Minister taunts Labour over election argument, claiming Conservatives’ efficiency target exceeded by £500m The government has achieved £3.75bn in savings over the 10 months from the election in May 2010 to this March, leading the cabinet office minister Francis Maude to muse on what his Labour predecessors, including Ed Miliband, “had been doing in this office before me”. The savings have been vetted by the National Audit Office, and are what Maude described as “the low hanging fruit” before further very significant savings were made in coming years.Maude said that the bulk of the cash had come from cutting waste, and not from cutting services. The Conservative claim that savings could finance cuts in national insurance was one of the chief battlegrounds of the last election. Maude said that his figures showed the Conservatives had been proved right. The Tories wrong-footed Labour in the campaign by gathering business support to endorse the efficiency savings and condemn Labour’s national insurance rise as a jobs tax. The Conservatives had promised to cut £3.2bn in wasteful spending as part of a wider package of £6.2bn overall cuts in 2010-11. The efficiency savings target had been exceeded by £500m, said Maude. He said the savings from central government departments were equivalent to the salaries of 200,000 junior nurses, or 150,000 secondary school teachers. “These savings prompt me to ask what on earth my predecessors in this office such as Ed Miliband were doing,” he said. In terms of government property sold, Maude said t was equivalent in area to 70 Wembley football pitches. He said “We have just got started on this. This is the low hanging fruit, but there is a lot more to come, especially in reducing fraud and error, increasing on line delivery of services, and open up public services to competition from mutual and private sector.” Savings made include £870m from cutting departmental spending on consulting, £500m by reducing spend on temporary staff, £800m from renegotiating deals with large government suppliers, £400m cut in government advertising and communications, £90m by better controls of property lease renewals, and a £300m cut in the civil service salaries bill through a reduction of staffing equivalent to 17,000 places. “It is about bearing down on things, as we did within days of coming into office, I just said that no new property lease, or lease renewal, could go ahead without it passing my desk first. “There was an attitude [under Labour] that, if the government wanted something done, they would set up an advertising campaign and a website. We have just cut that out.” He said he was not willing to put a number on how large the efficiencies might be in the future, partly since it would be harder to distinguish the savings made by a government department, as opposed to a centrally driven efficiiency programme. He added a target could also become the limit of what should be saved when he said the figure could be higher. Ian Watmore, chair of the cabinet office efficiency and reform group, last month told MPs on the public accounts committee that some of the savings had been driven by Maude personally, but said “the focus was moving away from a central push”. Ministers also want to see the driving down of costs, including renegotiations with suppliers to extend from Whitehall to other parts of the public sector such as the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade. Watmore has claimed nearly a quarter of the £81bn projected cut in government spending over four years can come from central government “applying real aggressive efficiencies to itself”. Critics have claimed that some savings are bogus, in that some renegotiated IT contracts led to the provision of a more limited service. Similarly, cuts in civil service numbers may lead to a cut in service standard rather than greater efficiency. The efficiency board chaired by the former BP chairman Lord Browne is also focusing on improving data quality so efficiency can be better measured between departments. Conservatives Francis Maude Labour Ed Miliband Liberal-Conservative coalition Economic policy Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Mitch McConnell says there’s a Debt Ceiling Deal closing in that makes us all Conservatives
July 31, 2011 No CommentUPDATE: Senate Votes Down Reid Bill, Awaits Obama/McConnell Spending-Cut-Only Debt Limit Bill Sen. Mitch McConnell was on CNN’s State of The Union this morning to proclaim that there’s a deal which is roughly 3 trillion dollars in cuts on the table and he says will avert a disaster. Part of the process with be this crappy Supper Cat food commission that will include a trigger so that if the both sides don’t come together then automatic cuts will appear. A first step would include about $1 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling about the same amount. The proposal also would set up a special committee of Democratic and Republican legislators from both chambers of Congress to recommend additional deficit reduction steps — including tax reform as well as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The committee’s recommendations would be put to a vote by Congress, without any amendments, by the end of the year. If Congress fails to pass the package, a so-called “trigger” mechanism would enact automatic spending cuts. Either way — with the package passed by Congress or the trigger of automatic cuts — a second increase in the debt ceiling would occur, but with an accompanying congressional vote of disapproval. In addition, the agreement would require both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to pass, followed by ratification by 38 states — a process likely to take years. McConnell was preening on the air that we tax too much already in America and have a spending problem so this new deal will satisfy the American people. He means it will satisfy the Tea Party hostage takers and everyone that’s a Republican of course. All polling shows Americans DO NOT want Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid touched. TPM outlines more of the deal here: As noted here , the issue under contention was the design of a so-called “trigger,” — a penalty written into the bill meant to encourage Congress to pass further bipartisan deficit reduction legislation, authored by a new Special Committee, later this year. Here’s what they’ve reportedly come up with, pending approval from Congressional Democrats and Republicans. From ABC News , the key detail: “The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress’ Thanksgiving recess). If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This ‘trigger’ is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee’s recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.” The Medicare cuts would supposedly fall on Medicare providers, not beneficiaries. The trigger would also include a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment — but no requirement that it be sent off to the states. One source briefed on the negotiations confirms that the ABC story is correct “on the key points.” A similar piece in National Journal suggests the Special Committee would not be allowed to reduce the deficit by raising new net tax revenue. The source disputes that notion, as does the ABC report. Chuck Schumer steps in after Mitch had finished to try and reassure Democrats that there must be incentives put into the trigger.Throwing grandma under the bus for some cuts in defense spending is equitable in what way exactly? CNN, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the final trigger must include incentives that don’t simply allow Republicans to draw a line in the sand over revenues. “What is the sword over the Republican?” Schumer asked. Well it has to be equal — the one thing we are certain of, it has to be of equal sharpness and strength. The preference would be some kind of revenues, on wealthy people, on tax loopholes that would be in that. But another alternative, possible, being discussed, no agreement has been reached, would be defense cuts of equal sharpness and magnitude to domestic cuts. In the past, when the trigger has had significant defense cuts, it’s brought the parties to the table and they’ve come up with a balanced agreement that had both revenues and cuts. Doesn’t that make you feel better? Daivd Plouffe was on all morning too and tells me that progressives should be happy about all these cuts. I need to hear him scold me like I need a migraine. Think Progress: Moreover, the deal includes zero revenue increases and no call for comprehensive tax reform, and achieving these things through the new bipartisan deficit commission will be almost impossible as Republicans are sure to reject it. Still, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said today on State of the Union that the White House “fine” with the idea that the bill will be “only spending cuts.” He added that Obama won’t seek new revenues before the 2012 election anyway, and will in fact be pushing for a payroll tax cut. As ThinkProgress’ Matt Yglesias notes, the fallout from this deal may extend far beyond the plan itself : [A]t this point the biggest damage is to the overall system of government. Obama has successfully transformed massive debt ceiling hostage taking from an act of breathtakingly irresponsible brinksmanship into a proven effective negotiating tactic . Suppose he gets re-elected in 2012. What’s he going to do when this issue recurs in 2013? Every time the president’s party has fewer than 60 votes in the Senate, we may face a recurrence of this crisis. Nothing is done yet so until the details of a deal are released I can’t say for sure this will be the deal, but all the talk today has been infuriating. Digby writes: For me this isn’t a shocking disappointment. I have felt that this whole process was a disaster from the beginning and it really doesn’t matter to me if the Democrats eke out a couple of concessions about defense cuts or close a few loopholes “in return” for these cuts. That isn’t “shared sacrifice,” it’s asking the poorest, oldest and sickest among us to give up a piece of their meager security in exchange for the wealthy giving up some tip money and the defense industry giving up a couple of points of profit. It’s stripping the nation of necessary educational, safety and environmental protections while the wealthy greedily absorb more and more of the nation’s wealth and the corporations and financial industry gamble with the rest. The idea that they are even talking about this at a time of nearly 10% official unemployment with the economy looking like it’s going back into recession (if it ever left) makes this debate surreal and bizarre. To cut the safety net and shred discretionary spending in massive numbers at a time like this is mind boggling. That it’s happening under a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate is profoundly depressing. This Super Congress idea is frightening as well. Last weekend, HuffPost reported on the extraordinary powers being delegated to the emerging Super Congress, but beltway media largely reacted by dismissing it as just another Washington commission. On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sought to disabuse anyone listening of that notion. And as I’ve said before, will we ever see the Bush Tax cuts gone? That would cut almost 4 trillion dollars out of the deficit. I disagree with Ezra’s title on this article because Keynesian policies have been thrown under the bus in this entire debate as he tries to find light at the end of a tunnel: Republicans have shown, that they will block any and all tax increases, no matter what incentives they are offered in return and no matter how dire the consequences of their refusal. Next year’s deadline offers Democrats their only chance to negotiate from a superior strategic position. Republicans will still be able to refuse to raise taxes. But if they do, it won’t matter. The only way they can succeed in keeping taxes from rising is if the Obama administration and the Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Continue reading …Bullfighting saved from the sword as Spain rules it is an artistic discipline
July 31, 2011 No Comment
Socialist government says ministry of culture will be responsible for development and protection of controversial sport The debate over bullfighting has been reignited in Spain after the government recognised the spectacle as “an artistic discipline and cultural product”, delighting enthusiasts but outraging animal rights campaigners. Prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s socialist government announced that the ministry of culture will from now on be responsible for the “development and protection” of bullfighting, which previously fell within the remit of the interior ministry. The move follows pressure from bullfighting organisations keen to protect their livelihood following a controversial vote to ban bullfighting in the Catalonia region last year. The ministry of culture said in a statement: “As it is understood that bullfighting is an artistic discipline and a cultural product, it was considered that the ministry of culture was the correct place for its development and protection.” Supporters, who see bullfighting as an integral part of Spain’s cultural identity, hope the announcement is a step towards protecting the tradition from further regional bans. Juan Diego, a matador speaking for the Bullfighters Union, welcomed the announcement as necessary “for the protection and guardianship of bullfighting”, describing the sport as “a symbol of Spanish cultural heritage that shapes the national identity”. The change was backed by the conservative Popular party (PP), in opposition but favourite to win power in the general election on 20 November. Miguel Cid Cebrián, chairman of the Parliamentary Bullfighting Association, said he hoped the PP would provide legal protection for bullfighting as a special “cultural interest” if it takes power, in order to stop other regions outlawing the tradition. Last year the regional government in Madrid announced it was awarding bullfighting legal protection locally, because of its cultural importance. Opponents, who describe the practice as a barbaric bloodsport, accused the government of abandoning a commitment to animal rights. Silvia Barquero, spokeswoman for Pacma, an anti-bullfighting political party, told newspaper Público the decision to switch responsibility for bullfighting to the ministry of culture was “complete nonsense … a measure which sends us back to the Middle Ages”. Animal rights campaigners say bullfighting only survives because it is subsidised by the Spanish taxpayer. Attendances are falling, its appeal has faded among younger Spaniards and the industry has been hit by the economic crisis. The number of bullfights taking place at local fiestas has diminished as spending cuts have been enforced. The Catalan regional government voted to ban bullfighting in the northeastern region last July, by 68 votes to 55, with nine abstentions, on the grounds it is cruel and outdated. The vote was held after campaign group Prou! (Enough! in Catalan) collected 180,000 signatures in favour of a ban. Anti-bullfighting organisations hope the Catalan example will be copied in some of Spain’s 16 other autonomous communities. Critics of the ban said it was motivated more by Catalan nationalism and a desire to assure political independence from Madrid than by a genuine desire to outlaw the tradition. The ban, which will come into effect next January and will not be affected by Friday’s decision, will be the first to be introduced in mainland Spain. The Canary Islands outlawed bullfighting in 1991. A poll last year for the newspaper El País found 60% of Spaniards did not enjoy bullfighting, but 57% disagreed with the ban in Catalonia. Bullfighting Spain José Luis Zapatero Europe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Design Council chief celebrates Prince Charles’ lack of involvement as traditionalists complain about ‘overt prejudice’ A new skirmish in a long-running and often bitterly fought architectural “style war” between modernists and traditionalists has broken out over the stadiums and arenas of the London Olympics park. Prince Charles’s favourite architects have accused the head of England’s national architectural review body of “overt prejudice” after he made a barbed attack on the heir to the throne’s love of traditional buildings, and heaped praise on the resolutely modernist designs that will be beamed around the world as the backdrop to next summer’s games. Paul Finch, chairman of the Design Council Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the government-funded design watchdog that vets major planning applications with the help of government funding, applauded the selection of Zaha Hadid, the avant garde Iraqi-born architect who designed the sinuous aquatics centre, and Populous, the designer of the main 80,000-seat stadium. But, more provocatively, Finch celebrated the fact that the country’s leading traditional architects, who are favoured by the Prince of Wales, were not in any way involved. “One of the good things about the London 2012 Olympics is the realisation that we have a set of buildings produced not by Quinlan Terry, Robert Adam, John Simpson, but by Hopkins, Hadid, Populous, Make, Heneghan Peng et al,” he said. “None of it endorsed by the Prince of Wales, none of it to do with heritage.” The Traditional Architecture Group, whose members include Terry and Adam, both leading exponents of classical buildings inspired by architects from the past, including Sir Christopher Wren and Andrea Palladio, has complained to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and communities secretary, Eric Pickles, that Finch’s remarks, made in the Architects’ Journal, displayed “significant prejudice against one style or architectural philosophy at the highest level”. The group said its members were “dismayed and alarmed”. “His is a fundamentally prejudicial point of view from someone in a senior position,” added Adam. “He shouldn’t be in the position he is in.” Prince Charles has previously enraged some British architects by speaking out against modernist designs. In 2009 Richard Rogers was dropped as the designer of a £3bn housing development at Chelsea Barracks after the Prince questioned his design in a private letter to the Qatari client. In 1984 he torpedoed a modernist extension to the National Gallery in London by complaining it was “like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend”. Now the prince’s architectural allies feel they have found in Finch a lightning rod for their own simmering sense of injustice that a parallel “modernist establishment” is seeking to marginalise them with the result that some traditional architects believe commissions for Olympic projects were effectively closed to them. “It was considered a waste of time to go for the Olympic work,” said Adam, a classicist who has designed a new 4,000-home settlement in Wales with the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment. Lord Rogers chaired the selection panel for the aquatics centre and Ricky Burdett, professor of urbanism at the London School of Economics and a close ally of Rogers, was hired as chief design adviser to the Olympic Delivery Authority. Finch continues to chair the panel scrutinising designs for stadiums and arenas for the Olympics. The firm of Sir Michael Hopkins, who designed the Portcullis House MPs’ office, was responsible for the velodrome which is favourite to win this year’s Stirling prize for the best building designed or built in Britain. Make, a firm led by Ken Shuttleworth who was a lead designer on the gherkin tower in London, has designed the handball arena, while Heneghan Peng, a Dublin-based firm, has designed a sinuous complex of footbridges between the main stadium and the aquatics centre. In his remarks Finch singled out Terry, who provided architectural advice to Prince Charles in his successful attempt to block the modernist redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks, and John Simpson who was hired to carry out alterations to Kensington Palace. The Traditional Architecture Group has asked Pickles, whose department funds the Design Council Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, to instruct councils to ignore the watchdog’s views until Finch apologises and retracts his remarks. “It is the policy of this and recent governments to favour no architectural style in planning decisions,” wrote Alireza Sagharchi, the group’s chairman. “Yet by contrasting some better-known traditional architects with those working on the Olympics, Mr Finch has expressed his very clear bias against traditional architecture.” He asked for assurances that Finch’s views would “not be allowed to taint the planning system”, according to Building Design magazine. In response Finch said: “I will respond to them when they show me the courtesy of writing to me and I will be only too happy to point out the many apparent errors in what passes for their analysis.” A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “These are opinions expressed in a magazine article, not official advice to central or local government. As such we have no comment to make.” Finch’s comments in favour of the modernist appearance of Olympic Park architecture appear to undermine the neutral stance he advocated last year when asked about a proposal by Prince Charles’s Foundation for the Built Environment to take on some of the design review role now undertaken by the Design Council. He said: “The public interest is better served by concentrating on the quality of a piece of architecture rather than style which can come down to superficial visual appearance. It comes down to whether their advice would be independent and disinterested and they obviously have a stylistic preference.” Charles’s tastes: rated and hated • Charles praised Dharavi, one of the largest slums in Mumbai, for its “underlying intuitive grammar of design”, saying it represented a better model for housing populations in the developing world than western architecture • He backed Quinlan Terry’s alternative designs for Chelsea Barracks which were inspired by the work of Sir Christopher Wren, the 17th century architect of St Paul’s cathedral • Poundbury in Dorset is the most complete version of Prince Charles’ architectural vision, including the fire station which has been described as “the Parthenon meets Brookside” • When talking to soldiers destined for service in Afghanistan in 2008 he said the Ivor Crewe building at Essex University “looks like a dustbin from the outside” • Earlier that year he warned a series of planned skyscrapers in London would be “not just one carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend, but a positive rash of them that will disfigure precious views and disinherit future generations of Londoners” • Charles said the brutalist concrete Birmingham Central Library, designed in 1974 by John Madin, looked like “a place where books are incinerated, not kept” Olympic Games 2012 Architecture Zaha Hadid Monarchy Prince Charles Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
City still mourning its June dead comes under attack again as regime forces smash makeshift barricades As the sun was rising on the last day before Ramadan, the moment Hama’s residents had feared finally arrived. Through the barren landscape came the ominous rumble of tanks, heading towards the city from four directions as they bore down on the piles of tyres and bricks that locals had laid out across the main roads as makeshift checkpoints. “They started shooting with heavy machines guns at civilians, at the young men protecting the barricades,” said Omar Halabi, an activist in the city, speaking by Skype. “People started to scream, to say Allahu Akbar and wake each other up. They started to come down into the streets.” Few of Hama’s residents have believed they would get away with protesting in their thousands against the regime of Bashar al-Assad indefinitely, and on the eve of Ramadan, when protests are expected to intensify, the regime clearly decided it had had enough. The regime’s security forces had withdrawn from the city after the weekend of 3 June after shooting over 70 residents dead after Friday prayers. Since then thousands have poured into al-Aasi square, just steps from the Orontes river which divides the city of some 800,000 into east and west. They have carried olive branches and pink roses calling for the toppling of the regime, repeating protest chants called out from a central podium and eating food and drink given out by volunteers. The city has continued to function as people have drawn together to run their own neighbourhoods and set up barricades to prevent forces entering. But 31 July seems set to join 3 June and February 1982 – the year when Bashar’s father and former president Hafez quashed an armed Islamist revolt, killing at least 10,000 – as dates burnt on Hama’s collective memory. An ominous sign that the security forces were on their way came when water and electricity was cut in many areas, repeating a tactic in other cities prior to military incursions. The rumblings of tanks carrying soldiers could be heard as they made their way along the dusty main streets. A father of three, awoken from his sleep, told the Guardian early Saturday morning that tanks and armoured vehicles were coming into the edges of the city from all points of the compass by 5.30am. “They are shooting, trying to get into the city,” said the man who asked not be named, the sound of gunfire audible in the background. Snipers have been one of the deadliest and most effective weapons deployed by the regime during the four and a half months of protests that have gripped Syria. They were spotted on the roofs of the state-owned electricity company and the main prison, a resident told Reuters. Amateur video footage uploaded showed black smoke rising from the city and a mosque minaret being fired on. Residents reported bodies lying in the streets and the injured piling into Hourani and al-Badr hospitals as doctors called out for more blood. Some activists said many had been shot in the head, while others had been run over by tanks. A child aged five was among those killed. Many were killed as the residents tried to fight back. Two men reached in the city said the protesters refused to abandon the checkpoints, but tried to force tanks to back off. “People grabbed whatever they could and went into the streets with bare chests, walking towards the tanks with wooden bats, steel bars or stones,” Halabi said. “It was unbelievable that people were running towards the firing rather than away from it.” Most of the casualties came from among these people, but activists also reported random shooting at homes in the northern area of the city. For almost four hours residents described the shooting as continuous: a cacophony of machine gunfire mixed with the heavy thuds of tank fire. “This is not Kalashnikov fire today – it is all heavy artillery and machine guns – 500mm guns,” said Halabi. While the people were no match for tanks, several residents said that by Sunday the security forces had not reached all the central areas of the city. “We confirmed 17 tanks,” said Wissam Tarif, the head of human rights group Insan, who is in contact with residents in the city. “But people are talking of many more than that.” The death toll, circulated online by Twitter and human rights activists, rose rapidly throughout the early hours of the morning, reaching over 20 by 10am. By early afternoon the Local Coordination Committees had confirmed 49 names of the dead, Ammar Qurabi of the National Organisation for Human Rights, reported 95 while residents reached by phone told the Guardian local estimates were over 100. Despite shows of bravery, fear was palpable in the city. Some residents said they were hunkering down inside, calling people in different areas to find out the latest news. “I daren’t go further than my front gate; many people are afraid to leave the city because they fear they will be fired on,” said the father of three, reached again later in the afternoon. He said some protesters were trying to break into police stations to get weapons to defend themselves, while others had captured four snipers. Unlike other cities where some protesters report buying arms, protesters and checkpoint guards in Hama have used just stones and wooden bats. Other than the hanging of an informer on 4 June, there have been few reports of retaliatory attacks against government forces. By early afternoon some residents said the gunfire had become more intermittent. But the city is braced for more violence following alleged defections. “We confirmed an officer defecting with soldiers and two tanks. It could yet turned uglier as when soldier defect in small numbers we end up seeing a search and kill operation,” said Tarif. But bloodshed – human rights groups say over 1,600 people have been killed since mid-March – has yet to convince anti-regime protesters to kowtow. “We have come this far; we can’t go back now,” said the father in Hama. Nour Ali is the pseudonym of a journalist in Damascus Syria Bashar Al-Assad Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: New York Times ( Click here for larger image .) “In Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual,” House Speaker John Boehner declared on Monday before warning, “I’ve got news for Washington – those days are over.” The days, Boehner should have explained, before Barack Obama took the oath of office. As Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) rightly pointed on the Senate floor last year, “We would have none of this if it hadn’t been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through.” Which is exactly right. As a few handy charts show, Republican presidents and the current GOP leadership in Congress presided over that debt debauchery. And now they demand Democrats clean up their mess. In case Americans had forgotten that Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it , the New York Times presented the helpful reminder above. For their part, Republicans want to pretend history began on January 20, 2009. While Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling claimed Friday that for Republicans raising the debt ceiling is “contrary to our DNA,” House Minority Leader Eric Cantor protested two weeks ago, “I don’t think the White House understands is how difficult it is for fiscal conservatives to say they’re going to vote for a debt ceiling increase.” As McClatchy showed, Republicans are as bad at genetics and history as they are at economics: Leave aside for the moment that small government icon Ronald Reagan signed 17 debt ceiling increases into law. (That might explain why the Gipper repeatedly demanded Congress boost his borrowing authority and called the oceans of red ink he bequeathed to America his greatest regret .) As it turns out, Republican majorities voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling under President Bush and the current GOP leadership team voted a combined 19 times to bump the debt limit $4 trillion during his tenure. (That vote tally included a “clean” debt ceiling increase in 2004, backed by 98 current House Republicans and 31 sitting GOP Senators.) Of course, they had to. After all, the two unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget-busting Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (the first war-time tax cut in modern U.S. history) and the Medicare prescription drug program drained the U.S. Treasury. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor voted for all of it . Again, in words and pictures, the New York Times tells the tale: As the Washington Post summed up the CBO’s conclusions regarding the causes of the nation’s mounting debt earlier this year, “The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts.” The analysis by the Times echoed that finding: With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions. But as Ezra Klein explained in the Washington Post, the revealing Times chart doesn’t tell the full story of the impact of Bush-era policies on future debt facing Barack Obama: What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them. These two graphs from the Washington Post and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities make that point crystal clear. Analyses by CBPP showed that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the deficits during his tenure, and if made permanent , over the next decade would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, TARP and the stimulus – combined . Utah Senator Orrin Hatch was telling the truth when he described Republican fiscal mismanagement during the Bush years by acknowledging, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.” As Paul Krugman documented, the jump in federal spending as a percentage of GDP under President Obama is almost completely explained by the contraction of the economy and the stimulus programs now ending. (Republicans always take great to care to avoid mentioning that the total federal tax burden as a percentage of the U.S. economy is at its lowest level in 60 years even as income inequality is at its highest in 80.) As Krugman summed it up: Now, pointing out the Obama spending binge is a myth generally produces rage: people know that it happened, because Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal say so. But that doesn’t make it true. Put another way, when it comes to the American balance sheet, Republicans broke it. Now, they claim, Democrats own it. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
Continue reading …
Stoppage over redundancies will be followed by ‘indefinite’ NUJ work to rule The BBC is facing another day of disruption to its news programmes on Monday with many of its journalists due to go on a 24-hour strike before beginning an “indefinite” work to rule. The industrial action by the National Union of Journalists is taking place in protest over compulsory redundancies. It follows a 24-hour stoppage on 15 July which led to BBC1′s Breakfast and BBC2′s Newsnight being taken off air. There was also disruption to BBC Radio 4′s Today and the breakfast show on BBC Radio 5 Live, and the 24-hour TV news channel, BBC News. Star reporters who took part in the stoppage included BBC business editor Robert Peston and the corporation’s political editor, Nick Robinson. Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ’s general secretary, said: “It is only two weeks since we took our last 24-hour strike action when there was a clear impact on programming and I would expect it to be another solid turnout by NUJ members across the BBC. “They are angry at the way their colleagues are being treated and I would expect there to be significant impact on programming. “It is unfortunate and our members don’t want to be in this position but they are absolutely taking this action for the right reasons.” A total of 387 posts are due to be scrapped across the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring – of which around 100 are expected to be compulsory – following a cut in government funding. Four people have so far left the World Service after being made compulsorily redundant, with another 43 due to leave on the day of the strike. Stanistreet said there was frustration at BBC management’s approach to redeployment and described it as a “deeply baffling process” for the people involved. The NUJ claimed the BBC filled 355 posts in June, but said only 17 of them were given to people at risk of redundancy. BBC management is due to meet with all the broadcasting unions on 11 August to discuss the corporation’s approach to redundancies. One member of BBC staff privately suggested the union had “played its hand too quickly” with more widescale redundancies likely as a result of BBC director general Mark Thompson’s Delivering Quality First cost-saving initiative. But Stanistreet said: “The strong message coming to us from chapels up and down the BBC is that they know if the BBC is allowed to take this approach and force people out in this way they will carry on doing it when we face bigger cuts in the autumn.” A BBC spokesman said: “We are disappointed that the NUJ is intending to strike and apologise to our audience for any disruption to services this may cause. “Industrial action will not alter the fact that the BBC is faced with a number of potential compulsory redundancies, following significant cuts to the central government grants that support the World Service and BBC Monitoring. We will continue with our efforts to reduce the need for compulsory redundancies. “However, the number of posts that we are having to close means that unfortunately it is likely to be impossible for us to avoid some compulsory redundancies.” The BBC said the NUJ figures on redeployment were out of context and said it had “worked to redeploy staff whenever possible” including 27% of staff at risk of compulsory redundancy at the BBC World Service. As many as 1,000 further journalism posts could be lost across BBC News and the World Service as part of plans to merge the two news-gathering operations. The corporation’s news department has lost more than 400 posts over the past four years in a previous cost-cutting initiative. The strike will last for 24 hours on Monday, with the work to rule due to begin immediately afterwards. The NUJ held a 48-hour strike in November last year in protest at pension changes. BBC National Union of Journalists BBC World Service Mark Thompson TV news Media unions Radio industry Redundancy John Plunkett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Demonstrations in 12 cities including Tel Aviv and Haifa prompt Binyamin Netanyahu to consider cancelling parliamentary recess Up to 150,000 protesters took to the streets in cities across Israel on Saturday night in the biggest demonstrations the country has seen in decades to demand action on rising house prices and rents, low salaries, the high cost of raising children and other social issues. The demonstrations, held in 12 cities including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, marked the high point of a popular protest movement that has gathered momentum over the past two weeks and shows no signs of letting up in its demands for “social justice”. Activist Daphni Leef, who initiated the first “tent village” protest in Tel Aviv against housing prices two weeks ago, told a crowd of 70,000-100,000 Israelis gathered outside the city’s main art museum that “we don’t want to replace the government, but to do more than that. We want to change the rules of the game”. About 10,000 protesters gathered outside the prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem, according to police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. The celebrated author David Grossman told the crowd: “The people are loyal to the state, but the state isn’t loyal to them.” Noam Shalit, the father of captured soldier Gilad Shalit, also spoke at the rally. For a country with a population of around 7 million, the numbers taking part in the demonstrations were huge. The scale of the protests and the widespread support for them among the Israeli public and in the media have seriously rattled Netanyahu. “We are now in the midst of a complicated and challenging reality, both internationally and domestically,” he told minsters at Sunday’s cabinet meeting. He warned against “irresponsible, hasty and populist steps” which could destabilise Israel’s economy, but added: “All of us, myself first and foremost … [are] aware of the genuine hardship of the cost-of-living in Israel.” Netanyahu announced a taskforce to examine ways of tackling the cost of living, and is considering postponing the parliamentary recess, due to begin at the end of this week. Meanwhile, Haim Shani, director general of the finance ministry resigned, citing differences of opinion with his political bosses. Thousands of medics joined a rally outside the Knesset (parliament) as part of a long-running work-to-rule over pay and conditions. Parents marched through Jerusalem with their children on Sunday evening in protest over the cost of child-care and baby equipment. “One-third of our combined salaries goes on kindergarten fees,” said Yaron, the father of 10-month-old twins. Workplace strikes are planned nationwide on Monday, with tens of thousands of Israelis signalling their support for a jobs “boycott” on Facebook. The Histradut, Israel’s trade union federation, might also join the protests. Another Facebook page called on Israelis to make mass cash withdrawals from ATMs on 8 August in protest at high bank charges. Although the protests began over the high cost of renting and buying homes, the dominant slogan on Saturday’s demonstrations was “the people demand social justice”. Some commentators have declared that the scale of the protests spells the end of the present rightwing coalition government. “It was the night that Binyamin Netanyahu was tossed out of the prime minister’s office in disgrace,” wrote Gideon Levy in Haaretz. “As of [Saturday] he is a lame duck … When tens of thousands of Israelis scream ‘Bibi go home’, Bibi will indeed go home. Bye bye, Bibi, goodbye for good.” However some activists have warned that without organisation, leadership and properly formulated demands, the protests risk losing momentum over the summer vacation period and could be eclipsed by the Palestinians’ expected bid for statehood at the United Nations in September. Israel Binyamin Netanyahu Middle East Protest Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media The man who headed the NSA and CIA under President George W. Bush suggested Friday that mercenaries were needed to deal with growing cyber threats. Gen. Michael Hayden told the Aspen Security Forum that in the near future, the Department of Defense may have to allow the creation of a “digital Blackwater.” Private sector offense “might be one of those big new ideas in terms of how we have to conduct ourselves in this new cyber domain,” Hayden explained. “You think back long enough in history and there are times when the private sector was responsible for its own defense.” “We may come to a point where defense is more actively and aggressively defined even for the private sector and what is permitted there is something that we would never let the private sector do in physical space… Let me really throw out a bumper sticker for you. How about a digital Blackwater?” he suggested. “I mean, we have privatized certain defense activities even in physical space and now you’ve got a new domain in which we don’t have any paths trampled down in the forest in terms of what it is we expect the government or will allow the government to do. In the past when that has happened, private sector expands to fill the empty space. I’m not quite an advocate for that, but these are the kinds of things that are going to be put into play here very, very soon.” Watch the entire Aspen Security Forum on cyber security here .
Continue reading …NYT’s Thomas Friedman Proves Rubio’s Point: GOP ‘Being Led Around By Extremist Tea Party’
July 31, 2011 No Comment
Speaking on the floor of the Senate Saturday, Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) said, “If we had a billion dollars for every time I heard the words 'Tea Party extremist,' we could solve this debt problem.” Proving his point about the vitriolic name-calling of conservatives so prevalent now, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman began his most recent piece , “Watching today's Republicans being led around by an extremist Tea Party”: Watching today's Republicans being led around by an extremist Tea Party faction, with no adult supervision, I find my mind drifting back to the late 1980s when I was assigned to cover the administration of George H.W. Bush, who I believe is one of our most underrated presidents. That was just the start of Friedman's attacks: Today's G.O.P. has gone from espousing cap-and-trade to deal with pollution to espousing the notion that all the world's climate scientists have secretly gotten together and perpetrated a ''hoax,'' called climate change, in order to expand government — all of this at a time of record heat waves and climate disruptions. All the world's climate scientists? Shouldn't Friedman say, “All the world's climate scientists I agree with? Any honest journalist – I know that's an oxymoron today! – would certainly be aware of the existence of thousands of prominent climate scientists around the world that either don't think carbon dioxide is a factor in the less than one degree Celsius rise in temperatures the past 160 years or believe it's a minor precipitant. Failing this, Friedman was expressing an “extremist” view as he arrogantly accused others of doing so: Where have all the adults in this party gone? Where is Dick Lugar, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Colin Powell, Hank Paulson and Big Business? Are you telling me that they are ready to fall in line behind Michele Bachmann, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin? Are these really the pacesetters of modern conservatism? So, Republicans in Name Only – folks whose political views are closer to Friedman's – are “adults” while those espousing real conservative opinions aren't. It's exactly this kind of nonsense that Rubio spoke of Saturday (relevant section at 5:30): SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R-FLORIDA): If we had a billion dollars for every time I heard the words “Tea Party extremist,” we could solve this debt problem. So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes. Here's one. It says, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt.” A quote from a Tea Party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. I found another extremist quote. This one says, “Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a Tea Party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. And last but not least, here's a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, “I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that.” And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007. And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we're talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back. Indeed it is, and almost on cue Sunday, Friedman was guilty as charged. (H/T Weasel Zippers )
Continue reading …