page Six tabloid trash to attack Keith Olbermann when he was feuding with Bill O’Reilly: Rupert Murdoch’s handmaidens over at the New York Post this morning jumped into a feud between their Fox News shouting head Bill O’Reilly and MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann. The tabloid’s gossip page ran an item dredging up various minor controversies involving Olbermann dating back to his ESPN days, up through an alleged spat between Olbermann and fellow MSNBC personality David Gregory last Tuesday over camera time. They did the same thing to Andrea Mackris when she sued Bill O’Reilly too . Mackris has also drawn her share of negative coverage. The New York Post, which is owned by the same parent company as Fox, ran the headline ” ‘Lunatic’ O’Reilly Gal Went Nuts in Bar.” But she kept up the public pressure, telling the New York Daily News that her father wanted to challenge O’Reilly to a duel. Howard Kurtz has more on the Ailes threats to Jeff Zucker: Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News star, is mounting an extraordinary televised assault on the chief executive of General Electric, calling him a “pinhead” and a “despicable human being” who bears responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. On the surface, O’Reilly’s charges revolve around GE’s history of doing business with Iran. But the attacks grow out of an increasingly bitter feud between O’Reilly and the company’s high-profile subsidiary, NBC, one that has triggered back-channel discussions involving News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, NBC chief executive Jeff Zucker and General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt. Ailes called Zucker on his cellphone last summer, clearly agitated over a slam against him by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well. Both Fox and the Post are owned by Murdoch, who complained about Olbermann’s conduct in separate calls to Zucker and Immelt. The high-level appeals failed, and O’Reilly has escalated his criticism of GE in recent weeks, declaring, “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt.” How many other times did News Corp unleash the dogs or threaten to against their rivals that we don’t know about? That is: How many times did the threats succeed? A lot, I’ll bet.
Continue reading …