After his stepmother’s email on manners went viral, Freddie Bourne revealed to have surprising new line in business Given Carolyn Bourne’s stinging criticism of her stepson Freddie’s forthcoming wedding, it is questionable whether she believes he is the right person to help organise other people’s nuptials. So she may be surprised to learn that the entrepreneur, 29, is involved in a company specialising in just that. Mrs Bourne, for the few who have not heard of her, shot to prominence after an email she sent to Freddie’s fiance, Heidi Withers – criticising her “lack of manners” and the couple’s plans for their big day – went viral. Overnight Mrs Bourne was transformed into “the mother-in-law from hell” or, as the US press named her, “Momzilla”. But her criticisms now appear to have been given added piquancy given Freddie Bourne’s new business venture. The Observer can disclose that last month Bourne and two twentysomething friends, Alexander Bayliss and Anthony Teale, established Mise-en-Bouche Ltd, a catering and events company in which they are the sole shareholders and which, according to its website, can supply the “wedding of your dreams”. The revelation has raised intriguing questions about whether the online row was orchestrated as a PR stunt, a claim denied by those involved. Whether Bourne, who is to marry Withers in the autumn at sumptuous Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire in a reported £18,000 ceremony, will avail himself of the company’s services remains to be seen. “Your wedding will be one of the most important days of your life,” gushes the website, which was set up before Freddie became involved with the business. “And for that reason, everything has to be perfect… very few companies can offer the quality service that we do.” The website’s promise that it can provide the “perfect bespoke event” is unlikely to reassure Mrs Bourne, who fumed in her email: “No one gets married in a castle unless they own it. It is brash, celebrity-style behaviour.” Her scepticism about her stepson’s choice of wedding location is hardly a ringing endorsement for one of the main services provided by the company, which, according to its website, can offer “a long list of different venues suitable for all styles of party in and around London. Whether it be a cocktail party with canapés, a barbecue in the garden, a full sit-down dinner, or the wedding of your dreams, the list of possibilities is endless!” And the company’s ability to supply lavish nibbles such as “mini steak frites topped with green peppercorn butter” and “lemongrass and ginger chicken skewer with a ponzu dipping sauce” is also likely to receive short shrift from Mrs Bourne, who told Withers: “I understand your parents are unable to contribute very much towards the cost of
Continue reading …Villagers vow to resist as wildlife vanishes and they are driven from their land to make way for water-thirsty crops Gamba Manyatta village is empty now, weeds already roping around the few skeletal hut frames still standing. The people who were evicted took as much of their building materials as they could carry to start again and the land where their homes stood is now ploughed up. Mohamed Abdi, 13, points out where his hut used to be. His was the last of the 427 families to leave. “They told us we would be burned out if we didn’t go,” he said. “They drove machinery round and round the village all day and all night to drive people out. No one understood why, as the village had been there for more than 25 years.” The eviction of the villagers to make way for a sugar cane plantation is part of a wider land grab going on in Kenya’s Tana Delta that is not only pushing people off plots they have farmed for generations, stealing their water resources and raising tribal tensions that many fear will escalate into war, but also destroying a unique wetland habitat that is home to hundreds of rare and spectacular birds. The irony is that most of the land is being taken for allegedly environmental reasons – to allow private companies to grow water-thirsty sugar cane and jatropha for the biofuels so much in demand in the west, where green legislation, designed to ease carbon dioxide emissions, is requiring they are mixed with petrol and diesel. The delta, one of Kenya’s last wildernesses and one of the most important bird habitats in Africa, is the flood plain of the Tana river, which flows 1,014km from Mount Kenya to the Indian Ocean. Global warming and reduced rainfall has already hit the delta hard. “No proper research has been done into what wildlife is here, and now the habitat is disappearing there is no evidence of what we are losing,” said Francis Kagema, of Nature Kenya, a conservation group supported by the RSPB in the UK. Standing on the bank of a small lake that clearly was once much larger, he points out more than a dozen species of birds within view from his binoculars. “You don’t need to be a scientist to see the situation here is critical and the land grab is terrible. This is supposed to be the wet season. The elephants have already gone, the hippos are going, birds are less and less.” The delta’s people are trying to fight their own government over the huge blocks of land being turned over to companies including the Canadian company, Bedford Biofuels, which was this year granted a licence by the Kenyan environmental regulator for a 10,000-hectare jatropha “pilot” project. A UK-based firm, G4 Industries Ltd, has been awarded a licence for 28,000 hectares. At the site where the former villagers from Gamba Manyatta were told to relocate, elder Bule Gedi Darso, 57, shows the foul-smelling stream that they have to draw their water from. “This is not a good place. Children have died, we have typhoid and malaria now. We were healthy before and our children went to school. This river is the drainage and pesticides from all the big farms. The proper river has been diverted to irrigate them and now we just get their poison. When we were evicted they showed us the maps, and we saw many more villages who don’t yet know they are to be evicted too. Where will they all go?” It is a question worrying another village. Didewaride was once surrounded by wetland, only accessible by boat. Now it is stranded amid miles of brown earth with occasional pools of water. Omar Bocha Kofonde, an elder, says: “The hippos have gone, the fish, the birds, and the soil is salty. The goats and cattle have no grazing. The rivers used to flush out the sea water, now the sea is coming up on to our land because there is no river. Everything is in danger. People thought they owned the land, we have been here for hundreds of years. Now we will fight; we are ready to die, for what else is there?” It is the same view coming from villagers all around the delta, Christian and Muslim, farmers and herdsmen from the Pokomo, Orma, Luo and other tribes. The village of Ozi has just discovered that two huge plots of its land were sold at auction in April – they do not know who sold it or who bought it. “This land ownership is giving us a headache. We know there are people who have sold our land when it isn’t theirs to sell. They are criminals and we will fight them, with guns and with sticks,” said Ali Saidi Kichei of Ozi village, which last month sent a delegation to the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, to demand a meeting with the Kenyan minister for lands. “We lived in paradise, in peace,” he said. “Now what? No water, only salty water, land thieves and water thieves, and children with empty stomachs.” Kagema says Nature Kenya is trying to support villagers to go to court. “These people have lived here for hundreds of years, but suddenly someone writes up a piece of paper and they are squatters on their own land. The delta is of international importance, yet they control the water and drain the wetlands and portions are parcelled off to private investors like the biofuel companies. Homes and lands are given away from under them. Nobody cares because nothing happens immediately, but it is coming. Tana Delta is in chaos. When everyone picks up their share with their bits of paperwork … it will be war. The day is coming.” Kenya Biofuels Africa Energy Renewable energy International land deals Land rights Tracy McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Major retailers tell Commons committee that proposed groceries code regulation would lead to further price inflation Long-awaited legislation on how supermarkets treat suppliers looks likely to be derailed or rendered toothless by “heavy artillery lobbying” from big retailers. Asda, Sainsbury’s, the British Retail Consortium and the Co-op have all told a Commons select committee that the proposed groceries code adjudicator is an unnecessary extra burden on supermarkets and that it would lead to higher food prices. Though the draft bill reflects manifesto promises by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the government is likely to heed the retailers’ threat. Food price inflation, at 4.9%, is a major concern as global prices seem likely to rise in the long term. Yet organisations ranging from the National Farmers Union to Friends of the Earth and ActionAid say the bill is crucial to tackle years of abuse and restrictive practices as the supermarkets have upped their profits during the downturn by squeezing smaller suppliers. Three thousand farmers and other suppliers have gone out of business in Britain as a direct result of supermarkets’ bullying and unfair buying policies, according to Andrew George, MP for West Cornwall, who heads the Grocery Market Action Group. He said the potential cost of the adjudicator to the retailers was “a gnat bite”, as long as they carried out their business fairly. The government introduced a binding code of practice on the 10 biggest retailers and processors after two damning Competition Commission reports. The supermarkets say that the code is working well – there have been no complaints made under it – and so there is no need for an ombudsman. But the NFU says that a “climate of fear” prevents hard-pressed farmers complaining lest there be “reprisals”. Campaigners want the bill toughened to allow an ombudsman to hear anonymous complaints and impose fines. An Observer investigation backs up the NFU’s accusation. Among dozens of farmers interviewed, only very few felt able to let their names be used. Yet the practices they revealed – including “no-price contracts”, being forced to sell their produce on two-for-one discounts, and having to use supermarkets’ preferred middlemen at vastly increased cost – are all banned by the code of conduct and may be illegal. Special investigation, pages 8-9 Pig farmers have been selling their animals at a £10-£30 loss since August last year, when a huge and unexpected rise in the price of feed hit them. But supermarkets have largely refused to allow any price increases, and 30 farmers have gone out of business this year, according to the National Pig Association. One dairy farmer complained to the Observer that he was getting only 1p more per litre of milk than he was in 1997, though the price in the supermarket has gone from 42p to 80p or more. The NFU says that at least one dairy farmer in Britain has gone out of business every day for a decade. Andrew George MP said: “We need this measure: food producers here and in the developing world want to concentrate on being able to provide healthy food for customers, they do not want to perpetually fight the supermarkets for survival.” Farming Supermarkets Inflation Food & drink industry Alex Renton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Imagine if, for instance, credit card companies decided not to accept payment for books or music they considered treasonous. Do we support those kind of judgments by these monopolies? It’s quite a can of worms: More than six months have passed since Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and others cut WikiLeaks’ purse strings. And if that blockade lasts six more days, the secret-spilling group plans to take its financial fight to the courtroom. If Visa Europe and MasterCard Europe haven’t re-opened payment WikiLeaks by next Thursday, the group and its payment provider DataCell plan to file a complaint with the E.U. Commission against the two companies as well as the Danish payment processor Teller, according to Sveinn Andri Sveinsson, the Icelandic lawyer for WikiLeaks and DataCell. “They’re boycotting Datacell and Wikileaks without any objective justification,” says Sveinsson. “This is clearly an abuse of their market dominance.” The complaint argues that the three payment firms have violated Articles 101 and 102 of the E.U. Treaty, which deal with competition among businesses and forbid the creation of anti-competitive cartels. Article 101 prevents firms from creating partnerships for the purposes of price fixing, and Article 102 forbids firms in a “dominant position” from abusing that position. Both Visa and MasterCard have claimed that payments to WikiLeaks and DataCell were suspended because they potentially violate the companies’ terms of service. MasterCard has gone as far explaining that it prohibits “customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal.” Visa has stated that it is investigating “the nature of [WikiLeaks] business and whether it contravenes Visa operating rules.” Teller has already completed an investigation into WikiLeaks’ legality, and in January stated in a report to Visa that it could find no proof that WikiLeaks had broken any laws.
Continue reading …Former favourite to win 2012 presidential election may return to France more popular than ever if cleared of all charges French Socialists were in chaos as key figures speculated whether Dominique Strauss-Kahn could return to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy in the presidential race next year, throwing the party into another round of instability and internal ego-clashes. Strauss-Kahn was the clear favourite to win the 2012 presidential election before he was arrested for allegedly attempting to rape a New York hotel maid in May. He is no longer under house arrest, but still faces seven charges ranging from attempted rape to sexual assault. If he is cleared or charges are dropped, supporters such as former culture minister Jack Lang suggested he could return to France more popular than ever before. Strauss-Kahn’s possible return has thrown the Socialist party’s primary race into disarray. The party had presumed his presidential hopes were dead and opened its selection process for another candidate last week. Candidates must declare by 13 July for an October vote, but Strauss-Kahn’s next hearing is scheduled for 18 July. Current front-runner François Hollande was the first to declare this weekend that he had “no problem” with pushing back the declaration date until the end of August, allowing Strauss-Kahn to return from New York if charges were dropped quickly. But the party’s interim leader, Harlem Désir, snapped back that there didn’t seem to be “any reason” to move the deadline. The row has weakened Martine Aubry, who declared her presidential bid last week, but had a pact with Strauss-Kahn and could be pressured to stand aside for him. All depends on whether the prosecution maintains its case and goes to trial or quickly drops charges against Strauss-Kahn, and if so how the French public and opinion polls perceive him. Even while the charges still stand, some French supporters presented him as an innocent victim, hero and martyr. Left-wing philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy spoke of a noble man who had been the victim of a “spiral of horror and calumny”. He told Le Parisien that Strauss-Kahn had been “lynched” by the “friends of minorities” in the US. He said that because the victim was “poor and immigrant” she had been presumed innocent, and because Strauss-Kahn was “powerful” he had been presumed guilty. Sylvie Pierre-Brossolette, political editor of the weekly Le Point , felt “anything is possible”. A returning Strauss-Kahn might be seen by the French as “hero” mistreated or “humiliated” by the American justice system. Much would depend on whether French left voters still saw him as a “saviour” against Sarkozy, she wrote. But while many Socialists felt DSK could return triumphant if totally cleared, others worried about the stain the case would leave on French politics and the damage done by revelations about his private life and his attitude to women. Since his arrest, a French taboo has been broken and Strauss-Kahn’s behaviour towards women, deemed “libertine” by his friends, has been raked over. Socialist Anne Mansouret, who said she regretted dissuading her daughter, journalist Tristane Banon, from pressing charges over an alleged sexual assault in 2002, had said Strauss-Kahn had a “problem” with women which could be seen as a sickness. Strauss-Kahn seemed not to be worried about his political image on Friday night when he went out for a $100 bowl of pasta with friends, casting aside the controversy in France that he should tone down his image of “champagne socialism”. Socialist MP Marisol Touraine, a key DSK ally, said she hoped for Strauss-Kahn’s “rehabilitation” but warned that he would not be able to return to a “status quo” in France as if nothing had happened. Gérard Collomb, the mayor of Lyon and Strauss-Kahn supporter, warned that Strauss-Kahn should first “rebuild himself” before a possible return to the presidential race, warning that no one emerged from such a case “unscathed”. Pollsters cautioned that Strauss-Kahn’s return would be shaped by whether the American justice system cleared him or whether charges were dropped, leaving doubts. Pascal Perrineau, of Paris’s Institute of Political Science, said that if Strauss-Kahn was cleared of all suspicion, his return to France could still be complicated. “If a strong doubt persists over his behaviour, and even if that behaviour isn’t as criminal as was once suggested, a return [to politics] seems really very difficult,” he told Reuters. Gerald Bronner, a sociologist at Strasbourg university, said: “This case has allowed another image of Strauss-Kahn to be put forward in French public opinion. The public wasn’t informed of the slightly libertine side of his personal life.” Jean Veil, Strauss-Kahn’s French lawyer, said: “He will speak once he’s in France and cleared of all suspicion.” Dominique Strauss-Kahn France Europe Nicolas Sarkozy Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gary Sinise is one of the rare Hollywood stars these days willing to give back to the nation by showing his support for the troops. On Thursday, he sat down with substitute host Laura Ingraham on Fox's “The O'Reilly Factor” to discuss a new documentary chronicling his tremendously patriotic efforts (video follows with transcript and commentary): LAURA INGRAHAM: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight, Hollywood star Gary Sinise has devoted enormous amounts of money and time to help servicemen and their families around the world. If he isn't raising money for injured war vets and 9/11 responders, he and his band are performing for the troops stationed in the Middle East and around the world. Now he's starting a foundation to continue his work. And kicking it all off with a documentary about his band's good deeds. I spoke to Gary yesterday. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MARGARET HOOVER, CO-HOST, “CO-HOST, TRUTV'S, “In Session.”: So, Gary, July 4, the Gary Sinise Foundation launches. Tell us about it. GARY SINISE, FOUNDER, GARY SINISE FOUNDATION: Well, thanks for having me on, Laura. Gary Sinise Foundation. I started because I've been so involved in doing all kinds of things on multiple fronts in support of our troops, our first responders, veterans, their families. We have children of the fallen wounded warriors. There's so many things I'm involved in right now. And I kind of got to the point where I thought, “Well, I'm either going to pull back or ramp it up. And how do I ramp it up when I'm already spread so thin?” So I decided to start the foundation, in order to point people in the right direction with regards to organizations that I'm already supporting, that are doing good work out there in support of our troops. And also, to be able to guide some resources and take in some additional resources so that we can continue to create programs — creating programs and supporting programs that are doing good things for our warriors out there. INGRAHAM: What is the Web site address for it? SINISE: GarySiniseFoundation.org. INGRAHAM: It's easier to remember. First, I think a lot of people don't how. How did the Lieutenant Dan Band start? Can you just briefly tell us that story again? Because that propels us into the documentary. SINISE: Right. And the documentary is called “Lieutenant Dan Band for the Common Good. I have a band. Part of my mission to support our warriors and first responders and folks like that is to take my band around and kind of lift the morale, play some concerts to either raise money or just to raise morale. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SINISE: Everybody on your feet! Let's go. Everybody on your feet. (END VIDEO CLIP) SINISE: When I started going on USO tours, I would shake hands and take pictures. I asked them if I could take some musicians with me. They said OK. The troops always called me Lieutenant Dan, so I just went with that and said, “Let's call it Lieutenant Dan Band.” (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM HANKS, ACTOR: Lieutenant Dan, what are you doing here? SINISE: Thought I'd try out my sea legs. HANKS: You ain't got no legs, Lieutenant Dan. SINISE: Yes, I know that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SINISE: And then a friend of mine, a documentary filmmaker, asked if he could document some of the — some of the trips I was making. So he followed me around with a camera crew for about 18 months. I took him to various events and military bases that I visited. Took him to Iraq. And he ended up with, you know, hundreds of thousands of feet of footage. And put this beautiful documentary together. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As soon as you walked out, he walked down off the stage. He wanted the children to come up. He knew it was for the kids. SINISE: They've had a pretty rough go of it, losing a parent in the war. We want to make sure they leave feeling better than when they walked in. OK? (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Gary, I know you've done 400 concerts, which I'm trying to get my mind around. Four hundred concerts around the world. Is that accurate? SINISE: That might be an exaggeration. There's hundreds, certainly hundreds of concerts. I don't know if it's that many. But we've been nonstop. You know, I'm on television every week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SINISE: Where is he? (END VIDEO CLIP) SINISE: I'm shooting my show five days a week. And then I'll get on a plane and go out. On the weekends we go to bases all around this country. This year we're doing 16 USO shows. INGRAHAM: Wow. SINISE: That's just for the USO. And then we go out and we do charity concerts for military organizations. So probably play about 40 shows a year. INGRAHAM: And Gary, I think there are a couple of people who I know personally, who when they go on a military base, they spend time with the troops, the troops all gravitate towards them. Obviously, it's always going to be the commander in chief. But you and Ollie North, the two of you. I mean, you guys are like — I just want to follow you guys around, because then I'll get the great treatment at the bases, too. Because you mention your name. And I just get — I go to Camp Pendleton. I'm a friend of Sinise's; I get in. I go to Fort Hood, I'm a friend of Sinise's. It just — you just totally paved the way. I thank you. I thank you on behalf of all the O'Reilly “Factor” viewers. You carry the load for a lot of people, I think, in the entertainment industry. I know you get some help from your friends in the entertainment industry. But I think a lot of us wish there were a lot more people like you who have your platform, your face, your voice and your identity. It think this means a lot to people. It's a great inspiration. SINISE: Thank you so much, Laura. Look, I've been blessed. I know where freedom comes from. A lot of people are sacrificing for it. We all remember what happened to our Vietnam veterans when they came home from war. We don't want that to happen again. You know, if we're going to have volunteers go in service to our country and go into dangerous places, we have to take care of them before the battle, during the battle and after the battle. INGRAHAM: Hey, Gary, great to see you, as always. Have a wonderful Independence Day. And I can't wait to see the Lieutenant Dan Band and the documentary. And also just the band, really soon. I can't wait to see you. SINISE: Thanks so much, Laura. INGRAHAM: You can watch the film online at LieutenantDanBandMovie.com. It's going to be available for one month starting July 4. The cost is four bucks, and one out of every four dollars goes to the Gary Sinise Foundation to support military causes. From all of us at NewsBusters, thanks Gary, and God bless you!
Continue reading …enlarge President Obama Addresses the Nation on the Debt Ceiling* (As Prepared for Delivery, July 1, 2011.) My fellow Americans, I want to speak to you today about a matter of the greatest national urgency. We face a crisis unique in our history. This threat comes not from a foreign foe or bloodthirsty terrorists, but is no less dangerous and insidious. No, this challenge to the American way of life comes entirely from within. And the damage it could cause is as catastrophic as it is unnecessary. I am speaking about the looming deadline to raise the debt ceiling of the United States. On or about August 2nd, the government of the United States will hit the $14.3 trillion limit on its debt. Never in our 235 year history has the United States of America defaulted on its financial obligations. Never has Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner. Never has Congress put the full faith and credit of the United States in jeopardy. Until now. In an act of reckless and unprecedented partisanship, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress have promised to block the needed increase in the debt ceiling unless an ever-shifting – and escalating – series of demands are met. At a time when this nation is fighting two wars and slowly emerging from its deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, only now are Republicans demanding trillions in spending cuts which would slow our recovery, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and undermine our social safety net. Republicans insist that any new revenue from any source, even by closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporation in America, is “off the table.” If those demands are unmet, the same Republican Party which drove this economy into a ditch will drive it off a cliff. That is irresponsible and unacceptable. Congress should pass the $2 trillion increase in the debt limit right now and with no preconditions. You don’t have to take my word for it or even Treasury Secretary Geithner’s warning that that default by the U.S. “would have a catastrophic economic impact that would be felt by every American.” Back in January, Speaker Boehner himself explained , and I quote: “That would be a financial disaster, not only for our country but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on Election Day said, ‘we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs.’ And you can’t create jobs if you default on the federal debt.” Economists, business leaders, think tanks and international financial bodies are in agreement regarding the dire consequences which would ensue. Mark Zandi, an economic adviser in 2008 to John McCain warned this week that failure to raise the debt ceiling by August 2nd would mean “I think we go into recession and my forecast would be blown out of the water.” Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreed that failure to pass legislation authorizing an increase in borrowing by Aug. 4 “would create uncertainty and fear, and threaten the credit rating of the United States.” This week, 235 economists – including six Nobel Prize winners – signed an open letter to Congressional leaders urging them to raise the ceiling, and to do so “without attaching drastic and potentially dangerous reductions in federal spending.” And the Standard & Poor’s rating agency joined Moody’s in warning that “the United States would immediately have its top-notch credit rating slashed to ‘selective default’ if it misses a debt payment on August 4.” Again, you don’t have to take my word for it. Instead, listen to President Ronald Reagan from 1983 : This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns. Ronald Reagan knew what he was talking about. After all, the national debt of the United States tripled during his tenure in the White House. And it would have been even worse had Reagan not raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office. As Alan Simpson , the co-chairman of my Commission on Fiscal Responsibility put it, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was here.” Now, some, like Speaker Boehner, have said that the early August deadline to increase the debt ceiling is ” artificial .” There are Republican members of both houses and GOP presidential candidates who have accused Treasury Secretary Geithner and this administration of “doomsday predictions that could only materialize at his own hand,” of ” scare tactics “, and of ” outright blatant lies .” To those who claim that the debt limit need not be lifted and that the U.S simply ” prioritize ” interest payments on the debt, Secretary Geithner has been clear that “such uncertainty could cause the markets to doubt the full faith and credit of the United States.” And the Republican opposition, or at least most of them, knows this to be true. To pretend otherwise, as Senator Jon Kyl is fond of saying, is ” not intended to be a factual statement .” That is as unforgiveable as it is cynical. That dangerous path would make it harder for the United States to sell future Treasury bonds and increase the cost of borrowing. As one of the major ratings agencies concluded in a recent report, failure to pay non-debt obligations “would signal sever financial distress and potentially imminent debt default,” prompting the U.S. sovereign rating to be place on “Rating Watch Negative.” Just as damaging, because the United State currently borrows roughly 40 cents of every dollar in spends, successful Republican obstruction of the debt ceiling increase would mean immediate and catastrophic budget cuts starting next month. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it. A recent analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center showed that the federal government would have to cut spending by 44% right away . That could mean Social Security recipients don’t get their checks, our brave fighting men and women now in harm’s way going unpaid and entire departments of the federal government being shuttered immediately. For my Republican opponents who claim creating jobs is their number one priority, it is worth heeding the BPC’s warning that “On an annualized basis, the cut in spending alone is a 10 percent cut in GDP.” Think about that for a minute. Thousands of Americans could lose their jobs. Many thousands more struggling to make ends meet wouldn’t be able to do so. Consumer spending would plummet and businesses would close their doors. All in the name of Republican partisan politics. Now, it is true that the party which doesn’t control the White House often votes against debt ceiling increases. After all, many of these requests are included as part other legislation. It’s not unusual for Senators and Congressmen to cast “no” votes to send a message without endangering the full faith and credit of the United States. I know this, because in 2006 I did it myself . But while I regret that mistaken symbolic vote, neither I nor my Democratic colleagues then in the minority could have blocked the debt ceiling increase. We never had the votes. But the Republican leadership in Congress now does. When President Bush sat in the Oval Office and presided over an almost doubling of the national debt , Republicans voted seven times to raise the debt limit . Just between June 2002 and September 2007, the current GOP leadership team of Senator McConnell, Senator Kyl, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor voted a combined 19 times to boost the federal government’s borrowing authority by $4 trillion. As I assumed the presidency at the height of the economic crisis in January 2009 , the projected deficit was already $1.2 trillion and the debt ceiling set at $11.3 trillion . Let me clear. The Republican Party which is now playing a dangerous game of chicken with Americans’ economic futures over the past decade was largely responsible for the deficits they now decry. In 2001, at a time of prosperity and budget surpluses, Republicans voted to cut taxes. Two years, President Bush became the first modern president cut taxes during war-time. During my predecessor’s tenure, the U.S. national debt almost doubled, fueled by those Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the Medicare prescription drug plan and the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Mitch McConnell and John Boehner voted for all of it because then, as their Utah colleague Orrin Hatch later put it, “It was standard practice not to pay for things.” Now that a Democratic President is in the White House, they’ve apparently had a change of heart. But the stunning hypocrisy of my Republican friends hardly ends there. Senate Republicans are now demanding a vote on a balanced budget amendment co-sponsored by Senator Hatch. Its cap on federal spending at 18% of GDP would be not only be broken by every deficit reduction plan currently on the table, but would have been a test failed by Ronald Reagan every year he was President. The Paul Ryan budget supported by 235 Republican representatives and 40 GOP Senators, a plan which adds $6 trillion to the federal debt over the decade, would break that law, too. And despite all of the Republican posturing, the Ryan budget they voted for would require the debt ceiling to be raised repeatedly in the years ahead . Again, if you don’t believe me, just ask Speaker Boehner , who in April told a constituent meeting that not only would Republicans have to raise the debt ceiling, but added “and we’re going to have to raise it again in the future.” It is true, as I have said on many occasions, that over time our budget deficits are not sustainable. That’s why I created by executive order the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission in the face of opposition from Minority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans . That’s why in April I proposed a budget blueprint that would trim the project debt by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. And that’s why I asked Vice President Biden to lead bipartisan deficit reduction talks in order to seek common ground on budget savings with our Republican friends as part of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling by August 2nd. Together, by last week those bipartisan discussions identified $2.4 trillion in savings , $2 trillion from painful spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, student loans and other vital programs. And yet the Republicans walked out. They took their ball and went home because they would not countenance raising a single dime of new tax revenue from any source. At a time when the total federal tax burden as a percentage of the U.S. economy is at its lowest in 60 years , Republicans said no to even $400 billion in new revenue over the next decade. At a time when income inequality is at its highest in 80 years , Republicans refuse to have the top 2% of taxpayers pay a little more, just as they did during the booming 1990′s. Over the past decade, the 400 richest Americans saw their incomes double as their tax rates were halved while average family income fell . And over the next 10 years , the Bush tax cuts if made permanent will account for more of the nation’s debt than Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP, the stimulus, and revenue lost to the recession combined . So, to protect the pocketbooks of the richest individuals and most profitable corporations in America, the Republicans turned their backs on a debt ceiling deal for all Americans. Apparently, more tax breaks for corporate jets and subsidies for oil and gas companies are more important than the futures of American families. Make no mistake: this debt ceiling crisis is unnecessary. And should it come to pass, history and the American people will judge the Republican Party harshly for having fabricated it. They held the debt ceiling hostage, demanding ten-year budget savings as large as large the increase we requested. We’ve met that demand and still they say no. Minority Leader McConnell says the small tax increases we’ve proposed are ” politically impossible .” Not only is more tax revenue politically possible, it’s absolutely required. And he knows it. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Jon Kyl know common sense tax code changes supported by the American people aren’t silly talking points about “poison pills” and ” bombing the moon .” To pretend otherwise is an abdication, a true failure of leadership. After the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans learned that one of Osama Bin Laden’s goals was to undermine the U.S. economy. Mercifully, his dark vision of economic sabotage lies with him at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. He could not and did not succeed. But now, President Bush’s former Treasury Paul O’Neill warned us, another group threatens to wreak havoc on the American economy and standard of living. As he described his Republican colleagues: “The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al Qaeda terrorists. Really. They’re really putting our whole society at risk by threatening to round up 50 percent of the members of the Congress, who are loony, who would put our credit at risk.” That cannot and must not happen. May our Republican friends come to their senses in time. And may God bless the United States of America. * This address, of course, never happened. But it should have happened a long time ago. (An earlier version of this piece appeared at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …Duke and Duchess of Cambridge gear up to visit Quebec, centre of the separatist movement, where protests are planned The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Canadian tour enters its second, and potentially trickiest, phase today as the couple visit French-speaking territory. They arrive in Montreal this afternoon and will spend the night aboard a Canadian navy frigate sailing up the St Lawrence river to Quebec City, traditionally the centre of the separatist movement, for Sunday. Royal visitors have had an uncertain welcome in Quebec province – where more than 80% of the population speak French – in recent decades. The Queen has not returned to Quebec city since protesters turned their backs on her and booed in 1964, and two years ago Prince Charles and Camilla were held up by scuffles between demonstrators and police as they visited Montreal. Radical young protesters from the Quebec Resistance Network have called for a demonstration outside the city hall on Sunday, though they have promised it will be peaceful. Patrick Bourgeois, leader of the network, said the separatists want to send a message “that the monarchy is not welcome in Quebec”. Prince William has emphasised Canada’s bilingualism and dual identity – “Bonne fête, Canada, happy birthday,” he exclaimed in a speech. The visit to Quebec province is a sign that the authorities believe their appearance there will be a success. In a recent poll, more than half of those questioned described themselves as excited by the prospect of seeing them. During the first two days of their tour in Ottawa, the royal couple have been greeted by huge and adulatory crowds. More than 300,000 people were estimated to have crowded around the capital’s parliament hill during the Canada Day celebrations on Friday, many of them travelling for hours and some sleeping out to catch a glimpse of the prince and his bride. Although the duchess has not visited Canada before, her husband has stressed her links to the country where he recalled that her grandfather had trained as a pilot in Alberta during the second world war. The Queen has visited Canada more frequently than any other country: 22 times, most recently last year. On Saturday morning, the royal couple will go through the near-obligatory tree-planting ceremony at the governor-general’s residence – a Canadian hemlock. Later they will meet military veterans and members of the war brides association at the Canadian war museum – nearly 45,000 young British and European women emigrated to the country after the second world war. Arriving in Montreal later in the afternoon, the couple will tour the Sainte-Justine university hospital centre, which has a world-renowned children’s unit, before joining a cooking workshop at the Institut de Tourisme. Prince William Monarchy Kate Middleton Canada Protest Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Duke and Duchess of Cambridge gear up to visit Quebec, centre of the separatist movement, where protests are planned The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Canadian tour enters its second, and potentially trickiest, phase today as the couple visit French-speaking territory. They arrive in Montreal this afternoon and will spend the night aboard a Canadian navy frigate sailing up the St Lawrence river to Quebec City, traditionally the centre of the separatist movement, for Sunday. Royal visitors have had an uncertain welcome in Quebec province – where more than 80% of the population speak French – in recent decades. The Queen has not returned to Quebec city since protesters turned their backs on her and booed in 1964, and two years ago Prince Charles and Camilla were held up by scuffles between demonstrators and police as they visited Montreal. Radical young protesters from the Quebec Resistance Network have called for a demonstration outside the city hall on Sunday, though they have promised it will be peaceful. Patrick Bourgeois, leader of the network, said the separatists want to send a message “that the monarchy is not welcome in Quebec”. Prince William has emphasised Canada’s bilingualism and dual identity – “Bonne fête, Canada, happy birthday,” he exclaimed in a speech. The visit to Quebec province is a sign that the authorities believe their appearance there will be a success. In a recent poll, more than half of those questioned described themselves as excited by the prospect of seeing them. During the first two days of their tour in Ottawa, the royal couple have been greeted by huge and adulatory crowds. More than 300,000 people were estimated to have crowded around the capital’s parliament hill during the Canada Day celebrations on Friday, many of them travelling for hours and some sleeping out to catch a glimpse of the prince and his bride. Although the duchess has not visited Canada before, her husband has stressed her links to the country where he recalled that her grandfather had trained as a pilot in Alberta during the second world war. The Queen has visited Canada more frequently than any other country: 22 times, most recently last year. On Saturday morning, the royal couple will go through the near-obligatory tree-planting ceremony at the governor-general’s residence – a Canadian hemlock. Later they will meet military veterans and members of the war brides association at the Canadian war museum – nearly 45,000 young British and European women emigrated to the country after the second world war. Arriving in Montreal later in the afternoon, the couple will tour the Sainte-Justine university hospital centre, which has a world-renowned children’s unit, before joining a cooking workshop at the Institut de Tourisme. Prince William Monarchy Kate Middleton Canada Protest Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …