Chancellor to argue that invisible walls between investment and high street operations would protect British economy George Osborne is to give government backing to plans that will force banks to ring-fence their high street operations in an attempt to minimise the risks of a second financial crisis. The chancellor will use his annual Mansion House speech to lambast the system of City regulation inherited from Labour and will argue that putting invisible walls between the investment and high street arms of Britain’s big banks will make it unlikely they will ever need another taxpayer bailout. Amid mounting speculation in the City that the Treasury is about to announce plans to sell off Northern Rock, Osborne will say he intends to endorse proposals by the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB), chaired by Sir John Vickers. In a report in April that was criticised for not being radical enough, Vickers recommended that banks be forced to ring-fence their high street banking businesses and also hold more capital – “at least” 10% compared with the 7% currently required. Commissioned by the coalition to deal with the issue of banks being “too big to fail”, Vickers’s final report is due on 12 September and bankers may be surprised that the chancellor is prepared to back his interim recommendations so far in advance. A Treasury source said: “This is a far-reaching shakeup to make high street banks safer and protect taxpayers. The government set up the banking commission to ask the difficult questions that weren’t asked before the crisis and this is right at the heart of their answer. Britain is now leading the world in learning the lessons from the disastrous failures of the last decade.” Osborne is keen to exploit the current difficulties of the Labour party by contrasting his plan for City regulation with the cumbersome tripartite system created by Gordon Brown. He will make the announcement a year after he told City grandees that he intended to scrap the Financial Services Authority and to give the Bank of England a bigger role in policing the financial sector. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, who has been hounding Osborne over the weakness of the economy, was City minister for part of Labour’s third term. Treasury sources said the chancellor intended to provide “certainty” by providing details of the “repair job” for the City the government intended to undertake over the coming months. Osborne will await the final Vickers report before finalising his plans. “We need to see what Vickers concludes before deciding how high and how thick the walls need to be,” one Treasury source said. Bankers are deeply divided over ring-fencing and how it will work in practice, and the chancellor is expected to acknowledge that much work needs to be done to establish how retail businesses can be protected. One key issue to tackle is whether corporate loans and deposits should be included in the ring fence. At a hearing before the Treasury select committee of MPs last week, Stephen Hester, chairman of the bailed out Royal Bank of Scotland, warned that the value of the taxpayer’s 84% stake could be reduced by the Vickers proposals for ring-fencing. He said that ring-fencing operations away from a financial institution’s riskier investment banking operations could “create a protected beast that the government will support”. However, others were supportive of a ring-fencing idea – although disagreed about which assets should be included in the ring fence. The ICB was also set up to look at competition in the sector. It infuriated the bailed-out Lloyds Banking Group by suggesting it should sell off branches to bolster competition on the high street. Competition was reduced as result of Labour’s decision to overrule competition concerns to allow Lloyds to rescue HBOS at the height of the banking crisis. Lloyds is currently trying to sell 632 branches to obey EU rules over state aid and is pressing ahead with their sale before the final Vickers report in September. George Osborne Banking Retail industry Labour Regulators Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Jill Treanor Larry Elliott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Hopes being pinned on Muammar Gaddafi agreeing to flee the country or defections by Libyan leader’s aides Almost three months into the campaign of air strikes, Britain and its Nato allies no longer believe bombing alone will end the conflict in Libya, well-placed government officials have told the Guardian. Instead, they are pinning their hopes on the defection of Muammar Gaddafi’s closest aides, or the Libyan leader’s agreement to flee the country. “No one is envisaging a military victory,” said one senior official who echoed Tuesday’s warnings by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, head of the navy, that the bombing cannot continue much beyond the summer. Stanhope, whose comments caused fury in Downing Street, was expressing publicly what many senior defence officials say in private, officials made clear. The conflict is also straining relations between Washington and its European allies. Although few Nato countries are taking part in the air strikes, Europeans – including the British – are dismayed at the refusal by the US to deploy its low-flying A10 “tankbusters” and helicopters. The UK has deployed four Apaches, the French 12 attack helicopters. There are 150 other attack helicopters in Nato which can operate from ships but they all belong to the US Marine Corps, said Brigadier Benjamin Barry, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The latest tension between Nato allies follows a withering speech in Brussels last week by Robert Gates, the outgoing US defence secretary, who referred to the “spectacle of an air operations centre designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150″. The problems within Nato are mirrored among rebel fighters on the ground in Libya. In Misrata the militia leaders, few with military experience, have failed to coalesce into a co-ordinated army which can undertake manoeuvre operations. A second obstacle to an advance is the lack of heavy weapons which would allow them to punch through the ring of Gaddafi forces facing them – and then hold that ground against counterattacks. While some militia leaders have told their troops to dig in, others have refused, leading to troops facing artillery fire out in the open. The result, last Friday, was slaughter; after British Apaches launched their first attacks on the Misrata front the night before, Gaddafi’s forces hit back with an unprecedented barrage of thousands of Russian-made Grad rockets. The Apaches did not reappear in daylight to attack the rocket launchers and rebel units suffered 31 deaths and 120 other casualities. The absence of Apaches dismayed rebel units, not all of whom are sure of Nato’s motives in failing to offer co-ordinated air support. None will say so publicly, but some commanders say the alliance may want Tripoli to rise up against the dictator, rather than be “liberated” by rebels from elsewhere – an event that could trigger political infighting in the postwar period. One member of the Misrata military council complained that some commanders had suggested it would be better to have a lightly-held first line with a defensive belt a kilometre or two behind it – a standard tactic for professional armies. “It’s a good idea,” he said. “But nobody wants to be on the second line.” A rebel logistics officer, Suleiman Abfalga, said: “We cannot live in holes in the ground, we have to show we are not afraid.” It has emerged that Nato has been dropping leaflets threatening Apache air strikes against government forces. The leaflets – each featuring a picture of an Apache helicopter and a burning tank along with the words: “If you go on killing the children and families you will be destroyed” – were sprinkled from a bomb that detonated above no-man’s land east of Misrata, raining down over rebel units who had advanced beyond the frontline without telling Nato. Political considerations among rebel leaders are also having an impact, preventing an order to assault Zlitan, the next town on the road to Tripoli: longstanding grievances between the two populations plus a fear of killing civilians – have seen Misrata’s units refuse to attack until Zlitan’s own rebels rise up – a problematic exercise given that Zlitan is home to the 32nd Brigade, one of Gaddafi’s few elite formations. Gaddafi’s problems are the reverse of those facing the rebels. He has vast stocks of Grad missiles, but his troops are demoralised by what one British source described as “incremental attrition”. One Nato official observed: “Defiance can only be measured by loyalty.” He expressed the view that the conflict was “close to the tipping point”. Sources told the Guardian that indictment for war crimes against Gaddafi and his inner circle before the international criminal court can be put on the back burner, in the hope this would encourage the Libyan leader to seek sanctuary in a friendly African country. There is concern, meanwhile, that the longer the conflict goes on, the greater the risk of civilian casualties as Nato commanders succumb to political pressure to step up the bombing campaign. “The longer the war goes on the greater the chance of a blunder resulting in significant civilian casualties,” warns the IISS in its latest Strategic Comments. It adds: “The risks also increase of both the government and rebels becoming more radicalised and perpetrating war crimes.” The IISS warns that fighting could spill over into Tunisia. Increasing instability in the Middle East, such as the current crises in Syria and Yemen, could compete for strategic attention and military resources. Other problems spring from the flight of nearly 1 million people so far from Libya to neighbouring states and Europe. “Any of these factors, either individually or in combination, could weaken the coalition’s military strength and political resolve.” Of the 10,000 sorties flown by Nato aircraft since mid-March, around one-third have been conducted by aircraft able to attack ground targets. This is far fewer than those flown over Serbia and Kosovo in 1999. The MoD says British aircraft have been involved in 400 strike sorties, dropping some £80m in weapons, according to official figures released to MPs. Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Military Defence policy Nato Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Hopes being pinned on Muammar Gaddafi agreeing to flee the country or defections by Libyan leader’s aides Almost three months into the campaign of air strikes, Britain and its Nato allies no longer believe bombing alone will end the conflict in Libya, well-placed government officials have told the Guardian. Instead, they are pinning their hopes on the defection of Muammar Gaddafi’s closest aides, or the Libyan leader’s agreement to flee the country. “No one is envisaging a military victory,” said one senior official who echoed Tuesday’s warnings by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, head of the navy, that the bombing cannot continue much beyond the summer. Stanhope, whose comments caused fury in Downing Street, was expressing publicly what many senior defence officials say in private, officials made clear. The conflict is also straining relations between Washington and its European allies. Although few Nato countries are taking part in the air strikes, Europeans – including the British – are dismayed at the refusal by the US to deploy its low-flying A10 “tankbusters” and helicopters. The UK has deployed four Apaches, the French 12 attack helicopters. There are 150 other attack helicopters in Nato which can operate from ships but they all belong to the US Marine Corps, said Brigadier Benjamin Barry, senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The latest tension between Nato allies follows a withering speech in Brussels last week by Robert Gates, the outgoing US defence secretary, who referred to the “spectacle of an air operations centre designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150″. The problems within Nato are mirrored among rebel fighters on the ground in Libya. In Misrata the militia leaders, few with military experience, have failed to coalesce into a co-ordinated army which can undertake manoeuvre operations. A second obstacle to an advance is the lack of heavy weapons which would allow them to punch through the ring of Gaddafi forces facing them – and then hold that ground against counterattacks. While some militia leaders have told their troops to dig in, others have refused, leading to troops facing artillery fire out in the open. The result, last Friday, was slaughter; after British Apaches launched their first attacks on the Misrata front the night before, Gaddafi’s forces hit back with an unprecedented barrage of thousands of Russian-made Grad rockets. The Apaches did not reappear in daylight to attack the rocket launchers and rebel units suffered 31 deaths and 120 other casualities. The absence of Apaches dismayed rebel units, not all of whom are sure of Nato’s motives in failing to offer co-ordinated air support. None will say so publicly, but some commanders say the alliance may want Tripoli to rise up against the dictator, rather than be “liberated” by rebels from elsewhere – an event that could trigger political infighting in the postwar period. One member of the Misrata military council complained that some commanders had suggested it would be better to have a lightly-held first line with a defensive belt a kilometre or two behind it – a standard tactic for professional armies. “It’s a good idea,” he said. “But nobody wants to be on the second line.” A rebel logistics officer, Suleiman Abfalga, said: “We cannot live in holes in the ground, we have to show we are not afraid.” It has emerged that Nato has been dropping leaflets threatening Apache air strikes against government forces. The leaflets – each featuring a picture of an Apache helicopter and a burning tank along with the words: “If you go on killing the children and families you will be destroyed” – were sprinkled from a bomb that detonated above no-man’s land east of Misrata, raining down over rebel units who had advanced beyond the frontline without telling Nato. Political considerations among rebel leaders are also having an impact, preventing an order to assault Zlitan, the next town on the road to Tripoli: longstanding grievances between the two populations plus a fear of killing civilians – have seen Misrata’s units refuse to attack until Zlitan’s own rebels rise up – a problematic exercise given that Zlitan is home to the 32nd Brigade, one of Gaddafi’s few elite formations. Gaddafi’s problems are the reverse of those facing the rebels. He has vast stocks of Grad missiles, but his troops are demoralised by what one British source described as “incremental attrition”. One Nato official observed: “Defiance can only be measured by loyalty.” He expressed the view that the conflict was “close to the tipping point”. Sources told the Guardian that indictment for war crimes against Gaddafi and his inner circle before the international criminal court can be put on the back burner, in the hope this would encourage the Libyan leader to seek sanctuary in a friendly African country. There is concern, meanwhile, that the longer the conflict goes on, the greater the risk of civilian casualties as Nato commanders succumb to political pressure to step up the bombing campaign. “The longer the war goes on the greater the chance of a blunder resulting in significant civilian casualties,” warns the IISS in its latest Strategic Comments. It adds: “The risks also increase of both the government and rebels becoming more radicalised and perpetrating war crimes.” The IISS warns that fighting could spill over into Tunisia. Increasing instability in the Middle East, such as the current crises in Syria and Yemen, could compete for strategic attention and military resources. Other problems spring from the flight of nearly 1 million people so far from Libya to neighbouring states and Europe. “Any of these factors, either individually or in combination, could weaken the coalition’s military strength and political resolve.” Of the 10,000 sorties flown by Nato aircraft since mid-March, around one-third have been conducted by aircraft able to attack ground targets. This is far fewer than those flown over Serbia and Kosovo in 1999. The MoD says British aircraft have been involved in 400 strike sorties, dropping some £80m in weapons, according to official figures released to MPs. Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Military Defence policy Nato Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Michael Gove says worst performers should meet current average by 2015 in bid to end ‘low-expectations culture’ The education secretary, Michael Gove, will try to demonstrate the coalition has not lost its zeal for public service reform on Thursday when he announces tougher exam targets for Britain’s worst-performing schools. In an attempt to end what he sees as the low-expectations culture in some schools, he will say that by 2015 he expects every secondary school in England to be achieving the national average of at least 50% of pupils achieving five A*-C grades at GCSE, including English and maths. If not the school will be regarded as underperforming. The current threshold to avoid that label is 35% of pupils getting five “good” GCSEs, including English and maths. The new goal would require 870 of the 3,000 secondary schools in England to improve by 2015 to avoid being taken over by a neighbouring headteacher or academy. Gove’s proposals indicate that neither the mishandling of the NHS reforms, nor the threat of a national teachers’ strike over pensions, have prompted a loss of confidence in the coalition about public service reform. In the speech Gove will challenge the country to recognise the scale of the education improvement still required in many schools by turning the current average performance into a minimum requirement. The plan represents a huge increase in the speed of demanded improvement in comparison with what Labour attempted after 2004. The targets will also inevitably become the yardstick against which Gove himself will be measured as education secretary by the next election. He will also propose as an interim measure that after the 2012 exams the floor of minimum performance is raised to 40% of pupils achieving five A*-Cs including in English and maths. At present 407 secondaries are below that level, but that number is dynamic and the list is bound to change by 2012. Gove will argue the rise of Asian economies and the sweep of technology are changing the demand for knowledge and skills so fast that Britain, and indeed Europe, has to accelerate the pace of improvement if it wants to avoid long-term economic decline. The education debate in the UK has been too inward-looking and failed to grasp the skills transformation in the far east, he will say. He will also argue that radical improvements will occur only if led by outstanding academies and headteachers on the ground, not micromanaged by Whitehall. In an attempt to confront parents, and the teaching profession, with the scale of the challenge, he will point out that in Singapore about 80% of pupils achieve at least a C in English and maths O-levels. In Britain, by contrast, about one-third of pupils do not achieve basic levels in English and maths at 11, and only half achieve at least grade Cs in English and Maths GCSE aged 16. If Britain is to justify claiming to have a world-class curriculum, exam system and world-class teachers, the levels of achievement in Singapore need to be matched, he will argue. Pointing once again to successful academies, such as Mossbourne in Hackney, east London, as well as his experiences in the US, Gove will argue that the envisaged improvements are achievable. Gove has the power to allow outstanding academies to take over failing schools and build new chains. In his speech, marking a new phase in schools reform and ending a period of relative silence from one of Cameron’s closest allies, Gove will also seek to rebut claims that he has perverted the academies programme by refocusing it solely on successful schools. The academies programme under Tony Blair was aimed at failing schools. In response Gove will also announce the government will turn at least 88 struggling schools into sponsored academies over the next two years. This is more than the Labour government achieved between 2000, when the academies programme was first announced, and 2008. Seventy-three of the new sponsored academies will be secondary schools and 13 primaries. Since coming to office Gove has already raised the minimum level of performance once, demanding all schools ensure 35% of pupils, as opposed to 30%, achieve five A*-C. The new demanding thresholds will be overseen by Dr Elizabeth Sidwell, the schools commissioner and a former headteacher and chief executive of three academies. She has already warned: “While there are many excellent schools in the country, the tail of underperformance is a long and depressing blight on our education system.” In his speech Gove will also promise that he will not tolerate underperformance in academies, vowing he will not allow the introduction of a two-tier system in which excuses are made for academies. He will argue that in academies by their nature it is simpler and easier for governors to act, but he will say he will not tolerate failure amongst academies. But he believes research overwhelmingly shows that academy status improves schools through innovations such as extended school days, changed payscales, and cuts in administrative costs such as payroll systems. Gove believes with the right leadership some schools can be turned around within three months. Gove will argue the key to building an effective education system is not Whitehall diktat, but by creating a system that leads to self-improvement. He will argue there are seven key pillars to reform, some of which he has yet to introduce: • Self-governing schools with a simple way to start new schools, and improvement driven by chains of schools which focus on the worst. • A higher entry bar for teaching, better pay for good teachers, and a faster system to remove unsuitable teachers • Planning and building regulation reform to make it easier for new and good schools to expand. • Improved curriculums and use of technology. • A more focused Ofsted inspection team. • A more transparent funding system. • Data transparency exemplified by the national pupil database going live on the web in 2012. Schools GCSEs Michael Gove Liberal-Conservative coalition Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Michael Gove says worst performers should meet current average by 2015 in bid to end ‘low-expectations culture’ The education secretary, Michael Gove, will try to demonstrate the coalition has not lost its zeal for public service reform on Thursday when he announces tougher exam targets for Britain’s worst-performing schools. In an attempt to end what he sees as the low-expectations culture in some schools, he will say that by 2015 he expects every secondary school in England to be achieving the national average of at least 50% of pupils achieving five A*-C grades at GCSE, including English and maths. If not the school will be regarded as underperforming. The current threshold to avoid that label is 35% of pupils getting five “good” GCSEs, including English and maths. The new goal would require 870 of the 3,000 secondary schools in England to improve by 2015 to avoid being taken over by a neighbouring headteacher or academy. Gove’s proposals indicate that neither the mishandling of the NHS reforms, nor the threat of a national teachers’ strike over pensions, have prompted a loss of confidence in the coalition about public service reform. In the speech Gove will challenge the country to recognise the scale of the education improvement still required in many schools by turning the current average performance into a minimum requirement. The plan represents a huge increase in the speed of demanded improvement in comparison with what Labour attempted after 2004. The targets will also inevitably become the yardstick against which Gove himself will be measured as education secretary by the next election. He will also propose as an interim measure that after the 2012 exams the floor of minimum performance is raised to 40% of pupils achieving five A*-Cs including in English and maths. At present 407 secondaries are below that level, but that number is dynamic and the list is bound to change by 2012. Gove will argue the rise of Asian economies and the sweep of technology are changing the demand for knowledge and skills so fast that Britain, and indeed Europe, has to accelerate the pace of improvement if it wants to avoid long-term economic decline. The education debate in the UK has been too inward-looking and failed to grasp the skills transformation in the far east, he will say. He will also argue that radical improvements will occur only if led by outstanding academies and headteachers on the ground, not micromanaged by Whitehall. In an attempt to confront parents, and the teaching profession, with the scale of the challenge, he will point out that in Singapore about 80% of pupils achieve at least a C in English and maths O-levels. In Britain, by contrast, about one-third of pupils do not achieve basic levels in English and maths at 11, and only half achieve at least grade Cs in English and Maths GCSE aged 16. If Britain is to justify claiming to have a world-class curriculum, exam system and world-class teachers, the levels of achievement in Singapore need to be matched, he will argue. Pointing once again to successful academies, such as Mossbourne in Hackney, east London, as well as his experiences in the US, Gove will argue that the envisaged improvements are achievable. Gove has the power to allow outstanding academies to take over failing schools and build new chains. In his speech, marking a new phase in schools reform and ending a period of relative silence from one of Cameron’s closest allies, Gove will also seek to rebut claims that he has perverted the academies programme by refocusing it solely on successful schools. The academies programme under Tony Blair was aimed at failing schools. In response Gove will also announce the government will turn at least 88 struggling schools into sponsored academies over the next two years. This is more than the Labour government achieved between 2000, when the academies programme was first announced, and 2008. Seventy-three of the new sponsored academies will be secondary schools and 13 primaries. Since coming to office Gove has already raised the minimum level of performance once, demanding all schools ensure 35% of pupils, as opposed to 30%, achieve five A*-C. The new demanding thresholds will be overseen by Dr Elizabeth Sidwell, the schools commissioner and a former headteacher and chief executive of three academies. She has already warned: “While there are many excellent schools in the country, the tail of underperformance is a long and depressing blight on our education system.” In his speech Gove will also promise that he will not tolerate underperformance in academies, vowing he will not allow the introduction of a two-tier system in which excuses are made for academies. He will argue that in academies by their nature it is simpler and easier for governors to act, but he will say he will not tolerate failure amongst academies. But he believes research overwhelmingly shows that academy status improves schools through innovations such as extended school days, changed payscales, and cuts in administrative costs such as payroll systems. Gove believes with the right leadership some schools can be turned around within three months. Gove will argue the key to building an effective education system is not Whitehall diktat, but by creating a system that leads to self-improvement. He will argue there are seven key pillars to reform, some of which he has yet to introduce: • Self-governing schools with a simple way to start new schools, and improvement driven by chains of schools which focus on the worst. • A higher entry bar for teaching, better pay for good teachers, and a faster system to remove unsuitable teachers • Planning and building regulation reform to make it easier for new and good schools to expand. • Improved curriculums and use of technology. • A more focused Ofsted inspection team. • A more transparent funding system. • Data transparency exemplified by the national pupil database going live on the web in 2012. Schools GCSEs Michael Gove Liberal-Conservative coalition Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Do any of our political leaders realize that kissing rich peoples’ asses won’t magically restore prosperity?
June 14, 2011 No Comment
Barack Obama’s presidency certainly hasn’t been an all-out bust — repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, taking out Osama bin Laden and getting some form of universal health coverage passed are real achievements — but he’s completely crapped the bed when it comes to jobs. And I’m not just talking about the high unemployment rate, either — I’m talking about the continued collapse in workers’ income. Check out this chart from David Frum: enlarge Workers’ share of national income started steadily dropping under Reagan and Bush I, saw a brief rebound during the late ’90s tech boom, and then fell off a cliff during the Bush II and Obama administrations. Of course, not everyone is hurting. As Felix Salmon pointed out earlier this year , the financial services industry has weathered this recession just fine: enlarge There are lots of reasons this has occurred, but broadly speaking this trend started in the 1980s when we collectively decided that rich people were magical wealth leprechauns who must be kept happy at all costs lest they take their pots of gold elsewhere. So we got huge tax cuts for the wealthy, free trade agreements, financial deregulation and a government that turned a blind eye toward businesses that broke the law by employing illegal labor at below the minimum wage. But sadly, that just isn’t enough for our Galtian overlords. See, they don’t just want us to change the law for their own benefit anymore. Indeed, they want to flat-out plunder people without facing any sort of legal consequences. “But how the hell can they justify that?” you sanely ask. The answer is, the same way they’ve justified giant tax cuts: By arguing that they’re just Too Special and Important to be held accountable. Brad Hintz, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co, starting floating this cute little idea the other week when he declared that Goldman Sachs was too systemically important to face criminal prosecution: The U.S. Department of Justice, which is reviewing a Senate subcommittee report that alleged Goldman Sachs misled clients before the financial crisis, will avoid jeopardizing the fifth- largest U.S. bank by assets because it’s viewed as “too big to fail,” Hintz wrote in note to clients today. “If an alleged violation is identified during a Goldman investigation, we expect a reasoned response from the Justice Department,” Hintz wrote. “In a worst case environment, we would expect a ‘too big to fail’ bank such as Goldman to be offered a deferred-prosecution agreement, pay a significant fine and submit to a federal monitor in lieu of a criminal charge.” And this is what America has become, then: A nation where the rich and powerful can trample the poor and middle class with impunity and face zero repercussions for their crimes. The fact that this trend has not only continued under Barack Obama’s watch but has actually accelerated is about as damning an indictment of him and his administration as I can fathom. And it’s not just him either, as some of our progressive “heroes” like Barney Frank are still happily allowing Wall Street to organize campaign fundraisers in their names. There’s going to be a breaking point sometime in the future where people will actually vote for a political candidate who refuses to kiss rich peoples’ asses as a matter of policy. The question is, how bad will things have to get before people reach this threshold of revelation? Hopefully it’ll happen before Paul Ryan starts floating the idea of reviving the poll tax .
Continue reading …Do any of our political leaders realize that kissing rich peoples’ asses won’t magically restore prosperity?
June 14, 2011 No Comment
Barack Obama’s presidency certainly hasn’t been an all-out bust — repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, taking out Osama bin Laden and getting some form of universal health coverage passed are real achievements — but he’s completely crapped the bed when it comes to jobs. And I’m not just talking about the high unemployment rate, either — I’m talking about the continued collapse in workers’ income. Check out this chart from David Frum: enlarge Workers’ share of national income started steadily dropping under Reagan and Bush I, saw a brief rebound during the late ’90s tech boom, and then fell off a cliff during the Bush II and Obama administrations. Of course, not everyone is hurting. As Felix Salmon pointed out earlier this year , the financial services industry has weathered this recession just fine: enlarge There are lots of reasons this has occurred, but broadly speaking this trend started in the 1980s when we collectively decided that rich people were magical wealth leprechauns who must be kept happy at all costs lest they take their pots of gold elsewhere. So we got huge tax cuts for the wealthy, free trade agreements, financial deregulation and a government that turned a blind eye toward businesses that broke the law by employing illegal labor at below the minimum wage. But sadly, that just isn’t enough for our Galtian overlords. See, they don’t just want us to change the law for their own benefit anymore. Indeed, they want to flat-out plunder people without facing any sort of legal consequences. “But how the hell can they justify that?” you sanely ask. The answer is, the same way they’ve justified giant tax cuts: By arguing that they’re just Too Special and Important to be held accountable. Brad Hintz, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co, starting floating this cute little idea the other week when he declared that Goldman Sachs was too systemically important to face criminal prosecution: The U.S. Department of Justice, which is reviewing a Senate subcommittee report that alleged Goldman Sachs misled clients before the financial crisis, will avoid jeopardizing the fifth- largest U.S. bank by assets because it’s viewed as “too big to fail,” Hintz wrote in note to clients today. “If an alleged violation is identified during a Goldman investigation, we expect a reasoned response from the Justice Department,” Hintz wrote. “In a worst case environment, we would expect a ‘too big to fail’ bank such as Goldman to be offered a deferred-prosecution agreement, pay a significant fine and submit to a federal monitor in lieu of a criminal charge.” And this is what America has become, then: A nation where the rich and powerful can trample the poor and middle class with impunity and face zero repercussions for their crimes. The fact that this trend has not only continued under Barack Obama’s watch but has actually accelerated is about as damning an indictment of him and his administration as I can fathom. And it’s not just him either, as some of our progressive “heroes” like Barney Frank are still happily allowing Wall Street to organize campaign fundraisers in their names. There’s going to be a breaking point sometime in the future where people will actually vote for a political candidate who refuses to kiss rich peoples’ asses as a matter of policy. The question is, how bad will things have to get before people reach this threshold of revelation? Hopefully it’ll happen before Paul Ryan starts floating the idea of reviving the poll tax .
Continue reading …
enlarge Oh, Christian Right, gather close and listen. Governor Rick Perry is going to jump into the GOP 2012 circus before too long. I’m already seeing reports that friendly organizations are running web ads in New Hampshire, and many on the far edge of the Christian Right are clamoring for his entry into this godless bunch of lunatics already in the race. So here’s something you should know about that Christian Right bunch. They don’t believe in government, and argue that it is the duty of the church to take care of the poor, sick, and needy. This is an argument I see every single day, without fail. And as someone familiar with such matters, I’ll go one step farther and say that the minimum amount expected to be given from believers is 10% of their income, which is why this post has the title it has. ABC News: The Perry family’s income tax return shows Perry gave $90 to his church in 2007, a year in which he reported an income of more than $1 million, the San Antonio Express-News reported in Sunday’s edition. Tax records from 2000, when Perry became governor, through 2009 show he earned $2.68 million and gave $14,243 to churches and religious organizations, about a half percent, the newspaper reported. Perry reported no religious contributions in 2000 and 2009, according to his tax records. Americans averaged giving nearly 1.2 percent of their income to churches and religious groups in 2004-08, according to the Illinois-based research firm Empty Tomb Inc., which tracks church-giving trends. See, it’s not enough to just pound your chest in the public square and call for national prayer, and blame economic problems on God paying us back for our wanton ways. You’re supposed to actually live what you preach, and one way you live it is by giving it. Rick Perry, you’re exposed as the guy who talks a lot but doesn’t live it. I expect this series to continue as the campaign unfolds.
Continue reading …
enlarge Oh, Christian Right, gather close and listen. Governor Rick Perry is going to jump into the GOP 2012 circus before too long. I’m already seeing reports that friendly organizations are running web ads in New Hampshire, and many on the far edge of the Christian Right are clamoring for his entry into this godless bunch of lunatics already in the race. So here’s something you should know about that Christian Right bunch. They don’t believe in government, and argue that it is the duty of the church to take care of the poor, sick, and needy. This is an argument I see every single day, without fail. And as someone familiar with such matters, I’ll go one step farther and say that the minimum amount expected to be given from believers is 10% of their income, which is why this post has the title it has. ABC News: The Perry family’s income tax return shows Perry gave $90 to his church in 2007, a year in which he reported an income of more than $1 million, the San Antonio Express-News reported in Sunday’s edition. Tax records from 2000, when Perry became governor, through 2009 show he earned $2.68 million and gave $14,243 to churches and religious organizations, about a half percent, the newspaper reported. Perry reported no religious contributions in 2000 and 2009, according to his tax records. Americans averaged giving nearly 1.2 percent of their income to churches and religious groups in 2004-08, according to the Illinois-based research firm Empty Tomb Inc., which tracks church-giving trends. See, it’s not enough to just pound your chest in the public square and call for national prayer, and blame economic problems on God paying us back for our wanton ways. You’re supposed to actually live what you preach, and one way you live it is by giving it. Rick Perry, you’re exposed as the guy who talks a lot but doesn’t live it. I expect this series to continue as the campaign unfolds.
Continue reading …MSNBC’s Bashir Compliments Bachmann with Swipe at Palin; Columnist S.E. Cupp Calls Him On It
June 14, 2011 No CommentImpressed by Rep. Michele Bachmann's performance in the CNN debate last night, MSNBC's Martin Bashir today twice cheekily declared her the “thinking person's Sarah Palin.” [Video embedded below page break]
Continue reading …