Doubts over Federation Fund emerge as event focuses more on publicity than charity It was a starry event that lured some of the biggest names in Hollywood along with a sprinkling of the Muscovite elite. There was Woody Allen, playing with his jazz band after a performance by Andrea Bocelli. There were Francis Ford Coppola and Jeremy Irons, Orlando Bloom and Steven Seagal, Sophia Loren and Dionne Warwick, all gathered in the leafy heights of southern Moscow for a charity gala like no other: this charity does not dispense its largesse. The Federation Fund, which has presented itself as a children’s charity since forming late last year, has rapidly turned into one of the most controversial operations in a country known for opaque projects. This weekend, after weeks of billboard advertising splashed across the capital, it laid on a lavish two-day show in aid of … Well, it was not entirely clear what the event was in aid of. The charity says it is no longer about raising funds, but raising awareness. Some of the guests said they had been paid to attend. Doubts about the Federation Fund surfaced soon after an inaugural concert in St Petersburg this year shot it to prominence, thanks largely to Vladimir Putin’s notorious version of Blueberry Hill, which became an internet hit. Three months after that show, the mother of a sick child wrote an open letter to the president, Dmitry Medvedev, complaining that hospitals promised donations had received nothing. The fund moved quickly to donate medical equipment to several hospitals, and then denied any wrongdoing, saying it had been set up to generate publicity, not cash. Most of the stars at the weekend event had heard nothing of the questions about the event and at least one, Kevin Costner, came back for a repeat performance after appearing at the first in December. The actor Chris Noth, best known for playing Mr Big in Sex and the City, admitted he was being paid to attend the event. “Yeah, they pay you a fee, a nominal fee,” Noth told the Guardian. The founder of the charity, Vladimir Kiselyov, a Soviet-era rock star, said he paid for the event out of his own pocket, while receiving ad space and the concert site free of charge. His idea, he said, was to put donors directly in touch with recipients of their generosity, obviating the need for fundraising. But that did not explain the purpose behind the weekend event, which was not without an awkward moment or two. Co-host Yelena Sever, a relative unknown recently put forward as the fund’s “patroness”, awkwardly introduced Bocelli to two blind Russian girls who performed at the event, which the fund presented as a means of raising “awareness” of children with cancer and sight problems. “Nice to see you,” she told the girls, unfortunately, before corralling a confused Bocelli into giving them a white teddy bear. At least two men whose faces adorned the billboards around Moscow – Dustin Hoffman and Larry King – dropped out after queries about their participation from the Russian media. Anna Zaitseva, a local agent with Platinum Rye Entertainment, said both men had fallen ill. The Russian government’s blessing came in the form of the culture minister, Alexander Avdeyev, who took to the stage to praise the fund for bringing attention to the country’s sick children. Russian riot and traffic police provided security. By the intermission, questions had begun to spread among the celebrity guests. When asked why he thought he had been invited, Irons said: “It’s a concert raising the profile of the foundation to provide equipment to paediatric hospitals,” before quickly adding, “Is that accurate?” By Monday morning, the fund found itself at the centre of more controversy. The parents of Dasha Zvonareva, a young girl who died of cancer in March, accused the fund of using her image without permission. “What we saw was a huge blow to us,” they told Kommersant online, saying their daughter’s image was used in a promotional video aired at the concert on Saturday. “We want to know why Dasha’s photo is in the video. Where could they have taken it? How dare they take it, who allowed it?” Russia Europe Miriam Elder guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Six out of seven reporters, called on by Barack Obama at today's press conference, asked a question of the President that came from the left and/or blamed Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans for standing in the way of a deal on the debt ceiling. Ben Feller of the AP, began the trend of questioning when he asked how Obama was going to deal with Republicans who were “adamantly” opposed to tax increases. CBS News' Chip Reid followed with “isn't the problem the people who aren't in the room, and in particular Republican presidential candidates and Republican Tea Partiers on the Hill?” USA Today's Rich Wolf then took the baton from Reid when he asked: “You keep talking about balance, shared sacrifice, but in the $4 trillion deal that you're talking about roughly, it seems to be now at about four-to-one spending to taxes; we're talking about $800 billion in taxes, roughly. That doesn't seem very fair to some Democrats.” Sam Stein, of the liberal Huffington Post, brought up the high unemployment rate under Obama but only as a rationale to oppose cutting federal spending as he asked: “With unemployment now at 9.2 percent and a large chunk of those lost jobs coming from the private sector, is now a really good time to cut trillions of dollars in spending? How will we still create jobs?” The following are all of the questions posed to the President during the July 11 White House press conference: BARACK OBAMA: Alright, with that I'm going to take some questions, starting with Ben Feller. BEN FELLER, AP: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Two quick topics. Given that you're running out of time, can you explain what is your plan for where these talks go if Republicans continue to oppose any tax increases, as they've adamantly said that they will? And secondly, on your point about no short-term stopgap measure, if it came down to that and Congress went that route, I know you're opposed to it but would you veto it?… Do you see any path to a deal if they don't budge on taxes? … OBAMA: Chip Reid. CHIP REID, CBS NEWS: Thank you, Mr. President. You said that everybody in the room is willing to do what they have to do, wants to get something done by August 2nd. But isn't the problem the people who aren't in the room, and in particular Republican presidential candidates and Republican Tea Partiers on the Hill , and the American public? The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe. There are still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit. So isn't the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?… Do you think he'll [Rep. John Boehner] come back to the $4 trillion deal? … OBAMA: Rich Wolf. RICH WOLF, USA TODAY: Thank you, Mr. President. You keep talking about balance, shared sacrifice, but in the $4 trillion deal that you're talking about roughly, it seems to be now at about four-to-one spending to taxes; we're talking about $800 billion in taxes, roughly. That doesn't seem very fair to some Democrats. I'm wondering if you could clarify why we're at that level. And also, if you could clarify your Social Security position. Would any of the money from Social Security, even from just Chained CPI, go toward the deficit as opposed to back into the trust fund? … OBAMA: Sam Stein. SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: Thank you, Mr. President. With unemployment now at 9.2 percent and a large chunk of those lost jobs coming from the private sector, is now a really good time to cut trillions of dollars in spending? How will we still create jobs? And then to piggyback on the Social Security question – what do you say to members of your own party who say it doesn't contribute to the deficit, let's consider it but not in the context of this deal?…Are there things with respect to Social Security, like raising the retirement age, means testing – are those too big a chunk for – OBAMA: I'm probably not going to get into the details, Sam, right now of negotiations. I might enjoy negotiating with you, but I don't know how much juice you've got in the Republican caucus. (Laughter.) That's what I figured. Alright, Lesley Clark. LESLEY CLARK, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: Thank you, Mr. President. OBAMA: Thank you. CLARK: Have you – you've talked with economists, you said that economists have agreed that a deal needs to be made. Have you worked with U.S. business leaders at all to lobby Congress to raise the debt ceiling? And if so, who are you talking to?…And can you say, as the clock ticks down, whether or not the administration is- OBAMA: I'm sorry- CLARK: Can you say, as the clock ticks down, whether or not the administration is working on any sort of contingency plans if things don't happen by August? OBAMA: We are going to get this done by August 2nd. George Condon. GEORGE CONDON, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Mr. President, to follow on Chip's question, you said that the Speaker faces tough politics in his caucus. Do you have complete confidence that he can deliver the votes on anything that he agrees to? Is he in control of his caucus?…So your confidence in him wasn't shaken by him walking away from the big deal he said he wanted? … OBAMA: Last question. April Ryan. APRIL RYAN, AMERICAN URBAN RADIO NETWORKS: Mr. President, hi. I want to revisit the issue of sacrifice. In 2009, you said that – expect the worst to come; we have not seen the worst yet. And now with these budget cuts looming, you have minorities, the poor, the elderly, as well as people who are scared of losing jobs fearful. And also, what say you about Congressman Chaka Fattah's bill, the Debt Free America Act? Do you support that bill ? Are you supporting the Republican bill that is similar to his, modeled after Congressman Fattah's bill?
Continue reading …With the jobs picture bleak and getting steadily bleaker, President Obama needs to shed the tightly restrained list of options that the D.C. establishment considers it acceptable to consider. The things Republicans want to consider would be laughable if they weren’t so awful: more (and more and more and more) tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent and biggest corporations already awash in money they aren’t using to create jobs. The list of things establishment D.C. Democrats want to consider range from the good but politically impossible (like more fiscal stimulus) to the good but really small (such as tinkering here and there with small targeted tax credit ideas) to bad ideas taken from Republicans and modified to make them slightly less extreme. But there are ideas outside of this very narrow range of conventional wisdom in Washington that the Obama administration, along with key big states with Democratic Governors and legislatures, could do right now that could boost the economy significantly. Here are four big ideas that would make an immediate difference in pumping up the economy, things the Obama administration could do without going through Congress: 1. Use TARP. The economic crisis that spurred the creation of TARP may have stabilized, but it sure hasn’t ended. And TARP is still open for business: while most of the no-strings-attached big bank bailout money has been returned, TARP still is authorized to spend $475 billion. Since the big banks are hoarding their money and using it to give huge bonuses to their execs, why not turn the TARP money into a modern day Reconstruction Finance Corporation (the agency that FDR used to help lift us out of the Great Depression), and start lending TARP money out to small business entrepreneurs who actually planned to create jobs. This might also provide some competitive spur to the banks who are just sitting on their money. TARP is unpopular, and Republicans might score some short-term political points screaming about the money being used for this, but I think Obama would win the fight by saying that rather than investing in the big banks, it’s time to invest in small businesses that are actually going to use the money to create real jobs. 2. Fannie and Freddie. The Obama administration has virtually unlimited authority in bailing out Fannie and Freddie. The government runs Fannie and Freddie. And right now, Fannie and Freddie are acting as badly as any other big bank in foreclosing on homes and driving down housing prices for their own short-term gain. It is time to take advantage of actually being in charge of these two huge financial institutions, and run them in a way that keeps more people in their homes through mortgage writedowns and stabilizes the housing market as a result. This would do as much to stimulate the economy as any other thing that could be done right now. 3. Ratchet up pressure on Wall Street to write down mortgages. The Federal government does not run the six big banks that dominate our financial sector like they do Fannie and Freddie, but as they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt during the 2008-9 financial panic, they have the regulatory power to do whatever is needed in a crisis — and that is certainly what this kind of economy feels like to most Americans. This week, Treasury actually showed again that they do have that kind of muscle in writing a rule that will force banks to help unemployed homeowners trying to hang on to their homes. It was the best thing Treasury has done in a long time, and long overdue. Now they just need to take the idea further, and keep squeezing the banks to write down underwater mortgages of homeowners who still have jobs but are hanging on by a thread because the value of their house collapsed. By getting Fannie, Freddie, and the six biggest banks to writedown all of the underwater mortgages in the country, you would inject hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy because middle-income homeowners’ monthly mortgage payments go down. Plus you stabilize the entire housing market, giving homeowners more confidence and financial security, and allowing them more operating room to make other purchases and maybe even start new businesses. 4. Finally do something about Chinese currency manipulation. If the United States were to declare the Chinese in violation of fair trade rules under WTO because of currency manipulation, they could immediately impose tariffs against Chinese goods and provide an immediate and dramatic boost to America’s long ailing manufacturing sector, generating tons of good paying jobs very quickly. This isn’t protectionism, it is actually the exact opposite: demanding China operate under the trade rules every other country on Earth is expected to. And ironically, this wouldn’t generate much political heat, as big majorities in both Houses of Congress already are on record supporting this action. These four things, all of which could be done without having to go though Congress, would all provide immediate jolts to the Main Street economy, put money into the pockets of the hard pressed middle class, and create a lot of jobs quickly. They would show middle-class voters that the President was decisively and dramatically on their side. And who knows: they might even help compensate for all the damage that will done to the economy by the contractionary budget cuts in whatever bad deal the President finally agrees to in order to get the debt ceiling increased — because the only question isn’t whether this budget cutting deal will be bad, but just how bad will it be. The issue is that President Obama will have to go beyond the confines of the conventional wisdom economic advisers that dominate the halls of power in D.C., he will have to pick a big fight with Republicans, and he will have to make Wall Street very unhappy, because all four of these policy initiatives will make them mad. But he has to be bold to save this economy, and his own re-election chances. It is time to act.
Continue reading …At a time when the government is facing billions of dollars in cuts to programs that many Republicans deem as wasteful, it seems that the only spending Democrats want to address is Rep. Paul Ryan's expensive taste in wine, even though they have past ignored a number of instances of wasteful Democratic spending on the taxpayer's dime. Last Friday, Talking Points Memo published a piece criticizing Ryan for sipping a glass of wine from a $350 bottle of Pinot Noir. Onlooker Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, took pictures of Ryan and his two economist friends sipping the wine before approaching Ryan and asking how he could live with himself for dropping hundreds of dollars on wine while arguing for cuts to programs benefitting the poor and elderly. As it turns out, the two bottles of $350 wine were ordered by Ryan's friends, and Ryan only indulged in one glass. When approached by TPM about the choice of wine, Ryan responded “A.) I didn't order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) …I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals,” noting he would never have chosen a bottle of wine “anything close to 100 dollars.” With a net worth pegged at somewhere between $590,092 to $2,425,000, placing him as the 147th richest congressman, Ryan's supposedly lavish lifestyle pales in comparison to a number of high-ranking Democrats. Fourteen members of congress have net worths exceeding $100 million , ten of whom are Democrats. Ryan's expensive wine brings to mind a number of Democrats spending wastefully in their personal lives. You might remember President Barack Obama's tens of thousands of dollars date weekend to New York City paid for largely by taxpayers, first lady Michelle Obama's luxurious trip to Spain by military jet paid for with taxpayer money, or as Jonathan H. Adler points out , Rep. Nancy Pelosi's extravagant use of Air Force One on the taxpayer's dime to the tune of $2,100,744.59 over two years plus $101,429.14 for “in-flight expenses.” Perhaps most ironically, as explained by Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit , is that the same liberal complainers were silent when a taxpayer-funded state dinner in January served $399 bottles of wine to accompany an already expensive meal. Of course, the difference between these instances and Ryan's is that unlike the Democrats, Ryan paid for the wine that he didn't even order with his own money that he worked to earn, not passing along the cost to taxpayers. Some might say Ryan's actions are still hypocritical given the cuts he is proposing, but he lives within his own means in his personal life, just as he is pushing for the government to function within its own means.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Not that you need confirmation of the Republicans’ bad faith in the current ‘negotiation’ or anything, but Kevin McCarthy’s disingenuous performance on State of the Union with Candy Crowley yesterday puts it all into perspective. I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get people to shake their collective fists at Republicans, but at some point we need to start flooding them with protest letters over their conduct. Here are McCarthy’s big lies, told in the span of about 10 minutes. Big Lie #1: House Republicans have passed 9 bills that would create 500,000 jobs Please, don’t spit coffee on your monitor/phone/ipad/device at that claim. I’m not sure what bills Republicans have passed that don’t kill jobs, but here’s what the man said: So from the premise that where Republicans have been in the short time they have been in the majority, we’ve laid out a framework to put us on a new path. Energy policy reform, where we spend the money and create jobs here. We’ve passed nine bills that would create more than half a million jobs that have been lingering in the Senate. So I don’t think the premise of where we have been has always been out in front. There are not enough — there are no votes on the Republican side. But even when the Democrats… I went looking for the bills and I found this little bit of propaganda put out by John Boehner’s office. Here are some of the bills they claim are stalled: HR 1229, 1230 and 1231, overriding the President’s moratorium on offshore drilling and expanding the scope and area allowed for offshore exploration. As part of those bills, offshore drilling would be expanded off the coast of Virginia, Florida and California. But of course, domestic oil production isn’t really a job creator. In fact, our domestic oil production is higher than it’s ever been. It is, however, a Koch Industries priority profit item. Paul Ryan’s budget plan For debunkery on this one, let’s turn to John McCain’s economic adviser, Mark Zandi, via our own Jon Perr : For his part, Moody’s Mark Zandi concluded that the Ryan budget’s draconian spending cuts supported by 235 House Republicans and 40 GOP Senators would make the job creation picture much, much worse. While acknowledging that “Congressman Ryan’s budget plan is too heavy on near-term spending cuts, while President Obama’s is too light on long-term deficit reduction,” Zandi nevertheless warned that the Boehner party would lead the U.S. to a staggering loss of 1.7 million jobs over the next two years: In the Ryan plan, lower future deficits and debt result immediately in lower interest rates than under the president’s plan. Ten-year Treasury yields are more than 60 basis points lower in 2012 and more than a percentage point lower by 2014. Yet this is not enough to offset the negative near-term economic consequences of the Ryan plan’s more aggressive spending cuts. Real GDP in 2012 under the Ryan plan is $123 billion lower than in the president’s plan and there are 900,000 fewer payroll jobs in the U.S. By 2014, real GDP is almost $200 billion lower and there are 1.7 million fewer jobs under the Ryan approach than is the case under the president’s. Not seeing that 500,000 jobs yet. Still looking. Moving on to the next point…. Repealing Dodd-Frank Act , on the pretense that it kills jobs for “small business.” McCarthy to Crowley: Economists will tell you if you raise taxes on small businesses, which are not growing right now, you only harm the economy more. So let’s end the uncertainty. To be clear here, we are not talking about small businesses like Mom and Pop’s Ice Cream Parlor down on Main Street. We are talking about small businesses like Koch Industries, a privately-owned company owned by a holding company, which is a Subchapter S corporation. Heather has more on that particular lie here. But again, repealing Dodd-Frank does not create jobs, no matter how long Wall Street and the financial sector hold their breath and stomp their feet. And that’s really all they’ve done. They’ve repealed a whole bunch of legislation that kills more jobs, passed a whole bunch of legislation that kills our environment, jobs and endangers the planet along with the economy, and of course, declared war on women with repeated passage of anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-family, anti-health bills. Still not seeing that 500,000 jobs, so let’s move on to his next lie. Big Lie #2: Discretionary spending increased 73% in the last 3 years This one won’t take long to debunk. Paul Krugman: The number comes from taking nondefense discretionary spending as reported — which rose 26 percent from 2008 to 2010 (Table 8.7) — and then adding the entire discretionary spending part of the stimulus. Politifact says that this is misleading because not all of the stimulus funds were spent in 2010. But it’s much worse than that: stimulus spending is already in those discretionary spending numbers. If you look at the table, you’ll see bulges in spending on education and ground transportation that go away after 2011; that’s the stimulus. So this GOP talking point is a complete fraud; it’s based on counting the same spending several times over. Politifact concurs, rating this claim false . Big Lie #3: Tax Cuts Stimulated the Economy McCarthy: CROWLEY: Well, you take all the blame. But the thing is, there just seems to me that there has to be some willingness to give, and I have not heard anything from you about, yes, you know what, I would go — if we could get a deal that would cut 2.5 trillion in savings, I would agree to this on the revenue side. There’s nothing on the revenue side you will agree to? MCCARTHY: Well, you know, Candy, I’ve never found one tax increase that created a job. I have watched our economy sputter downward. I’ve been out across the American public, they want to go back to work. And I know those policies will fail. So in principle, no, we’re not going to go there. Now, I’m no brain surgeon but I can read a calendar. And what my calendar says over and over again is this: When tax rates were higher (1993-2000), there were more jobs, not less. The failed policies McCarthy refers to are the policies that cut taxes on the wealthy, wiped out a surplus, and set this country on a path to fiscal disaster. I don’t think I need to produce the charts again, because we’re all living it. Which leads to the biggest lie of all, blending all three in to one neat package: We are losing our jobs because we are spending too much. No. We are losing our jobs because there is no incentive for anyone to let go of their cash, spend it or make investments in the future, from Fortune 500 public companies to private “small businesses” like Koch Industries. On the Fortune 500 side, there’s no pain to simply keeping funds invested and receiving dividends, since that income is tax-privileged for high earners. On the high-end S-Corporation side, there is absolutely no incentive to spend money on anything when they can keep it by simply paying taxes at today’s too low rates. So repeat after me: We don’t have a spending problem; we have a revenue problem. Lather, rinse, repeat, preach. Then go read Steve Benen’s post, because we actually have another problem: Republicans are shirking their sworn duty. All of this could go away in a heartbeat. Republicans could do, today, exactly what they did repeatedly during the Bush years: simply vote to raise the debt ceiling in a clean bill and move on. The entire process could take literally a few minutes. But GOP officials don’t want to. They want to play a game in which the entire world could lose. How is this not the biggest political scandal in modern American history? How is it that those who claim the high ground on patriotism could put our financial well being on the line, on purpose, when they don’t have to?
Continue reading …MSNBC's Martin Bashir on Monday wondered if Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum support ” a return to the days of slavery ” after the two GOP hopefuls signed a pledge on upholding traditional marriage. Teasing a segment on the topic, the cable anchor mused, ” Next, the problem with promises. Did two Republican hopefuls really sign a pledge suggesting a return to the days of slavery? ” Bashir covered the language in a “marriage vow” put together by the Family Leader, a conservative social group in Iowa. In their pledge, the organization suggested, “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.” Now, regardless of the historical inaccuracies in the pledge (most slave families weren't allowed to stay together), it's disingenuous at best to suggest Bachmann and Santorum would sit down and sign a pledge advocating for slavery to return.
Continue reading …Venezuelan president reportedly on the mend and optimistic about the future after undergoing operation to remove a tumour The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, is recovering rapidly after undergoing surgery last month that removed a cancerous tumour, the government said on Monday. Chávez remarked on his health during a telephone conversation with the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, on Sunday as the Venezuelan president was exercising outdoors, the foreign ministry said in a statement. Chávez told the Russian leader “that he has experienced a rapid recovery from the complex operation”adding that the president has been undergoing a first phase of rehabilitation. The statement added that Chávez now has a “feeling of realistic optimism” as he enters the next phase of recovery. Hugo Chávez Venezuela guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …President Obama started this morning by giving a presser about the supposed ‘Grand Bargain’ he’s looking for since House Speaker John Boehner came out and said he wouldn’t agree to a big deal. He said that’s he’s willing to take heat from his own party over programs and things we really believe in. “I am prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done,” Obama said, contending he has “bent over backward” to work with Republicans. Naturally. Obama made the case on Republican terms that we must tighten our belts if we want to get the deficit under control and so everybody has to be willing to negotiate or a deal will never get done. he won’t sign off on any short extensions of the debt ceiling either. There’s been much speculation about how much of his words have matched what he truly believes in and if it’s a tactical ploy aimed at the GOP ans Independent voters. I think we’re past that point. The absurdity of this whole debate was explained away by Mitch McConnell yesterday on FOX when he said that their goal is not for deficit reduction or job growth, but to make Obama a one term president. “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal ‘s Major Garrett in October. Fox News’ Bret Baier asked McConnell Sunday if that was still his major objective. “Well, that is true,” McConnell replied. “That’s my single most important political goal, along with every active Republican in the country.” – McConnell told Baier that a “Grand Bargain,” where Republicans agree to tax hikes in exchange for cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, was likely off the table. “I think it is. Everything they told me and the Speaker is to get a big package would require big tax increases in the middle of the economic situation that is extraordinarily difficult with 9.2% unemployment. We think it’s a terrible idea. It’s a job-killer.” “Nobody is talk about not raising the debt ceiling,” McConnell later insisted. If this is true then why not have a clean debt ceiling vote and move on from here? I’d say because Obama wants a Grand Bargain to hang his hat on. “Eating our peas,’ was the thing I heard that stood out as well as what the media is going to take away from it. “I’ve been hearing from my Republican friends for some time it is a moral imperative to tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way,” Mr. Obama said. “What I’ve said to them is, let’s go.” The president said today he would not accept a smaller, short-term deal. “We might as well do it now,” he said. “Pull off the band aid. Eat our peas.” Framing this debate in Republican terms has been a big problem for me as well as many other progressives and it’s not likely to change. Atrios: We can’t read minds, so at some point we have to judge people by their words and actions. This press conference tells us that the austerity crap isn’t some bit of political posturing, it’s a belief. We’re doomed. Candy Crowley of CNN was going on and on about the Biden deal, on Sunday as if that was the miracle cure for this debate, but there is no movement on that one either. Joan McCarter writes from earlier today: The Biden agreement had settled on about $1.5 trillion in cuts, while another $500 billion in cuts would be included if Republicans agreed to $200-300 billion in tax loophole closures. That’s balanced, right? The “sticking point,” for Republicans, is what it’s always been: raising taxes for rich people . Proving yet again that none of this is about the deficit, at least not for the GOP. For their part, Democrats are repeating the mantra that entitlements be protected . After the meeting ended, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement: “We came into this weekend with the prospect that we could achieve a grand bargain. We are still hopeful for a large bipartisan agreement, which means more stability for our economy, more growth and jobs, and more deficit reduction over a longer period of time.” She added: “This package must do no harm to the middle class or to economic growth. It must also protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries, and we continue to have serious concerns about shifting billions in Medicaid costs to the states.” …. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said the Biden talks identified only about $1 trillion in spending cuts. Democrats would agree to those cuts only if certain tax loopholes were closed, such as tax breaks for corporate jet owners and subsidies for oil and gas companies. Digby Writes : The accusation that those of us who are upset about cuts to Medicare, medicaid and Social security don’t care about the programs is especially clever, I have to admit. That will prove to be quite useful I imagine. For Republicans. “I think it would give the American people enormous confidence that this town can actually do something one in a while,” Obama said. I think the President’s goal is exactly what he says it is: to do Big Things.I just don’t think it matters much what the substance of those Big Things is. d-day writes: However, he made a few key statements that give insight into the negotiations. First of all, Obama said that, without Republicans budging on revenue, “I don’t think something’s going to get done. If their proposition is my way or the highway, I don’t see us getting a deal.” That would hold for a maximalist, grand bargain deal of $4 trillion, or a medium-sized deal of $2 trillion. Obama said that Democrats in the Senate would have to agree to a deal, and that House Democratic votes would be needed to pass any deal. “I will not accept a deal in which I (meaning a rich person -ed.) am asked to do nothing, while a parent out there struggling to figure out how to get a kid to college will have a couple thousand less in student loans.” Job creation did finally come up when and the president believes that until the deficit is done first, jobs can’t move forward: Greg Sargent Obama plainly believes that the only way to manage any kind of pivot to jobs is to take the deficit off the table as an issue first. Obama thinks the GOP will ultimately capitulate to some degree on revenues, but knows full well it will be a bad deal for Dems. By signaling openness to entitlements cuts that will anger the Dem base, he hopes to increase the political price the GOP pays for intransigence on revenues and is hoping to preemptively blame Republicans for the lopsided nature of the ultimate deal. More important, he is putting them on notice that once a deficit deal is reached, they’ll have run out of excuses for opposing job creation measures that require government spending. I don’t know if this will work, either politically or in terms of job creation, but this is clearly the course he’s chosen. So what does this all mean? Keynesian economics is dead at this point in time and that’s a shame. If it fails I guess Obama can say he tried in good faith at a significant cost to Democratic principles because he’s willing to negotiate and compromise, and Villagers will love that, but will America understand? Full transcript here.
Continue reading …New York Times Executive Editor and “collapsed Catholic” Bill Keller reviewed “ Absolute Monarchs – A History of the Papacy ” by John Julius Norwich –the cover review for the Times Sunday Book Review. The issue included an editorial note at the front of the magazine confessing the paper’s rough relationship with the Catholic Church (which Times Watch has documented ).
Continue reading …Around 70 people are still to sign, said the local authority that has been embroiled in bitter dispute A council embroiled in a bitter dispute over pay and conditions, which has sparked a series of strikes, has said that virtually all of its staff had signed new terms. Conservative-controlled Southampton City Council said it was pleased to announce that more than 98% of its employees have agreed to new pay, terms and conditions which came into effect on Monday. “Meanwhile the council is actively seeking new talks with trade unions in an attempt to end industrial action. Trade unions have indicated that they would be prepared to negotiate and we are confident that by working together we can end this dispute, get the best deal for staff and get back to work providing excellent services for our residents. “The council will do all it can to collect as many bins in the city as possible this week, with up to 10 trucks collecting rounds,” the authority said in a statement. Hundreds of council staff have taken industrial action in the past six weeks, including refuse collectors and social workers. Port health officers joined the industrial action today, while Unison and Unite are planning a protest in the city on Wednesday to co-incide with a meeting of the full council. Unison today accused the council of forcing workers to accept a pay cut, while telling the government it expected to put more than £4 million into its reserves. General secretary Dave Prentis said: “The council has painted a bleak picture to employees, at the same time as giving the government figures showing they expect the reserves to rocket. “Pay cuts and job losses will pile misery on to thousands of council workers and their families, at a time of rising inflation. It is clear that these punitive measures are just not necessary. “We are calling for the council to publish the 2010/11 financial report immediately and put a stop to these savage cuts.” Unite claimed the council had drawn up plans to sack a quarter of its 4,300-strong workforce over the next three years. The union said it had seen a “devastating” report setting out the authority’s budget and spending priorities until 2015, including setting aside £5 million a year from 2012 to 2014 for redundancies. Local government Public sector cuts Public sector pay guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …