Obama hits back at S&P’s downgrading of US credit rating and blames Tea Party Republicans for loss of AAA status Barack Obama has dismissed Standard and Poor’s downgrading of America’s credit rating and insisted the US remained an AAA country. In his first words since S&P’s decision on Friday evening, he sought to calm the markets, which had been tumbling since opening, saying America’s problems were solvable, providing there was the necessary political will. “This is the United States of America. No matter what some agency says, we will always be a triple A country,” he said. As well as seeking to reassure the markets, Obama also sought to protect his chances of re-election to the White House next year by blaming the decision on Tea Party Republicans. The downgrade, the first in American history, provides the Republicans with a powerful stick to with which beat him in the election campaign. Candidates seeking the party nomination to take on Obama pinned responsibility on the president, saying he had provided poor leadership and failed to take desperately-needed action to make even deeper debt cuts. A CNN poll showed 75% of those surveyed felt the economy was going badly – up 15% since May. Despite the Wall Street selloff, prompted by the ratings downgrade, international investors piled into US treasury bonds. By midday in New York, two-year US Treasuries were in such demand that their yields hit an all-time low of 0.24%. At the same time, 10-year Treasuries fell to 2.36%. Analysts said that – compared with the problems mounting in the eurozone – the US looked a safe haven. The VIX index – known as the “index of fear”, because it measures market confidence – jumped to levels not seen since the depths of the 2009 recession. Obama spoke from the White House while the markets were still open in the hope that he might have an influence – but they continued falling during and even after his statement. The president, blaming the Republicans, said the downgrade was not so much because of doubts about America’s ability to pay its debts but the month of wrangling in Washington over the debt ceiling rise. The question was a political one, not a financial one, he said. In a swipe at S&P, he noted that other credit agencies had not joined it in downgrading America. “It does not mean we don’t have a problem,” Obama said, citing the deadlock in Washington over the last month. He said the threat from the Republicans had upset the market, and that was a “legitimate concern”. But he claimed there was good news in that the problem could be fixed by balancing the budget and the new Congressional super-committee being set up to look at spending cuts and revenue raising could provide the answers. Good bipartisan proposals were out there, he said. “It is the lack of political will in Washington” that was the problem. He would put forward proposals of his own over the next few weeks. His statement is unlikely to create much confidence that there will be a bipartisan agreement. The president insisted there had to be tax raising measures, a move the Republicans say they will not even contemplate. Obama also said that any cuts in benefits, such as Medicare, would be “modest”, while Republicans are looking for deep cuts. Much of the political action this week will be in Iowa, the first state where the Republicans will hold their caucus early next year to choose a candidate to take on Obama. Most of the Republican hopefuls will be campaigning in the state this week ahead of a televised debate on Thursday and a straw poll on Saturday. However, the candidates lined up on Monday to blame Obama. The present Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, speaking in New Hampshire, another of the early states in the Republican nomination battle, said Obama was primarily responsible for the downgrade because he had failed to stimulate economic growth. He added that some of the blame could be placed on Democrats and Republicans in previous Congresses. “No, I don’t think it’s simply the president’s fault. I’m sure there are many people who share responsibility in Washington for the excessive spending over the last couple of decades,” Romney said. Democrats, most of them anonymous, also criticised Obama, saying his present troubles are a direct result of his failure to stand up to the Tea Party Republicans during the debt ceiling stand-off. There is unlikely to be much relief for Obama over the summer holidays. The political focus will shift to the composition of a new Congressional super-committee set up as part of the deal last week to draw up detailed plans for debt reduction. The committee is due to begin work in September and identify areas for spending cuts before the end of the year. The Obama administration expressed hope that the downgrade will put pressure on the bipartisan committee to reach a compromise. But Republicans, having fought two successful guerrilla campaigns this year so far in which they threatened to close down the federal government and force the US to default, are almost certain to renew hostilities over spending. Ha-Joon Chang, page 26 US economy Financial crisis Global recession United States Barack Obama Banking Stock markets Economics Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Obama hits back at S&P’s downgrading of US credit rating and blames Tea Party Republicans for loss of AAA status Barack Obama has dismissed Standard and Poor’s downgrading of America’s credit rating and insisted the US remained an AAA country. In his first words since S&P’s decision on Friday evening, he sought to calm the markets, which had been tumbling since opening, saying America’s problems were solvable, providing there was the necessary political will. “This is the United States of America. No matter what some agency says, we will always be a triple A country,” he said. As well as seeking to reassure the markets, Obama also sought to protect his chances of re-election to the White House next year by blaming the decision on Tea Party Republicans. The downgrade, the first in American history, provides the Republicans with a powerful stick to with which beat him in the election campaign. Candidates seeking the party nomination to take on Obama pinned responsibility on the president, saying he had provided poor leadership and failed to take desperately-needed action to make even deeper debt cuts. A CNN poll showed 75% of those surveyed felt the economy was going badly – up 15% since May. Despite the Wall Street selloff, prompted by the ratings downgrade, international investors piled into US treasury bonds. By midday in New York, two-year US Treasuries were in such demand that their yields hit an all-time low of 0.24%. At the same time, 10-year Treasuries fell to 2.36%. Analysts said that – compared with the problems mounting in the eurozone – the US looked a safe haven. The VIX index – known as the “index of fear”, because it measures market confidence – jumped to levels not seen since the depths of the 2009 recession. Obama spoke from the White House while the markets were still open in the hope that he might have an influence – but they continued falling during and even after his statement. The president, blaming the Republicans, said the downgrade was not so much because of doubts about America’s ability to pay its debts but the month of wrangling in Washington over the debt ceiling rise. The question was a political one, not a financial one, he said. In a swipe at S&P, he noted that other credit agencies had not joined it in downgrading America. “It does not mean we don’t have a problem,” Obama said, citing the deadlock in Washington over the last month. He said the threat from the Republicans had upset the market, and that was a “legitimate concern”. But he claimed there was good news in that the problem could be fixed by balancing the budget and the new Congressional super-committee being set up to look at spending cuts and revenue raising could provide the answers. Good bipartisan proposals were out there, he said. “It is the lack of political will in Washington” that was the problem. He would put forward proposals of his own over the next few weeks. His statement is unlikely to create much confidence that there will be a bipartisan agreement. The president insisted there had to be tax raising measures, a move the Republicans say they will not even contemplate. Obama also said that any cuts in benefits, such as Medicare, would be “modest”, while Republicans are looking for deep cuts. Much of the political action this week will be in Iowa, the first state where the Republicans will hold their caucus early next year to choose a candidate to take on Obama. Most of the Republican hopefuls will be campaigning in the state this week ahead of a televised debate on Thursday and a straw poll on Saturday. However, the candidates lined up on Monday to blame Obama. The present Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, speaking in New Hampshire, another of the early states in the Republican nomination battle, said Obama was primarily responsible for the downgrade because he had failed to stimulate economic growth. He added that some of the blame could be placed on Democrats and Republicans in previous Congresses. “No, I don’t think it’s simply the president’s fault. I’m sure there are many people who share responsibility in Washington for the excessive spending over the last couple of decades,” Romney said. Democrats, most of them anonymous, also criticised Obama, saying his present troubles are a direct result of his failure to stand up to the Tea Party Republicans during the debt ceiling stand-off. There is unlikely to be much relief for Obama over the summer holidays. The political focus will shift to the composition of a new Congressional super-committee set up as part of the deal last week to draw up detailed plans for debt reduction. The committee is due to begin work in September and identify areas for spending cuts before the end of the year. The Obama administration expressed hope that the downgrade will put pressure on the bipartisan committee to reach a compromise. But Republicans, having fought two successful guerrilla campaigns this year so far in which they threatened to close down the federal government and force the US to default, are almost certain to renew hostilities over spending. Ha-Joon Chang, page 26 US economy Financial crisis Global recession United States Barack Obama Banking Stock markets Economics Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media While I do not agree with all of the points Fareed Zakaria made during this segment, like comparing protecting our social safety nets to the Republicans rigidity on tax increases and painting those as being somehow equivalent; especially if you’re talking about raising the retirement age on Social Security instead of raising the income cap to keep it solvent for the long term. That said, I was glad to see someone point out just how destructive the Republicans use of the filibuster has been as he did here. And I agree with his points on the need to do more spending on education and infrastructure to get our economy growing again. Transcript via CNN : ZAKARIA: We’ve downgraded ourselves. We’ve demonstrated to ourselves, the world, to global markets that our political system is broken and that we are incapable of implementing sensible public policy. The actual cut to the 2012 budget, which is the only budget over which this Congress has any control, is $21 billion out of a total of $3 trillion in expenditures. Everything else can and will be changed by future Congresses. What the deal does is once again kick tough choices down the road, this time to a Congressional supercommission that will have to come up with a larger plan to reduce our debt. And it does nothing to spur growth, and, without growth, the debt and the deficit will expand well above current projections. The manner in which the deal was produced has added poison to an already toxic atmosphere in Washington, making compromise even more difficult. Democrats now feel they need to mirror the Tea Party’s tactics because they worked and they are becoming unyielding on any cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare. Republicans, emboldened by the success of their bullying, have closed ranks more solidly around a no-tax agenda, which is great, but the only solution to America’s debt dilemma needs to involve both cuts to entitlement programs and higher tax revenues. Congress is more polarized than ever before, and that polarization has resulted in paralysis. More than two years into the Obama administration, hundreds of key positions in government remain vacant for lack of Senate confirmation. The Treasury Department, for example, had to handle the global financial crisis, recession, bank stress tests, the automaker bailouts, as well as its usual duties with about a dozen of its senior positions, almost its entire top management, vacant, nobody in there. Senate rules have been used, abused and twisted to allow constant delay and blockage. The filibuster, which was historically employed about once a decade, is now a routine procedure that allows the minority to thwart the will of the majority. In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80 percent of major legislation. Given how the chamber is composed, two senators per state no matter how thinly populated those states, people representing just 10 percent of the country can block all legislation. Is that how a democracy should function? These dysfunctions come at a bad time. The United States faces intense pressures from an aging population, technological change, globalization, new competitors. We need smart policies in every field. We need to pare back spending in areas like health care and pensions, but we need to expand it in others like research and development, infrastructure and education in order to boost economic growth. In an age of budgetary limits, the money needs to be spent wisely and only on programs that are effective. But, in area after area – energy, immigration, infrastructure – government policy is suboptimal, a sad mixture of political payoffs, corruption and ideological positioning. Countries from Canada to Australia to Singapore are implementing smart policies, copying best practices from around the world. We bicker and remain paralyzed. If, as a result of these Congressional antics, interest rates on America’s debt rise by one percent – in other words, if the world asks for just a little bit more interest in order to lend us money – the budget deficit will rise by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. That would more than wipe out the entire 10 years of cuts proposed in the debt deal. That’s the system at work these days. For more on this, you can read my cover story in this week’s “Time” magazine or Time.com.
Continue reading …
On Monday's NBC Today, correspondent Martin Fletcher reported on a deadly polar bear attack in Norway and explained: “The attack began at dawn with a bear looking for food….it's believed that with global warming, food is scarce. A post-mortem showed this polar bear was 110 pounds underweight, with almost no fat reserves. It must have been starving.” Fletcher began the report by declaring: “And today in the Arctic Circle, one of the most beautiful and hostile places on the planet, it's warmer than usual. There isn't much food for the polar bears. So when a group of British youngsters on a wildlife adventure trip set up camp for the night they became bait for a bear.” At the end of the segment, Fletcher noted that all the usual methods to defending against a bear attack had failed: “The expedition cut short its trip amid tough questions. Why did the gun not fire? Why did the warning trip – trip wire to stop bears not work? And especially at this time of year, when polar bears are hungry, why were the youngsters there in the first place?” Here is a portion of Fletcher's August 8 report: 7:50AM ET MATT LAUER: Back now at 7:50 with a horrifying and deadly polar bear attack in Norway, the victims, a group of teenagers on a wildlife adventure camping trip. NBC's Martin Fletcher is in London, he's got details on this. Martin, good morning. MARTIN FLETCHER: Hey Matt, good morning. Two British survivors of that horrific attack by the polar bear returned home this weekend, two more still in the hospital in Norway. The attack began at dawn with a bear looking for food. They're adorable at a distance and when they're well fed. When they're hungry, polar bears are mean killing machines. Ten feet tall, they weigh half a ton and can be ferocious. And today in the Arctic Circle, one of the most beautiful and hostile places on the planet, it's warmer than usual. There isn't much food for the polar bears. So when a group of British youngsters on a wildlife adventure trip set up camp for the night they became bait for a bear. (…) FLETCHER: There are about 2,000 polar bears here, but it's believed that with global warming, food is scarce. A post-mortem showed this polar bear was 110 pounds underweight, with almost no fat reserves. It must have been starving.
Continue reading …US helicopter shot down in Afghanistan was sent in after night raid went awry
August 8, 2011 No Comment
Officials say the Chinook, which crashed killing 38, was on its way to help a special forces team hunting a Taliban leader The helicopter carrying US special forces that was shot down in Afghanistan on Saturday, killing 38 troops, was coming to the rescue of a team on a mission to capture a senior Taliban leader. As the lumbering, twin-rotor Chinook troop transporter was coming in to land, US troops on the ground were in a serious confrontation with insurgents in the Tangi valley after their night raid went badly awry, it has emerged. The area is a hotbed for the Taliban and their Hizb-e-Islami allies to the west of Kabul. The International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said on Monday that other US special forces were looking for a “Taliban leader responsible for insurgent operations in the nearby Tangi valley”. Local officials and residents have identified various leading local insurgents as the target of the night raid, a tactic that has been greatly expanded over the last two years. However, the raiding party was discovered by a patrol of “several insurgents” armed with rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers and AK-47 assault rifles. Early reports had said the aircraft was shot down taking off after the rescue. But in its first detailed public statement the US-led Isaf said it was hit landing in Wardak province. The crash, the worst single incident for the US of the 10-year war, killed everyone on board, including 25 US special forces soldiers as well as the crew and seven elite Afghan commandos. Most of the soldiers were in the same Navy Seal Team Six unit that killed Osama bin Laden in May, although none was involved in the operation. Night patrols appear to be a new insurgent tactic to counteract Isaf’s devastating night raid campaign, with up to half a dozen such raids every night. Last year Taliban field commanders described to the Guardian some of their other methods used to counter night raids. Isaf said that although the engagement between the US raiders and the insurgent patrol resulted in the killing of “several enemies”, they nonetheless had to call in additional support. Military helicopters carry all sorts of devices to protect them against missile attacks but are at their most vulnerable at takeoff and landing when they are at relatively short range and moving slowly. Some Afghans who know the area well have suggested the Chinook was all the more vulnerable because of the local geography. “They had a clear shot, and the helicopter was hit right in the middle,” said engineer Taous, head of a tribal shura in Wardak. “Because of the shape of the valley there is really only one way in and out. Immediately after the crash the original team that had been awaiting rescue had itself to tend to their colleagues, breaking off the fire fight in a desperate bid to “secure the scene and search for survivors”. Yet more troops were also dispatched from a nearby base to assist. The Isaf statement said the helicopter had been “reportedly fired on by a rocket-propelled grenade”, a common but fairly inaccurate weapon, but also said an investigation was under way to establish “the exact cause of the crash”. Rumours have circulated in Wardak that a more sophisticated anti-aircraft system had been deployed by insurgents, and there has been speculation among analysts that an improvised rocket-assisted mortar may have been to blame. “Locals say they used a new weapon from Pakistan,” said Roshanak Wardak, head of a nearby hospital. “It is some sort of a rocket that the Taliban had not used before, and did not know would work. It was the first time they had ever used this weapon.” It has not been possible to verify the claims. The province’s police chief General Muzafarudding also cast doubt on claims that insurgents used anything more powerful than relatively crude RPGs. US military Afghanistan Taliban United States Nato Jon Boone guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Candy Crowley sat down with Mike McConnell, former Director of National Intelligence, over the recent report from cyber security company McAfee on cyber-terrorism. McAfee made the somewhat startlingly under-reported claim that it could identify at least 72 victims — including the governments and agencies of several countries — of ” Operation Shady Rat ” pointing to a single state actor as the perpetuator: On August 3rd, Reuters reported that McAfee was set to reveal that the company has uncovered an extensive, far-reaching case of espionage. When the report came, foreign states were implicated in general, but China was not specifically blamed. Vice President of threat research for McAfee, Dmitri Alperovitch, told Reuters that “Operation Shady RAT” – the term used for a massive loss of information due to recent hacking efforts – poses a significant threat to the United States. He wrote the following statement in a blog post on the threat: “What is happening to all this data — by now reaching petabytes as a whole — is still largely an open question. However, if even a fraction of it is used to build better competing products or beat a competitor at a key negotiation (due to having stolen the other team’s playbook), the loss represents a massive economic threat.” According to The Washington Post, many analysts are blaming China for hacking up to 72 networks across the world, including 49 intrusions in the U.S. alone. Oddly enough, what most media outlets leave out is the rest of the story – the fact that most of the security experts do not see this as a significant “new” threat – only an change in where the particular threat is coming from. Yet, that is not stopping major news networks and government officials from claiming that this is some sort of sign of massive increase of international cyber-terrorism. The truth is that the threat has been around as far back as 2006. What’s more notable to me is that not only was McAfee reticent to name names and point at China, but that we’re seeing a national moratorium against speaking out against these kind of terrorism attacks specifically by China . The long list of victims in the extended campaign include the governments of the United States, Taiwan, India, South Korea, Vietnam and Canada; the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); the International Olympic Committee (IOC); the World Anti-Doping Agency; and an array of companies, from defense contractors to high-tech enterprises. In the case of the United Nations, the hackers broke into the computer system of its secretariat in Geneva in 2008, hid there for nearly two years, and quietly combed through reams of secret data, according to McAfee. “Even we were surprised by the enormous diversity of the victim organizations and were taken aback by the audacity of the perpetrators,” McAfee’s vice president of threat research, Dmitri Alperovitch, wrote in a 14-page report released on Wednesday. “What is happening to all this data … is still largely an open question. However, if even a fraction of it is used to build better competing products or beat a competitor at a key negotiation (due to having stolen the other team’s playbook), the loss represents a massive economic threat.” As McConnell tells Crowley, the McAfee report could easily be the tip of the iceberg. And while the Obama administration has taken some measures, there’s a real danger of some fairly disastrous consequences: MCCONNELL: Now this administration has done many good things. They have an international policy, they’ve sent legislation to the congress for consideration. But it’s not nearly enough. It has to be significantly more enhanced than it is because as a nation, we are vulnerable. Let me give you two examples. A terrorist group that had cyber skills could attack the critical infrastructure of this country, particularly in the heat of summer or the cold of winter and cause chaos. It could disrupt banking, electric power. CROWLEY: It could shut down power grids. MCCONNELL: Indeed. And remember there was a blackout in about 2003 in the northeast. We were without power for several days. And it put us on the brink of chaos. It’s possible for a relatively small group to be able to do that to the country today. Now, if you go to cyber war where we were mad at someone, we were exchanging hostilities in some way, some of these nation states have penetrated our systems, not only to gain information advantage, but to leave capability that can be used… CROWLEY: Later on. MCCONNELL: Later on when there’s a crisis of some sort. So at one level we’re losing our economic advantage of our innovation engine. And at another level, we haven’t adequately addressed the potential for a terrorist group, someone that would not be deterred from inflicting major damage on what I call the soft underbelly of the country. Scary. So when will we be able to be honest and name names? When will we start calling out China for their IP espionage? What will we do to fight this kind of terrorism?
Continue reading …
CNN's Don Lemon asked a guest Sunday if President Obama is “more conservative” than most would believe. Lemon referred back to his question last week, which NewsBusters reported , when he asked a Democrat congressman if Obama would do better running as a conservative in 2012. The CNN anchor claimed he was being facetious then, but jovially added “Someone took that seriously.” Then, quoting a columnist who argues Obama is a closet moderate-conservative, he posed the question to guest Heather McGhee from Demos.org: “Is Obama more conservative than most people think?” [Video below the break.] Lemon had quoted from a piece by Fiscal Times columnist Bruce Bartlett, who argued that Obama has “always been moderately conservative” since the beginning of the 2008 campaign. Bartlett, sounding like a despairing liberal, wrote that Obama's being “moderately conservative” has been “obvious” to liberals ever since Obama ran for the White House. Whether Lemon meant what he asked, or was simply trying to stir the pot with a provocative question, guest Heather McGhee responded in the affirmative. “I think definitely,” she said of Obama being more conservative than most believe, “certainly more conservative than Republicans sort of like to paint him.” McGhee noted that President Obama wanted to reform the tax code without raising corporate taxes, “a pretty conservative position.” She added that conservatives won't pay attention to that because they want him to fail more than they want to see the economy recover. A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 7 at 6:29 p.m. EDT, is as follows: DON LEMON: I want move on and ask you guys about this real quickly here. I want to read this quote from an article by Bruce Bartlett from the Fiscal Times. It's called “Obama the Covert Conservative Liberals Have to Love.” Okay, so here's what it says. It says “In a recent article, I argued that Barack Obama has a practice – in practice governed as a moderate conservative. The truth is that Obama has always been moderately conservative, a fact that has been obvious to liberals dating back to the beginning of 2008, of the 2008 campaign.” Okay. So someone – when I said to a Democratic congressman last week, because of what happened with this debt ceiling, should Obama run as a conservative in 2012, I was being a little bit facetious there. Someone took that seriously. Heather, do you agree that, with what Mr. Bartlett said? Is Obama more conservative than most people think? HEATHER MCGHEE, Washington director, Demos.org: I think definitely, certainly more conservative than the Republicans sort of like to paint him as. Look, if you look at where he is on, for example, corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are at their lowest share of the economy than they have been in generations. And he actually wants to reform the tax code but not raise any more money from corporations. That's a pretty conservative position. LEMON: Okay. MCGHEE: But this is the problem, is that he's never going to get any credit from that, from conservatives because, you know, they're really very focused on wanting him to fail more than they are wanting the economy and working families to succeed. It's really quite shocking to watch. LEMON: Will, I would let you respond to that, but unfortunately we're out of time. So don't be mad at me, my friend.
Continue reading …
Police look into security arrangements of Arctic expedition after teenager is mauled to death by wild animal Police are investigating the security arrangements of the Arctic expedition in which an English schoolboy was mauled to death by a polar bear. Horatio Chapple, 17, died after the animal attacked a camp on Spitsbergen island in the Svalbard archipelago, in the Arctic circle. Accounts suggest a warning tripwire system, used to set off flares that might have scared the animal away, failed to go off. Police are checking a rifle that apparently failed to fire four times before it was successfully used to kill the bear. Liv Asta Ooedegaard, a spokeswoman for the governor of Svalbard, said the rifle had been sent for forensic examination. “We are trying to get the whole picture. That is what we are working on now.” The British Schools Exploring Society (BSES), which ran the trip, may also face a UK investigation after a spokeswoman for Wiltshire police said Chapple’s death had been reported to their child protection team. Circumstances surrounding the death will come under further scrutiny at a forthcoming inquest in Salisbury. The head of security at the University of Svalbard, John Ingen Karlsen, told the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that although the expedition team had correctly pitched their tents on a hill and away from the water’s edge, they had made two errors. They should have had team members on continuous watch for bears, and their tripwire system may not have been set up properly. Michael Reid, 29, the expedition leader who shot the animal in the head during the attack on Friday, and fellow leader Andy Ruck, 27, returned to the UK after being discharged from hospital on Monday. Patrick Flinders, 16, and Scott Bennell-Smith, 17, who were sharing a tent with Horatio Chapple, returned to the UK on Sunday. Flinders underwent an operation in Norway to remove parts of the bear’s teeth from his scalp, while Bennell-Smith suffered a broken jaw and smashed teeth. The eight uninjured members of the group were expected to return to the UK on Monday. Chapple’s parents, David and Olivia, and his grandfather, Sir John Chapple, former head of the army, paid tribute to him at the weekend. They described the teenager as a “generous, kind and fearless” young man. “He had many friends who admired his enthusiasm for life, his love of challenge and his innate courtesy and wish to help others,” they said. “Horatio was a fine role model for his two younger brothers, Titus, 15, and Magnus, 13.” They added that Horatio planned to read medicine and was keen to find a cure for type one diabetes, which his youngest brother has. On Saturday, BSES announced it had ended the £3,000-per-head expedition on the advice of the Svalbard authorities and in accordance with the wishes of the group leaders. The group was founded in 1932 by a member of Captain Scott’s final Antarctic expedition. It is based at the Royal Geographical Society in London and organises exploratory trips for young people that involve scientific research in wilderness areas. Participants are expected to raise money to cover the costs of the trip. Norway Animals Arctic Europe Polar regions Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Court of Protection case to be reported in real time after landmark legal ruling
August 8, 2011 No Comment
Judge rules son’s battle with local authority to care for his elderly father is of ‘specific public interest’ A son’s battle to care for his elderly father made legal history on Monday when a judge ruled that his case against the local authority could be reported in “real time”. At the centre of the case is a 92-year-old widower who, his adult son claims, is being forced against his wishes to live in a care home where he is being unlawfully denied contact with his son. The case is being heard in the court of protection , which deals with vulnerable people who are assessed as not being able to make decisions about their own lives. These courts rarely allow their proceedings to be reported, even when a person’s freedom is at stake or, in medical cases involving the removal of life-support machines, their lives. When publicity is granted by the judge, reporting is strictly limited to a few key facts that can only be published after the final judgment has been made. Initials, as in the current case, are used to anonymise the individuals and institutions involved. Monday’s breakthrough happened after the judge, Mr Justice Ryder, ruled that the case is “a paradigm case in an area which happens to be at the forefront of public awareness, [and is] therefore not just of general public interest but of specific public interest”. It is thought to be the first time that detailed reporting has been permitted while a court of protection case is in progress. The judge also broke with protocol by ordering “fairly generous access to material” produced by all the parties in evidence. The ruling means that, for the first time, the public will both be able to follow the step-by-step decision-making process of the court, set up in 2007. They will also, for the first time, be able to examine the arguments over whether and when the controversial Deprivation of Liberty Orders, which came into force in April 2009, should be applied to hospital patients and residents of care homes. The court case was triggered by accusations by SJ’s adult son, DJ, that his recently widowed father had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty since 22 February 2011, when he was forced to stay in the care home at which he had been receiving respite care instead of being allowed to return home. DJ also claims that both the care home and the local authority have unlawfully refused to allow unsupervised contact between the two men. The local authority contests DJ’s claims. It maintains there are “straightforward health and welfare matters” and “safeguarding issues” behind the decision. It said that bruising discovered on SJ’s body when he was first admitted to the residential home in December suggested he had been abused by his son: suspicions, it said, that were strengthened by the father’s own claims that his son had hurt him. These allegations are “vigorously denied” by DJ, who claims the bruising was the result of trying to control his father when he became agitated. DJ also argues that his father’s Alzheimer’s disease leads to him making accusations against others. The local authority concedes that the accusations of abuse are not supported by police. In court on Monday, it also failed to present any medical evidence supporting its allegations. Crucially, DJ contests the local authority’s claim that his father lacks the mental capacity to decide where he lives; a claim backed by an independent consultant psychiatrist. DJ also maintains that his father wants to come home. The local authority disagrees. It says SJ is content to remain in the care home and that any claims he makes to the contrary are the result of manipulation by his son. The local authority is seeking an order to keep SJ at the care home, and return him to it if he leaves or is removed “with the use of reasonable and proportionate physical contact if necessary”. Ulele Burnham, representing the official solicitor – a public official who acts as the “friend” of people involved in court cases who are not competent to make decisions for themselves – agreed that, at least temporarily, SJ does indeed lack capacity and should remain at the care home until more assessments have been made. In her submission, Burnham said that “even leaving aside momentarily the issue of whether DJ’s contact with SJ has been improperly restricted, SJ has not lived at home for some eight months and has not seen DJ for some three months. “It is clear from the evidence that the official solicitor has so far seen, that even if the concerns about alleged abuse by DJ were misconstructions or were false, it is clear, sadly, that DJ was struggling to care for SJ both before and after his mother’s death.” Allegations by DJ that his father has been mistreated in the case home are, added Burnham, “not sustainable”. DJ, however, is adamant that his father is being illegally deprived of his liberty. “I would like my father to come home as that is his wish. My father is miserable in the care home and asks of his own volition to be taken home whenever we speak. I am certain that it is in his best interests to come home.” “I deny abusing my father and my position is that he falls over and then makes allegations. He has continued to fall and make allegations against others while in the care home. It is common for people with Alzheimer’s to make inaccurate allegations and in this case, the council only started to take them seriously when we fell out,” he added. “Under questioning, my father is very vulnerable to suggestion. The council prejudged the investigation into the matter.” The case continues. Older people Social care Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Just for different groups of Americans. That’s the picture emerging from a wave of stories about the depths of the American economic downturn. On the same day The Economist revealed that the U.S. economic contraction beginning in late 2007 was far deeper than originally thought, new IRS data showed that Americans’ average income plummeted by almost 14% in 2009 compared to two years earlier. For most, employment and incomes have yet to recover. But for the gilded class , things are apparently back to normal. As The Economist explained, the Bush recession Barack Obama inherited in January 2009 was far more severe than previously understood: The White House looked at the economic situation, sized up Congress, and took its shot. Unfortunately, the situation was far more dire than anyone in the administration or in Congress supposed. Output in the third and fourth quarters fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively, not at 0.5% and 3.8% as believed at the time. Employment was also falling much faster than estimated. Some 820,000 jobs were lost in January, rather than the 598,000 then reported. In the three months prior to the passage of stimulus, the economy cut loose 2.2m workers, not 1.8m. In January, total employment was already 1m workers below the level shown in the official data. Whether that information might have led to a much larger stimulus package in February 2009 is impossible to know. But what’s clear is the toll the deepening Bush recession took on American households that year. As Reuters explained: Average income in 2009 fell to $54,283, down $3,516, or 6.1 percent in real terms compared with 2008, the first Internal Revenue Service analysis of 2009 tax returns showed. Compared with 2007, average income was down $8,588 or 13.7 percent. Average income in 2009 was at its lowest level since 1997 when it was $54,265 in 2009 dollars, just $18 less than in 2009. That dip is explained in part by the temporary loss in stock market and other asset wealth for the three percent of Americans who earned over $200,000 a year. And it probably has a lot to do with the fact that in 2009, as Politico reported, a rising number of millionaires paid no taxes at all : Though the tax rate for Americans earning a gross adjusted income of $1 million or more averaged 24.4 percent, up from 23.1 percent in 2008, that’s still lower than the 28.5 percent rate they paid in 2002 when President George W. Bush was in office. And, the data shows, the 235,413 taxpayers who reported earning seven digits or more in 2009 took in a total of $726.9 billion — yet 1,470 paid not a penny of income taxes. In 2007, 959 Americans earning $1 million or more paid no income taxes. But while America’s so-called “job creators” didn’t create jobs after receiving their decade-long Bush tax cut windfall , they did buy a lot of expensive shoes. That’s word from the New York Times , which reported Wednesday that ” sales of luxury goods are recovering strongly “: Nordstrom has a waiting list for a Chanel sequined tweed coat with a $9,010 price. Neiman Marcus has sold out in almost every size of Christian Louboutin “Bianca” platform pumps, at $775 a pair. Mercedes-Benz said it sold more cars last month in the United States than it had in any July in five years. Even with the economy in a funk and many Americans pulling back on spending, the rich are again buying designer clothing, luxury cars and about anything that catches their fancy. Luxury goods stores, which fared much worse than other retailers in the recession, are more than recovering — they are zooming. Many high-end businesses are even able to mark up, rather than discount, items to attract customers who equate quality with price. As Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at the consulting firm Kurt Salmon, put it, “If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?” Certainly not America’s rich and famous. After all, the recession that has proved so devastating for most Americans for the wealthy has been merely a hiccup . Two years ago , David Leonhardt and Geraldine Fabrikant of the New York Times concluded, “After a 30-year run, [the] rise of the super-rich hits a sobering wall.” They began to pull away from everyone else in the 1970s. By 2006, income was more concentrated at the top than it had been since the late 1920s. The recent news about resurgent Wall Street pay has seemed to suggest that not even the Great Recession could reverse the rise in income inequality. But economists say — and data is beginning to show — that a significant change may in fact be under way. The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon. As it turned out, that time wasn’t just soon. It’s now. The Los Angeles Timesa> announced the return of record-setting income inequality in June 2010 in an article titled, ” Millionaires Make a Comeback .” After getting pummeled as Wall Street plummeted in 2008, the rich have begun to recoup their losses. The short period of Gilded Interrupted is over: In 2008, as the financial crisis raged, the stock market hit bottom and the Great Recession ate into the economy, the number of millionaires in the United States plunged. But last year the number of millionaires bounced up sharply, new data show. And after that decline and rebound, the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country’s wealth than it did in 2007. “It’s been a recession where everyone took a hit — with the bottom taking a bigger hit,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin professor who studies economic inequality. But “the wealthy alone have bounced back.” Bounced back, it turns out, with a vengeance. The Boston Consulting Group found that “the number of U.S. households with at least $1 million in “bankable” assets climbed 15 percent last year to 4.7 million after tumbling 21 percent in 2008.” Despite there being 10 percent fewer millionaires than in 2007, the percentage of Americans’ total wealth held by those households was slightly higher, growing to 55 percent. Executive pay rose by 23 percent last year . By last summer, the Wall Street Journal proudly proclaimed , “U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich.” As a recent Deloitte presentation for wealth managers forecast: Our analysis indicates that aggregate wealth of millionaire households in the U.S. in 2020 will likely reach $87 trillion, from $39 trillion in 2011. GOP White House hopeful Michele Bachmann need not have worried, as she did in 2009, that: “We’re running out of rich people in this country.” Writing in the Washington Post last summer, Ezra Klein neatly summed up the dynamic which has restored income inequality to record highs even as the U.S. economy struggles to recover: The basic story here is that assets have recovered so much more quickly than the broader economy that in 2009, “the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country’s wealth than it did in 2007.” In other words, inequality has actually gotten worse. If you want to see why that’s unexpected, check out the chart I cadged from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: After the Great Depression, inequality fell and didn’t recover until 2007. That’s about 80 years. After the Great Recession, inequality fell and didn’t recover until … 2009? That’s one year. For his part, Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute argued, “The recession is going to end up accentuating the inequalities of income and wealth we’ve seen for 30 years,” adding, “This requires attention if we’re going to see robust wealth growth going forward.” And, as it turns out, begin paying down the national debt. Between 2001 and 2007- a period during which poverty was rising and average household income had fallen – the 400 richest taxpayers saw their incomes double to an average of $345 million even as their effective tax rate was virtually halved. As Seth Hanlon of the Center for American Progress explained: “As a percentage of their incomes, millionaires are now paying about one-quarter less of their income to federal taxes than they did in the mid-1990s…Millionaires paid an average tax rate of 22.4 percent in 2009, down by a quarter since 1995, when they paid an average of 30.4 percent.” But as Americans learned during the Republicans’ just concluded debt ceiling hostage taking , the suggestion that the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay even a penny in new taxes produces a predictable response from the GOP. At a time of record high income inequality and historically low federal taxes , Senators Dan Coats (R-IN) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) quickly called that common sense idea “class warfare .” Utah’s Orrin Hatch wasn’t content to lament “the usual class warfare the Democrats always wage.” (The poor, Hatch insisted, “need to share some of the responsibility.”) As for a Senate resolution asking the same of millionaires, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions said that was “rather pathetic.” What’s really pathetic is the all-out Republican defense of the likes of Warren Buffett , who explained, “It’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” And in this tale of two recessions, if you have to ask who won the class war, the answer is simple. Not you. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …