Angry president lashes out after Republicans walk away from talks on borrowing limit, raising the spectre of US default Talks to stave off a potentially catastrophic US default on debt payments were in crisis as Republicans and Democrats struggled to avert a disaster that could trigger a global economic crisis. Both sides agree that the US needs to pass legislation to raise its debt limit above its current level of $14.3 trillion (£8.7tn). But negotiations collapsed in acrimony late on Friday over details of a package of spending cuts and tax rises that would help to pay for such a move. A visibly angry President Barack Obama attacked the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for refusing to return his phone calls and then abandoning the negotiations. “I’ve been left at the altar now a couple of times and I think that one of the questions that the Republican party is going to have to ask itself is: can they say yes to anything?” If agreement is not reached, it could trigger what had once been unthinkable: a US default on its debt payments. If that happened, most experts predict, it would see a plunge in stock and bond markets worldwide that would threaten a new great recession. The deadline for agreement is just over a week away, on 2 August. Though most people still expect a deal of some kind before then, preparations for the worst are being made. Obama is being briefed by senior officials on the consequences of default on Wall Street, and major banks and institutions are laying the groundwork for survival investment strategies. “I still believe in the end we will avoid default, but we are playing with fire,” said Larry Haas, a former official in the Clinton White House. Others put it even more bluntly. “Members of Congress are juggling with hydrogen bombs,” said Professor John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California. In order to thrash out a deal and get talks started again, Obama ordered top congressional leaders from both parties to meet him at the White House and explain how they were going to move forward. That demand showed the seriousness of the situation, but also raised the prospect that some sort of “fallback option” could emerge that would see a short-term rise in the debt ceiling. However, such a plan would only be likely to delay the problem until later in the year. The Republicans have shifted dramatically to the right on economic matters, especially taxation, in the wake of the rise of the Tea Party. The Republicans captured the House of Representatives last year with the help of a number of new members the Tea Party supported. Many Republicans have signed pledges never to agree to tax rises of any sort and fear a backlash from supporters if they agree to a debt deal that includes attempts to raise money from wealthy Americans and big corporations. Instead they want a settlement that focuses on slashing programmes such as social security and health spending on the poor and elderly, as well as defence and other parts of the government. So far Obama has sought to accommodate Republican demands and offered more than $1.6tn in government spending cuts, but only in return for tax rises on the rich. That has not yet been enough to bring Republicans on board. In a letter to Republicans in Congress, Boehner said: “The White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge. A deal was never really close.” Obama is also coming under serious fire from Democrats, who accuse him of being a poor negotiator and too willing to meet Republican demands at the expense of the liberal wing of his own party. Many Democrats have been horrified at the concessions he has already made on cutting government spending on the poor, sick and elderly. They argue that the most vulnerable Americans would pay the bill for a crisis that began on Wall Street. Leading progressives have slammed Obama’s tactics and fear that he may agree to even harsher cuts. Progressive groups, like MoveOn, have sent out campaigning letters and urged phone call protests as a way of persuading Democrats not to back the cuts. “It is tragic what is happening right now,” said Robert Greenwald, a Hollywood director turned progressive documentary filmmaker. Greenwald said ordinary Democrats felt betrayed by Obama. “If he agrees a deal that has these cuts, then the president has done a disservice to millions of people who worked for him to get him elected; who believed in him and who fought for him.” A CNN poll last week backed Greenwald’s comments. The survey showed that Obama’s approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71%, the lowest level of his presidency. That, however, may not worry the White House as it focuses on the 2012 election. Some observers believe liberal voters will still turn out in force again to vote for Obama. “Obama has flexibility to move to the right, because he believes progressives will still vote for him. They have nowhere else to go,” said Pitney. But there are signs of growing anger and revolt in the party as Democrats scramble to protect America’s already shaky welfare programmes. A few voices are even whispering of searching for someone to lead a primary challenge against Obama. “Who knows? Maybe there will be a challenge from the left. If progressives are disgusted enough, I would not rule it out. It would send a message,” said Haas. US economy Economics US domestic policy United States Barack Obama John Boehner Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Angry president lashes out after Republicans walk away from talks on borrowing limit, raising the spectre of US default Talks to stave off a potentially catastrophic US default on debt payments were in crisis as Republicans and Democrats struggled to avert a disaster that could trigger a global economic crisis. Both sides agree that the US needs to pass legislation to raise its debt limit above its current level of $14.3 trillion (£8.7tn). But negotiations collapsed in acrimony late on Friday over details of a package of spending cuts and tax rises that would help to pay for such a move. A visibly angry President Barack Obama attacked the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for refusing to return his phone calls and then abandoning the negotiations. “I’ve been left at the altar now a couple of times and I think that one of the questions that the Republican party is going to have to ask itself is: can they say yes to anything?” If agreement is not reached, it could trigger what had once been unthinkable: a US default on its debt payments. If that happened, most experts predict, it would see a plunge in stock and bond markets worldwide that would threaten a new great recession. The deadline for agreement is just over a week away, on 2 August. Though most people still expect a deal of some kind before then, preparations for the worst are being made. Obama is being briefed by senior officials on the consequences of default on Wall Street, and major banks and institutions are laying the groundwork for survival investment strategies. “I still believe in the end we will avoid default, but we are playing with fire,” said Larry Haas, a former official in the Clinton White House. Others put it even more bluntly. “Members of Congress are juggling with hydrogen bombs,” said Professor John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California. In order to thrash out a deal and get talks started again, Obama ordered top congressional leaders from both parties to meet him at the White House and explain how they were going to move forward. That demand showed the seriousness of the situation, but also raised the prospect that some sort of “fallback option” could emerge that would see a short-term rise in the debt ceiling. However, such a plan would only be likely to delay the problem until later in the year. The Republicans have shifted dramatically to the right on economic matters, especially taxation, in the wake of the rise of the Tea Party. The Republicans captured the House of Representatives last year with the help of a number of new members the Tea Party supported. Many Republicans have signed pledges never to agree to tax rises of any sort and fear a backlash from supporters if they agree to a debt deal that includes attempts to raise money from wealthy Americans and big corporations. Instead they want a settlement that focuses on slashing programmes such as social security and health spending on the poor and elderly, as well as defence and other parts of the government. So far Obama has sought to accommodate Republican demands and offered more than $1.6tn in government spending cuts, but only in return for tax rises on the rich. That has not yet been enough to bring Republicans on board. In a letter to Republicans in Congress, Boehner said: “The White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge. A deal was never really close.” Obama is also coming under serious fire from Democrats, who accuse him of being a poor negotiator and too willing to meet Republican demands at the expense of the liberal wing of his own party. Many Democrats have been horrified at the concessions he has already made on cutting government spending on the poor, sick and elderly. They argue that the most vulnerable Americans would pay the bill for a crisis that began on Wall Street. Leading progressives have slammed Obama’s tactics and fear that he may agree to even harsher cuts. Progressive groups, like MoveOn, have sent out campaigning letters and urged phone call protests as a way of persuading Democrats not to back the cuts. “It is tragic what is happening right now,” said Robert Greenwald, a Hollywood director turned progressive documentary filmmaker. Greenwald said ordinary Democrats felt betrayed by Obama. “If he agrees a deal that has these cuts, then the president has done a disservice to millions of people who worked for him to get him elected; who believed in him and who fought for him.” A CNN poll last week backed Greenwald’s comments. The survey showed that Obama’s approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71%, the lowest level of his presidency. That, however, may not worry the White House as it focuses on the 2012 election. Some observers believe liberal voters will still turn out in force again to vote for Obama. “Obama has flexibility to move to the right, because he believes progressives will still vote for him. They have nowhere else to go,” said Pitney. But there are signs of growing anger and revolt in the party as Democrats scramble to protect America’s already shaky welfare programmes. A few voices are even whispering of searching for someone to lead a primary challenge against Obama. “Who knows? Maybe there will be a challenge from the left. If progressives are disgusted enough, I would not rule it out. It would send a message,” said Haas. US economy Economics US domestic policy United States Barack Obama John Boehner Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Survivors of London bombings call in lawyers to investigate allegations that officers may have passed on addresses Survivors of the 2005 London bombings have asked lawyers to investigate allegations that Scotland Yard “sold” or passed on the confidential contact list of the 7 July victims to reporters working for News International. Beverli Rhodes, chair of the Survivors’ Coalition Foundation, said that a number of 7/7 victims suspected that personal contact details, including mobile phone and ex-directory landline numbers as well as home addresses, were passed by officers to News of the World journalists. The former security consultant, who specialised in counter-terrorism, said she had been contacted by a number of survivors of the bombings who said they had been approached by News of the World reporters with bogus stories of how they obtained their details, which they believe may have originated with the police. Their concerns have been discussed with the London law firm McCue and Partners. A spokesman said the survivors were considering their next step, having made requests for the Met to provide answers. Rhodes said: “Scotland Yard had the full list of survivor contact details. I am pretty sure that is how the News of the World got my home address. I had only moved there maybe three or four weeks before News of the World reporters turned up. The only place where my new details were stored were the post office, bank, doctor and Scotland Yard. “The suspicion is that the full list was given or sold on to the newspaper or News International or fell into someone’s lap when visiting the Yard. One of the survivor’s phone numbers is not listed and only known to me and family, but they had addresses to homes, home phone numbers, mobile phones.” She said that after the hacking scandal gathered momentum following the Milly Dowler revelations, several survivors approached her asking if she had provided their personal details to News of the World reporters. “Two News of the World reporters told them they had got their details from me. They asked: ‘Did you give my number to these reporters?’, and I said: ‘No, never’. These reporters knew an awful lot of specific information and asked very detailed questions.” Rhodes is now demanding that McCue and Partners officially request details from the Metropolitan police to establish if their concerns are substantiated. Scotland Yard has started to contact the relatives of 7/7 victims to warn them they were targeted by the News of the World . It is understood that bereaved family members may have had their mobile phone messages intercepted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator employed by the paper, in the days following the London bombings. The Dowler revelations are likely to increase pressure on Andy Coulson, the paper’s former editor, and David Cameron, who hired him as his spokesman. Last week recently resigned News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, in response to questions from Paul Farrelly MP, said she was away when Dowler’s phone was hacked and the paper was edited by her deputy, Coulson, or associate editor, Harry Scott. Sources have indicated Coulson was editing the paper then. “It was the Milly Dowler revelations that broke the camel’s back,” Farrelly said. “Rebekah Brooks has let it be known that she was away at the time, so this brings it all back to Coulson.” Brooks’s comments will raise further questions about the cache of emails exchanged between senior editors on the paper which have now been handed to police. There is speculation that they will show who on the paper commissioned the hacking of Dowler’s phone. Although Rhodes has not been contacted by the Met, she has spoken to other survivors. She was one of more than 700 victims of the attacks, which killed 52 people, and was severely injured by the bomb that hit the Piccadilly line tube near King’s Cross. Rhodes, from Ashford, Kent, said the request from reporters involved sensitive details on compensation claims and the nature of injuries. She provided the names of two News of the World reporters who previously had not been connected to the phone-hacking scandal. A McCue and Partners spokesman said the firm was evaluating the allegations and “considering their position”. Among those known to have been contacted by officers working on Operation Weeting, the Met’s investigation into phone hacking, are Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed at Edgware Road tube station. He said they told him his mobile phone number, ex-directory landline number and address had been found in records made by Mulcaire. Another is Sean Cassidy, father of a victim, and Paul Dadge, famous for helping victims during the attack, who has also been reported to have been emailed by the Met and told his name was in Mulcaire’s records. Last week Scotland Yard was asked to investigate claims that News of the World reporters paid officers to obtain people’s locations by tracking their cell phone signals – known as “pinging”. Phone hacking 7 July London attacks News of the World Andy Coulson Rebekah Brooks Police Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Mark Townsend Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Survivors of London bombings call in lawyers to investigate allegations that officers may have passed on addresses Survivors of the 2005 London bombings have asked lawyers to investigate allegations that Scotland Yard “sold” or passed on the confidential contact list of the 7 July victims to reporters working for News International. Beverli Rhodes, chair of the Survivors’ Coalition Foundation, said that a number of 7/7 victims suspected that personal contact details, including mobile phone and ex-directory landline numbers as well as home addresses, were passed by officers to News of the World journalists. The former security consultant, who specialised in counter-terrorism, said she had been contacted by a number of survivors of the bombings who said they had been approached by News of the World reporters with bogus stories of how they obtained their details, which they believe may have originated with the police. Their concerns have been discussed with the London law firm McCue and Partners. A spokesman said the survivors were considering their next step, having made requests for the Met to provide answers. Rhodes said: “Scotland Yard had the full list of survivor contact details. I am pretty sure that is how the News of the World got my home address. I had only moved there maybe three or four weeks before News of the World reporters turned up. The only place where my new details were stored were the post office, bank, doctor and Scotland Yard. “The suspicion is that the full list was given or sold on to the newspaper or News International or fell into someone’s lap when visiting the Yard. One of the survivor’s phone numbers is not listed and only known to me and family, but they had addresses to homes, home phone numbers, mobile phones.” She said that after the hacking scandal gathered momentum following the Milly Dowler revelations, several survivors approached her asking if she had provided their personal details to News of the World reporters. “Two News of the World reporters told them they had got their details from me. They asked: ‘Did you give my number to these reporters?’, and I said: ‘No, never’. These reporters knew an awful lot of specific information and asked very detailed questions.” Rhodes is now demanding that McCue and Partners officially request details from the Metropolitan police to establish if their concerns are substantiated. Scotland Yard has started to contact the relatives of 7/7 victims to warn them they were targeted by the News of the World . It is understood that bereaved family members may have had their mobile phone messages intercepted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator employed by the paper, in the days following the London bombings. The Dowler revelations are likely to increase pressure on Andy Coulson, the paper’s former editor, and David Cameron, who hired him as his spokesman. Last week recently resigned News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, in response to questions from Paul Farrelly MP, said she was away when Dowler’s phone was hacked and the paper was edited by her deputy, Coulson, or associate editor, Harry Scott. Sources have indicated Coulson was editing the paper then. “It was the Milly Dowler revelations that broke the camel’s back,” Farrelly said. “Rebekah Brooks has let it be known that she was away at the time, so this brings it all back to Coulson.” Brooks’s comments will raise further questions about the cache of emails exchanged between senior editors on the paper which have now been handed to police. There is speculation that they will show who on the paper commissioned the hacking of Dowler’s phone. Although Rhodes has not been contacted by the Met, she has spoken to other survivors. She was one of more than 700 victims of the attacks, which killed 52 people, and was severely injured by the bomb that hit the Piccadilly line tube near King’s Cross. Rhodes, from Ashford, Kent, said the request from reporters involved sensitive details on compensation claims and the nature of injuries. She provided the names of two News of the World reporters who previously had not been connected to the phone-hacking scandal. A McCue and Partners spokesman said the firm was evaluating the allegations and “considering their position”. Among those known to have been contacted by officers working on Operation Weeting, the Met’s investigation into phone hacking, are Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed at Edgware Road tube station. He said they told him his mobile phone number, ex-directory landline number and address had been found in records made by Mulcaire. Another is Sean Cassidy, father of a victim, and Paul Dadge, famous for helping victims during the attack, who has also been reported to have been emailed by the Met and told his name was in Mulcaire’s records. Last week Scotland Yard was asked to investigate claims that News of the World reporters paid officers to obtain people’s locations by tracking their cell phone signals – known as “pinging”. Phone hacking 7 July London attacks News of the World Andy Coulson Rebekah Brooks Police Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Mark Townsend Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The snapshot emerging of 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in Norway’s twin attacks: He is a self-described nationalist who posted in extreme right forums in Norway. He often complained about Islam (“I know of many hundred occasions where non-Muslims have been robbed, beaten up and harassed by Islamic gangs”…
Continue reading …
Amy Winehouse, the beehived soul-jazz diva whose self-destructive habits overshadowed a distinctive musical talent, was found dead Saturday in her London home, police said. She was 27. (July 23)
Continue reading …Leahy On Balanced Budget Amendment Proposals: ‘Our Constitution Deserves Protection’
July 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Sen. Pat Leahy did a great job of knocking down his fellow member of the Unites States Senate, John Thune after he went onto the floor and pretended like this “cut, cap and balance” nonsense that we saw passed in the House was either something responsible to get our economy back on track, or something that had any chance in hell of being anything other than a political stunt and a talking point for Republicans with their fake claims that any of them have ever had any real interest in balancing our budget. Here’s more from Leahy’s site with his speech on the Senate floor — Leahy On Balanced Budget Amdt. Proposals: “Our Constitution Deserves Protection.” : Mr. President, unlike any Republican in the House or the Senate, I have voted for a balanced budget. We balanced the budget under President Clinton. Not only balanced the budget, but started paying down the national debt. He was able to leave hundreds of billions of dollars in surplus to his successor, who determined with Republican votes to go to war in Iraq and pay for the war with a tax cut. That’s why we had to borrow the money from China and Saudi Arabia. Not a single Republican voted for a real balanced budget when they had a chance to. In fact, it passed in the Senate only because Vice President Gore came and broke the tie. I was proud to vote for that balanced budget. Not a gimmick, but a real balanced budget. We had to actually make tough choices. We did. We balanced it. We had a surplus. But when you talk about amending our Nation’s fundamental charter, the Constitution of the United States, it’s not something Congress and the American people should feel forced to do in the face of a financial crisis. I take seriously my senatorial oath to support and defend the Constitution. Now, I know that there are a lot of pressure groups demanding that elected representatives sign pledges about what they will and will not do. The pledge I follow, the one I was honored to make at the beginning of this Congress, is to uphold the Constitution. That’s what I intend to do as I represent the people of Vermont. The House-passed bill, H.R.2560, which the Senate is now considering, claims to impose a balanced budget of future congresses but it doesn’t even contain the proposed constitutional amendment the supporters are seeking to adopt. Nor did the bill pass with two-thirds of the Republican-controlled House voting in favor. That threshold is what is required, of course, to pass a constitutional amendment. The House vote was more than 50 votes short of that necessary number. The process by which this bill has been brought to the Floor of the Senate is an affront to the Constitution that we’re sworn to protect and defend. Instead, the House bill denies authority to meet the Nation’s obligations until Congress passes a type of constitutional amendment that will actually make it more difficult to reduce our national debt. That kind of constitutional blackmail has no place in a democracy, and no place in our laws. It’s why the Founders did not include a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget or prohibition against incurring debt in our Constitution. They knew full well that would have been foolish and dangerous and self-defeating to the Nation they were seeking to establish. And I respect the wisdom of the Founders to uphold the Constitution, which has served this Nation so well for the last 223 years. Let us not be so vain to think we know better than the Founders what the Constitution should prescribe. I reject the notion that for political reasons we need to rush consideration of an ill-conceived and evolving proposal for a constitutional amendment. I’m going to stand with the Founders. I’ll defend their work and our Constitution and oppose a proposed series of constitutional amendments which incidentally haven’t even had a hearing. Amend the Constitution and we haven’t even had a hearing on it. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are permanent. They’re not bills or resolutions that can be abandoned or fixed. They are not just a bumper sticker or a sound bite. Each word matters to hundreds of millions of Americans and future generations. I have never seen — and I have been here 37 years – I’ve never seen the solemn duty of protecting the Constitution treated in such a cavalier manner. I wish that those who so say they revere the Constitution would show it the respect it deserves rather than treating it like a blog entry. I am concerned how some in recent years have sought to impose their view by unilateral objection to compromise with minority obstruction. That has, at times, seemed to be the rule in the last few years. Some have tried to undermine the legitimacy of President Obama. Filibusters and requirements for supermajorities have become routine. They’ve stymied congressional action on the part of the American people. This year should be a cautionary tale that convinces all Americans that the risks of default and ideological impasse to them, to interest rates, to financial markets, and to our household budgets are too great. We need only recall the game of chicken earlier this year with the Government shutdown. I cannot help but think, if we don’t take the steps we should, we will see our interest rates go up, we’ll spend hundreds of billions of dollars in extra interest to China, which they can spend on infrastructure, they can spend on medical research, they can spend on education; we won’t have it here in the United States. That’s what the other side seems to want. We’ve seen the danger that irresponsible brinkmanship can promote. We should guard against it. Building into the Constitution a supermajority requirement for fiscal policy invites political blackmail and gridlock. We’ve seen enough of that already. The source of our budgetary problems does not lie with the Constitution. The Constitution remains sound. It is lacking the political courage to do what is right. The last time we balanced a budget, not a single Republican voted for that balanced budget. Yet it created enormous surpluses. These proposed constitutional amendments would not cut a single dime from the debt or Federal budget. Rather than deal with our problems, some want to require that we deface the Constitution with a measure that will by its own terms not be effective for five years, if it were to be adopted by two-thirds of both houses, the Congress, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. Put that another way — at least three election cycles from now. We get our bumper stickers today, but we kick the can down the road three election cycles. Congress has the power now to take steps to avoid a Government default, and get us on the path to rebalancing the budget, just as we did at the end of the Clinton administration. This debate is a distraction from the hard work and hard choices that need to be made. Proposed amendments to the Constitution are not just unnecessary, they’re unwise and dangerous. In my view, the House-passed bill, the proposed amendment, demeans our Constitution. Never in our history have we amended the Constitution, the work of our Founders, to impose budgetary restrictions or required supermajorities for passing legislation and now we’re saying, let’s do it, let’s do it on a whim, let’s do it without any hearings, let’s do it because we can do it. All Senators swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s our duty and responsibility. The Constitution has allowed America to flourish, and adapt to new challenges. We have amended it only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution deserves protection. I stand with the Constitution today. I am going to support the motion to table this ill-conceived legislation. Here’s Thune’s speech he was responding to. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …
FREE BMC-BRC in BATAAN (secret cove) Tour de France 2011 第廿站黃衫再次易主 Tour de France 2011 – 20ème Étape – Contre la Montre – Arrivée – Pierre Rolland InBlogUS says: Bmc : BMC Software To Host Panel on Cloud Computing for the Federal Government http://p.ost.im/p/eeuYbt
Continue reading …
This is one spill that’s won’t be rubbed out easily. That’s because this was no bottom-shelf wine. 462 cases of Australian wine, each bottle valued at $185 Australian dollars (about $200), fell 20 feet off a forklift as it was being loaded onto a ship Thursday. Only one case of the 2010 Mollydooker Velvet Glove
Continue reading …Unlimited vacation time: It sounds like a major fringe benefit. What just a few companies started enticing employees with in the ’90s has gathered steam in recent years. But is the open-ended approach—in which workers have no set number of days they’re restricted to but generally have to get…
Continue reading …