Why should they help you? You have a job. You should just want to make less money. Read the original here.
Firms To Cut Health Plans As Reform Starts: Survey
By Russ Britt[1], MarketWatch
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
Are profit forecasts too optimistic?
A 4% economic-growth rate for 2011 now looks like a pipe dream. In that case, assumptions about corporate earnings may be high, especially with the Federal Reserve's latest bond-buying program winding down. Kelly Evans discusses.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”Read about the costly flaws in the U.S. digital health-data plan. [2]
White House responds
Late Monday, an Obama administration official took issue with the study, saying that it is at odds with findings from the Congressional Budget Office, think-tank Rand Corp. and the Urban Institute. In an email response, the official wrote that when Massachusetts initiated its own reform, the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance increased.
Indeed, the Rand study released in April noted: “The percentage of employees offered insurance will not change substantially, but a small number of employees in small firms (defined as those with under 100 employees in 2016) will obtain employer-sponsored insurance through the state insurance exchanges.”
In a Jan. 25 study, the Urban Institute said that reports of the demise of employer-sponsored insurance were “premature” and that few would stop offering.
“Our results show the opposite — the [Affordable Care Act] has little effect on overall [employer-sponsored] coverage, and overall employer spending on health care would be slightly lower under the ACA,” according to its own study.
A number of competitors will emerge in the insurance market once reform provisions start to take effect, according to the McKinsey Quarterly study. These firms will be needed to provide a transition for those moving from employer-sponsored insurance to other coverage options.
Insurers will have to adapt to new realities and look for ways to keep the policy holders they have, the study says, but that shouldn’t be difficult. “Our research shows that more than 70% of employees would stay with their insurer if it offers a seamless transition and appropriate products. Each payer also must understand how changing employer-benefit strategies will shift the risk profile of its membership and set prices appropriately.”
Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.
References
^ Russ Britt (www.marketwatch.com)
^ Read about the costly flaws in the U.S. digital health-data plan.(www.marketwatch.com)
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Chicago Way
Any surprise here? Cricket...cricket? I wish I could land a 6 figure windfall because of 1 deal. Read the original here.
Former Mayor Daley’s Son Profited After Airport Wi-Fi Deal
THIS WEEK BY TIM NOVAK & CHRIS FUSCO Jun 6, 2011 6:53AM
For years, City Hall maintained that Mayor Richard M. Daley’s son, Patrick Daley, had no financial stake in the deal that brought wireless Internet service to city-owned O’Hare Airport and Midway Airport.
But it turns out that the younger Daley still reaped a windfall of $708,999 when Concourse Communications was sold in 2006, less than a year after the Chicago company signed the multimillion-dollar Wi-Fi contract with his father’s administration, company documents obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times show.
Concourse disclosed its investors to the city, as required. Patrick Daley wasn’t one of them.
But he still had a stake in Concourse’s success, the company documents show, and profited as a result when the company was sold after winning the city contract.
Daley’s role was as a middleman who lined up investors for Concourse. Among them: M. Blair Hull, the millionaire commodities trader who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004.
On June 27, 2006, nine months after it signed the potentially lucrative city contract for airport Wi-Fi service in Chicago, Concourse was sold — at a 33 percent profit — to Boingo Wireless Inc. for $45 million.
Three days later, Patrick Daley got his first payment as a result of the sale, the documents show — for $164,789.
Over the next 17 months, with Daley now serving in the U.S. Army, he got four more payments resulting from the sale, totaling $544,210, the documents show, for a total of $708,999.
Shortly after Patrick Daley received the last of those payments, his father’s City Hall press secretary, Jacquelyn Heard, told a Sun-Times reporter in a Dec. 3, 2007, interview, that Patrick Daley “has no financial interest with the Wi-Fi contract at O’Hare.”
Exactly how the deal was structured isn’t clear. Neither Patrick Daley nor his father replied to interview requests. But the amount that Patrick Daley was paid was linked to the sale price of the company, a source with knowledge of the arrangement said: The more the company was sold for, the more Patrick Daley would be paid.
The elder Daley — who left office May 16 after deciding not to seek re-election — is now in business with his son. The two Daleys are working out of offices on Michigan Avenue on international business deals.
Patrick Daley’s Wi-Fi windfall was part of $1.2 million he was paid as a result of deals he had with Cardinal Growth, a Chicago venture-capital firm that invested in Concourse and other businesses. Among those businesses was a sewer-inspection company that got millions of dollars in no-bid city-contract extensions.
In addition to Patrick Daley, Cardinal Growth also has had business dealings in which it made payments to two of his cousins, Robert G. Vanecko and Richard J. “R.J.” Vanecko.
Patrick Daley’s payments from the sale of Concourse Communications ended in March 2009 — four months before Cardinal Growth received a subpoena from a federal grand jury investigating his and Robert Vanecko’s roles in the sewer-inspection business.
The sewer company’s president has since been indicted on federal charges that accuse him of minority-contracting fraud. Patrick Daley and Robert Vanecko haven’t been charged with any crime. Nor have Cardinal Growth or its owners been charged with any wrongdoing.
Cardinal Growth is owned by Robert Bobb, who’s a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, and Joseph McInerney, an accountant. The firm has raised millions of dollars from private investors and, with those investments in hand, has been able to borrow $50 million from the U.S. government to use in its projects.
Among the businesses that Bobb and McInerney acquired with that money: Concourse and the sewer company, Municipal Sewer Services.
Six of the businesses now are facing forced liquidation by the U.S. Small Business Administration, which is trying to recover $20 million it’s still owed from the $50 million in loans it made to Cardinal Growth.
Patrick Daley, now 35, began working with Cardinal Growth in 2002 as an unpaid intern for the firm, while he also he worked on the master’s degree in business administration he would obtain from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. After his internship, he continued working with the firm, helping Bobb and McInerney find people to put money into Cardinal Growth’s investments.
Among the investors Patrick Daley brought in was Hull. Patrick Daley previously had worked for Hull, who was seeking then-Mayor Daley’s endorsement in the 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate race around the same time he agreed to invest with Cardinal Growth in Concourse Communications. Mayor Daley decided not to endorse anyone in that race, which was won by future President Barack Obama.
Hull was among the bigger investors in Concourse Communications, which was one of nine companies that submitted proposals to the city in 2003 to install Wi-Fi at O’Hare and Midway. At the time, Concourse had won deals to build wireless Internet networks at airports in New York City and Minneapolis.
During the time the city was evaluating the O’Hare and Midway Wi-Fi proposals, Patrick Daley graduated with honors from U. of C.’s business school in June 2004.
About two months later, then-Mayor Daley’s city aviation commissioner, John Roberson, and a panel of unidentified city employees decided to recommend that City Hall award the contract to Concourse.
In November 2004, Patrick Daley announced he had enlisted in the Army. He left Chicago for basic training the next month.
In September 2005, while Patrick Daley was in the Army, City Hall signed a 10-year contract with Concourse that also included two renewal options for three years each.
Under that deal, Concourse charges a fee that allows anyone at O’Hare or Midway to connect wirelessly and go online.
The contract guarantees the city a minimum of $1 million a year.
If Concourse takes in $7 million from Internet users at O’Hare and Midway, the city’s take on the deal becomes 35 percent — $2.45 million from the $7 million.
Roberson told the Sun-Times in an interview shortly before the contract was signed in 2005: “Patrick Daley has no involvement in this at all.”
But though he wasn’t listed among the investors, Patrick Daley still benefitted as Concourse built its business with the help of the O’Hare and Midway city contract. With that deal completed, Concourse then provided wireless Internet service at 12 of the busiest airports in North America, making it an attractive takeover target.
Nine months after the Chicago contract was signed, Cardinal Growth sold Concourse to Boingo Wireless at a 33 percent profit, while also becoming a minority shareholder in Boingo.
Soon after came the first of five payments to Patrick Daley.
In addition to the $708,999 from those payments linked to the Concourse sale, Cardinal Growth made numerous other payments to Patrick Daley, totaling $543,127, between July 10, 2002, and Oct. 31, 2009, company records show. It isn’t clear what those payments were for.
Bobb and McInerney declined interview requests.
Patrick Daley still has business ties with two companies that have received private and government funding through Cardinal Growth: Certi-Fresh Foods LLC, a shrimp-distribution company in Los Angeles, and TWG Capital, an insurance-services company in Indianapolis. They are among the six Cardinal Growth companies facing forced liquidation by the SBA.
For years, Patrick Daley maintained a rent-free office at Cardinal Growth’s headquarters, on the 55th floor at 311 S. Wacker. Also, he has two sport-utility vehicles registered at that office, which Cardinal Growth recently left after its landlord sued to evict the firm.
Former Mayor Daley’s Son Profited After Airport Wi-Fi Deal
THIS WEEK BY TIM NOVAK & CHRIS FUSCO Jun 6, 2011 6:53AM
For years, City Hall maintained that Mayor Richard M. Daley’s son, Patrick Daley, had no financial stake in the deal that brought wireless Internet service to city-owned O’Hare Airport and Midway Airport.
But it turns out that the younger Daley still reaped a windfall of $708,999 when Concourse Communications was sold in 2006, less than a year after the Chicago company signed the multimillion-dollar Wi-Fi contract with his father’s administration, company documents obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times show.
Concourse disclosed its investors to the city, as required. Patrick Daley wasn’t one of them.
But he still had a stake in Concourse’s success, the company documents show, and profited as a result when the company was sold after winning the city contract.
Daley’s role was as a middleman who lined up investors for Concourse. Among them: M. Blair Hull, the millionaire commodities trader who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004.
On June 27, 2006, nine months after it signed the potentially lucrative city contract for airport Wi-Fi service in Chicago, Concourse was sold — at a 33 percent profit — to Boingo Wireless Inc. for $45 million.
Three days later, Patrick Daley got his first payment as a result of the sale, the documents show — for $164,789.
Over the next 17 months, with Daley now serving in the U.S. Army, he got four more payments resulting from the sale, totaling $544,210, the documents show, for a total of $708,999.
Shortly after Patrick Daley received the last of those payments, his father’s City Hall press secretary, Jacquelyn Heard, told a Sun-Times reporter in a Dec. 3, 2007, interview, that Patrick Daley “has no financial interest with the Wi-Fi contract at O’Hare.”
Exactly how the deal was structured isn’t clear. Neither Patrick Daley nor his father replied to interview requests. But the amount that Patrick Daley was paid was linked to the sale price of the company, a source with knowledge of the arrangement said: The more the company was sold for, the more Patrick Daley would be paid.
The elder Daley — who left office May 16 after deciding not to seek re-election — is now in business with his son. The two Daleys are working out of offices on Michigan Avenue on international business deals.
Patrick Daley’s Wi-Fi windfall was part of $1.2 million he was paid as a result of deals he had with Cardinal Growth, a Chicago venture-capital firm that invested in Concourse and other businesses. Among those businesses was a sewer-inspection company that got millions of dollars in no-bid city-contract extensions.
In addition to Patrick Daley, Cardinal Growth also has had business dealings in which it made payments to two of his cousins, Robert G. Vanecko and Richard J. “R.J.” Vanecko.
Patrick Daley’s payments from the sale of Concourse Communications ended in March 2009 — four months before Cardinal Growth received a subpoena from a federal grand jury investigating his and Robert Vanecko’s roles in the sewer-inspection business.
The sewer company’s president has since been indicted on federal charges that accuse him of minority-contracting fraud. Patrick Daley and Robert Vanecko haven’t been charged with any crime. Nor have Cardinal Growth or its owners been charged with any wrongdoing.
Cardinal Growth is owned by Robert Bobb, who’s a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, and Joseph McInerney, an accountant. The firm has raised millions of dollars from private investors and, with those investments in hand, has been able to borrow $50 million from the U.S. government to use in its projects.
Among the businesses that Bobb and McInerney acquired with that money: Concourse and the sewer company, Municipal Sewer Services.
Six of the businesses now are facing forced liquidation by the U.S. Small Business Administration, which is trying to recover $20 million it’s still owed from the $50 million in loans it made to Cardinal Growth.
Patrick Daley, now 35, began working with Cardinal Growth in 2002 as an unpaid intern for the firm, while he also he worked on the master’s degree in business administration he would obtain from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. After his internship, he continued working with the firm, helping Bobb and McInerney find people to put money into Cardinal Growth’s investments.
Among the investors Patrick Daley brought in was Hull. Patrick Daley previously had worked for Hull, who was seeking then-Mayor Daley’s endorsement in the 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate race around the same time he agreed to invest with Cardinal Growth in Concourse Communications. Mayor Daley decided not to endorse anyone in that race, which was won by future President Barack Obama.
Hull was among the bigger investors in Concourse Communications, which was one of nine companies that submitted proposals to the city in 2003 to install Wi-Fi at O’Hare and Midway. At the time, Concourse had won deals to build wireless Internet networks at airports in New York City and Minneapolis.
During the time the city was evaluating the O’Hare and Midway Wi-Fi proposals, Patrick Daley graduated with honors from U. of C.’s business school in June 2004.
About two months later, then-Mayor Daley’s city aviation commissioner, John Roberson, and a panel of unidentified city employees decided to recommend that City Hall award the contract to Concourse.
In November 2004, Patrick Daley announced he had enlisted in the Army. He left Chicago for basic training the next month.
In September 2005, while Patrick Daley was in the Army, City Hall signed a 10-year contract with Concourse that also included two renewal options for three years each.
Under that deal, Concourse charges a fee that allows anyone at O’Hare or Midway to connect wirelessly and go online.
The contract guarantees the city a minimum of $1 million a year.
If Concourse takes in $7 million from Internet users at O’Hare and Midway, the city’s take on the deal becomes 35 percent — $2.45 million from the $7 million.
Roberson told the Sun-Times in an interview shortly before the contract was signed in 2005: “Patrick Daley has no involvement in this at all.”
But though he wasn’t listed among the investors, Patrick Daley still benefitted as Concourse built its business with the help of the O’Hare and Midway city contract. With that deal completed, Concourse then provided wireless Internet service at 12 of the busiest airports in North America, making it an attractive takeover target.
Nine months after the Chicago contract was signed, Cardinal Growth sold Concourse to Boingo Wireless at a 33 percent profit, while also becoming a minority shareholder in Boingo.
Soon after came the first of five payments to Patrick Daley.
In addition to the $708,999 from those payments linked to the Concourse sale, Cardinal Growth made numerous other payments to Patrick Daley, totaling $543,127, between July 10, 2002, and Oct. 31, 2009, company records show. It isn’t clear what those payments were for.
Bobb and McInerney declined interview requests.
Patrick Daley still has business ties with two companies that have received private and government funding through Cardinal Growth: Certi-Fresh Foods LLC, a shrimp-distribution company in Los Angeles, and TWG Capital, an insurance-services company in Indianapolis. They are among the six Cardinal Growth companies facing forced liquidation by the SBA.
For years, Patrick Daley maintained a rent-free office at Cardinal Growth’s headquarters, on the 55th floor at 311 S. Wacker. Also, he has two sport-utility vehicles registered at that office, which Cardinal Growth recently left after its landlord sued to evict the firm.
What's your priority?
What do you think of this? Making a busy day more efficient? Or just ignoring what he doesn't want to hear day after day? Read the original here.
Daily Economic Briefings Disappear From Obama's White House Schedule
At some point during the first two years of his administration, President Obama stopped receiving the daily economic briefing that he requested when he took office.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced at his own first daily briefing reporters that Obama asked for the daily economic briefing, described then as comparable to the daily intelligence briefing the president gets every morning.
“The president asked that this be added every day to his schedule,” Gibbs said at the time. Gibbs added that Obama believed it is “important that each day he receive the most up to date information as it relates to the economy.”
But at some point, the daily economic briefings stopped showing up on Obama's daily schedule.
White House officials said the meetings slowly petered out, but Obama still receives a daily economic briefing on paper.
“The president requests regular meetings several times a week and daily updates from his economic policy team, just as he does with his national security team and other senior advisers in the White House,” one administration official said.
Additionally, the official said, the president gets daily briefing documents from his National Economic Council and regular updates from Vice President Biden.
White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said the president receives updates and briefings on the economy in a number of ways.
Brundage said in an email that "the president routinely meets with members of his economic team, both on an individual basis and in groups, and receives updates from his economic staff from their daily staff meeting."
"In addition, he receives daily briefing documents from the National Economic Council and gets regular updates from the vice president on a series of issues, including the ongoing deficit negotiations," Brundage said. "The president also requests meetings with outside economists and experts."
When Obama entered office, the economy was shedding as many as 600,000 jobs a month and the nation was in the midst of a deep recession.
Since then, the economy has recovered to a degree, though it remains a huge political issue and is seen as the big topic for the 2012 presidential race.
The national unemployment rate for May was 9.1 percent, and while the sum of 54,000 jobs added was far less than the administration had hoped, it did bring the streak of months with positive job growth to 15.
-- This story was updated at 8:22 p.m.
Daily Economic Briefings Disappear From Obama's White House Schedule
At some point during the first two years of his administration, President Obama stopped receiving the daily economic briefing that he requested when he took office.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced at his own first daily briefing reporters that Obama asked for the daily economic briefing, described then as comparable to the daily intelligence briefing the president gets every morning.
“The president asked that this be added every day to his schedule,” Gibbs said at the time. Gibbs added that Obama believed it is “important that each day he receive the most up to date information as it relates to the economy.”
But at some point, the daily economic briefings stopped showing up on Obama's daily schedule.
White House officials said the meetings slowly petered out, but Obama still receives a daily economic briefing on paper.
“The president requests regular meetings several times a week and daily updates from his economic policy team, just as he does with his national security team and other senior advisers in the White House,” one administration official said.
Additionally, the official said, the president gets daily briefing documents from his National Economic Council and regular updates from Vice President Biden.
White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said the president receives updates and briefings on the economy in a number of ways.
Brundage said in an email that "the president routinely meets with members of his economic team, both on an individual basis and in groups, and receives updates from his economic staff from their daily staff meeting."
"In addition, he receives daily briefing documents from the National Economic Council and gets regular updates from the vice president on a series of issues, including the ongoing deficit negotiations," Brundage said. "The president also requests meetings with outside economists and experts."
When Obama entered office, the economy was shedding as many as 600,000 jobs a month and the nation was in the midst of a deep recession.
Since then, the economy has recovered to a degree, though it remains a huge political issue and is seen as the big topic for the 2012 presidential race.
The national unemployment rate for May was 9.1 percent, and while the sum of 54,000 jobs added was far less than the administration had hoped, it did bring the streak of months with positive job growth to 15.
-- This story was updated at 8:22 p.m.
The very short...Bin Laden Bounce
Read the original here.
Obama Loses Bin Laden Bounce; Romney On The Move Among GOP Contenders
By Dan Balz[1] and Jon Cohen[2], Tuesday, June 7, 12:05 AM
The public opinion boost President Obama[3] received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated, and Americans’ disapproval of how he is handling the nation’s economy and the deficit has reached new highs, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The survey portrays a broadly pessimistic mood in the country this spring as higher gasoline prices, sliding home values and a disappointing employment picture[4] have raised fresh concerns about the pace of the economic recovery.
By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak.
New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week[5], making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.
Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.
Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.
In another indicator of rapidly shifting views on economic issues, 45 percent trust congressional Republicans over the president when it comes to dealing with the economy, an 11-point improvement for the GOP since March. Still, nearly as many, 42 percent, side with Obama on this issue.
The president has sought to point to progress on the economy, particularly in the automobile industry, and to argue that the policies he put in place at the beginning of his term are working. But the combined effects of weak economic indicators and dissatisfaction among the public are adding to the political pressures on the White House as the president’s advisers look toward what could be a difficult 2012 reelection campaign.
Meanwhile, Romney emerges in the new survey as the strongest current or prospective Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential field. Although he is by no means in a secure spot, on virtually every measure, the former governor appears better positioned than any of his rivals.
In contrast, the poll brings more bad news for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin,whose bus tour along the East Coast last week[6] renewed speculation that she might join the race.
Almost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president. She is predictably unpopular with Democrats and most independents, but the new survey underscores the hurdles she would face if she became a candidate: 42 percent of Republicans say they’ve ruled out supporting her candidacy.
More than six in 10 Americans say they do not consider Palin qualified to serve as president. That is a slightly better rating for the former governor than through most of last year, but is another indication of widespread public doubts about a possible presidential run.
The Post-ABC poll asked Republicans and GOP-leaning independents whom they would vote for if a primary or caucus were held now in their state. Romney topped the list, with 21 percent, followed by Palin at 17 percent. No one else reached double digits, although former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has suddenly shown interest in becoming a candidate, is close, at 8 percent. Without Palin in the race, Romney scores 25 percent, with all others in the single digits.
In another measure of the field, Republicans chose Romney as the only one of a dozen possible candidates they would “strongly consider” for the party’s nomination as opposed to stating that they definitely would not vote for him. He and Palin scored equal numbers of respondents who said they would strongly consider supporting them, but Palin has more than double the percentage who have ruled her out.
Other candidates fared poorly on this count, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), whose campaign got off to a rocky start; Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), a libertarian who has a passionate following but many detractors; and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), who announced his candidacy on Monday[7].
The Massachusetts health-care plan enacted under Romney remains a potentially serious problem in the former governor’s bid. By nearly 2 to 1, Republicans oppose the plan, with strong detractors far outnumbering solid supporters. But there is some potential for him to frame the matter: Almost four in 10 Republicans expressed no opinion about the state’s program.
Overall dissatisfaction with the GOP field remains high, with as many respondents saying they are unhappy with their choices as say they are satisfied. At this time four years ago, nearly seven in 10 Republicans said they were satisfied with their field of candidates.
In head-to-head matchups with Obama, Palin trails by 17 percentage points, the worst of the six possible candidates tested. The president leads Gingrich and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. by 10 points. He runs 11 points ahead of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and 13 points ahead of Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.).
Romney owes his relatively good standing against the president to support from independents. He and Obama garner roughly equal percentages from those in their own parties. But independents split for Romney 50 percent to 43 percent.
The president continues to receive positive marks as a strong leader, but the 55 percent rating marks a low point of his presidency. He gets mixed reviews on empathy and on sharing the same values as respondents.
The telephone poll was conducted June 2-5 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Polling manager Peyton M. Craighill and polling analyst Scott Clement contributed to this report.
References
^ Dan Balz (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Jon Cohen (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ President Obama (www.whorunsgov.com)
^ disappointing employment picture (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ whose bus tour along the East Coast last week (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ announced his candidacy on Monday (www.washingtonpost.com)
Obama Loses Bin Laden Bounce; Romney On The Move Among GOP Contenders
By Dan Balz[1] and Jon Cohen[2], Tuesday, June 7, 12:05 AM
The public opinion boost President Obama[3] received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated, and Americans’ disapproval of how he is handling the nation’s economy and the deficit has reached new highs, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The survey portrays a broadly pessimistic mood in the country this spring as higher gasoline prices, sliding home values and a disappointing employment picture[4] have raised fresh concerns about the pace of the economic recovery.
By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak.
New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week[5], making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.
Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.
Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.
In another indicator of rapidly shifting views on economic issues, 45 percent trust congressional Republicans over the president when it comes to dealing with the economy, an 11-point improvement for the GOP since March. Still, nearly as many, 42 percent, side with Obama on this issue.
The president has sought to point to progress on the economy, particularly in the automobile industry, and to argue that the policies he put in place at the beginning of his term are working. But the combined effects of weak economic indicators and dissatisfaction among the public are adding to the political pressures on the White House as the president’s advisers look toward what could be a difficult 2012 reelection campaign.
Meanwhile, Romney emerges in the new survey as the strongest current or prospective Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential field. Although he is by no means in a secure spot, on virtually every measure, the former governor appears better positioned than any of his rivals.
In contrast, the poll brings more bad news for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin,whose bus tour along the East Coast last week[6] renewed speculation that she might join the race.
Almost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president. She is predictably unpopular with Democrats and most independents, but the new survey underscores the hurdles she would face if she became a candidate: 42 percent of Republicans say they’ve ruled out supporting her candidacy.
More than six in 10 Americans say they do not consider Palin qualified to serve as president. That is a slightly better rating for the former governor than through most of last year, but is another indication of widespread public doubts about a possible presidential run.
The Post-ABC poll asked Republicans and GOP-leaning independents whom they would vote for if a primary or caucus were held now in their state. Romney topped the list, with 21 percent, followed by Palin at 17 percent. No one else reached double digits, although former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has suddenly shown interest in becoming a candidate, is close, at 8 percent. Without Palin in the race, Romney scores 25 percent, with all others in the single digits.
In another measure of the field, Republicans chose Romney as the only one of a dozen possible candidates they would “strongly consider” for the party’s nomination as opposed to stating that they definitely would not vote for him. He and Palin scored equal numbers of respondents who said they would strongly consider supporting them, but Palin has more than double the percentage who have ruled her out.
Other candidates fared poorly on this count, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), whose campaign got off to a rocky start; Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), a libertarian who has a passionate following but many detractors; and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), who announced his candidacy on Monday[7].
The Massachusetts health-care plan enacted under Romney remains a potentially serious problem in the former governor’s bid. By nearly 2 to 1, Republicans oppose the plan, with strong detractors far outnumbering solid supporters. But there is some potential for him to frame the matter: Almost four in 10 Republicans expressed no opinion about the state’s program.
Overall dissatisfaction with the GOP field remains high, with as many respondents saying they are unhappy with their choices as say they are satisfied. At this time four years ago, nearly seven in 10 Republicans said they were satisfied with their field of candidates.
In head-to-head matchups with Obama, Palin trails by 17 percentage points, the worst of the six possible candidates tested. The president leads Gingrich and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. by 10 points. He runs 11 points ahead of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and 13 points ahead of Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.).
Romney owes his relatively good standing against the president to support from independents. He and Obama garner roughly equal percentages from those in their own parties. But independents split for Romney 50 percent to 43 percent.
The president continues to receive positive marks as a strong leader, but the 55 percent rating marks a low point of his presidency. He gets mixed reviews on empathy and on sharing the same values as respondents.
The telephone poll was conducted June 2-5 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Polling manager Peyton M. Craighill and polling analyst Scott Clement contributed to this report.
References
^ Dan Balz (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Jon Cohen (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ President Obama (www.whorunsgov.com)
^ disappointing employment picture (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ whose bus tour along the East Coast last week (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ announced his candidacy on Monday (www.washingtonpost.com)
Friday, June 3, 2011
Should the government redistribute wealth?
I am concerned that 70% of Democrats believe that wealth should be redistributed. Again, to me that goes against the core principles of this country and self-reliance. The opinion that wealth should be taken away from rich people and given to poor people offends me on many levels:
Americans Divided On Taxing The Rich To Redistribute Wealth
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.
Graph here
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.
The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.
Graph Here
These findings are from Gallup's 2011 Economics and Finance poll, conducted April 7-11.
According to the same poll, the majority of Americans -- 57% -- believe money and wealth in the country should be more evenly distributed among a larger population. About a third -- 35% -- think the current distribution is fair. Americans were slightly less likely to believe the distribution of wealth was fair from 2003 to early 2008; however, the current level is about the average for the full trend since 1984.
Graph Here
A different question probes Americans' perceptions about the number of rich people in the country, and finds the plurality -- 42% -- believing the current level is about right. However, consistent with every other time Gallup has asked this question since 1990, more believe there are too many rich people than too few, 31% vs. 21%.
Graph Here
Again, perceptions about wealth are highly partisan, as the majority of Republicans say the number of rich people is about right (52%) and more say there are too few rather than too many (27% vs. 16%). Conversely, one-third (35%) of Democrats say the number of rich people is about right and, by 43% to 15%, more Democrats say there are too many rich people than too few.
Bottom Line
While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.
However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes[1] as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 7-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,077 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
View methodology, full question results, and trend data[2].
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com[3].
References
^ two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes (www.gallup.com)
^ View methodology, full question results, and trend data (www.gallup.com)
^ www.gallup.com (www.gallup.com)
- The widespread notion that wealth is a pie, so if rich people have more, poor people have less
- The notion that wealth is not deserved by the rich, so they must give it back. It should be charity, not compulsory.
- That people who do not have wealth are "owed" by the people who do have wealth.
- The number of people, whom I have seen use government assistance to finance Wii's, Plasma TV's, HBO, while their kids eat McDonalds on the floor because there's no table.
Americans Divided On Taxing The Rich To Redistribute Wealth
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.
Graph here
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.
The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.
Graph Here
These findings are from Gallup's 2011 Economics and Finance poll, conducted April 7-11.
According to the same poll, the majority of Americans -- 57% -- believe money and wealth in the country should be more evenly distributed among a larger population. About a third -- 35% -- think the current distribution is fair. Americans were slightly less likely to believe the distribution of wealth was fair from 2003 to early 2008; however, the current level is about the average for the full trend since 1984.
Graph Here
A different question probes Americans' perceptions about the number of rich people in the country, and finds the plurality -- 42% -- believing the current level is about right. However, consistent with every other time Gallup has asked this question since 1990, more believe there are too many rich people than too few, 31% vs. 21%.
Graph Here
Again, perceptions about wealth are highly partisan, as the majority of Republicans say the number of rich people is about right (52%) and more say there are too few rather than too many (27% vs. 16%). Conversely, one-third (35%) of Democrats say the number of rich people is about right and, by 43% to 15%, more Democrats say there are too many rich people than too few.
Bottom Line
While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.
However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes[1] as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 7-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,077 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
View methodology, full question results, and trend data[2].
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com[3].
References
^ two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes (www.gallup.com)
^ View methodology, full question results, and trend data (www.gallup.com)
^ www.gallup.com (www.gallup.com)
Obama Administration pulls a Biden
Talk about foot in mouth. It will be interesting to see #1. how the administration reacts to this statement (spin / defend) #2. How the media will treat this. I don't throw this argument around very much, but I find Mr. Katyal's statement to the Court, both Un-American and offensive. One of the core principles to me of this country is working hard to create as much wealth for you and your family as you can or desire. It is not, work less, earn less, wait for the government to take care of you. I assume for his sake and the benefit of the doubt that this argument was made in reaction to the fact that there is no legal defense for applying the commerce clause to the individual healthcare mandate, and he was just pulling words out of a deep dark place. In that case, they're not un-american, they just have no legal leg to stand on, the landmark "win" for the administration would be bunk, and the administration would have to eat crow. Read the original here.
Obama Solicitor General: If You Don't Like Mandate, Earn Less Money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here[1].) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.
During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.
Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.
“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”
Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”
The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.
Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.
Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.
In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here[2]). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.
Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”
Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.
The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”
Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”
The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.
For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.
During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.
Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.
The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?
With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.
The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.
Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook[3]
References
^ here (www.ca6.uscourts.gov)
^ here (washingtonexaminer.com)
^ Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook (www.facebook.com)
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money#ixzz1ODi45Ux7
Obama Solicitor General: If You Don't Like Mandate, Earn Less Money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here[1].) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.
During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.
Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.
“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”
Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”
The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.
Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.
Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.
In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here[2]). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.
Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”
Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.
The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”
Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”
The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.
For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.
During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.
Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.
The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?
With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.
The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.
Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook[3]
References
^ here (www.ca6.uscourts.gov)
^ here (washingtonexaminer.com)
^ Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook (www.facebook.com)
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money#ixzz1ODi45Ux7
Senators are idiots AKA Youtube might be in trouble...
Read the original here.
Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
from the not-understanding-the-technology dept
Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted[1] that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn't available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend "public performance" rights to section 506a[2] of the Copyright Act.
Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list[3] of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or performthe work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.
If only it were that simple. But, of course, it's not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there's a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.
Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill[4], "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.
And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding "performance" to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances:
the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works
So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.
178 Comments[5] | Leave a Comment..[6]
References
^ noted (www.techdirt.com)
^ section 506a (www.copyright.gov)
^ a list (www.copyright.gov)
^ full text of the bill (www.govtrack.us)
^ 178 Comments (www.techdirt.com)
^ Leave a Comment.. (www.techdirt.com)
Senators Want To Put People In Jail For Embedding YouTube Videos
from the not-understanding-the-technology dept
Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. A few weeks back, we noted[1] that Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons had proposed a new bill that was designed to make "streaming" infringing material a felony. At the time, the actual text of the bill wasn't available, but we assumed, naturally, that it would just extend "public performance" rights to section 506a[2] of the Copyright Act.
Supporters of this bill claim that all it's really doing is harmonizing US copyright law's civil and criminal sections. After all, the rights afforded under copyright law in civil cases cover a list[3] of rights: reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works or performthe work. The rules for criminal infringement only cover reproducing and distributing -- but not performing. So, supporters claim, all this does is "harmonize" copyright law and bring the criminal side into line with the civil side by adding "performance rights" to the list of things.
If only it were that simple. But, of course, it's not. First of all, despite claims to the contrary, there's a damn good reason why Congress did not include performance rights as a criminal/felony issue: because who would have thought that it would be a criminal act to perform a work without permission? It could be infringing, but that can be covered by a fine. When we suddenly criminalize a performance, that raises all sorts of questionable issues.
Furthermore, as we suspected, in the full text of the bill[4], "performance" is not clearly defined. This is the really troubling part. Everyone keeps insisting that this is targeted towards "streaming" websites, but is streaming a "performance"? If so, how does embedding play into this? Is the site that hosts the content guilty of performing? What about the site that merely linked to and/or embedded the video (linking and embedding are technically effectively the same thing). Without clear definitions, we run into problems pretty quickly.
And it gets worse. Because rather than just (pointlessly) adding "performance" to the list, the bill tries to also define what constitutes a potential felony crime in these circumstances:
the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works
So yeah. If you embed a YouTube video that turns out to be infringing, and more than 10 people view it because of your link... you could be facing five years in jail. This is, of course, ridiculous, and suggests (yet again) politicians who are regulating a technology they simply do not understand. Should it really be a criminal act to embed a YouTube video, even if you don't know it was infringing...? This could create a massive chilling effect to the very useful service YouTube provides in letting people embed videos.
178 Comments[5] | Leave a Comment..[6]
References
^ noted (www.techdirt.com)
^ section 506a (www.copyright.gov)
^ a list (www.copyright.gov)
^ full text of the bill (www.govtrack.us)
^ 178 Comments (www.techdirt.com)
^ Leave a Comment.. (www.techdirt.com)
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Global Taxes?
Umm....what about national sovereignty? Read the original here.
Obama Administration Throws Support Behind World Tax Organization
I’ve been battling the Organization for Economic Cooperation for years[1], ever since the Paris-based bureaucracy unveiled its “harmful tax competition” project in the late 1990s. Controlled by Europe’s high-tax welfare states, the OECD wants to prop up the fiscal systems of nations such as Greece and France by hindering the flow of jobs and capital to low-tax jurisdictions.
Guided by a radical theory know as Capital Export Neutrality[2], the OECD wants to impose global tax rules that would prevent taxpayers from ever having the ability to benefit from better tax law in other jurisdictions. This is why, for instance, the international bureaucrats are anxious to undermine national tax laws – such asAmerica’s favorable treatment of bank deposits from overseas[3] – that enable people to escape onerous tax regimes.
Bolstered by support from the Obama Administration, the OECD now is taking its campaign to the next level. At its Global Tax Forum in Bermuda, which ends later today, the bureaucrats unveiled a new scheme that effectively would result in the creation of something akin to a World Tax Organization.
The vehicle for this effort is a Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. This may sound dry and technical, but the OECD wants all nations to participate in this pact, which has existed for a couple of decades but was radically expanded last year to give high-tax governments sweeping new powers to impose bad tax law on income generated in low-tax jurisdictions.
But the real smoking gun is that the OECD has put itself in charge of the “co-ordinating body” that will have enormous powers to interpret the agreement, modify the pact, and resolve disputes – thus giving itself the ability to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
This is a profoundly dangerous development with all sorts of very troubling implications. Since I’m in Bermuda trying to destabilize this effort, I don’t have time for extensive analysis, but here’s a press release from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity[4] and here are some of my immediate concerns.1. Higher tax burdens. If high-tax governments succeed is imposing this Multilateral Convention (insert “World Tax Organization” whenever you see that term), tax competition will be undermined and politicians will respond by increasing tax burdens[5]. This is why nations such as France have been pushing this scheme, of course, and why left-wing academics have long dreamed of this type of arrangement.2. Risk to human rights. Amazingly, the Multilateral Convention is open to repressive regimes, which then would have access to all sorts of sensitive and confidential taxpayer information. Already, the thuggish dictatorship of Azerbaijan has signed up, as well as the unstable nation of Moldova and the corrupt government of Mexico. The implications are grim[6], including the sale of private data to criminal gangs, the loss of sensitive information to hackers, and the direct misuse of American tax returns.3. Loss of sovereignty. For all intents and purposes, the Multilateral Conventionoutlaws certain pro-growth tax policies and discourages others[7]. Equally worrisome, it creates a system allowing foreign tax collectors to cross borders. The Obama Administration has specifically acquiesced to this provision, so perhaps we will soon see corrupt Mexican tax authorities harassing businesses and individuals on American soil.4. Outlawing tax avoidance. The OECD historically has tried to portray its efforts as a fight against tax evasion, but the Multilateral Convention explicitly talks about “combating tax avoidance.” This should not be a surprise since the Capital Export Neutrality ideology is based on the notion that taxpayers should have zero ability to lower their tax burdens[8]. This means we can fully expect an assault on all forms of tax planning, with American companies almost sure to be among the first to be in the OECD’s crosshairs.
The final insult to injury is that American taxpayers are the biggest funders of the OECD, providing nearly one-fourth of the bureaucracy’s bloated budget. So our tax dollars are being used by OECD bureaucrats (who receive tax-free salaries[9]!) to dream up new ways of increasing our tax burdens. In case you need any additional reasons to despise this bureaucracy, here’s a video detailing its anti-free market activities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVr8R41nZJU
And since I’m recycling some videos, here’s one explaining why tax competition is so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJWLemN29Wc
References
^ battling the Organization for Economic Cooperation for years(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ radical theory know as Capital Export Neutrality (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ America’s favorable treatment of bank deposits from overseas(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ press release from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity (freedomandprosperity.org)
^ politicians will respond by increasing tax burdens (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ implications are grim (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ outlaws certain pro-growth tax policies and discourages others(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ notion that taxpayers should have zero ability to lower their tax burdens(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ receive tax-free salaries (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
I’ve been battling the Organization for Economic Cooperation for years[1], ever since the Paris-based bureaucracy unveiled its “harmful tax competition” project in the late 1990s. Controlled by Europe’s high-tax welfare states, the OECD wants to prop up the fiscal systems of nations such as Greece and France by hindering the flow of jobs and capital to low-tax jurisdictions.
Guided by a radical theory know as Capital Export Neutrality[2], the OECD wants to impose global tax rules that would prevent taxpayers from ever having the ability to benefit from better tax law in other jurisdictions. This is why, for instance, the international bureaucrats are anxious to undermine national tax laws – such asAmerica’s favorable treatment of bank deposits from overseas[3] – that enable people to escape onerous tax regimes.
Bolstered by support from the Obama Administration, the OECD now is taking its campaign to the next level. At its Global Tax Forum in Bermuda, which ends later today, the bureaucrats unveiled a new scheme that effectively would result in the creation of something akin to a World Tax Organization.
The vehicle for this effort is a Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. This may sound dry and technical, but the OECD wants all nations to participate in this pact, which has existed for a couple of decades but was radically expanded last year to give high-tax governments sweeping new powers to impose bad tax law on income generated in low-tax jurisdictions.
But the real smoking gun is that the OECD has put itself in charge of the “co-ordinating body” that will have enormous powers to interpret the agreement, modify the pact, and resolve disputes – thus giving itself the ability to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
This is a profoundly dangerous development with all sorts of very troubling implications. Since I’m in Bermuda trying to destabilize this effort, I don’t have time for extensive analysis, but here’s a press release from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity[4] and here are some of my immediate concerns.1. Higher tax burdens. If high-tax governments succeed is imposing this Multilateral Convention (insert “World Tax Organization” whenever you see that term), tax competition will be undermined and politicians will respond by increasing tax burdens[5]. This is why nations such as France have been pushing this scheme, of course, and why left-wing academics have long dreamed of this type of arrangement.2. Risk to human rights. Amazingly, the Multilateral Convention is open to repressive regimes, which then would have access to all sorts of sensitive and confidential taxpayer information. Already, the thuggish dictatorship of Azerbaijan has signed up, as well as the unstable nation of Moldova and the corrupt government of Mexico. The implications are grim[6], including the sale of private data to criminal gangs, the loss of sensitive information to hackers, and the direct misuse of American tax returns.3. Loss of sovereignty. For all intents and purposes, the Multilateral Conventionoutlaws certain pro-growth tax policies and discourages others[7]. Equally worrisome, it creates a system allowing foreign tax collectors to cross borders. The Obama Administration has specifically acquiesced to this provision, so perhaps we will soon see corrupt Mexican tax authorities harassing businesses and individuals on American soil.4. Outlawing tax avoidance. The OECD historically has tried to portray its efforts as a fight against tax evasion, but the Multilateral Convention explicitly talks about “combating tax avoidance.” This should not be a surprise since the Capital Export Neutrality ideology is based on the notion that taxpayers should have zero ability to lower their tax burdens[8]. This means we can fully expect an assault on all forms of tax planning, with American companies almost sure to be among the first to be in the OECD’s crosshairs.
The final insult to injury is that American taxpayers are the biggest funders of the OECD, providing nearly one-fourth of the bureaucracy’s bloated budget. So our tax dollars are being used by OECD bureaucrats (who receive tax-free salaries[9]!) to dream up new ways of increasing our tax burdens. In case you need any additional reasons to despise this bureaucracy, here’s a video detailing its anti-free market activities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVr8R41nZJU
And since I’m recycling some videos, here’s one explaining why tax competition is so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJWLemN29Wc
References
^ battling the Organization for Economic Cooperation for years(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ radical theory know as Capital Export Neutrality (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ America’s favorable treatment of bank deposits from overseas(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ press release from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity (freedomandprosperity.org)
^ politicians will respond by increasing tax burdens (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ implications are grim (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ outlaws certain pro-growth tax policies and discourages others(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ notion that taxpayers should have zero ability to lower their tax burdens(danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
^ receive tax-free salaries (danieljmitchell.wordpress.com)
UK boys not allowed to play pretend soldiers
What do you think? Overreaching political correctness or effective anti-threatening measures. I wonder what they would have said about me, when I was making swords and nunchaku as a kid. Read the original here.
Boys, 7, Told Army Game ‘Threatens’
The lads were spotted making gun shapes with their hands.
Staff also told the pupils' parents to reprimand them. The dad of one of the boys said: "This is ridiculous. How can you tell a seven-year-old boy he can't play guns and armies with his friends.
"We were told to tell our son he cannot play 'guns' anymore.
"The teacher said the boys should be reprimanded for threatening behaviour, which would not be tolerated at the school." The boys attend Nathaniel Newton Infants in Nuneaton, Warwicks.
Local Tory MP Marcus Jones said: "It is quite apparent the boys would be playing an innocent game.
"This is political correctness gone mad. When I was that age that type of game was commonplace and I don't remember anyone coming to any harm from it." The school defended its actions. It said the boys indulged in "unacceptable behaviour" by making gun gestures to members of staff.
A spokesman said: "Far from stopping children from playing we actively encourage it.
"However a judgment call has to be made if playing turns into unacceptable behaviour."
References
^ j.coles@the-sun.co.uk (www.thesun.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3609208/Boys-7-told-army-game-threatens.html#ixzz1O92HxUSt
Boys, 7, Told Army Game ‘Threatens’
The lads were spotted making gun shapes with their hands.
Staff also told the pupils' parents to reprimand them. The dad of one of the boys said: "This is ridiculous. How can you tell a seven-year-old boy he can't play guns and armies with his friends.
"We were told to tell our son he cannot play 'guns' anymore.
"The teacher said the boys should be reprimanded for threatening behaviour, which would not be tolerated at the school." The boys attend Nathaniel Newton Infants in Nuneaton, Warwicks.
Local Tory MP Marcus Jones said: "It is quite apparent the boys would be playing an innocent game.
"This is political correctness gone mad. When I was that age that type of game was commonplace and I don't remember anyone coming to any harm from it." The school defended its actions. It said the boys indulged in "unacceptable behaviour" by making gun gestures to members of staff.
A spokesman said: "Far from stopping children from playing we actively encourage it.
"However a judgment call has to be made if playing turns into unacceptable behaviour."
References
^ j.coles@the-sun.co.uk (www.thesun.co.uk)
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3609208/Boys-7-told-army-game-threatens.html#ixzz1O92HxUSt
"I'm not from around here" as a criminal defense?
What the hell? Culture shock as a criminal defense? Any bets as to when the defense "She was asking for it" is openly submitted in court? Way to go Australia, this moved you more than a few notches down on my list of sweet countries. Can the prosecution enter an argument of "he's a misogynistic douchebag"? And should he have gotten the book thrown at him for the, I don't know how the Aussies may label a sexual assault on a 13 year old, but I call it child molestation....Read the original here.
Here's the news broadcast from Australia:
Here's the news broadcast from Australia:
Muslim Man Gets Sexual Assault Sentence Reduced Because Of 'Culture Shock'
posted by American Thinker
The old argument that "she was asking for it" has resurfaced in multicultural guise. Where are all the feminists? This shocking report from Melbourne, Australia tells the tale of a Libyan student recently arrived in Australia as a scholarship student, who sexually attacked 6 women, and a 13 year old girl a month after arriving in Australia.
The judge found that his sentence should be reduced because he was unable to cope with the way Australian women dress. Obviously, the implication is that Australian women should don abayas and burkas, if they want to avoid being attacked, because Muslim men just can't control themselves.
Creeping dhimmitude, indeed.
posted by American Thinker
The old argument that "she was asking for it" has resurfaced in multicultural guise. Where are all the feminists? This shocking report from Melbourne, Australia tells the tale of a Libyan student recently arrived in Australia as a scholarship student, who sexually attacked 6 women, and a 13 year old girl a month after arriving in Australia.
The judge found that his sentence should be reduced because he was unable to cope with the way Australian women dress. Obviously, the implication is that Australian women should don abayas and burkas, if they want to avoid being attacked, because Muslim men just can't control themselves.
Creeping dhimmitude, indeed.
Tax Dollars pay Unions?
Apparently, you can collect public employee salary for doing union work...Read the original here.
Union Price Tag Grows At A Cost To U.S. Taxpayer
Union behavior and their bargaining power has been of intense interest in many states. As the country continues to work its way out of a recession and the unemployment level is still hovering at a high 9 percent, the additional costs of unions are again being scrutinized in Washington.
Unlike state government worker unions, federal employees of unionized agencies are not required to join the union or pay mandatory dues. Wisconsin lawmakers sought to abridge that power, sending the nation into a frenzy.
Of specific interest on Capitol Hill[1] Wednesday was something known as official time. Official time is a federal term for the hours spent by union officials employed by the government conducting union business. The officials are paid their normal government salaries for this work on behalf of the unions.
Official time is seen by supporters as compensation for the fact that unions are required to handle labor issues related to all employees, not just union members. When union officials negotiate with federal managers over work rules, like appropriate attire and other human resource requirements, those functions are carried out under official time.
Rep. Dennis Ross[2], R-Fla., chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service[3], and Labor Policy, called it "charity" to federal employee unions.
“This came at a cost of $129 million to American taxpayers,” he says, citing a 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
That’s about three million hours of official time.
The provision was included in a law passed by Congress in 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter[4]. The law stipulated time on the clock could be used as long as that time is negotiated with management and is agreed "to be reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest."
But conservatives in Congress say it isn’t reasonable anymore and have railed against what they claim are inordinately high government pay rates that are being used as a negotiating tactic by unions.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn[5] of Oklahoma this week highlighted a report from the Congressional Research Service, first reported by the Washington Times, which found 77,000 federal employees earn a higher salary than their respective governors. A union representing federal employees said the bigger problem is payments to contractors, not government workers.
Rep. Stephen Lynch[6], D-Mass., thinks Republicans are targeting unions and argues official time is fair. “This is absurd. Give me a break. “
Union leaders say official time makes the government run more efficiently, and ultimately saves money.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said at the House hearing Wednesday, “If workers and managements are really communicating, work place problems that would otherwise escalate into costly litigation can be dealt with promptly and more informally.”
For now, Republicans aren’t buying that argument. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., has proposed a bill called the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2011, which would repeal parts of the 1978 law, and limit how and when federal employees could use official time.
References
^ Capitol Hill (www.foxnews.com)
^ Dennis Ross (www.foxnews.com)
^ Postal Service (www.foxnews.com)
^ Jimmy Carter (www.foxnews.com)
^ Tom Coburn (www.foxnews.com)
^ Stephen Lynch (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/01/union-price-tag-grows-cost-taxpayer/#ixzz1O81NRH3s
Union Price Tag Grows At A Cost To U.S. Taxpayer
Union behavior and their bargaining power has been of intense interest in many states. As the country continues to work its way out of a recession and the unemployment level is still hovering at a high 9 percent, the additional costs of unions are again being scrutinized in Washington.
Unlike state government worker unions, federal employees of unionized agencies are not required to join the union or pay mandatory dues. Wisconsin lawmakers sought to abridge that power, sending the nation into a frenzy.
Of specific interest on Capitol Hill[1] Wednesday was something known as official time. Official time is a federal term for the hours spent by union officials employed by the government conducting union business. The officials are paid their normal government salaries for this work on behalf of the unions.
Official time is seen by supporters as compensation for the fact that unions are required to handle labor issues related to all employees, not just union members. When union officials negotiate with federal managers over work rules, like appropriate attire and other human resource requirements, those functions are carried out under official time.
Rep. Dennis Ross[2], R-Fla., chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service[3], and Labor Policy, called it "charity" to federal employee unions.
“This came at a cost of $129 million to American taxpayers,” he says, citing a 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
That’s about three million hours of official time.
The provision was included in a law passed by Congress in 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter[4]. The law stipulated time on the clock could be used as long as that time is negotiated with management and is agreed "to be reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest."
But conservatives in Congress say it isn’t reasonable anymore and have railed against what they claim are inordinately high government pay rates that are being used as a negotiating tactic by unions.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn[5] of Oklahoma this week highlighted a report from the Congressional Research Service, first reported by the Washington Times, which found 77,000 federal employees earn a higher salary than their respective governors. A union representing federal employees said the bigger problem is payments to contractors, not government workers.
Rep. Stephen Lynch[6], D-Mass., thinks Republicans are targeting unions and argues official time is fair. “This is absurd. Give me a break. “
Union leaders say official time makes the government run more efficiently, and ultimately saves money.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said at the House hearing Wednesday, “If workers and managements are really communicating, work place problems that would otherwise escalate into costly litigation can be dealt with promptly and more informally.”
For now, Republicans aren’t buying that argument. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., has proposed a bill called the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2011, which would repeal parts of the 1978 law, and limit how and when federal employees could use official time.
References
^ Capitol Hill (www.foxnews.com)
^ Dennis Ross (www.foxnews.com)
^ Postal Service (www.foxnews.com)
^ Jimmy Carter (www.foxnews.com)
^ Tom Coburn (www.foxnews.com)
^ Stephen Lynch (www.foxnews.com)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/01/union-price-tag-grows-cost-taxpayer/#ixzz1O81NRH3s
It's amazing what people say on camera
I suppose either they don't care that their opinion is heard or they think everyone agrees with them. But of course, liberals say the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy rules Hollywood....Read the original here.
TV Executives Admit In Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes A Liberal Agenda (Exclusive Video)
Some of TV’s top executives from the past four decades may have gotten more than they bargained for when they agreed to be interviewed for a politically charged book that was released Tuesday, because video of their controversial remarks will soon be hitting the Internet.
The book makes the case that TV industry executives, writers and producers use their clout to advance a liberal political agenda. The author bases his thesis on, among other things, 39 taped interviews that he’ll roll out piecemeal during the next three weeks.
The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips, embedded below. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, “Primetime Propaganda” by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.
In one video, Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman says that when she cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding, “There was a bit of ‘fuck you’ in it to the right wing.”
Kauffman also acknowledges she “put together a staff of mostly liberal people,” which is another major point of Shapiro’s book: that conservatives aren’t welcome in Hollywood.
Maybe that’s because they’re “idiots” and have “medieval minds.” At least that’s what Soap and Golden Girls creator Susan Harris thinks of TV’s conservative critics.
However, the ranks of dumb right-wingers has dwindled, according to Harris, whose video has her saying: “At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting – have gotten – a little bit smarter.”
Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart andGene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in M*A*S*H or when MacGyver producer Vin Di Bonasays anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.
But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created America’s Funniest Home Videos, becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: “I think it’s probably accurate, and I’m happy about it.”
Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.”
Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says.
When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney’s acquisition of ESPN, that “It’s very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in” to television, he responds: “I can’t argue that point.” Those who don’t lean left, he says, “don’t promote it. It stays underground.”
Another video rolling out soon has House creator David Shore acknowledging that "there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right side, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I'm sure it doesn't help them."
In the book, subtitled "The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV," Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in The A-Team and Barclay in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for St. Elsewhere, a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: "There's not going to be a Reagan asshole on this show!" The part went to Howie Mandel.
"Most nepotism in Hollywood isn't familial, it's ideological," Shapiro writes in the book. "Friends hire friends. And those friends just happen to share their politics."
Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. "Well, I hope so," he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for The Day After, a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.
"My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election," Meyer says.
Even seemingly harmless shows like Happy Days and Sesame Street have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro.
For example, William Bickley, a writer on The Partridge Family and a producer on Happy Days, says he infused Vietnam War protest messages into the latter. “I was into all that kind of masturbation,” he says in a soon-to-be-released video.
"Television has been perhaps the most impressive weapon in the left's political arsenal," Shapiro argues in the book.
Other upcoming videos include: Family Ties creator Gary David Goldberg explaining how he tried to make Republican character Alex Keaton the bad guy but that actor Michael J. Fox was too darn lovable; and president of MTV Networks Entertainment Group Doug Herzog talking about his network having “superpowers” when it comes to its influence over young people.
The advancement of a gay and lesbian political agenda is mentioned by multiple executives, including Marcy Carsey, a producer of Soap and Roseanne, and Desperate Housewives producer Marc Cherry,who is a rarity in Hollywood: a gay Republican.
In her video, Carsey also says she insisted on portraying characters smoking marijuana in That ‘70s Show. “If this is a problem for you, we certainly understand, and we just won’t do the show,” she told executives at Fox.
Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals, and the other has Fred Silverman, the former head of ABC and later NBC, saying “there’s only one perspective, and it’s a very progressive perspective” in TV comedy today. (Those videos are also posted below).
Shapiro said the executives felt comfortable talking about politics with him because they assumed, incorrectly, that he is on the left.
“Most of them didn’t Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically,” he said. “I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there’s a 98.7 percent chance I’m a liberal. Except I happen not to be.”
Shapiro said he’ll time the debut of certain videos for maximum effect. One that slams Sean Hannity, for example, is reserved for his scheduled appearance on Hannity’s show on the Fox News Channel.
And conservative pundit Ann Coulter has a new book out June 7. “I have two people ripping her by name, so I’ll release those the day Ann’s book is released,” Shapiro said.
One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. “The fact we pissed the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously,” he says before calling Coulter “the c-word.”
In his video, Schlatter also goes off on right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.
Shapiro says he didn’t disclose that he’d be releasing the tapes, but that his subjects have no reason to complain.
“I asked them for permission to tape, and there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re being interviewed for a book,” he said.
“If they’re going to be shocked at something, it should be themselves, not me,” Shapiro said. “They should be shocked that opinion is so one-sided in Hollywood that it’s OK to say, ‘I’m fine with discrimination.’”
“My whole book is a plea for openness in the industry,” he added. “Hire people from the other side of the aisle once in a while, or at least stop mocking them.”
TV Executives Admit In Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes A Liberal Agenda (Exclusive Video)
Some of TV’s top executives from the past four decades may have gotten more than they bargained for when they agreed to be interviewed for a politically charged book that was released Tuesday, because video of their controversial remarks will soon be hitting the Internet.
The book makes the case that TV industry executives, writers and producers use their clout to advance a liberal political agenda. The author bases his thesis on, among other things, 39 taped interviews that he’ll roll out piecemeal during the next three weeks.
The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips, embedded below. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, “Primetime Propaganda” by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.
In one video, Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman says that when she cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding, “There was a bit of ‘fuck you’ in it to the right wing.”
Kauffman also acknowledges she “put together a staff of mostly liberal people,” which is another major point of Shapiro’s book: that conservatives aren’t welcome in Hollywood.
Maybe that’s because they’re “idiots” and have “medieval minds.” At least that’s what Soap and Golden Girls creator Susan Harris thinks of TV’s conservative critics.
However, the ranks of dumb right-wingers has dwindled, according to Harris, whose video has her saying: “At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting – have gotten – a little bit smarter.”
Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart andGene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in M*A*S*H or when MacGyver producer Vin Di Bonasays anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.
But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created America’s Funniest Home Videos, becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: “I think it’s probably accurate, and I’m happy about it.”
Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.”
Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says.
When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney’s acquisition of ESPN, that “It’s very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in” to television, he responds: “I can’t argue that point.” Those who don’t lean left, he says, “don’t promote it. It stays underground.”
Another video rolling out soon has House creator David Shore acknowledging that "there is an assumption in this town that everybody is on the left side of the spectrum, and that the few people on the right side, I think people look at them somewhat aghast, and I'm sure it doesn't help them."
In the book, subtitled "The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV," Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in The A-Team and Barclay in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for St. Elsewhere, a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: "There's not going to be a Reagan asshole on this show!" The part went to Howie Mandel.
"Most nepotism in Hollywood isn't familial, it's ideological," Shapiro writes in the book. "Friends hire friends. And those friends just happen to share their politics."
Another video Shapiro will release shortly has producer-director Nicholas Meyer being asked point-blank whether conservatives are discriminated against in Hollywood. "Well, I hope so," he answers. Meyer also admits his political agenda for The Day After, a TV movie he directed for ABC that was seen by 100 million people when it aired in 1983.
"My private, grandiose notion was that this movie would unseat Ronald Reagan when he ran for re-election," Meyer says.
Even seemingly harmless shows like Happy Days and Sesame Street have been used to advance a progressive agenda, according to Shapiro.
For example, William Bickley, a writer on The Partridge Family and a producer on Happy Days, says he infused Vietnam War protest messages into the latter. “I was into all that kind of masturbation,” he says in a soon-to-be-released video.
"Television has been perhaps the most impressive weapon in the left's political arsenal," Shapiro argues in the book.
Other upcoming videos include: Family Ties creator Gary David Goldberg explaining how he tried to make Republican character Alex Keaton the bad guy but that actor Michael J. Fox was too darn lovable; and president of MTV Networks Entertainment Group Doug Herzog talking about his network having “superpowers” when it comes to its influence over young people.
The advancement of a gay and lesbian political agenda is mentioned by multiple executives, including Marcy Carsey, a producer of Soap and Roseanne, and Desperate Housewives producer Marc Cherry,who is a rarity in Hollywood: a gay Republican.
In her video, Carsey also says she insisted on portraying characters smoking marijuana in That ‘70s Show. “If this is a problem for you, we certainly understand, and we just won’t do the show,” she told executives at Fox.
Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals, and the other has Fred Silverman, the former head of ABC and later NBC, saying “there’s only one perspective, and it’s a very progressive perspective” in TV comedy today. (Those videos are also posted below).
Shapiro said the executives felt comfortable talking about politics with him because they assumed, incorrectly, that he is on the left.
“Most of them didn’t Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically,” he said. “I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there’s a 98.7 percent chance I’m a liberal. Except I happen not to be.”
Shapiro said he’ll time the debut of certain videos for maximum effect. One that slams Sean Hannity, for example, is reserved for his scheduled appearance on Hannity’s show on the Fox News Channel.
And conservative pundit Ann Coulter has a new book out June 7. “I have two people ripping her by name, so I’ll release those the day Ann’s book is released,” Shapiro said.
One of those slamming Coulter is George Schlatter, who directed and produced Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In in the 1970s, using the show to knock Republicans and the Vietnam War. “The fact we pissed the Pentagon off, that pleased me enormously,” he says before calling Coulter “the c-word.”
In his video, Schlatter also goes off on right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.
Shapiro says he didn’t disclose that he’d be releasing the tapes, but that his subjects have no reason to complain.
“I asked them for permission to tape, and there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy when you’re being interviewed for a book,” he said.
“If they’re going to be shocked at something, it should be themselves, not me,” Shapiro said. “They should be shocked that opinion is so one-sided in Hollywood that it’s OK to say, ‘I’m fine with discrimination.’”
“My whole book is a plea for openness in the industry,” he added. “Hire people from the other side of the aisle once in a while, or at least stop mocking them.”
Why has nothing been done about Syria?
Russia's throwing their weight around, I wonder if anyone is strong enough to stand up to them. If only we had the application of "Smart Power" and someone to "reset" the relationship and "restore America's standing" in the world. Read the original here.
Russia Warns NATO Not To Aid Syrian Protesters
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the U.S. and European nations not to encourage anti-government protesters in Syria[1] by holding out the prospect of military support like they provided in Libya.
“It is not in the interests of anyone to send messages to the opposition in Syria or elsewhere that if you reject all reasonable offers we will come and help you as we did in Libya,” Lavrov, 61, said yesterday during an interview in Moscow. “It’s a very dangerous position.”
Rallies against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule have swept Syria, inspired by the uprisings that ousted authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Tunisia[2]. Syrian security forces have killed more than 1,100 people and detained at least 10,000, according to human-rights groups. The government blames the protests on Islamic militants and foreign provocateurs.
Russia[3] abstained from the March 18 vote by the United Nations Security Council[4] that authorized the use of force to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi[5]’s forces, saying the resolution might lead to a “large-scale military intervention.” Operations led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have stretched far beyond the stated goal of enforcing a no-fly zone, Lavrov said.
The U.K., France, Germany[6] and Portugal[7] asked the Security Council on May 25 to demand that Syria end attacks on peaceful protesters and address their grievances. The European Union last week imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on the “highest level of leadership,” a week after the U.S. froze the assets of Assad and six top officials.
UN Involvement Opposed
Russia opposes Security Council[8] involvement in Syria, Lavrov said.
“First of all, the situation doesn’t present a threat to international peace and security,” he said. “Second, Syria is a very important country in the Middle East[9] and destabilizing Syria would have repercussions far beyond its borders.”
While Russia is opposed to international intervention, it supports the need for change in Syria and has encouraged Assad to implement promised reforms, Lavrov said.
Assad on April 21 ordered the lifting of a 48-year-old state of emergency, abolished the Supreme State Security Court and issued a decree allowing peaceful protests. This week he offered a “general amnesty” covering political detainees.
“We are gratified that our appeals have been heard,” Lavrov said. “Recently he published a draft of a new constitution, he declared an amnesty for political prisoners, and I think this should calm the situation.”
Protests continued after the amnesty decree, issued late on May 31, as opposition leaders said it was a ploy to gain time.
UN Resolutions
Lavrov called for the Libyan resolution to be a unique one and said Russia will demand that any future UN mandates be more specific.
“If somebody would like to get authorization to use force to achieve a shared goal by all of us, they would have to specify in the resolution who this somebody is, who is going to use this authorization, what the rules of engagement are and the limits on the use of force,” Lavrov said.
Russia has stepped up diplomatic efforts to help forge a Libyan settlement that would persuade Qaddafi to step down and end NATO military action, Lavrov said.
At the Group of Eight summit last week in Deauville, France[10], U.S. President Barack Obama[11] and French President Nicolas Sarkozy[12] asked Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev[13] to help negotiate a deal acceptable to coalition forces, the African Union[14] and Libyan rebels, Lavrov said.
‘Acceptable to All’
Medvedev spoke by phone with South African President Jacob Zuma[15] before and after Zuma flew to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, on May 30, Lavrov said. Medvedev also told his special envoy for Libya, Mikhail Margelov, to go to the port city of Benghazi for talks with opposition leaders as soon as possible.
Any solution must “be acceptable to all Libyans,” Lavrov said, echoing comments Zuma made after returning from Tripoli in a trip backed by the African Union.
“I hope that the accumulated effort of all those who want to see an end to the hostilities and the beginning of the construction of a new Libya[16] will bring results,” he said.
The U.S. and its partners, including France and the U.K., launched the first attacks against Qaddafi’s forces on March 19. NATO took command on March 31 and yesterday extended its mission for 90 days in what Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said was “a clear message” that “we are determined to continue our operation to protect the people of Libya.”
The air raids killed 718 civilians and wounded 4,067 from March 19 to May 26, Agence France Presse reported, citing a spokesman for Libya’s government.
Bedouin or Trial
Russia isn’t involved in negotiating “any deals of immunity or guarantees” for Qaddafi, though others are considering a range of options, he said.
“I can tell you without revealing too many secrets that the leaders of countries who can influence the situation are actively discussing the possibilities,” Lavrov said.
Officials at the G-8 summit discussed options for Qaddafi ranging “from a quiet life as a simple Bedouin in the Libyan desert to the fate of Milosevic in the Hague,” Margelov said in an interview yesterday, referring to the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic[17].
To contact the reporters on this story: Henry Meyer in Moscow at hmeyer4@bloomberg.net[18]; Brad Cook in Moscow at bcook7@bloomberg.net[19]; Ilya Arkhipov in Moscow at iarkhipov@bloomberg.net[20]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Balazs Penz at bpenz@bloomberg.net[21]
References
^ Syria (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Tunisia (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Russia (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ United Nations Security Council (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Muammar Qaddafi (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Germany (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Portugal (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Security Council (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Middle East (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ France (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Barack Obama (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Nicolas Sarkozy (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Dmitry Medvedev (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ African Union (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Jacob Zuma (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Libya (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Slobodan Milosevic (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
Russia Warns NATO Not To Aid Syrian Protesters
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the U.S. and European nations not to encourage anti-government protesters in Syria[1] by holding out the prospect of military support like they provided in Libya.
“It is not in the interests of anyone to send messages to the opposition in Syria or elsewhere that if you reject all reasonable offers we will come and help you as we did in Libya,” Lavrov, 61, said yesterday during an interview in Moscow. “It’s a very dangerous position.”
Rallies against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule have swept Syria, inspired by the uprisings that ousted authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Tunisia[2]. Syrian security forces have killed more than 1,100 people and detained at least 10,000, according to human-rights groups. The government blames the protests on Islamic militants and foreign provocateurs.
Russia[3] abstained from the March 18 vote by the United Nations Security Council[4] that authorized the use of force to protect civilians from Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi[5]’s forces, saying the resolution might lead to a “large-scale military intervention.” Operations led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have stretched far beyond the stated goal of enforcing a no-fly zone, Lavrov said.
The U.K., France, Germany[6] and Portugal[7] asked the Security Council on May 25 to demand that Syria end attacks on peaceful protesters and address their grievances. The European Union last week imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on the “highest level of leadership,” a week after the U.S. froze the assets of Assad and six top officials.
UN Involvement Opposed
Russia opposes Security Council[8] involvement in Syria, Lavrov said.
“First of all, the situation doesn’t present a threat to international peace and security,” he said. “Second, Syria is a very important country in the Middle East[9] and destabilizing Syria would have repercussions far beyond its borders.”
While Russia is opposed to international intervention, it supports the need for change in Syria and has encouraged Assad to implement promised reforms, Lavrov said.
Assad on April 21 ordered the lifting of a 48-year-old state of emergency, abolished the Supreme State Security Court and issued a decree allowing peaceful protests. This week he offered a “general amnesty” covering political detainees.
“We are gratified that our appeals have been heard,” Lavrov said. “Recently he published a draft of a new constitution, he declared an amnesty for political prisoners, and I think this should calm the situation.”
Protests continued after the amnesty decree, issued late on May 31, as opposition leaders said it was a ploy to gain time.
UN Resolutions
Lavrov called for the Libyan resolution to be a unique one and said Russia will demand that any future UN mandates be more specific.
“If somebody would like to get authorization to use force to achieve a shared goal by all of us, they would have to specify in the resolution who this somebody is, who is going to use this authorization, what the rules of engagement are and the limits on the use of force,” Lavrov said.
Russia has stepped up diplomatic efforts to help forge a Libyan settlement that would persuade Qaddafi to step down and end NATO military action, Lavrov said.
At the Group of Eight summit last week in Deauville, France[10], U.S. President Barack Obama[11] and French President Nicolas Sarkozy[12] asked Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev[13] to help negotiate a deal acceptable to coalition forces, the African Union[14] and Libyan rebels, Lavrov said.
‘Acceptable to All’
Medvedev spoke by phone with South African President Jacob Zuma[15] before and after Zuma flew to Tripoli, the Libyan capital, on May 30, Lavrov said. Medvedev also told his special envoy for Libya, Mikhail Margelov, to go to the port city of Benghazi for talks with opposition leaders as soon as possible.
Any solution must “be acceptable to all Libyans,” Lavrov said, echoing comments Zuma made after returning from Tripoli in a trip backed by the African Union.
“I hope that the accumulated effort of all those who want to see an end to the hostilities and the beginning of the construction of a new Libya[16] will bring results,” he said.
The U.S. and its partners, including France and the U.K., launched the first attacks against Qaddafi’s forces on March 19. NATO took command on March 31 and yesterday extended its mission for 90 days in what Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said was “a clear message” that “we are determined to continue our operation to protect the people of Libya.”
The air raids killed 718 civilians and wounded 4,067 from March 19 to May 26, Agence France Presse reported, citing a spokesman for Libya’s government.
Bedouin or Trial
Russia isn’t involved in negotiating “any deals of immunity or guarantees” for Qaddafi, though others are considering a range of options, he said.
“I can tell you without revealing too many secrets that the leaders of countries who can influence the situation are actively discussing the possibilities,” Lavrov said.
Officials at the G-8 summit discussed options for Qaddafi ranging “from a quiet life as a simple Bedouin in the Libyan desert to the fate of Milosevic in the Hague,” Margelov said in an interview yesterday, referring to the war crimes trial of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic[17].
To contact the reporters on this story: Henry Meyer in Moscow at hmeyer4@bloomberg.net[18]; Brad Cook in Moscow at bcook7@bloomberg.net[19]; Ilya Arkhipov in Moscow at iarkhipov@bloomberg.net[20]
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Balazs Penz at bpenz@bloomberg.net[21]
References
^ Syria (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Tunisia (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Russia (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ United Nations Security Council (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Muammar Qaddafi (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Germany (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Portugal (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Security Council (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Middle East (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ France (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Barack Obama (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Nicolas Sarkozy (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Dmitry Medvedev (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ African Union (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Jacob Zuma (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Libya (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Slobodan Milosevic (topics.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
^ Send E-mail (www.bloomberg.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
