When The Going Gets Tough, Cantor Gets Going: Cantor Walks Out Of WH Budget Discussions
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Yup, he’s taking the future of this country so seriously …. Eric Cantor pulled out of the debt ceiling talks this morning, citing unbridgeable differences over the Dem insistence on tax hikes as part of a deal, and in his statement, he called on President Obama to step in and resolve the tax issue: Since early May, Vice President Biden has led meetings surrounding the debt limit. The Vice President deserves a great deal of credit for his leadership in bringing us this far. We have worked to find areas of commonality to meet the goal of identifying spending cuts commensurate with or exceeding the amount of the Obama Administration’s request for a debt limit increase. I believe that we have identified trillions in spending cuts, and to date, we have established a blueprint that could institute the fiscal reforms needed to start getting our fiscal house in order. That said, each side came into these talks with certain orders, and as it stands the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases. There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don’t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue. Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today’s meeting and I believe it is time for the President to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue. Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here. What’s interesting here is that by all appearances the main emerging obstacle to compromise was the demand by Senate Dems that a final deal include some kind of economic stimulus measures, such as infrastructure spending or a payroll tax cut. Republicans spent all day yesterday hammering the Dem demand, arguing that more stimulus was at odds with the Biden-led group’s goal of reducing spending. Nobody should be surprised that Cantor and the Republicans have no real interest in coming up with a bi-partisan agreement. And if you think this was some spur-of-the-moment principled stand Cantor was taking instead of a calculated, coordinated move to force more concessions, I have a bridge to sell you… cheap . But the thing that continually annoys me is that their assumption is that if they keep repeating the same tired talking points, Americans are going to support their games: Alan Blinder, a Princeton economics professor and former Fed vice president, thoroughly debunked the GOP’s claims on Tuesday in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “The GOP Myth of ‘Job-Killing’ Spending.” Blinder writes: The generic conservative view that government is “too big” in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them? Blinder easily knocks down claims that the 2009 federal stimulus—roughly $600 billion in spending and $200 billion in tax cuts—failed to create jobs, pointing to Congressional Budget Office data that shows the net job gain was at least 1.3 million and perhaps as high as 3.3 million. What’s more, Blinder debunks the idea that the federal deficit and the uncertainty that comes with it has caused companies to scale back business investments, which in turn impacts hiring and economic growth. Except such investment soared in the past year, increasing 14.7 percent. Ultimately, Blinder argues for another round of stimulus—specifically, giving businesses that grow their payrolls a tax credit—while calling for a serious long-term deficit reduction package.
Continue reading …Eight Days After House Hearing on Inmate Radicalization, Feds Bust Muslim Converts on Terror Plot
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Last Wednesday as Rep. Peter King conducted hearings on Muslim inmate radicalization in America's prisons, MSNBC was busy attacking the proceeding as unnecessary and/or unfairly targeted to unfairly single out the Islamic faith. Well, eight days later comes this development as reported by ABCNews.com in a June 23 article entitled, “Feds: Prison Converts to Extremist Islam Planned Ft. Hood-Style Assault in Seattle” (emphasis mine):
Continue reading …West plans to release emergency oil to halt rising petrol and energy prices
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Paris-based International Energy Agency sanctions 60ml barrels to counter shortages but Opec condemns ‘political’ intervention The west has fired a warning shot across the bows of Opec by releasing 60m barrels of “emergency” oil supplies on to the market in an attempt to halt soaring petrol and other energy costs damaging the global economy. Crude prices slumped by $6 a barrel after the International Energy Agency, whose 28 members include Britain and America, unveiled plans to release 2m barrels a day for a month from its emergency reserves to counter shortages created by the conflict in Libya. Delegates from Opec countries immediately accused the Paris-based IEA of “unjustified interference” in global energy markets and said the organisation was “playing politics” with oil. The move, plus new signs of weakness in the world economy, saw early success, with the cost of Brent crude spinning down to $108 compared with a high of $127 in April. Stock markets in London and New York, also fell sharply, with the FTSE 100 down 1.6% at 5683. The gloom was increased by signs that the American economic recovery is slowing amid continued uncertainty over the Greek debt crisis. Paul Watters, a spokesman for the AA, which has campaigned for lower petrol prices as the cost of a litre has risen close to £1.50, said: “Although a dramatic fall in the price of oil throws a lifeline to drivers barely able to afford current pump prices, past experience makes it unlikely that they will see an equally dramatic drop in the price of fuel in the short-term.” It is only the third time in the 37-year history of the IEA that oil has been released in this way and follows repeated calls on Opec to turn on the taps and bring down the price of oil. The agency also acted after swings following the first Gulf war in 1990-91 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The US has pledged to provide half the 60m barrels, reflecting frustration in western governments over high petrol and heating bills pushing up inflation and undermining global economic recovery. Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, who pleaded last weekend with Russia and Opec to act to curb prices , said that using the strategic reserves was meant to complement promises made by Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries to meet shortages caused by the war in Libya. “I expect this action will contribute to well-supplied markets and to ensuring a soft landing for the world economy.”Opec producers this month failed to reach agreement on increasing output, although Saudi Arabia, the single biggest exporter, later pledged to help out. Saudi Arabia, a US ally, was expecting to win an increase in production quotas at the Opec summit in Vienna but faced combined opposition from tradional hawks such as Iran and Venezuela, along with new ones such as Iraq. some Opec delegates from Iran and two Gulf states said the IEA’s release of emergency stocks was wrong. “I don’t know how to justify this interference in the market,” a delegate from Iran, which currently holds the Opec presidency, told the Reuters new agency on condition of anonymity. Opec delegates from Gulf which had backed the Saudi proposal for higher output, also took issue with the IEA’s action. states said”The oil price hasn’t shot up to $150. There is no reason to do this. The market is not short of supply. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have been raising production, but there have not been many buyers. The IEA is just playing politics with the US,” added one Gulf delegate. Opec member Libya had been exporting about 1.2m barrels a day before the civil war brought the oil industry to a standstill, causing price increases in a market already heated due to higher than expected demand. Total oil stocks in IEA member countries amount to over 4.1bn barrels. Nearly 1.6bn barrels of this are public stocks held exclusively for emergency purposes. The IEA was established in the wake of the 1973 oil price crisis to represent the interests of oil consuming nations. But it has increasingly tried to forge closer links with producing nations and last weekend asked Russia to consider joining its ranks. But while motorists in Britain have been facing record pump prices and household heating costs have risen because gas prices are tied to oil, Carl Larry at the Blue Ocean commodity brokerage in New York said crude values might not fall much further. “This is an economic stimulus … in oil dollars,” he said. “On the other hand I think we have confirmed the bottom of the oil market here at $109 for Brent.” Oil Petrol prices Oil and gas companies Energy industry Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media All I can say is it’s about time some of the Democrats are calling out Republicans for something that’s been obvious to me for some time, their willingness to wreck the economy for short term political gain. Steve Benen’s been writing about this for some time and wrote about the same press conference Ed Schultz and Jonathan Alter were talking about in the clip above in his post here — The ‘sabotage’ question goes mainstream : In November, I faced all kinds of pushback by raising a provocative argument: is it possible Republicans would pursue policies that would hurt the economy on purpose? Seven months later, it appears the “sabotage” question is going mainstream. E.J. Dionne Jr. inched pretty close to it last week, noting that Republicans “have no interest” in working on job creation because “Republicans benefit if the economy stays sluggish.” Kevin Drum wondered whether this will ever be “a serious talking point,” adding, “No serious person in a position of real influence really wants to accuse an entire party of cynically trying to tank the economy, after all.” That appears to be changing . Republicans are sabotaging economic recovery efforts because it will help them win in 2012, Senate Democratic leaders charged Wednesday. “Unfortunately our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate are driven by putting one man out of work — President Obama,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declared at a Capitol Hill press conference called the day after Senate Republicans blocked an economic development bill that they have backed in the past. Durbin pointed to remarks made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in which he said the top goal of Republicans should be to make Obama a one-term President. Durbin added that “their only goal” is to defeat the president, adding, “They believe a weak economy is there best chance of winning the next election.” This isn’t subtle. Durbin is saying that Republicans are deliberately holding back the economy for purely partisan reasons. It’s an explosive charge, and as of today, he’s not the only one making it. The rhetorical shift appears to the result of last night’s vote on the Economic Development Administration, a successful program that provides federal grants to local projects. Republicans have repeatedly said that they believe the EDA is great for economic growth and job creation, but they nevertheless linked arms and killed the bill . This comes after Republicans balked at a payroll tax cut intended to spur hiring, another measure the GOP has traditionally supported — until now. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the number three Democrat in the chamber, told reporters this morning, “If they oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they’re just opposing anything that helps create jobs. It almost makes you wonder if they aren’t trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain.” Yes, almost. Read on… I don’t think there’s any “almost” about it. As Schultz and Alter pointed out in the clip above and as Steve wrote in his article, Republicans are voting against all kinds of proposals to promote job growth that they were formerly on record as supporting and as he noted, McConnell’s on record saying his top priority is not job creation, but making Barack Obama a one term president. Steve asked if it is really outrageous to at least ask if Republicans are trying to destroy the economy for political gain. I think it’s long past time that they are finally being called out for it. There’s no subtlety to what they’re doing. It’s as obvious as the nose on one’s face for anyone that’s been paying attention to their actions and their double speak on what’s needed for economic recovery. Jonathan Alter pointed out that the White House isn’t helping matters any by not laying out a jobs plan of their own and I agree with him. They’ve been allowing Republicans to drive the conversation and buying into their deficit cutting austerity rhetoric instead of pushing back at Republicans who have been relentlessly claiming that the trouble with the economy is the debt and the deficit and that we must pacify the imaginary confidence fairies before corporations quit hording their money and start creating jobs in America. I hope we continue to hear more of this from the Democrats and it’s just a shame it took them this long. Here’s more of their press conference that the Senate Democrats posted on their You Tube page. Now if we could get them to get on message with the need to raise taxes on the rich and not balancing our budget on the backs of the poor and the working class, I might quit being disgusted with everyone in Washington D.C. other than our progressive caucus in the House .
Continue reading …NBC’s Lauer Asks if Voters Have ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ of GOP Governors, No Mention of Obama’s Sagging Poll Numbers
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Talking to former Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw on Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer touted low approval ratings for some newly elected Republican governors and theorized: “They went into office with messages of austerity. And now a year later, you look at their approval ratings and they're falling. Is this buyer's remorse?” A graphic appeared on screen showing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with a 43% approval rating, Ohio's John Kasich at 33% and Florida's Rick Scott at 29%. Lauer failed to mention that President Obama's own approval rating stood at 43%, according to a Thursday Gallup poll , with his disapproval hitting 50%. In addition, Lauer failed to note that the source for those low Republican approval ratings, Public Policy Polling, was a Democratic polling firm. Earlier in the segment, Lauer did point out that “44% of the American people now feel they're worse off today than they were when President Obama took office two years ago.” Brokaw claimed that was just because the economy had hit a “soft patch,” quickly adding, “No one expects this to be a second wave of a recession.” Brokaw then shifted focus to the GOP: “But at the same time, people are saying, 'We'd like to see more cuts and cutting back.' Let's show you now what's going on with some Republican Governors, if we can.” In response to Lauer's speculation that voters were having “buyer's remorse” over electing Republican governors, Brokaw observed: “It's not buyer's remorse. I think it's always a conundrum, the people say, 'We want to get government under control, but do it to someone else.'” He cited Republican efforts to reform Medicare as an example: “You already saw it start to play out with the Medicare debate, as proposed by Paul Ryan. Democrats jumped all over that. Some of the Republicans began to peel back from that. They're going to probably try to find more of a middle ground for it.”
Continue reading …
Containing drug trafficking proving effective but global rise in illicit use of synthetic drugs for ‘legal highs’ cause concern Global opium production fell by 38% in 2010 and cocaine cultivation continued to decline, according to the annual UN report on the world drug market. The report said that while the global markets for cocaine, heroin and cannabis had declined or remained stable, the production and illicit use of prescription opioid drugs and new synthetics known as legal highs, which mimic the effects of traditional drugs, had increased sharply. The UN estimates that 210 million people, about 5% of the world’s population, used some kind of illicit drug last year at least once. The most popular drug remains cannabis, with 170 million users. An estimated 39 million “problem drug users” use heroin, cocaine and other class A substances. Sandeep Chawla, director of policy of the UN office of drugs and crime, said the rise of new synthetic drugs reflected their lack of dependence on plant cultivation. Instead they could be produced from readily available industrial chemicals close to potential consumers without the need to set up global trafficking chains. The sharp decline in opium production to 4,860 tonnes was due to a blight that wiped out most of the opium harvest in Afghanistan last year, the report said, although experts expect it to recover this year. A 20% increase in opium production in Burma did little to compensate. The UN said it was more encouraged by the continuing decline in the area under coca cultivation, which has shrunk by 18% since 2007 to 149,000 hectares. The last decade has seen coca cultivation in Colombia more than halve from 163, 300 hectares in 2000 to 62,000 last year. The UN experts say this decline has not been offset by small increases to 61,200 hectares in Peru, which on one measure has replaced Colombia as the largest producer of coca in the world, and in Bolivia. The UN’s policy director also pointed to successes in containing the emergence of West Africa as a major transhipment point into Europe for cocaine over the past decade. It is estimated that about 21 tonnes of cocaine were trafficked via West Africa to Europe in 2009 – down from 47 tonnes two years earlier. Chawla also cited the fact that the majority of seizures now took place in South America rather than US or western Europe as further evidence of progress. The UN report describes the fall in Colombian coca cultivation, which declined a further 15% last year, as remarkable but sounds a cautious note about the actual impact on production. Chawla said increased yields and changes in the way the leaves are processed meant the jury was still out on whether the decline was reflected in falling cocaine production levels. However, Chawla did say that increased counter-narcotics operations, including fumigation and eradication programmes, and the withdrawal of Farc rebels from parts of the country, contributed to the sharp decline in cultivation. It has taken a decade of US support and more than $5bn (£3bn) in aid through Plan Colombia. In 2009 and 2010, Colombian authorities seized at least 10 times more cocaine than their Peruvian counterparts – and half of it was caught before it even crossed the border. Coca’s traditional home in Peru is in the central jungle valleys on the eastern slopes of Andes cordillera. Around half of Peru’s cocaine comes from one in particular, the Ene-Apurimac river valley. Conditions are perfect for growing coffee and coca but most of the 350,000 population – nearly half of whom live in dire poverty – choose to grow coca. For many families it is their caja chica – a “small box” from which they can get ready cash for school uniforms, extra supplies or just keep something for a rainy day. Drugs trade United Nations Drugs Health Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Recep Tayyip Erdogan asks president to sack brother and military mastermind as more refugees cross the border Tension between Turkey and Syria is worsening as thousands of refugees from repression by president Bashar al-Assad flee across the border Officials in Ankara were watching closely as Syrian forces deployed in a village close to the border, Khirbet al-Jouz, after Turkey had flatly rejected an appeal from Damascus to moderate its increasingly angry public comments about the crisis. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, has attacked the repression as “savagery” and urged Assad to sack its military mastermind, his brother Maher, and implement genuine reforms in the spirit of the “Arab spring”. But Erdogan has so far failed to demand that the Syrian president stand down – as he did with Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. Still, officials, diplomats and analysts say that a bilateral relationship that has flourished politically and economically in recent years is now badly, perhaps irreparably, damaged. “The rapprochement between Erdogan and Assad has pretty much broken down,” said Fadi Hakura of the Chatham House thinktank in London. “Turkey is becoming ever more strident and direct, and this is causing deep unease in Damascus.” On Wednesday the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, publicly urged Turkey to reconsider its hostile stand, but the Turkish ambassador immediately dismissed the call. “The relationship has become very frosty,” said Hugh Pope, Istanbul director for the International Crisis Group. Erdogan had been urging Assad to make domestic changes since before the uprising began in March. Ahead of Assad’s speech on Monday, Ersat Hurmuzlu, an adviser to president Abdullah Gul, said Assad had a week in which to act – but Turkish officials were left disappointed by Assad’s lacklustre performance. “We had high expectations that the Syrian president would deliver,” said a senior Turkish official. “But we were disappointed.” The Turkish-Syrian honeymoon began when Erdogan came to power in 2003, and cooled Turkey’s once close relations with Israel while making overtures to the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas. Following his re-election this month he vowed to reach out to the Middle East and beyond to promote “justice, the rule of law … freedom and democracy”, distancing himself from the traditional stabile friendships with Arab dictators. “When Turkey has to make a choice between regimes and people,” the senior offiical said, “it will always be on the side of the people.” British officials describe a “meeting of minds” when David Cameron spoke to Erdogan last week. The US and Britain say that they hope a policy rethink in Ankara will also include a distancing from Iran and its alleged nuclear ambitions. “The Turks are increasingly unhappy with what is happening in Syria,” said a western diplomat. Another consequence has been a renewed warming of relations with Israel after the row over the Gaza aid flotilla last year, when a Turkish ship was boarded on the open seas by Israeli commandos and nine activists killed. Syria was furious last month when Turkey hosted a high-profile conference of Syrian opposition activists in Antalya. Turkish officials deny any plan to create a “security zone” on the border – a sensitive step given memories of Ottoman days (and the Turkish border province of Hatay, which Syria continues to claim as unjustly ceded in a plebiscite), and especially without an international mandate. Turks recognise the change that has taken place. “Turkey’s close rapport with the US regarding … Syrian politics shows Turkey has completely parted company with Assad,” commented Nihat Ali Özcan in the Hurriyet daily. “Erdogan doesn’t want another diplomatic crisis in the context of Syria, like the one instigated by the nuclear issue with Iran. We can say that he is ideologically much closer to the Muslim Brotherhood than Assad.” The US has praised Turkey for its “big heart” in helping refugees. “But clearly, Turkish patience appears to be wearing thin, and we share all of their humanitarian and political concerns,” said a US state department spokesman. “Erdogan is in a very challenging position,” Hakura added. “He is trying to react to facts on the ground in Syria, but at the same time he hasn’t called on Assad to step down. The more violence escalates, the more difficult his position will be.” Syria Bashar Al-Assad Turkey Middle East Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Moni Varma claims Mittal reneged after promising to pay him for deal to gain access to Niger Delta oil fields Britain’s richest man is being sued for allegedly reneging on a multi-million dollar agreement to pay fees to a former friend for helping to secure an oil deal with a former Nigerian president. Lakshmi Mittal, the steel tycoon who is one of Labour’s most generous donors, has received a high court writ from the businessman Moni Varma. Varma claims to have facilitated a deal in 2006 for Mittal to gain access to two unexplored oil fields in the Niger Delta after arranging a meeting with Olusegun Obasanjo, who was Nigeria’s president. Mittal has dismissed the claim, saying the case will be defended vigorously. The case offers a rare glimpse into the business empire of Mittal, reportedly the world’s sixth-richest man. It has also created ructions within the community of London’s super-rich Indians in which both men once socialised. Varma, 62, from Northwood, Middlesex, whose company Veetee Rice is one of Britain’s biggest rice traders, said he had been let down by Mittal. “I am saddened but I have been left with no choice but to issue court proceedings against Lakshmi to recover sums that are due to me,” he said. Mittal, 61, whose wealth is estimated to be £17.5bn in this year’s Rich List , has offered to pay $5m (£3.1m) but this has been rejected. Since moving to Britain with his family in 1995, the “Steel Maharajah” – as Mittal is called – has become well known for his expensive tastes and his involvement in British public life. He has donated more than £5m to Labour and has imported marble from the quarry that was used for the Taj Mahal to decorate his £60m home. The ArcelorMittal Orbit – 1,500 tonnes of steel twisted into a sculpture by the artist Anish Kapoor – will be Britain’s largest piece of public art and will dominate the skyline at the Olympic Park in Stratford, east London. But his success in business, and his ability to move seamlessly into unexplored industries, has remained a mystery. The writ details how Varma and Mittal have known each other socially since 1997 and regularly discussed business opportunities at glittering social events in London. Varma, who was born in India but educated in Malawi, has longstanding connections with Nigeria and had known Obasanjo since 2001 because he had exported rice to the African state, the documents claim. In July 2005 Mittal Investments Sarl, a company owned by the defendant, launched a joint adventure with OVL, a subsidiary of ONGC India, India’s leading oil and gas exploration company. A month later Mittal and Varma met for dinner at Amaya, an Indian restaurant in Knightsbridge, and discussed possible deals in Nigeria, the writ claims. In September 2005, Varma claims, they held a conversation that is at the heart of the case. They discussed how much Varma would be paid if the deal came through, the writ claims. Varma claims Mittal said he could expect between 5% and 15% of the defendant’s investment. According to the writ Mittal responded “I will cover you” or “you will be covered … The reward could be even bigger than 15%, depending on the size of the deal.” Varma claims that over the following six months he was cut out of the deal and could only watch as it was completed. Mittal’s joint venture with the Indian government was successful in its bids for two licences for 10 years in downstream projects in Nigeria. The anticipated combined yield of the “blocks”, or areas of oil, was 650,000 barrels a day and the value of the downstream projects is $6bn. Varma claims he continued to try to contact Mittal about the deal and when he could expect payback. In March he managed to speak to Mittal, who offered $5m, the writ claims, but the offer was rejected. According to the writ, this offer was then denied in a subsequent letter from Mittal’s solicitors Schillings, but Mittal has since said that he did discuss a possible payment of $5m, depending on the success of the projects. Mittal’s lawyers are expected to argue that Varma was a social acquaintance of their client, and that Varma offered to arrange a meeting with Obasanjo. They also point out that neither block has yet produced any oil and that the costs have so far been $325m. The lawyers have also dismissed as fanciful Varma’s claims of introducing Mittal to Nigeria. A spokesman for Mittal’s legal team said: “We are aware of the case, in relation to which we believe there are no grounds and which we intend to defend vigorously.” Obasanjo, who stepped down as president in 2007, has been accused in Nigeria of overseeing a series of poorly negotiated oil deals. A report by Chatham House two years ago criticised oil deals brokered by his government with Asian countries, claiming that they were short-termist and exploitative. Mittal has previously been at the centre of political controversy. In May 2001 he gave £125,000 to the Labour party, shortly after which Tony Blair backed his bid for a Romanian firm, sparking the 2002 Steelgate row. Lakshmi Mittal Oil Nigeria Manufacturing sector Arcelor Mittal Africa Rajeev Syal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Egypt’s left threatens ‘million-strong’ protest to stop Islamists winning power
June 23, 2011 No Comment
Liberals say post-Mubarak transition proposal favours Muslim Brotherhood – but religious groups reject ‘constitution-first’ plan Egyptian activists have threatened to bring mass pro-democracy protests back to Cairo, with a “million-strong” occupation of Tahrir Square planned for 8 July unless the ruling army generals abandon their current “roadmap” to democracy. In an increasingly rancorous debate, which has developed into a proxy war between the nation’s fledgling Islamist and secular political forces, 40 different liberal and leftist movements have joined forces to demand that plans to hold elections in September are dropped. Campaigners fear the existing post-Mubarak transition programme – which would see September’s ballot held under an amended version of Egypt’s existing constitution and then allow members of parliament to oversee the writing of a new constitution – may cede permanent power to the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious groups, who are expected to dominate the poll. Islamists have reacted furiously to the “constitution-first” campaign, arguing that it contradicts the results of a nationwide referendum held in March, in which 77% of the country backed a set of constitutional amendments and endorsed the idea that parliamentary elections should precede any new constitution. “Egyptians will not remain silent on attempts by an irrelevant elite to impose a liberal secular constitution on the people,” said the new Salafist party Al-Nour in a statement. Egypt’s interim prime minister, Essam Sharaf, has stoked controversy by suggesting elections could be delayed to allow the nation’s “political landscape” to take shape – a key demand of many secular revolutionary groups who believe they have not had the time to develop their organisational capacity and are therefore likely to lose out in September to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are already a well-established presence in most towns and cities across the country. But Sharaf – who took office 100 days ago this week and famously marked his appointment by entering Tahrir Square and announcing to protesters “I draw my legitimacy from you” – has faced a storm of criticism for his comments. Any postponement of elections would contradict the official line held by Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces, the country’s de facto rulers until a civilian government is ready to take over. The prime minister later said his comments had been “misunderstood” and that the timetable for elections remained the same. Disagreements over the timing and process of writing a constitution have become the main point of division within Egypt’s febrile political landscape, which after decades of one-party rule is now being rapidly populated by a wide range of new forces. “This is not just a debate about short-term political gain,” said Egyptian journalist Ashraf Khalil, who has followed the issue closely. “Whoever wins the parliamentary elections is going to play a major role in writing the new constitution and they are therefore going to play a major role in shaping the political foundations of the new Egypt.” Concerns are mounting that a raft of new parties, including many claiming to represent the “revolutionary youth” that helped to overthrow Mubarak earlier this year, have not even completed the formal party registration process yet and will be in no position to mount a successful appeal for votes by September. “The Brotherhood is clearly ready for elections now – it’s been ready for 10 years – whereas the newer secular parties who could not participate in the political process under Mubarak are not,” added Khalil. “I’m not expecting an outright Brotherhood victory or the creation of some kind of Iranian theocratic state, but clearly if the new parliament does not have adequate representation from the movements that played such a key part in sparking the revolution then that’s a cause for concern.” The Brotherhood’s new political vehicle, the Freedom and Justice party, has vowed not to contest more than 50% of parliamentary seats and will not run a candidate for president in an effort to assuage concerns at home and abroad over a potential Islamist takeover of the state. That has not been enough to reassure some critics, including a “national consensus conference” led by the deputy prime minister, which has called for the inclusion of an article in the new constitution that would task the military with “protecting” Egypt’s civil institutions – a thinly-veiled warning against any potential attempt by an Islamist-controlled parliament to push for a religious state. In an effort to secure a compromise, presidential hopeful Mohamed ElBaradei has proposed that elections precede the new constitution as originally planned, but that a new bill of rights should be drawn up beforehand that would supersede the constitution. This bill of rights would acknowledge the importance of Islamic sharia law in guiding legislation but also affirm Egypt’s status as a civil state. ElBaradei’s plan has won some support, though questions remain about how such a legal document would be formulated. “We have to search for a compromise,” said political analyst Diaa Rashwan. “We have already had a bitterly fought row over the constitutional amendments and the last thing we need now is to have
Continue reading …Jon Huntsman Says ‘No’ to Grover Norquist Pledge While Pawlenty Says ‘Maybe’
June 23, 2011 No Comment
enlarge John Huntsman turned down the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes which did surprise me. Less surprising is the news that Pawlenty is standing on the fence about it: Howard Fineman: It’s Grover time in the GOP, which has nothing to do with “Sesame Street” and everything to do with Jon Huntsman’s effort to distinguish himself from the other two BWFGs (bland, white former governors) in the Republican presidential race. This is the season in which the bearded, Harvard-trained ayatollah of the anti-tax movement, Grover Norquist, demands (almost always successfully) that candidates sign a document pledging to oppose any tax increase of any kind. The founder and leader of the Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform, Norquist is clever, meticulous and persistent — and the leading enforcer and symbol of Republican tax-cutting orthodoxy. Most Republican presidential contenders have signed since Norquist started demanding that they do so back in 1988. [..] Tim Pawlenty signed a Norquist-style pledge when he was governor of Minnesota, but has not signed the official one yet this year. “I expect that he will,” Norquist said, adding “I expect that they ALL will.” Maybe not. “We haven’t said either way,” said Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant. And Huntsman told reporters Tuesday that he would not sign Norquist’s or any other pledge this year — on abortion, gay rights or any other topic. “First of all, I don’t sign pledges,” he told reporters after announcing his candidacy near the Statue of Liberty. “I was asked to sign a pledge when I ran for governor in 2004, and I didn’t. And I got attacked because I didn’t. And then we went around and ended up cutting and reforming taxes at record levels [and] I never heard anything in the aftermath of our work. My take on all of this is, your record should say everything about where you are and where you’re going. I don’t need to sign a pledge.” I imagine Pawlenty will sign the pledge as soon as Grover turns up the heat on him, but Huntsman won’t for sure now. However, on Fineman’s report I find one terrible flaw: But there are signs that his grip on the Party may be weakening a bit, which presents an opening for Huntsman and a dilemma for Tim Pawlenty. Sorry Howard, I don’t buy that for one second. Grover was once considered a radical Tea Party type when he first started his activism with Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and the College Republicans thirty years ago, but today, tax cuts and never raising taxes is the mantra of Conservatives and the GOP. There’s little doubt about his strength in their party.
Continue reading …