Home » Archives by category » News (Page 5110)
Anxiety Rises Along the Flood-swollen Mississipp

People along the lower Mississippi River packed their belongings and emergency workers filled sandbags as high water pushed its way downstream in a slow-motion disaster that could break flood records dating to the 1920s. (May 4)

Continue reading …
Anxiety Rises Along the Flood-swollen Mississipp

People along the lower Mississippi River packed their belongings and emergency workers filled sandbags as high water pushed its way downstream in a slow-motion disaster that could break flood records dating to the 1920s. (May 4)

Continue reading …
Anxiety Rises Along the Flood-swollen Mississipp

People along the lower Mississippi River packed their belongings and emergency workers filled sandbags as high water pushed its way downstream in a slow-motion disaster that could break flood records dating to the 1920s. (May 4)

Continue reading …

It took 10 years, but the US finally killed Osama bin Laden. Now the Arab and Muslim world has a daunting task of its own, writes Thomas Friedman: “Kill bin Ladenism.” Protesters from Tunisia to Syria have repudiated his doctrine of violence, and their progress is promising. “The question now,…

Continue reading …

Boy, was I ready to kick in my TV when this aired. I — and many of my fellow liberals — furiously sent off angry emails and tweets to Dylan Ratigan for this fawning piece that ignored what a festering pustule on humanity that Breitbart truly is. James Rucker of Color of Change also found it reprehensible and led a campaign to make sure Dylan Ratigan understood how irresponsible it was to not provide context to let the average viewer know exactly how much credibility should be lent to Breitbart. As you may know, ColorOfChange members led the charge to ensure that Breitbart’s credibility and image weren’t sanitized by ABC News or the Huffington Post. After we saw Breitbart on Ratigan’s show, with Ratigan seemingly praising Breitbart as “smart” and a “sharp shooter who gets results,” we were deeply concerned. When I spoke with Ratigan, he explained what he was trying to do. He quickly agreed that Breitbart was a race-baiter, dishonest, and undeserving of credibility — without question. And he frankly hadn’t thought about the legitimizing effect that having Breitbart on his show — without clearly labeling him as the race-baiter and deceiver he is — would have. Ratigan’s core issue is exposing the corruptive nature of corporate dollars in politics (which I, and many ColorOfChange members would agree is a critical and important endeavor). Ratigan’s goal in interviewing Breitbart was to ask him why he chose targets like Sherrod or the NAACP, while Breitbart and the Tea Party activists he defends seems to agree that banks and corporations with undue influence over government are actually the ones destroying our country. It’s an important criticism of Breitbart. Ratigan’s goal was to keep the conversation there, and he believed that if he focused on Breitbart’s penchant for race-baiting and deception, it would simply trigger Breitbart, and he’d end up in the same conversation others have where Breitbart goes on a rampage and the conversation goes nowhere. Moving forward, Ratigan said that if he deals with Breitbart at all in the future, it will be with the explicit disclaimer that Breibart is someone who deceives and race-baits. Ratigan recognizes and respects the argument that there’s a problem with giving Breitbart a mainstream platform, and he’s committed to making sure that his show is not used to lend Breitbart the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. Breitbart, not surprisingly, is completely unapologetic . Can’t expect a racist to give up that white robe so quickly. However, I give Ratigan and his producers credit for being receptive to this at all…too often, these kinds of issues are raised by liberals and dismissed out of hand. I’d rather that MSNBC acknowledge that people like Breitbart (and network regular Pat Buchanan, come to that) really have no right to expect a national platform for their racism and hate. I doubt very much that Ratigan or the suits at MSNBC have any idea the message it sends to people of color . But I’ll take this incremental step gladly and keep pushing for more. Kudos to James Rucker and Color of Change.

Continue reading …

Boy, was I ready to kick in my TV when this aired. I — and many of my fellow liberals — furiously sent off angry emails and tweets to Dylan Ratigan for this fawning piece that ignored what a festering pustule on humanity that Breitbart truly is. James Rucker of Color of Change also found it reprehensible and led a campaign to make sure Dylan Ratigan understood how irresponsible it was to not provide context to let the average viewer know exactly how much credibility should be lent to Breitbart. As you may know, ColorOfChange members led the charge to ensure that Breitbart’s credibility and image weren’t sanitized by ABC News or the Huffington Post. After we saw Breitbart on Ratigan’s show, with Ratigan seemingly praising Breitbart as “smart” and a “sharp shooter who gets results,” we were deeply concerned. When I spoke with Ratigan, he explained what he was trying to do. He quickly agreed that Breitbart was a race-baiter, dishonest, and undeserving of credibility — without question. And he frankly hadn’t thought about the legitimizing effect that having Breitbart on his show — without clearly labeling him as the race-baiter and deceiver he is — would have. Ratigan’s core issue is exposing the corruptive nature of corporate dollars in politics (which I, and many ColorOfChange members would agree is a critical and important endeavor). Ratigan’s goal in interviewing Breitbart was to ask him why he chose targets like Sherrod or the NAACP, while Breitbart and the Tea Party activists he defends seems to agree that banks and corporations with undue influence over government are actually the ones destroying our country. It’s an important criticism of Breitbart. Ratigan’s goal was to keep the conversation there, and he believed that if he focused on Breitbart’s penchant for race-baiting and deception, it would simply trigger Breitbart, and he’d end up in the same conversation others have where Breitbart goes on a rampage and the conversation goes nowhere. Moving forward, Ratigan said that if he deals with Breitbart at all in the future, it will be with the explicit disclaimer that Breibart is someone who deceives and race-baits. Ratigan recognizes and respects the argument that there’s a problem with giving Breitbart a mainstream platform, and he’s committed to making sure that his show is not used to lend Breitbart the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. Breitbart, not surprisingly, is completely unapologetic . Can’t expect a racist to give up that white robe so quickly. However, I give Ratigan and his producers credit for being receptive to this at all…too often, these kinds of issues are raised by liberals and dismissed out of hand. I’d rather that MSNBC acknowledge that people like Breitbart (and network regular Pat Buchanan, come to that) really have no right to expect a national platform for their racism and hate. I doubt very much that Ratigan or the suits at MSNBC have any idea the message it sends to people of color . But I’ll take this incremental step gladly and keep pushing for more. Kudos to James Rucker and Color of Change.

Continue reading …

Boy, was I ready to kick in my TV when this aired. I — and many of my fellow liberals — furiously sent off angry emails and tweets to Dylan Ratigan for this fawning piece that ignored what a festering pustule on humanity that Breitbart truly is. James Rucker of Color of Change also found it reprehensible and led a campaign to make sure Dylan Ratigan understood how irresponsible it was to not provide context to let the average viewer know exactly how much credibility should be lent to Breitbart. As you may know, ColorOfChange members led the charge to ensure that Breitbart’s credibility and image weren’t sanitized by ABC News or the Huffington Post. After we saw Breitbart on Ratigan’s show, with Ratigan seemingly praising Breitbart as “smart” and a “sharp shooter who gets results,” we were deeply concerned. When I spoke with Ratigan, he explained what he was trying to do. He quickly agreed that Breitbart was a race-baiter, dishonest, and undeserving of credibility — without question. And he frankly hadn’t thought about the legitimizing effect that having Breitbart on his show — without clearly labeling him as the race-baiter and deceiver he is — would have. Ratigan’s core issue is exposing the corruptive nature of corporate dollars in politics (which I, and many ColorOfChange members would agree is a critical and important endeavor). Ratigan’s goal in interviewing Breitbart was to ask him why he chose targets like Sherrod or the NAACP, while Breitbart and the Tea Party activists he defends seems to agree that banks and corporations with undue influence over government are actually the ones destroying our country. It’s an important criticism of Breitbart. Ratigan’s goal was to keep the conversation there, and he believed that if he focused on Breitbart’s penchant for race-baiting and deception, it would simply trigger Breitbart, and he’d end up in the same conversation others have where Breitbart goes on a rampage and the conversation goes nowhere. Moving forward, Ratigan said that if he deals with Breitbart at all in the future, it will be with the explicit disclaimer that Breibart is someone who deceives and race-baits. Ratigan recognizes and respects the argument that there’s a problem with giving Breitbart a mainstream platform, and he’s committed to making sure that his show is not used to lend Breitbart the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. Breitbart, not surprisingly, is completely unapologetic . Can’t expect a racist to give up that white robe so quickly. However, I give Ratigan and his producers credit for being receptive to this at all…too often, these kinds of issues are raised by liberals and dismissed out of hand. I’d rather that MSNBC acknowledge that people like Breitbart (and network regular Pat Buchanan, come to that) really have no right to expect a national platform for their racism and hate. I doubt very much that Ratigan or the suits at MSNBC have any idea the message it sends to people of color . But I’ll take this incremental step gladly and keep pushing for more. Kudos to James Rucker and Color of Change.

Continue reading …
As Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised, ‘Headache’ For Cities, States Begins Friday

NEW YORK — As the federal government approaches its legal debt ceiling and scrambles to avoid default, the first losers will be cities and states. Starting Friday, the U.S. Treasury will stop issuing special securities that help state and local governments pay for their debt, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced in a letter to Congress this week. This freeze, the first in a series of “extraordinary measures” undertaken by the Treasury to avoid a federal default, could pose difficulties for local governments nationwide, making it more complicated for strapped localities to manage their already weak finances. “I could see it being a real problem for those guys, on top of all the headaches they have already,” said David Johnson, a partner at the Chicago-based ACM Partners, a boutique financial firm that advises struggling municipalities. Congress has been mired in a months-long gridlock, as lawmakers debate proposals to reduce the federal deficit. This stalemate in the highest echelons of American political power nearly shut down the federal government in April, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over a few billion dollars in spending cuts. Now, Republican lawmakers who advocate for budget austerity are saying they will not vote to raise the debt limit unless their demands are met. The federal government continually issues new debt to pay for principal and interest on older debt, meaning that if it’s legally barred from borrowing above a limit, it will eventually have to default on its obligations, an event that would likely spark a devastating financial crisis worldwide. Government officials and independent economists have sharply criticized the seeming game of chicken going on in Congress, as lawmakers are essentially threatening to lead the global economy into catastrophe, simply to advance a political agenda. But it appears Congress will not raise the federal debt limit before that ceiling is reached on May 16, Geithner said in his letter. In anticipation of this inaction, the Treasury will begin shutting down certain types of debt issuance this week, a process that will kick into higher gear in mid-May if the limit isn’t raised. A default, which would likely cause borrowing costs to skyrocket and credit markets to freeze, will come in early August if Congress doesn’t vote to raise the limit, Geithner said in the letter. When the “extraordinary measures” begin Friday, the first casualty will be a category of non-marketable bonds known as State and Local Government Series securities, or SLGS (pronounced “slugs”). These securities are tailor-made for state and local governments, designed to help them pay for their debt. Local governments regularly issue bonds and then invest this borrowed money into U.S. Treasury securities. The process allows them to collect interest from the federal government, and use that yield to pay their own bondholders. By law, local governments can’t earn arbitrage profits — meaning, they can’t make a profit by collecting more in Treasury yields than they pay to their own investors. So, the federal government issues SLGS, which are customized to match the specifics of a local government’s need. Ideally, the process is a wash. State and local governments have bought $23 billion in SLGS so far this year, and they have issued $62 billion in debt, according to Thomson data provided by Matt Fabian, managing director of the Concord, Mass.-based Municipal Market Advisors. These specialized securities are a handy tool for governments, Fabian said. “It’s probably the most efficient way to do refinancings,” said Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management. Without SLGS, he said, governments face “a headache.” Losing SLGS temporarily is not a major hardship, but it is an annoyance, experts said. In the absence of SLGS, a local government will likely put its money in marketable Treasury debt, paying an outside advisor to craft a Treasury investment that allows it to comply with the law preventing arbitrage. When the federal government issues SLGS, it takes care of this customization. Without SLGS, a banker does that job. From the federal government’s perspective, cutting SLGS does not actually lower the total debt burden. Rather, it makes debt issuance more predictable, and it helps reduce increases in debt. The Treasury issues most of its debt according to a pre-determined schedule; SLGS, though, are issued as local governments request them. Geithner, who has persistently warned Congress of the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling, acknowledged the difficulty that comes from this first step in the process of preventing default. “It is not without costs,” he said in the recent letter to Congress. “It will deprive state and local governments of an important tool to manage their outstanding debt expenses.” Already, local government officials are frustrated by the federal lawmaking process. Last week, during a conference in Chicago, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter struck a confrontational tone with the federal officials who sat with him on stage, saying, “Mayors could never get away with the kind of nonsense that goes on in Washington.” Other mayors heartily agreed, as some stood up during the question and answer session to express their disappointment with the federal government. Local governments can efficiently create jobs, but they lack resources from Washington to help them do so, these mayors said. Lawmakers on the Hill, meanwhile, are showing no sign of progress on the debt ceiling debate. “In a way, we are engaged in a political game,” said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and a current fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washington. “Will a miscalculation occur that leads to a real disaster?”

Continue reading …
As Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised, ‘Headache’ For Cities, States Begins Friday

NEW YORK — As the federal government approaches its legal debt ceiling and scrambles to avoid default, the first losers will be cities and states. Starting Friday, the U.S. Treasury will stop issuing special securities that help state and local governments pay for their debt, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced in a letter to Congress this week. This freeze, the first in a series of “extraordinary measures” undertaken by the Treasury to avoid a federal default, could pose difficulties for local governments nationwide, making it more complicated for strapped localities to manage their already weak finances. “I could see it being a real problem for those guys, on top of all the headaches they have already,” said David Johnson, a partner at the Chicago-based ACM Partners, a boutique financial firm that advises struggling municipalities. Congress has been mired in a months-long gridlock, as lawmakers debate proposals to reduce the federal deficit. This stalemate in the highest echelons of American political power nearly shut down the federal government in April, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over a few billion dollars in spending cuts. Now, Republican lawmakers who advocate for budget austerity are saying they will not vote to raise the debt limit unless their demands are met. The federal government continually issues new debt to pay for principal and interest on older debt, meaning that if it’s legally barred from borrowing above a limit, it will eventually have to default on its obligations, an event that would likely spark a devastating financial crisis worldwide. Government officials and independent economists have sharply criticized the seeming game of chicken going on in Congress, as lawmakers are essentially threatening to lead the global economy into catastrophe, simply to advance a political agenda. But it appears Congress will not raise the federal debt limit before that ceiling is reached on May 16, Geithner said in his letter. In anticipation of this inaction, the Treasury will begin shutting down certain types of debt issuance this week, a process that will kick into higher gear in mid-May if the limit isn’t raised. A default, which would likely cause borrowing costs to skyrocket and credit markets to freeze, will come in early August if Congress doesn’t vote to raise the limit, Geithner said in the letter. When the “extraordinary measures” begin Friday, the first casualty will be a category of non-marketable bonds known as State and Local Government Series securities, or SLGS (pronounced “slugs”). These securities are tailor-made for state and local governments, designed to help them pay for their debt. Local governments regularly issue bonds and then invest this borrowed money into U.S. Treasury securities. The process allows them to collect interest from the federal government, and use that yield to pay their own bondholders. By law, local governments can’t earn arbitrage profits — meaning, they can’t make a profit by collecting more in Treasury yields than they pay to their own investors. So, the federal government issues SLGS, which are customized to match the specifics of a local government’s need. Ideally, the process is a wash. State and local governments have bought $23 billion in SLGS so far this year, and they have issued $62 billion in debt, according to Thomson data provided by Matt Fabian, managing director of the Concord, Mass.-based Municipal Market Advisors. These specialized securities are a handy tool for governments, Fabian said. “It’s probably the most efficient way to do refinancings,” said Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management. Without SLGS, he said, governments face “a headache.” Losing SLGS temporarily is not a major hardship, but it is an annoyance, experts said. In the absence of SLGS, a local government will likely put its money in marketable Treasury debt, paying an outside advisor to craft a Treasury investment that allows it to comply with the law preventing arbitrage. When the federal government issues SLGS, it takes care of this customization. Without SLGS, a banker does that job. From the federal government’s perspective, cutting SLGS does not actually lower the total debt burden. Rather, it makes debt issuance more predictable, and it helps reduce increases in debt. The Treasury issues most of its debt according to a pre-determined schedule; SLGS, though, are issued as local governments request them. Geithner, who has persistently warned Congress of the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling, acknowledged the difficulty that comes from this first step in the process of preventing default. “It is not without costs,” he said in the recent letter to Congress. “It will deprive state and local governments of an important tool to manage their outstanding debt expenses.” Already, local government officials are frustrated by the federal lawmaking process. Last week, during a conference in Chicago, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter struck a confrontational tone with the federal officials who sat with him on stage, saying, “Mayors could never get away with the kind of nonsense that goes on in Washington.” Other mayors heartily agreed, as some stood up during the question and answer session to express their disappointment with the federal government. Local governments can efficiently create jobs, but they lack resources from Washington to help them do so, these mayors said. Lawmakers on the Hill, meanwhile, are showing no sign of progress on the debt ceiling debate. “In a way, we are engaged in a political game,” said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and a current fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washington. “Will a miscalculation occur that leads to a real disaster?”

Continue reading …
As Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised, ‘Headache’ For Cities, States Begins Friday

NEW YORK — As the federal government approaches its legal debt ceiling and scrambles to avoid default, the first losers will be cities and states. Starting Friday, the U.S. Treasury will stop issuing special securities that help state and local governments pay for their debt, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced in a letter to Congress this week. This freeze, the first in a series of “extraordinary measures” undertaken by the Treasury to avoid a federal default, could pose difficulties for local governments nationwide, making it more complicated for strapped localities to manage their already weak finances. “I could see it being a real problem for those guys, on top of all the headaches they have already,” said David Johnson, a partner at the Chicago-based ACM Partners, a boutique financial firm that advises struggling municipalities. Congress has been mired in a months-long gridlock, as lawmakers debate proposals to reduce the federal deficit. This stalemate in the highest echelons of American political power nearly shut down the federal government in April, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over a few billion dollars in spending cuts. Now, Republican lawmakers who advocate for budget austerity are saying they will not vote to raise the debt limit unless their demands are met. The federal government continually issues new debt to pay for principal and interest on older debt, meaning that if it’s legally barred from borrowing above a limit, it will eventually have to default on its obligations, an event that would likely spark a devastating financial crisis worldwide. Government officials and independent economists have sharply criticized the seeming game of chicken going on in Congress, as lawmakers are essentially threatening to lead the global economy into catastrophe, simply to advance a political agenda. But it appears Congress will not raise the federal debt limit before that ceiling is reached on May 16, Geithner said in his letter. In anticipation of this inaction, the Treasury will begin shutting down certain types of debt issuance this week, a process that will kick into higher gear in mid-May if the limit isn’t raised. A default, which would likely cause borrowing costs to skyrocket and credit markets to freeze, will come in early August if Congress doesn’t vote to raise the limit, Geithner said in the letter. When the “extraordinary measures” begin Friday, the first casualty will be a category of non-marketable bonds known as State and Local Government Series securities, or SLGS (pronounced “slugs”). These securities are tailor-made for state and local governments, designed to help them pay for their debt. Local governments regularly issue bonds and then invest this borrowed money into U.S. Treasury securities. The process allows them to collect interest from the federal government, and use that yield to pay their own bondholders. By law, local governments can’t earn arbitrage profits — meaning, they can’t make a profit by collecting more in Treasury yields than they pay to their own investors. So, the federal government issues SLGS, which are customized to match the specifics of a local government’s need. Ideally, the process is a wash. State and local governments have bought $23 billion in SLGS so far this year, and they have issued $62 billion in debt, according to Thomson data provided by Matt Fabian, managing director of the Concord, Mass.-based Municipal Market Advisors. These specialized securities are a handy tool for governments, Fabian said. “It’s probably the most efficient way to do refinancings,” said Howard Cure, director of municipal research at Evercore Wealth Management. Without SLGS, he said, governments face “a headache.” Losing SLGS temporarily is not a major hardship, but it is an annoyance, experts said. In the absence of SLGS, a local government will likely put its money in marketable Treasury debt, paying an outside advisor to craft a Treasury investment that allows it to comply with the law preventing arbitrage. When the federal government issues SLGS, it takes care of this customization. Without SLGS, a banker does that job. From the federal government’s perspective, cutting SLGS does not actually lower the total debt burden. Rather, it makes debt issuance more predictable, and it helps reduce increases in debt. The Treasury issues most of its debt according to a pre-determined schedule; SLGS, though, are issued as local governments request them. Geithner, who has persistently warned Congress of the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling, acknowledged the difficulty that comes from this first step in the process of preventing default. “It is not without costs,” he said in the recent letter to Congress. “It will deprive state and local governments of an important tool to manage their outstanding debt expenses.” Already, local government officials are frustrated by the federal lawmaking process. Last week, during a conference in Chicago, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter struck a confrontational tone with the federal officials who sat with him on stage, saying, “Mayors could never get away with the kind of nonsense that goes on in Washington.” Other mayors heartily agreed, as some stood up during the question and answer session to express their disappointment with the federal government. Local governments can efficiently create jobs, but they lack resources from Washington to help them do so, these mayors said. Lawmakers on the Hill, meanwhile, are showing no sign of progress on the debt ceiling debate. “In a way, we are engaged in a political game,” said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and a current fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washington. “Will a miscalculation occur that leads to a real disaster?”

Continue reading …