Rep. Becerra: Social Security Should Not Be On the Table for Debt Ceiling Increase
July 10, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) did a nice job this morning on Fox News Sunday of explaining why Social Security should have never been offered up as part of the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling even though he supported making sure it stays solvent for the long term as a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission. He also shot down nicely Bret Baier’s attempt to paint the Social Security trust fund as full of worthless IOU’s that have already been spent because the government borrowed against the program to pay for other things. BAIER: Congressman, you were on the president’s debt and deficit commission, the Bowles-Simpson commission, and you voted against the recommendations at the end. But during the meeting, one of the meetings, you said this, quote, “As you just said here, I don’t want to leave the table because I started off the first day saying everything must be on the table” — what you just said. But as the negotiations in the debt ceiling increase have continued, you said this week, quote, “I don’t see why I would support any plan that would cut benefits to seniors to pay for the reckless fiscal policies that led to us these massive deficits.” That seems like a big change. So, now, there are some things that are off the table for you. BECERRA: As when I was on the fiscal commission and when any proposal comes before me for a vote, I would take a look. As much as I believe that Social Security should not be on the table because Social Security hasn’t contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion. So, why should Social Security, why should seniors have to pay to balance the budget through Social Security cuts? But it should be on the table. I would fight to take it off the table, but it should start off on the table and then what should remain on the table are the things that really drove us into this deficit. And most folks know what drove us into these deficits. When you don’t pay for two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you borrow all the money from China, you’re going to have to pay for it at some point. BAIER: OK. You mention Social Security. In the president’s deficit commission report, they say, among other things, “Without action the benefits currently pledged under Social Security are promise we cannot keep.” Do you think changes need to be made to Social Security for future generations or not? BECERRA: Absolutely. That you just said the operative words, “future generations.” We’re not talking about balancing these budgets today for future generations. We’re doing it because if we don’t do it today, the person who got to pay that mortgage tomorrow will find interest rates will have shot up. And so, we’re trying to take care of past debts. Remember, the debt ceiling vote is about past debts. So, it’s not about future obligations. Social Security will be good for the next quarter century. But we should still do something to make sure that after that quarter century, we’re not paying 78 cents on the dollar in benefits, we’re paying 100 percent on the dollar. BAIER: Right. But last year, for the first time since the ’80s — excuse me — Social Security paid out more benefits than it took in payroll. BECERRA: True. BAIER: Correct? BECERRA: True. BAIER: And, essentially, and correct me if I’m wrong, the Social Security Trust Fund is a pile of IOUs from the government, that was taken from Congress’ past that have already borrowed that money and spent on other programs. So, eventually, you have to pay that back. Is that not accurate? BECERRA: Well, OK, this is — this is the best way for me to display this for you. Do you have a wallet? BAIER: Not on me. BECERRA: Well, let me pull this out. Five-dollar bill, right? OK. It’s just a piece of paper but it says $5 on it. OK. Let me show you something else. This is a $50 savings bond. My daughter got it when she was born 16 years ago. Both of these are pieces of paper. This is a Treasury certificate, this is a dollar. Both of them rely on the full faith and credit of the United States to be covered. If I try to cash either one of these in, it’s only because the federal government says you can count on getting paid. That’s what Social Security has to the tune of $2.5 trillion. So when people say that Social Security has no money, they’re saying to you that for the last 30 some odd years politicians have been stealing the money out of Social Security. It’s there. Ask China, because China has these as well and they expect to be paid. Social Security expects to be paid. And, by the way, you and I expect to be paid. BAIER: Sure. But with 10,000 baby-boomers retiring every day for the next 19 years and with people living longer, and Social Security trustees report says the program will not be able to pay fully beginning in 2036, eventually, you’re going to have to deal with this program. And you have the White House saying, why not now? BECERRA: And we could. But you have to do it in strengthening Social Security, not paying for deficit that the Social Security and Social Security beneficiaries had anything to do with. That’s the difficulty that Democrats had with what Republicans are proposing. Republicans want to put Social Security and Medicare on the table. You just heard Senator McConnell say we need to put the two programs on the table to deal with deficit and debt of today. And Democrats are saying wait a second. Whoa! Every day an American works, when he or she pays a FICA tax out of the paycheck, it’s going to Social Security and Medicare. Why when it’s paid for system should it now have to pay for deficits that were caused by Bush tax cut to wealthy, unpaid for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? That’s the big rub. BAIER: You’re against any changed consumer price index, changed CPI, consumer price index change, that would — which is essentially adjusting benefits for what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says is overstated inflation? You’re against that? BECERRA: If you — are you parents still alive? Grandparents still alive? BAIER: Sure. BECERRA: OK. Do they have the same healthcare cost that you do? They don’t. Seniors have higher healthcare cost than someone your age or my age. What’s going to happen if you change the CPI, the backdoor cut to Social Security? Why? Because while you and I are nimble enough still to make a consumer choice to say not buy a Mercedes Benz and buy a Ford — less expensive Ford vehicle, a senior can’t decide, I need to find a substitute for health care. I need health care. And so, the changed CPI does exactly, it changed seniors to lower benefits, which is unfair to them because they worked for those Social Security benefits.
Continue reading …
On the Radio Cynder mr. saxobeat ProTrickZz Channel Update Paula_Glover says: MAJOR MILESTONE AS DMDS DELIVERS OVER 2000 MUSIC VIDEOS http://bit.ly/qW4sgt
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media (h/t David E at VideoCafe ) In the wake of John Boehner’s pullout from the budget talks, Bill Daley came on Christiane Amanpour’s show this morning to address the state of negotiations, where the Democrats stand, and what the president believes needs to be done to restore confidence in the economy. It is the first time I’ve heard a clear message coming from the White House in ages. Whatever Daley’s leanings are, he succeeded in getting these key points across: Democrats are not using Social Security as a deficit reduction tool Social Security and Medicare do need shoring up, but not at the expense of beneficiaries. Jobs are tied to uncertainty about the economy, which is why it’s important to do something more than apply a bandaid. If corporate America wants certainty, they can step up and put some pressure on the DC lunatics to get this done. Daley sent the whistle out loud and clear to Wall Street and the rest of the business community: If you want certainty and a deal, step on the people who are holding it up. (That would be the Republicans, in case you doubted that) AMANPOUR: Your long-standing relations and your history of professionalism here is with the business community to a large extent. What are you saying to them? You were meant to be able to sort of convince them to start investing and hiring people. Instead, they’re racking up profits, doing sort of cost-cutting and not hiring. And this is a problem for the employment rate. DALEY: There’s no question that there’s a tremendous amount of profit on the company’s books. But they are looking to see the signs of confidence for them to invest. Every major company does that. I talk to business leaders every day. They don’t have as negative an attitude about the economic situation, that they know it’s difficult, that Washington seems to have. On the other hand, they want to see leadership. What I say to the business community is, you complain and whine about the political system all the time. Get involved. Get involved and make the statement about the fact that you need a balanced approach to solve our fiscal problems. It is not going to be solved — it should not be solved on the backs of those who have given and are having a difficult time right now. AMANPOUR: So given what you say, their legitimate concerns, what is your prediction for employment next month and the month after? DALEY: Well, I’m not a predictor, nor would I be stupid enough to try to guess what the numbers are going to be. I think there’s plenty of signs. But whatever the numbers are, positive, we have come — we are coming through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. When President Obama came in, there were almost 800,000 jobs a month were being lost. That’s the size of Charlotte, North Carolina. Four million jobs have been lost the previous, 13 months before he came into office. This country was in a crisis like very few people had ever seen. And we are slowly coming out of that. Albeit, it is frustrating to this president that it’s not coming fast enough. But a lot of that is based upon this dysfunction that seems to be going on in this town, and that gets felt throughout the country, and there’s a lack of confidence in whether these political leaders in this town will have the guts to stand up and do the tough things. I’m not sure I buy this notion of confidence being the barrier to economic growth, but I do like having someone actually stand up and put some pressure on these companies to quit sitting on their assets and start growing again. It was a pretty clear signal to business that they need to support a plan that involves taxing the rich as well as cutting budgets. Will they listen?
Continue reading …
Najib Razak’s administration urged by protesters to implement reforms and crack down on corruption Malaysia’s top opposition leader has warned the government that it may face a “hibiscus revolution” unless activists’ demands are met for electoral reform and an end to “dirty politics”. Anwar Ibrahim’s comments came a day after an estimated 20,000 people took to the streets to protest against alleged vote-rigging and other electoral abuses , defying a government ban and widespread use of teargas and water cannon filled with chemically laced water to deter the crowds. More than 1,400 people were arrested and 12 injured — including Anwar — as clashes between police and protesters broke out in Malaysia’s biggest protest since 2007. Speaking to a small group of young graduates on Sunday, the People’s Justice party leader warned prime minister Najib Razak’s government: “We will have to pursue – in parliament and outside of parliament – free and fair elections, even by rallying unless they change the electoral vote.” When asked whether Malaysia was in the middle of its own revolution, Anwar said: “We have no confidence left [in the government], so it is important for Najib to consider seriously that we are close [to that].” Najib, whose ruling party Barisan Nasional (National Front) has been in power since 1955, has dismissed Anwar as an opportunist who “will do everything, good or bad” to become prime minister himself. He has also claimed that Anwar might have been using Saturday’s rally – organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, a loose group of 62 non-governmental organisations – for his own political gain. Najib’s government took extreme measures to prevent people from attending Saturday’s protest, including a city-wide lockdown that saw police suspend public transportation, seal off main roads, and threaten to arrest anyone wearing yellow, the colour of the coalition. Amnesty International denounced the government’s actions as “the worst campaign of repression we’ve seen in decades”. But Najib has since warned activists not to take to the streets again and claimed that his party, Umno, far outnumbered opposition groups. “Don’t doubt our strength,” he said. “If we want to create chaos, we can. Umno has 3 million members. If we gather 1 million members, it is more than enough. We can conquer Kuala Lumpur.” Such comments – along with images and videos of police brutality against peaceful protesters – are undermining the BN’s future, some say. “They made a very big mistake on Saturday, by assuming that arresting more people would make the rest of us scared,” said youth leader Khairul Anuar. “Actually, it has just made us more brave.” A similar rally in 2007 is widely credited with spurring on Malaysia’s opposition movement, which won a landslide victory in the 2008 elections. Many are hoping that Saturday’s rally could potentially topple the BN entirely in the next election, slated for as early as this year. But some analysts say the government may hold off in order to smooth things over. “From Najib’s perspective, holding elections any time soon would be a mistake because of the damage that has been done,” Bridget Welsh, Malaysia specialist at Singapore Management University, told Reuters. “The fact that such a large crowd turned up despite a crackdown shows that voter anger is deep and this is going to push a lot of people who are in the middle towards the opposition.” Malaysia guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gillard puts future on the line with radical plan for Australian carbon tax
July 10, 2011 No Comment
Emission-cutting scheme to target country’s 500 worst polluting companies The Australian government has unveiled one of the world’s most ambitious schemes to tackle climate change, a plan to tax carbon emissions from the country’s worst polluters. After a bruising political battle to win support for the measure, the prime minister, Julia Gillard, said on Sunday that from July next year, 500 companies would pay $23 (£15) a tonne for their carbon emissions in the largest emissions trading scheme outside Europe. The government predicts that by 2029 the plan will lead to a reduction in emissions equivalent to taking 45m cars off the road. The government will fix the tax for three years, before moving to a market-set price in 2015. “It’s time to get on with this; we are going to get this done,” said Gillard. Australia generates more carbon pollution per head than any other developed country, thanks to its heavy reliance on coal-fired power stations. With a population of 22 million, Australia is responsible for 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, Britain, with nearly three times the population, produces just 1.7%. The package is expected to pass votes in both houses of parliament before the end of the year, but Gillard faces a furious backlash over the scheme, which 60% of the population opposes. Her government is the most unpopular in 40 years, and analysts say her political future depends on her ability to sell the tax to voters. “We’ve got to price carbon pollution to drive investment in innovation and to provide the incentive for energy efficiency,” she said. “Failing to do so means that we would be passing on lower living standards to our children and grandchildren.” The scheme provides for a $10bn clean energy fund, money for a biodiversity fund, and – crucially for Gillard’s political survival – compensation for voters. The average Australian household will see its bills increase by around $10 a week, and critics of the plan say ordinary voters will be unfairly burdened by higher costs passed on to them by the big polluters. But Gillard said 50% of the scheme’s revenue would be returned to households in the form of tax cuts and compensation worth more than $15bn. Two-thirds of all households would receive enough assistance to cover the entire financial impact of the tax, Gillard said. “This is pitched at low-income families because we know their budgets are tight,” she said. “I want people to understand that we are seizing a clean energy future.” Before last year’s election Gillard explicitly ruled out a carbon tax, in an attempt to distance herself from her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, who failed to get an emissions trading scheme through parliament. But she changed tack after the election returned a hung parliament and she had to build an alliance with the Green party. The leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, has denounced the tax as “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” and called for an election which he said would be a referendum on the scheme. “It’s a package which is all economic pain for no environmental gain,” he said on Sunday. Australia’s parliament has twice rejected attempts to introduce a carbon tax. A high-profile campaign against the tax could further undermine the government, which faces elections in 2013. “I think this package is going to compound the trust issue which has dogged the prime minster ever since she assassinated Kevin Rudd and has dogged her since she was deceptive about the carbon tax before the last election,” said Abbott. Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of coal and iron ore, and its powerful resources sector is the bedrock of the buoyant economy. The tax package includes compensation for many trade-exposed industries, including steel and aluminium, with up to 94.5% of their permits granted for free. Moderate emitting exporters will get 66% of permits for free. But the Minerals Council of Australia says the resources sector will suffer a $25bn hit by 2020, with around 20,000 job losses. “This is taking a baseball bat to the Australian economy to raise another tax which will be a dead loss to the economy without any benefit to the environment,” said the council’s chief executive, Mitch Hooke. The Greens have been central in months of negotiations over the tax. Gillard relies on them to govern and, as of last week, they also control the balance of power in the upper house. The Greens’ deputy leader, Christine Milne, said: “This is the moment where Australia turns its back on the fossil fuel age, and turns its face towards the greatest challenge of the 21st century, and that is addressing global warming.” Australia Julia Gillard Carbon emissions Pollution Climate change Alison Rourke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Delays could mean illnesses reach stage where surgery or drugs cannot treat them, chair of BMA’s consultants committee says Patients could die because of rising NHS waiting lists for tests and treatment, the leader of Britain’s hospital doctors has warned. Delays in identifying conditions such as cancer may mean that a patient’s illness reaches the stage where surgery or drugs cannot save them, Dr Mark Porter told the Guardian. Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association’s consultants committee, said the growing delays were “inhumane” because the ensuing uncertainty added to patients’ fear and suffering. His remarks will add to the pressure on David Cameron, who has offered several recent personal guarantees that patients will not have to endure long waits to be treated. A Guardian analysis of official NHS data on England’s six main waiting time targets shows that five are increasingly being breached. The number of patients waiting more than six weeks for a diagnostic test such as an MRI scan has quadrupled in the last year, an extra 2,400 people a month are not being treated within 18 weeks, and 200,000 patients waited longer than four hours in A&E this year compared with the same period in 2010, the data reveals. The growing number not being tested or treated within the required time limits was of particular concern, Porter said. “If patients are now exceeding those times, then those patients’ treatment options are being limited, and if that happens then there’s a potential for patients suffering harm. “It may be that someone’s disease progresses beyond the point where surgery might usually give a cancer patient a potential cure, but the patient then receives palliative care only,” he said. Previous success in ensuring patients did not experience long waits was at risk from the government’s changes to the service and its £20bn efficiency drive, Porter said. “There’s definitely a potential for patient harm from these growing waiting time problems. Patients will be waiting with anxiety and pain longer than they should be. That’s inhumane.” Other medical leaders also expressed alarm. Professor Tim Evans, a vice-president of the Royal College of Physicians, said he was concerned about the small but growing number of cancer patients having to wait more than one or two months for treatment. “If you’ve just had a diagnosis of cancer, you want treatment as soon as possible, obviously. Therefore the fact that more patients are waiting longer, even small numbers, is a matter of great concern to clinicians. If you need treatment for cancer, the earlier you get it the better,” said Evans. “Patients having to wait more than 31 or 62 days for their first treatment would feel anxious and concerned and require reassurance that this isn’t going to affect their prognosis.” Doctors are also concerned that the number of patients waiting more than six weeks for a diagnostic test has risen from 3,378 to 15,667 in the last year. While only 2.7% of patients wait this long, the figure is 8.6% for those awaiting a colonoscopy and 8% for flexible sigmoidoscopy, another test for cancer. “Waiting times for diagnostic imaging tests are showing a worrying trend upward,” said the Royal College of Radiologists. “Radiologists and radiographers are trying their best to address the rise in waiting times for diagnostic imaging by working extended hours and weekends, but it is difficult to keep pace with increasing demand.” Professor Jon Rhodes, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said the rise in waits for procedures such as colonoscopy was “alarming”. He added: “No one should have to wait more than four weeks for a diagnostic colonoscopy, since delayed diagnosis is a major factor underlying the country’s relatively poor survival rates for colorectal cancer.” The NHS had too few endoscopists to cope with demand, he added. NHS data shows that while in May 2010, 337 patients had waited beyond six weeks for a colonoscopy, that had risen to 2,313 in May this year. Similarly, the number waiting past six weeks for flexible sigmoidoscopy has jumped from 87 to 1,199, and those waiting for echocardiography from 574 to 2,034 over the same period. Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, warned that the government’s health policies were worsening the situation. Abolishing primary care trusts, the NHS bodies charged with ensuring patients are treated within time limits, had weakened patients’ rights, he said. Making more patients wait longer would prove to be “a false economy” for the NHS, as some would require more extensive treatment as a result, he said. The NHS’s deputy chief executive, David Flory, wrote to NHS providers last month warning them to improve “unacceptable” performance on the 18-week limit, after 47 trusts missed one or both targets involved and 32 did not meet the requirement to treat 95% of emergency patients within four hours of their arriving at A&E. New NHS data out later this week, and the latest quarterly NHS performance monitoring report from the King’s Fund thinktank, are expected to cast further doubt on promises – also made by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley – to keep waiting times low. The Department of Health denied that waiting times were becoming a problem. “Waiting times are low and have been broadly stable since 2008. The latest figures show that 90.5% of admitted patients and 97.5% of non-admitted patients started treatment in under 18 weeks,” said a spokeswoman. NHS Health Health policy Public services policy Denis Campbell James Ball guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Top aide to Rupert Murdoch faces questions on whether he saw 2007 internal report on widespread hacking Les Hinton, Rupert Murdoch’s lifelong lieutenant and closest adviser, faces questions over whether he saw a 2007 internal News International report, which found evidence that phone hacking was more widespread than admitted by the company, before he testified to a parliamentary committee that the practice was limited to a single reporter. News of the existence of the 2007 report – the conclusions of which were kept hidden from the public, MPs and police – came as Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corporation, arrived in the UK to deal directly with the rapidly developing crisis. The collection of memos that formed the inquiry were sent to the Metropolitan police earlier this year. This step came after executives who had joined NI more recently discovered its existence and sent it to the Operation Weeting team investigating News of the World phone hacking. Despite the alleged conclusions of the memos, News International executives repeatedly went on the record to say hacking was confined to a single “rogue reporter” – and they gave evidence to parliament that that was the case. Hinton who then ran News International, which is owned by News Corp, spoke to the Commons culture committee looking into the Goodman affair on 6 March 2007. He was asked whether the News of the World had “carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry” into phone hacking and whether he was “absolutely convinced” the practice was limited to a single reporter. The Guardian understands that Hinton was among five NI executives who had access to the report. The then News of the World editor, Colin Myler, and legal counsel, Tom Crone, as senior executives could have been expected to have seen it. Hinton was succeeded by James Murdoch, who it is understood had no knowledge of the 2007 internal enquiry until recently. He joined NI from BSkyB, where he had been chief executive. Also in the dark was Rebekah Brooks, who at the time was editing the Sun. The NI investigation began after Clive Goodman, the News of the World’s former royal editor, and Glenn Mulcaire, its £100,000-a-year private investigator, were jailed for hacking into phones belonging to aides of Prince William and Harry. It was conducted with the help of lawyers Harbottle & Lewis. Lawrence Abramson, managing partner of Harbottle & Lewis, who worked on the instructions of News International, told the select committee that they had examined internal emails and concluded: “We did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures.” The scandal continues to grip Westminster and Scotland Yard. The government was scrambling to find a way to postpone a decision on the BSkyB deal without exposing it to a multimillion pound judicial review, in order to see off a pincer movement by Labour and the Lib Dems to force a vote in the Commons. Labour is threatening to table a motion on Wednesday calling for a delay until after the police inquiries are completed if the prime minister does not take action. Sources close to Nick Clegg said the Lib Dem leadership was willing to back it if it is legally compliant. The government has consistently said it cannot drop the BSkyB deal because it has already satisfied a plurality test and any other reasoning would leave it exposed to judicial review. But it was becoming increasingly clear that it would have to find a way or face a rebellion in the Commons which could result in a standoff between the legislature and the judiciary. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “I say this to the prime minister candidly. Over the next 72 hours I hope he changes his position on this because I don’t want to force this to a vote in the House of Commons. “But I think he’s got to understand that when the public have seen the disgusting revelations that we’ve seen this week the idea that this organisation which engaged in these terrible practices should be allowed to get that 100% stake without the criminal investigation being completed and on the basis of assurances from that self-same organisation, I’m afraid that won’t wash with the public.” His office said that they had until Tuesday night to table the motion, and would use the next 48 hours to get “as much political support as we can” and the correct and proper legal advice. They argued that the government’s insistence that they would face judicial review was a “red herring” as they could already be exposed to challenged because they awarded the deal based on assurances from News International which could now be discredited in a court of law. Government sources privately acknowledged that they now face an almost impossible conundrum of how to delay the deal without facing judicial review. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary who is in charge of taking the decision on BSkyB, will consult his lawyers to see what impact a parliamentary vote could have on his quasi-judicial role in ruling on BSkyB. There were suggestions from the Lib Dem benches that the Tories could even back the Commons motion if it provided a way out. No 10 sources said that they would not speculate on a motion when they hadn’t yet seen the wording. Such a motion, which would be tabled during Labour’s opposition day debate on Wednesday, would result in a resolution in the Commons, which although not legally binding could put intolerable pressure on the government to postpone the deal. The decision had already been kicked into the long grass after Hunt’s department received a reported 200,000 responses to a consultation. Philip Hammond, the transport secretary, asked on Sky News about the award of the a 100% stake in BSkyB to News International, said: “Well I understand that people would be very concerned about that and I think probably many of us would be very concerned, but we have to operate within the law. The government can’t just change the rules in midstream, if we did we’d undoubtedly be taken to court and we’d probably lose so we have to tread very carefully within the law.” With Labour leading the charge against News International the Lib Dems sought to regain their reputation for standing up to the Murdoch empire. In opposition they had been the only party voicing concerns about journalistic practices at News International. The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, confirmed Clegg had warned Cameron in the days after the coalition was formed against hiring Andy Coulson, the ex-editor of News of the World, to be his director of communications. An aide to Clegg said if the motion resolved the legal issues, he would back it. “If it’s legally compliant then any motion that states the obvious will receive Liberal Democrat support. Nick thinks that it’s preposterous that everything going on couldn’t influence such a decision.” Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer and close ally of Vince Cable, who was stripped of the responsibility for the BSkyB merger after a Telegraph sting recorded him saying he had “declared war” with Murdoch over the merger plans, said: “Liberal Democrats from the cabinet to councillors … are totally united. We want to block the BSkyB bid and then break up the Murdoch empire. He’s far too powerful, we don’t let Tesco have 40% of the market. This is not just about blocking the bid it’s about ending a serious danger to our democracy.” It has also emerged that Sir Paul Stephenson, the head of the Metropolitan police will make an apology over the force’s “institutional” failings in its investigation of the scandal. Phone hacking News of the World Rupert Murdoch Rebekah Brooks Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Metropolitan police Dan Sabbagh Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Top aide to Rupert Murdoch faces questions on whether he saw 2007 internal report on widespread hacking Les Hinton, Rupert Murdoch’s lifelong lieutenant and closest adviser, faces questions over whether he saw a 2007 internal News International report, which found evidence that phone hacking was more widespread than admitted by the company, before he testified to a parliamentary committee that the practice was limited to a single reporter. News of the existence of the 2007 report – the conclusions of which were kept hidden from the public, MPs and police – came as Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corporation, arrived in the UK to deal directly with the rapidly developing crisis. The collection of memos that formed the inquiry were sent to the Metropolitan police earlier this year. This step came after executives who had joined NI more recently discovered its existence and sent it to the Operation Weeting team investigating News of the World phone hacking. Despite the alleged conclusions of the memos, News International executives repeatedly went on the record to say hacking was confined to a single “rogue reporter” – and they gave evidence to parliament that that was the case. Hinton who then ran News International, which is owned by News Corp, spoke to the Commons culture committee looking into the Goodman affair on 6 March 2007. He was asked whether the News of the World had “carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry” into phone hacking and whether he was “absolutely convinced” the practice was limited to a single reporter. The Guardian understands that Hinton was among five NI executives who had access to the report. The then News of the World editor, Colin Myler, and legal counsel, Tom Crone, as senior executives could have been expected to have seen it. Hinton was succeeded by James Murdoch, who it is understood had no knowledge of the 2007 internal enquiry until recently. He joined NI from BSkyB, where he had been chief executive. Also in the dark was Rebekah Brooks, who at the time was editing the Sun. The NI investigation began after Clive Goodman, the News of the World’s former royal editor, and Glenn Mulcaire, its £100,000-a-year private investigator, were jailed for hacking into phones belonging to aides of Prince William and Harry. It was conducted with the help of lawyers Harbottle & Lewis. Lawrence Abramson, managing partner of Harbottle & Lewis, who worked on the instructions of News International, told the select committee that they had examined internal emails and concluded: “We did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures.” The scandal continues to grip Westminster and Scotland Yard. The government was scrambling to find a way to postpone a decision on the BSkyB deal without exposing it to a multimillion pound judicial review, in order to see off a pincer movement by Labour and the Lib Dems to force a vote in the Commons. Labour is threatening to table a motion on Wednesday calling for a delay until after the police inquiries are completed if the prime minister does not take action. Sources close to Nick Clegg said the Lib Dem leadership was willing to back it if it is legally compliant. The government has consistently said it cannot drop the BSkyB deal because it has already satisfied a plurality test and any other reasoning would leave it exposed to judicial review. But it was becoming increasingly clear that it would have to find a way or face a rebellion in the Commons which could result in a standoff between the legislature and the judiciary. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “I say this to the prime minister candidly. Over the next 72 hours I hope he changes his position on this because I don’t want to force this to a vote in the House of Commons. “But I think he’s got to understand that when the public have seen the disgusting revelations that we’ve seen this week the idea that this organisation which engaged in these terrible practices should be allowed to get that 100% stake without the criminal investigation being completed and on the basis of assurances from that self-same organisation, I’m afraid that won’t wash with the public.” His office said that they had until Tuesday night to table the motion, and would use the next 48 hours to get “as much political support as we can” and the correct and proper legal advice. They argued that the government’s insistence that they would face judicial review was a “red herring” as they could already be exposed to challenged because they awarded the deal based on assurances from News International which could now be discredited in a court of law. Government sources privately acknowledged that they now face an almost impossible conundrum of how to delay the deal without facing judicial review. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary who is in charge of taking the decision on BSkyB, will consult his lawyers to see what impact a parliamentary vote could have on his quasi-judicial role in ruling on BSkyB. There were suggestions from the Lib Dem benches that the Tories could even back the Commons motion if it provided a way out. No 10 sources said that they would not speculate on a motion when they hadn’t yet seen the wording. Such a motion, which would be tabled during Labour’s opposition day debate on Wednesday, would result in a resolution in the Commons, which although not legally binding could put intolerable pressure on the government to postpone the deal. The decision had already been kicked into the long grass after Hunt’s department received a reported 200,000 responses to a consultation. Philip Hammond, the transport secretary, asked on Sky News about the award of the a 100% stake in BSkyB to News International, said: “Well I understand that people would be very concerned about that and I think probably many of us would be very concerned, but we have to operate within the law. The government can’t just change the rules in midstream, if we did we’d undoubtedly be taken to court and we’d probably lose so we have to tread very carefully within the law.” With Labour leading the charge against News International the Lib Dems sought to regain their reputation for standing up to the Murdoch empire. In opposition they had been the only party voicing concerns about journalistic practices at News International. The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, confirmed Clegg had warned Cameron in the days after the coalition was formed against hiring Andy Coulson, the ex-editor of News of the World, to be his director of communications. An aide to Clegg said if the motion resolved the legal issues, he would back it. “If it’s legally compliant then any motion that states the obvious will receive Liberal Democrat support. Nick thinks that it’s preposterous that everything going on couldn’t influence such a decision.” Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer and close ally of Vince Cable, who was stripped of the responsibility for the BSkyB merger after a Telegraph sting recorded him saying he had “declared war” with Murdoch over the merger plans, said: “Liberal Democrats from the cabinet to councillors … are totally united. We want to block the BSkyB bid and then break up the Murdoch empire. He’s far too powerful, we don’t let Tesco have 40% of the market. This is not just about blocking the bid it’s about ending a serious danger to our democracy.” It has also emerged that Sir Paul Stephenson, the head of the Metropolitan police will make an apology over the force’s “institutional” failings in its investigation of the scandal. Phone hacking News of the World Rupert Murdoch Rebekah Brooks Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Metropolitan police Dan Sabbagh Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Huckabee Likens Obama Economic Policies To Dropping "A Lit Match" Into "A Can Of Gasoline"
July 10, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media As if the interview with the Jerome Corsi co-author I already wrote about here wasn’t bad enough, Cavuto fill-in followed up with this interview with Mike Huckabee, who by the way thinks that the Corsi buddy is so wonderful he should run for office. Huckabee started out the segment by claiming that it would somehow be possible to go past the August 2nd deadline on the debt ceiling without having the bond markets react or our credit rating harmed and interest rates going through the roof, Huckabee. So Huckabee’s in the Michele Bachmann, Brit Hume camp of repeating the fantasy that it would not be devastating to our economy and that a “partial default” is something that should be considered. He uses the excuse that President Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate even though the president has admitted that vote was political and he took it as a protest vote knowing full well there wasn’t honestly any chance of the debt ceiling not being raised because of it. After criticizing the Obama administration for the terrible jobs numbers and after host Chris Cotter mentioning talk of another stimulus, Huckabee of course has the Republicans standard solutions for everything that we already know doesn’t work — lower taxes and gut regulations. And of course he trots out the lie that if we heaven forbid raise taxes on anyone, it’s “increasing the size of government.” Naturally he never specifies just what the hell that’s supposed to mean. I’d love for once to see someone make one of these clowns say specifically just what parts of the government they think are “too big.” We already know the answer, which is anything that helps the poor and the working class. I’d just like to see someone make them have to admit that out loud for once. For someone who pretends to be a Christian, HuckaJesus sure has got his priorities backwards doesn’t he? Someone needs to remind him that Jesus didn’t preach that we should steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Continue reading …Huckabee Likens Obama Economic Policies To Dropping "A Lit Match" Into "A Can Of Gasoline"
July 10, 2011 No CommentClick here to view this media As if the interview with the Jerome Corsi co-author I already wrote about here wasn’t bad enough, Cavuto fill-in followed up with this interview with Mike Huckabee, who by the way thinks that the Corsi buddy is so wonderful he should run for office. Huckabee started out the segment by claiming that it would somehow be possible to go past the August 2nd deadline on the debt ceiling without having the bond markets react or our credit rating harmed and interest rates going through the roof, Huckabee. So Huckabee’s in the Michele Bachmann, Brit Hume camp of repeating the fantasy that it would not be devastating to our economy and that a “partial default” is something that should be considered. He uses the excuse that President Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate even though the president has admitted that vote was political and he took it as a protest vote knowing full well there wasn’t honestly any chance of the debt ceiling not being raised because of it. After criticizing the Obama administration for the terrible jobs numbers and after host Chris Cotter mentioning talk of another stimulus, Huckabee of course has the Republicans standard solutions for everything that we already know doesn’t work — lower taxes and gut regulations. And of course he trots out the lie that if we heaven forbid raise taxes on anyone, it’s “increasing the size of government.” Naturally he never specifies just what the hell that’s supposed to mean. I’d love for once to see someone make one of these clowns say specifically just what parts of the government they think are “too big.” We already know the answer, which is anything that helps the poor and the working class. I’d just like to see someone make them have to admit that out loud for once. For someone who pretends to be a Christian, HuckaJesus sure has got his priorities backwards doesn’t he? Someone needs to remind him that Jesus didn’t preach that we should steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Continue reading …