“Why can you not get this deal?” That was the attitude of CNN's Candy Crowley on yesterday's State of the Union. She acted like if only the Republicans were “reasonable” and accepted some “revenue” enhancements, then a deficit deal could be cut. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy set her straight on why the deal as presented was unacceptable. Oh, Candy tried and tried to make a deficit deal agreement seem reasonable but McCarthy kept knocking her assertions out of the ball park as you can see in the interview video below the fold. Candy led off by accusing House Speaker John Boehner of engaging in a “bargaining ploy” instead of serious negotiation. McCarthy hit that accusation out of the ballpark while simultaneously stressing the sad state of the current unemployment situation in this country: CANDY CROWLEY: Joining me now to try to make sense of where things stand, House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. I just feel like we are — if I am out there listening to this, I want to strangle all of you. Why can you not get this deal? This looks to me like a strategic bargaining ploy rather than where we're actually going to end up, from Speaker Boehner. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Oh, I don't see that at all. Boehner has been very clear that there is no votes for a tax increase. And you look at the jobs data, it was only 18,000 jobs, Canada has fewer people than live in California, created more jobs than America. Crowley later thought she caught McCarthy in an error about the size of the Obama stimulus. MCCARTHY: Job growth in America today, start-ups is lower than it has been in 17 years from the policies of this president and this administration. He created a stimulus plan that created more than a — spent more than a trillion dollars, it cost $278,000 for every single job. I think we have to do a new direction. CROWLEY: OK. Just the stimulus plan was about $800 billion… MCCARTHY: No, with interest, 1.1. Oops! In the reasonable vs unreasonable vein Crowley then asked what the Republicans would “give up” since it appeared that Obama was willing to compromise: CROWLEY: So what would you give up? Let's put it that way. It looks as though — I mean, I think when you're looking at this, it looks as though — at least we are led to believe, the president has said, fine, I will put in entitlements, Medicare, Social Security on the table, and you all have said no to anything on the revenue side, sort of consistently. So what are you willing to do that will get these things back on track? MCCARTHY: Well, you want to know what we're willing to do? We're willing to set out a framework that puts America back on a real track, where it has tax reform, where it reforms the process. Then you close the loopholes. And then a painful reminder that the “reasonable” Democrats haven't even produced a budget since 2009: CROWLEY: … taxes between now and the 2nd of August when this debt ceiling thing blows up MCCARTHY: Well, you know what, we produced a budget in four months. You know this Democrat-controlled Senate, it has been more than 100 days. You go back to 2009. They never produced a budget. We laid out a reform to Social Security and Medicare to save them. The president has not. Then Crowley brought up “Bush tax hikes for the wealthy” although in her confusion by this time, she probably meant “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.” CROWLEY: So the speaker has — the speaker could not — even if he wanted to and we're led to believe he was willing, the speaker cannot let go of, for instance, the Bush tax hikes for the wealthy because you don't have the votes for it to back that up, is that correct? MCCARTHY: Speaker Pelosi did not have the votes for it when they were in the majority. CROWLEY: So you don't have the votes for it, either. MCCARTHY: Speaker Pelosi did not have the votes when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Why didn't they raise them then? Because they know it is bad policy, especially in a down economy. Crowley takes one last stab at the need for Republicans to “give” in the deficit negotiations: CROWLEY: …But the thing is, there just seems to me that there has to be some willingness to give , and I have not heard anything from you about, yes, you know what, I would go — if we could get a deal that would cut 2.5 trillion in savings, I would agree to this on the revenue side. There's nothing on the revenue side you will agree to? MCCARTHY: Well, you know, Candy, I've never found one tax increase that created a job. I have watched our economy sputter downward. I've been out across the American public, they want to go back to work. And I know those policies will fail. So in principle, no, we're not going to go there. But I also do know that government has spent too much. They have increased spending 73 percent in discretionary in the last three years. I don't know any American household that has done that. So, you know what, this government needs to live like those American households. I'm tired of the gimmicks, I'm tired of the budget tricks and the accounting tricks that goes forward. This has to be an honest approach. We are at a threshold that we need to change. We are not losing jobs because our credit card didn't have a higher limit. We are losing our jobs because we are spending too much. It's not that difficult to do. We have sat in the room honestly with the Democrats, we have moved forward with them all the way. But they keep saying one thing, they want to raise more taxes. Annnnd….out of the ballpark it goes. This interview has to stand as a classic in how to respond when a member of the media accuses Republicans of not being “reasonable” by accepting phony deals offered to them by Democrats.
Continue reading …Serving in the latest round of wars in America has not helped our returning troops when it comes to keeping their own homes . And now the news on the job front makes their lives even harder than before: Unemployment among recently returned veterans, already in double digits, is poised to get worse as more soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan . T he jobless rate for veterans who served at any time since September 2001 — called Gulf War-era II veterans — was 13.3% in June, up from 12.1% the month before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June 2010 it was 11.5% . — “It just so happens that there are a lot of people out there and there aren’t enough jobs,” said Pavel Ksendz, a 25-year-old Culver City resident who joined the Army in 2003, right after graduating from high school. After serving for four years, including 14 months in Iraq, Ksendz recently applied for a job as a janitor in Santa Monica, only to be told there were 59 other applicants. Veterans face a unique set of obstacles when they start to look for work, said Lance Holbrook, a veterans representative at the One-Stop Career Center in Lancaster. Many went into service straight out of high school, and although they may have experience fixing airplanes or leading people, they don’t have the college degrees that employers are seeking, Holbrook said. “Most employers won’t even consider them without a degree,” said Holbrook, who said he’s seen a surge in newly returned veterans looking for jobs in the last two months. Unemployment among veterans could rise even more in upcoming months as more troops return from overseas. President Obama announced plans last month to pull 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by year’s end and a total of 33,000 by September 2012. And the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is about 46,000 now, down from the peak of 166,000 in 2007. Most of the remaining troops will leave Iraq by year’s end. The GOP has disappeared when it comes to creating jobs for all Americans since they took back the House, so I wonder how our veterans feel about the party that says they are pro-military? JP Morgan Chase Supports The Troops By Overcharging Them On Mortgages, And By Foreclosure Fraud Do troops without jobs believe reducing the debt is the most important thing in America? Or is having a job?
Continue reading …Click here to view this media I don’t know how many of you have been watching the Murdoch phone-hacking scandal as it grows and digging up the tidbits, but if you have, you already know that the only place not to bother looking is at any of the Murdoch-owned properties in the USA, including the Wall Street Journal and even more particularly Fox News. This reached hilarious depths this weekend when Fox’s own media-analysis show, wherein they discussed everything even vaguely media-related EXCEPT the Murdoch scandal. The big focus was on the Casey Anthony trial and the coverage around it — and even on that, the discussion was disingenuous and dishonest. Media Matters has more : This weekend, Fox News Watch, Fox News Channel’s media criticism show, covered the following issues: The media’s coverage of the Casey Anthony trial verdict; MSNBC’s suspension of Mark Halperin for making vulgar comments about the president; the media’s role in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case; the cancellation of In the Arena, Eliot Spitzer’s CNN television show; and Vice President Joe Biden’s new Twitter account. The glaring omission from this list is any mention of the shuttering of the Rupert Murdoch-owned News of the World, billed as the largest English-language newspaper in the world, which published its last edition today. The paper is folding following allegations that it hacked the voicemails of a slain teen girl in the United Kingdom, an action which potentially impeded the police investigation and gave the girl’s family false hope that she was still alive. There are also allegations that family members of soldiers who died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and families of victims of the 2005 subway bombings have been phone hacked. Apparently, there were some brief allusions to it onstage during the commercial breaks : CAL THOMAS: Anybody want to bring up the subject we’re not talking about today for the — for the [online] streamers? JAMES PINKERTON: Sure. Go ahead, Cal! THOMAS: No, go ahead, Jim. [LAUGHTER] THOMAS: I’m not going to touch it. JUDY MILLER (FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR): With a ten foot [inaudible]. And the scandal news got even bigger today, with the possibility of prosecution for News Corp officials in the United States looming as well: But Murdoch may soon have bigger problems on his hands. Legal experts told the AP today that his company could face criminal prosecution in the U.S. for his U.K. papers’ alleged bribery of British police officers, which would be a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). According to the the Department of Justice, “The FCPA prohibits payments made in order to assist the firm in obtaining or retaining business.” Thus the papers’ use of bribery to obtain information which helped sell newspapers could fall under the act’s purview. And even though the bribery occurred entirely in Britian, NewsCorp is an American company, incorporated in Delaware, and held accountable for its foreign subsidiary’s actions. Even if the corporation wasn’t directly involved in bribery, it could be found in violation of the law for turning a “blind eye.” The legal experts told the AP they would be surprised if the Securities and Exchange Commission and the DoJ have not already opened investigations into the matter and said the decision to shutter News of the World was potentially an attempt to limit Murdoch and NewsCorp’s legal exposure. As Will Bunch explains , Murdoch’s depredations in the USA have actually been more serious and damaging than what’s been uncovered by the scandal. Ellen at Newshounds has six good reasons to demand an investigation into the company’s activities here. And you can go to Media Matters for a petition demanding such action. Meanwhile, as something of an absurd endnote, did anyone notice that the Fox News crew tut-tutted those generic “media” figures who decided ahead of time that Casey Anthony was guilty and had convicted her in the media, most notably Nancy Grace. But the same was true — in spades — at Fox News, where the running assumption all along was that Anthony would be convicted, deservedly so. Indeed, check out the fifteen minutes of coverage on Fox just prior to the announcement of the verdict on Monday. Click here to view this media Funny that the Fox media-analysis crew didn’t bother to mention that these people were wrong, wrong, wrong. Because at Fox, being wrong isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media From C-SPAN’s Newsmakers, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) thinks it would be perfectly acceptable to go past the hard deadline Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner gave the Congress for the absolute last date that the debt ceiling can be raised and if that means that we don’t pay part of our obligations, oh well, so be it. Grandma and grandpa have their Social Security checks stopped, that would be too bad, but it’s more important that we gut the government and take care of this manufactured crisis that we never worried about before a Democrat got elected president. This is unbelievably irresponsible and dangerous talk coming from yet another member of our United States Congress. Apparently we’ve got House members contemplating just how long they can drag this thing out since he admits that they were looking at what the date would be that Social Security checks don’t go out any more. After being reminded that even John Boehner “thought it could have disastrous economic consequences if this went past August 2nd”, Jordan shrugs it off and pretends that not getting the deficit reductions they’re demanding would somehow be worse than running either into or past the hard deadline Geithner gave for default. He also dismisses like a lot of them have whether August 2nd is the drop dead date or not, but admits that it would be some time in August even if it’s not exactly the 2nd. I’ll honestly be surprised if we don’t start seeing the bond markets reacting if they don’t get an agreement made within the next day or two and this clown thinks we could keep this game of chicken going for another few weeks. LERER: Do you think the country would default, that we would go into default if we pass this August 2nd? JORDAN: Remember, there’s a difference between default and not having enough money to meet all obligations that we’ve appropriated for, or passed in law to spend dollars on. On August 2nd there’s still going to be revenue coming into the Treasury. So, you know, would it possibly require Tim Geithner to make decisions about who gets paid first? Yeah. And, you know, I’d like to think the administration would say, well, obviously a default means you don’t pay the bond holders, so you’ve got to pay the bond holders first. And the bond holders are, I assume all of you have some kind of 401K invested in… all Americans have some kind of investment. LERER: And the Chinese… JORDAN: A host of folks own bonds. BRAWNER: So they would get paid first? JORDAN: Local governments have all kinds of, you know, municipal governments, county governments have all kinds, so meet bond obligations first, then you start going down, Social Security, our troops and you start making sure they get paid first, but, at some point, it may mean, folks who work in the federal government here in Washington, bureaucrats in Washington who work here, government employees, may have to wait a while to get paid. BRAWNER: Congressman, as you probably know, Social Security payments are made on the third of every month. JORDAN: Umm hmm. BRAWNER: The bipartisan policy center did an analysis of August 3rd, what happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. We have an income of $12 billion revenue coming in. We have $32 billion in committed spending on August 3rd. $23 billion of that is Social Security payments. JORDAN: Right. BRAWNER: And that assumes you pay, as you said, the bond holders first. How are you going to explain to a constituent that a bond holder got paid first, but they didn’t get their Social Security payment? JORDAN: Look, there’s… I understand we’ve got Social Security payments, and there’s another date, some of this played out I think on the fifteenth of the month, I forget what day it is exactly, where there’s another big obligation and the day they actually roll over the bonds and sell them each month. And I maybe have the wrong date. We have to see exactly when that is, but remember revenue is coming in. Decisions have to be made. And also, never forget the big problem. The big problem is the $14 trillion debt and the crisis that’s coming. So would that be tough? Sure. But I would rather have that difficult situation in there vs. the really big problem, which everybody knows is coming. So we have to try to get the plan in place that’s going to fix it long term. And again I keep coming back to it, but it’s, we think our plan, cut cap and balance is going to be the right approach STANTON: Do you think your leadership has the will to sort of face down that sort of a reality? JORDAN: I think it’s that important to the country and I do. I really do. Remember this too. While I understand August 2nd and what happens with Social Security payments remember Tim, remember the history here. Tim Geithner originally told us, he sent a letter to Congress back in I think January saying, of we’ve got to have this done by the first quarter. Then he said, no, we’ve got to have it done by May 16th. And now he’s saying August 2nd. So you’ve got to keep it in context too, of what the Treasury has told us for the last year. Now they’re saying, oh August 2nd is the hard date. There is obviously a hard date out there, but there is some flexibility in how this can work. And the idea that we’re going to default, is not an accurate use of the word. Um, there are more obligations than we’re going to have revenue for at some point in August eventually. LERER: Speaker Boehner on Friday said that he thought it could have disastrous economic consequences if this went past August 2nd. If he wrong too? JORDAN: Look, I said earlier, the ideal situation is to avoid any concerns in early or late August and avoid the big problems coming. But the big problem that’s coming is the most important. And that’s what the American people understand. So, um, we want to try to avoid both. And the way to do that is to put in place a plan that’s going to address both situations. Something… if we can get a good plan before August 2nd, I’m all for that. But if we have to past it to get the kind of plan that fixes the big problem, that’s what we need to do.
Continue reading …Doubts over Federation Fund emerge as event focuses more on publicity than charity It was a starry event that lured some of the biggest names in Hollywood along with a sprinkling of the Muscovite elite. There was Woody Allen, playing with his jazz band after a performance by Andrea Bocelli. There were Francis Ford Coppola and Jeremy Irons, Orlando Bloom and Steven Seagal, Sophia Loren and Dionne Warwick, all gathered in the leafy heights of southern Moscow for a charity gala like no other: this charity does not dispense its largesse. The Federation Fund, which has presented itself as a children’s charity since forming late last year, has rapidly turned into one of the most controversial operations in a country known for opaque projects. This weekend, after weeks of billboard advertising splashed across the capital, it laid on a lavish two-day show in aid of … Well, it was not entirely clear what the event was in aid of. The charity says it is no longer about raising funds, but raising awareness. Some of the guests said they had been paid to attend. Doubts about the Federation Fund surfaced soon after an inaugural concert in St Petersburg this year shot it to prominence, thanks largely to Vladimir Putin’s notorious version of Blueberry Hill, which became an internet hit. Three months after that show, the mother of a sick child wrote an open letter to the president, Dmitry Medvedev, complaining that hospitals promised donations had received nothing. The fund moved quickly to donate medical equipment to several hospitals, and then denied any wrongdoing, saying it had been set up to generate publicity, not cash. Most of the stars at the weekend event had heard nothing of the questions about the event and at least one, Kevin Costner, came back for a repeat performance after appearing at the first in December. The actor Chris Noth, best known for playing Mr Big in Sex and the City, admitted he was being paid to attend the event. “Yeah, they pay you a fee, a nominal fee,” Noth told the Guardian. The founder of the charity, Vladimir Kiselyov, a Soviet-era rock star, said he paid for the event out of his own pocket, while receiving ad space and the concert site free of charge. His idea, he said, was to put donors directly in touch with recipients of their generosity, obviating the need for fundraising. But that did not explain the purpose behind the weekend event, which was not without an awkward moment or two. Co-host Yelena Sever, a relative unknown recently put forward as the fund’s “patroness”, awkwardly introduced Bocelli to two blind Russian girls who performed at the event, which the fund presented as a means of raising “awareness” of children with cancer and sight problems. “Nice to see you,” she told the girls, unfortunately, before corralling a confused Bocelli into giving them a white teddy bear. At least two men whose faces adorned the billboards around Moscow – Dustin Hoffman and Larry King – dropped out after queries about their participation from the Russian media. Anna Zaitseva, a local agent with Platinum Rye Entertainment, said both men had fallen ill. The Russian government’s blessing came in the form of the culture minister, Alexander Avdeyev, who took to the stage to praise the fund for bringing attention to the country’s sick children. Russian riot and traffic police provided security. By the intermission, questions had begun to spread among the celebrity guests. When asked why he thought he had been invited, Irons said: “It’s a concert raising the profile of the foundation to provide equipment to paediatric hospitals,” before quickly adding, “Is that accurate?” By Monday morning, the fund found itself at the centre of more controversy. The parents of Dasha Zvonareva, a young girl who died of cancer in March, accused the fund of using her image without permission. “What we saw was a huge blow to us,” they told Kommersant online, saying their daughter’s image was used in a promotional video aired at the concert on Saturday. “We want to know why Dasha’s photo is in the video. Where could they have taken it? How dare they take it, who allowed it?” Russia Europe Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Not that you need confirmation of the Republicans’ bad faith in the current ‘negotiation’ or anything, but Kevin McCarthy’s disingenuous performance on State of the Union with Candy Crowley yesterday puts it all into perspective. I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get people to shake their collective fists at Republicans, but at some point we need to start flooding them with protest letters over their conduct. Here are McCarthy’s big lies, told in the span of about 10 minutes. Big Lie #1: House Republicans have passed 9 bills that would create 500,000 jobs Please, don’t spit coffee on your monitor/phone/ipad/device at that claim. I’m not sure what bills Republicans have passed that don’t kill jobs, but here’s what the man said: So from the premise that where Republicans have been in the short time they have been in the majority, we’ve laid out a framework to put us on a new path. Energy policy reform, where we spend the money and create jobs here. We’ve passed nine bills that would create more than half a million jobs that have been lingering in the Senate. So I don’t think the premise of where we have been has always been out in front. There are not enough — there are no votes on the Republican side. But even when the Democrats… I went looking for the bills and I found this little bit of propaganda put out by John Boehner’s office. Here are some of the bills they claim are stalled: HR 1229, 1230 and 1231, overriding the President’s moratorium on offshore drilling and expanding the scope and area allowed for offshore exploration. As part of those bills, offshore drilling would be expanded off the coast of Virginia, Florida and California. But of course, domestic oil production isn’t really a job creator. In fact, our domestic oil production is higher than it’s ever been. It is, however, a Koch Industries priority profit item. Paul Ryan’s budget plan For debunkery on this one, let’s turn to John McCain’s economic adviser, Mark Zandi, via our own Jon Perr : For his part, Moody’s Mark Zandi concluded that the Ryan budget’s draconian spending cuts supported by 235 House Republicans and 40 GOP Senators would make the job creation picture much, much worse. While acknowledging that “Congressman Ryan’s budget plan is too heavy on near-term spending cuts, while President Obama’s is too light on long-term deficit reduction,” Zandi nevertheless warned that the Boehner party would lead the U.S. to a staggering loss of 1.7 million jobs over the next two years: In the Ryan plan, lower future deficits and debt result immediately in lower interest rates than under the president’s plan. Ten-year Treasury yields are more than 60 basis points lower in 2012 and more than a percentage point lower by 2014. Yet this is not enough to offset the negative near-term economic consequences of the Ryan plan’s more aggressive spending cuts. Real GDP in 2012 under the Ryan plan is $123 billion lower than in the president’s plan and there are 900,000 fewer payroll jobs in the U.S. By 2014, real GDP is almost $200 billion lower and there are 1.7 million fewer jobs under the Ryan approach than is the case under the president’s. Not seeing that 500,000 jobs yet. Still looking. Moving on to the next point…. Repealing Dodd-Frank Act , on the pretense that it kills jobs for “small business.” McCarthy to Crowley: Economists will tell you if you raise taxes on small businesses, which are not growing right now, you only harm the economy more. So let’s end the uncertainty. To be clear here, we are not talking about small businesses like Mom and Pop’s Ice Cream Parlor down on Main Street. We are talking about small businesses like Koch Industries, a privately-owned company owned by a holding company, which is a Subchapter S corporation. Heather has more on that particular lie here. But again, repealing Dodd-Frank does not create jobs, no matter how long Wall Street and the financial sector hold their breath and stomp their feet. And that’s really all they’ve done. They’ve repealed a whole bunch of legislation that kills more jobs, passed a whole bunch of legislation that kills our environment, jobs and endangers the planet along with the economy, and of course, declared war on women with repeated passage of anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-family, anti-health bills. Still not seeing that 500,000 jobs, so let’s move on to his next lie. Big Lie #2: Discretionary spending increased 73% in the last 3 years This one won’t take long to debunk. Paul Krugman: The number comes from taking nondefense discretionary spending as reported — which rose 26 percent from 2008 to 2010 (Table 8.7) — and then adding the entire discretionary spending part of the stimulus. Politifact says that this is misleading because not all of the stimulus funds were spent in 2010. But it’s much worse than that: stimulus spending is already in those discretionary spending numbers. If you look at the table, you’ll see bulges in spending on education and ground transportation that go away after 2011; that’s the stimulus. So this GOP talking point is a complete fraud; it’s based on counting the same spending several times over. Politifact concurs, rating this claim false . Big Lie #3: Tax Cuts Stimulated the Economy McCarthy: CROWLEY: Well, you take all the blame. But the thing is, there just seems to me that there has to be some willingness to give, and I have not heard anything from you about, yes, you know what, I would go — if we could get a deal that would cut 2.5 trillion in savings, I would agree to this on the revenue side. There’s nothing on the revenue side you will agree to? MCCARTHY: Well, you know, Candy, I’ve never found one tax increase that created a job. I have watched our economy sputter downward. I’ve been out across the American public, they want to go back to work. And I know those policies will fail. So in principle, no, we’re not going to go there. Now, I’m no brain surgeon but I can read a calendar. And what my calendar says over and over again is this: When tax rates were higher (1993-2000), there were more jobs, not less. The failed policies McCarthy refers to are the policies that cut taxes on the wealthy, wiped out a surplus, and set this country on a path to fiscal disaster. I don’t think I need to produce the charts again, because we’re all living it. Which leads to the biggest lie of all, blending all three in to one neat package: We are losing our jobs because we are spending too much. No. We are losing our jobs because there is no incentive for anyone to let go of their cash, spend it or make investments in the future, from Fortune 500 public companies to private “small businesses” like Koch Industries. On the Fortune 500 side, there’s no pain to simply keeping funds invested and receiving dividends, since that income is tax-privileged for high earners. On the high-end S-Corporation side, there is absolutely no incentive to spend money on anything when they can keep it by simply paying taxes at today’s too low rates. So repeat after me: We don’t have a spending problem; we have a revenue problem. Lather, rinse, repeat, preach. Then go read Steve Benen’s post, because we actually have another problem: Republicans are shirking their sworn duty. All of this could go away in a heartbeat. Republicans could do, today, exactly what they did repeatedly during the Bush years: simply vote to raise the debt ceiling in a clean bill and move on. The entire process could take literally a few minutes. But GOP officials don’t want to. They want to play a game in which the entire world could lose. How is this not the biggest political scandal in modern American history? How is it that those who claim the high ground on patriotism could put our financial well being on the line, on purpose, when they don’t have to?
Continue reading …Venezuelan president reportedly on the mend and optimistic about the future after undergoing operation to remove a tumour The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, is recovering rapidly after undergoing surgery last month that removed a cancerous tumour, the government said on Monday. Chávez remarked on his health during a telephone conversation with the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, on Sunday as the Venezuelan president was exercising outdoors, the foreign ministry said in a statement. Chávez told the Russian leader “that he has experienced a rapid recovery from the complex operation”adding that the president has been undergoing a first phase of rehabilitation. The statement added that Chávez now has a “feeling of realistic optimism” as he enters the next phase of recovery. Hugo Chávez Venezuela guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …President Obama started this morning by giving a presser about the supposed ‘Grand Bargain’ he’s looking for since House Speaker John Boehner came out and said he wouldn’t agree to a big deal. He said that’s he’s willing to take heat from his own party over programs and things we really believe in. “I am prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done,” Obama said, contending he has “bent over backward” to work with Republicans. Naturally. Obama made the case on Republican terms that we must tighten our belts if we want to get the deficit under control and so everybody has to be willing to negotiate or a deal will never get done. he won’t sign off on any short extensions of the debt ceiling either. There’s been much speculation about how much of his words have matched what he truly believes in and if it’s a tactical ploy aimed at the GOP ans Independent voters. I think we’re past that point. The absurdity of this whole debate was explained away by Mitch McConnell yesterday on FOX when he said that their goal is not for deficit reduction or job growth, but to make Obama a one term president. “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal ‘s Major Garrett in October. Fox News’ Bret Baier asked McConnell Sunday if that was still his major objective. “Well, that is true,” McConnell replied. “That’s my single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country.” – McConnell told Baier that a “Grand Bargain,” where Republicans agree to tax hikes in exchange for cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, was likely off the table. “I think it is. Everything they told me and the Speaker is to get a big package would require big tax increases in the middle of the economic situation that is extraordinarily difficult with 9.2% unemployment. We think it’s a terrible idea. It’s a job-killer.” “Nobody is talk about not raising the debt ceiling,” McConnell later insisted. If this is true then why not have a clean debt ceiling vote and move on from here? I’d say because Obama wants a Grand Bargain to hang his hat on. “Eating our peas,’ was the thing I heard that stood out as well as what the media is going to take away from it. “I’ve been hearing from my Republican friends for some time it is a moral imperative to tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way,” Mr. Obama said. “What I’ve said to them is, let’s go.” The president said today he would not accept a smaller, short-term deal. “We might as well do it now,” he said. “Pull off the band aid. Eat our peas.” Framing this debate in Republican terms has been a big problem for me as well as many other progressives and it’s not likely to change. Atrios: We can’t read minds, so at some point we have to judge people by their words and actions. This press conference tells us that the austerity crap isn’t some bit of political posturing, it’s a belief. We’re doomed. Candy Crowley of CNN was going on and on about the Biden deal, on Sunday as if that was the miracle cure for this debate, but there is no movement on that one either. Joan McCarter writes from earlier today: The Biden agreement had settled on about $1.5 trillion in cuts, while another $500 billion in cuts would be included if Republicans agreed to $200-300 billion in tax loophole closures. That’s balanced, right? The “sticking point,” for Republicans, is what it’s always been: raising taxes for rich people . Proving yet again that none of this is about the deficit, at least not for the GOP. For their part, Democrats are repeating the mantra that entitlements be protected . After the meeting ended, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement: “We came into this weekend with the prospect that we could achieve a grand bargain. We are still hopeful for a large bipartisan agreement, which means more stability for our economy, more growth and jobs, and more deficit reduction over a longer period of time.” She added: “This package must do no harm to the middle class or to economic growth. It must also protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries, and we continue to have serious concerns about shifting billions in Medicaid costs to the states.” …. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said the Biden talks identified only about $1 trillion in spending cuts. Democrats would agree to those cuts only if certain tax loopholes were closed, such as tax breaks for corporate jet owners and subsidies for oil and gas companies. Digby Writes : The accusation that those of us who are upset about cuts to Medicare, medicaid and Social security don’t care about the programs is especially clever, I have to admit. That will prove to be quite useful I imagine. For Republicans. “I think it would give the American people enormous confidence that this town can actually do something one in a while,” Obama said. I think the President’s goal is exactly what he says it is: to do Big Things.I just don’t think it matters much what the substance of those Big Things is. d-day writes: However, he made a few key statements that give insight into the negotiations. First of all, Obama said that, without Republicans budging on revenue, “I don’t think something’s going to get done. If their proposition is my way or the highway, I don’t see us getting a deal.” That would hold for a maximalist, grand bargain deal of $4 trillion, or a medium-sized deal of $2 trillion. Obama said that Democrats in the Senate would have to agree to a deal, and that House Democratic votes would be needed to pass any deal. “I will not accept a deal in which I (meaning a rich person -ed.) am asked to do nothing, while a parent out there struggling to figure out how to get a kid to college will have a couple thousand less in student loans.” Job creation did finally come up when and the president believes that until the deficit is done first, jobs can’t move forward: Greg Sargent Obama plainly believes that the only way to manage any kind of pivot to jobs is to take the deficit off the table as an issue first. Obama thinks the GOP will ultimately capitulate to some degree on revenues, but knows full well it will be a bad deal for Dems. By signaling openness to entitlements cuts that will anger the Dem base, he hopes to increase the political price the GOP pays for intransigence on revenues and is hoping to preemptively blame Republicans for the lopsided nature of the ultimate deal. More important, he is putting them on notice that once a deficit deal is reached, they’ll have run out of excuses for opposing job creation measures that require government spending. I don’t know if this will work, either politically or in terms of job creation, but this is clearly the course he’s chosen. So what does this all mean? Keynesian economics is dead at this point in time and that’s a shame. If it fails I guess Obama can say he tried in good faith at a significant cost to Democratic principles because he’s willing to negotiate and compromise, and Villagers will love that, but will America understand? Full transcript here.
Continue reading …Around 70 people are still to sign, said the local authority that has been embroiled in bitter dispute A council embroiled in a bitter dispute over pay and conditions, which has sparked a series of strikes, has said that virtually all of its staff had signed new terms. Conservative-controlled Southampton City Council said it was pleased to announce that more than 98% of its employees have agreed to new pay, terms and conditions which came into effect on Monday. “Meanwhile the council is actively seeking new talks with trade unions in an attempt to end industrial action. Trade unions have indicated that they would be prepared to negotiate and we are confident that by working together we can end this dispute, get the best deal for staff and get back to work providing excellent services for our residents. “The council will do all it can to collect as many bins in the city as possible this week, with up to 10 trucks collecting rounds,” the authority said in a statement. Hundreds of council staff have taken industrial action in the past six weeks, including refuse collectors and social workers. Port health officers joined the industrial action today, while Unison and Unite are planning a protest in the city on Wednesday to co-incide with a meeting of the full council. Unison today accused the council of forcing workers to accept a pay cut, while telling the government it expected to put more than £4 million into its reserves. General secretary Dave Prentis said: “The council has painted a bleak picture to employees, at the same time as giving the government figures showing they expect the reserves to rocket. “Pay cuts and job losses will pile misery on to thousands of council workers and their families, at a time of rising inflation. It is clear that these punitive measures are just not necessary. “We are calling for the council to publish the 2010/11 financial report immediately and put a stop to these savage cuts.” Unite claimed the council had drawn up plans to sack a quarter of its 4,300-strong workforce over the next three years. The union said it had seen a “devastating” report setting out the authority’s budget and spending priorities until 2015, including setting aside £5 million a year from 2012 to 2014 for redundancies. Local government Public sector cuts Public sector pay guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty broke Ronald Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” Sunday by attacking another Republican. Pawlenty told NBC’s David Gregory that fellow Minnesotan and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has had a “nonexistent” record of accomplishments during her time in Congress. “She’s beating you in the polls, she’s got more traction coming out of that recent debate and in Iowa,” Gregory noted. “You’re a nice guy, you say you’re not going to, you know, speak disrespectfully of a fellow Minnesotan. But this is about, again, distinguishing yourself from others in the field. What makes you different than Congresswoman Bachmann?” “Well, I like Congresswoman Bachmann,” Pawlenty admitted. “I’ve campaigned for her, I respect her. But her record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent. It’s nonexistent. And so we’re not looking for folks who, you know, just have speech capabilities, we’re looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion. I’ve done that, she hasn’t.” “Do you think she’s too controversial? She has said on this program and elsewhere that this is a gangster government. She thinks the president has un-American views. Do you think that reflects a temperament that’s not suitable for the presidency?” Gregory asked. “Well, everybody’s got different rhetoric that they use,” Pawlenty explained. “The federal government’s out of control. Let’s face it, it’s plain for everybody to see. So whether you call it a gangster government, out of control, reckless, irresponsible…” “You think those are all the same things?” Gregory pressed. “Well, they’re similar. But, you know, I’ve used similar terms,” the former Minnesota governor said.
Continue reading …