...children? I'm not one for letting your kids be unhealthy, but if social workers are monitoring you at mealtimes, does that constitute the right of the government to take away your children with no visitation? Read the original here.
Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again
By JANE SIMPSONLast updated at 9:14 AM on 5th September 2011
Four obese children are on the brink of being permanently removed from their family by social workers after their parents failed to bring their weight under control.
In the first case of its kind, their mother and father now face what they call the ‘unbearable’ likelihood of never seeing them again.
Their three daughters, aged 11, seven and one, and five-year-old son, will either be ‘fostered without contact’ or adopted.
Either way, the family’s only hope of being reunited will be if the children attempt to track down their parents when they become adults.
The couple, who have been married for nearly 20 years and are not being named to protect their children’s identities, were given a ‘draconian’ ultimatum three years ago – as reported at the time by The Mail on Sunday.
Warned that the children must slim or be placed in care, the family spent two years living in a council-funded ‘Big Brother’ house in which they were constantly supervised and the food they ate monitored.
But despite subjecting them to intense scrutiny, social workers did not impose rules on what food the children should eat, and there was apparently little or no improvement.
News of the decision to remove them was broken to the couple, from Dundee, on Tuesday. Critics called it a disgraceful breach of human rights and a chilling example of the power of the State to meddle in family life.
In an emotional interview, the 42-year-old mother said: ‘We might not be the perfect parents, but we love our children with all our hearts. To face a future where we will never see them again is unbearable.
‘They picked on us because of our size to start with and they just haven’t let go, despite the fact we’ve done everything to lose weight and meet their demands. We’re going to fight this to the bitter end. It feels like even prisoners have more human rights than we do.’
The couple have not committed any crime and are not accused of deliberate cruelty or abuse. Their solicitor, Joe Myles, said there was ‘nothing sinister lurking in the background’ and accused social workers of failing to act in the family’s best interests.
‘Dundee social services department appear to have locked horns with this couple and won’t let go,’ he said, adding that the monitoring project caused more problems than it solved. ‘The parents were constantly being accused of bad parenting and made to live under a microscope.
'We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; but nothing we’ve done has ever been enough'
The couple have three older children who are all distraught and angry at the ruling.
Speaking through tears, their 15-year-old daughter said: ‘The social workers should hang their heads in shame. A person’s weight is their own business and only we can do anything about it, not them. My parents are good people and they love us all. The four little ones don’t know what is about to happen to them.’
Social workers became aware of the family in early 2008 after one of the sons accused his father of hitting him on the forehead. In truth, he had fallen and hit his head on a radiator – a fact he later admitted. However, the allegation opened the door to the obesity investigation.
While the couple admit experiencing what their lawyer calls ‘low grade’ parenting problems, which would have merited support, they were aghast when the issue of weight was seized on as a major concern.
A council report at the time said: ‘With the exception of [one of the names], the children are all overweight. Advice has been given regarding diet but there has been no improvement. Appointments with the dietician have been missed.’
At that point their then 12-year-old son weighed 16 stone; his 11-year-old sister weighed 12 stone; and his three-year-old sister weighed four stone. It is not known how much the four younger children weigh now.
The couple were ordered to send their children to dance and football lessons and were given a three-month deadline to bring down their weight. When that failed, the children were placed in foster homes but were allowed to visit their parents.
After the couple objected to this arrangement, the council agreed to move them into a two-bedroom flat in a supported unit run by the Dundee Families Project. They insisted on the couple living with only three of their children at a time.
At meal times, a social worker stood in the room taking notes. Doctors raised concerns that the children put on weight whenever they spent time with their parents, a claim they vehemently denied.
The couple and their children also had to adhere to a strict 11pm curfew. This involved ‘clocking’ in and out by filling in a sheet held by an employee who lived on site.
Although the children’s weight was the major concern, other allegations were included in a report. It showed that social workers were worried when the youngest child was found crawling unsupervised. The parents point out they were never far away and the flat had no stairs.
They also found her ‘attempting to put dangerous objects’ in her mouth. The family say this is natural in toddlers and she was never successful.
To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved. We will fight them to the end to get our beloved children back.
Social workers were further worried when she crawled through the contents of an upturned ashtray – an ‘unfortunate one-off incident’, claim the parents. All the concerns were dismissed by the family’s legal team as ‘low grade’ problems.
It is understood the father crumbled under the strain of being so closely monitored in January this year and moved into a council flat elsewhere in the city.
In the next few months, the mother breached the lunch and dinner meal observations, by her own admission, on ‘several’ occasions while taking the children to see their father.
She personally never broke the 11pm curfew but once allowed her seven-year-old daughter to remain at her father’s flat after she fell asleep. She did not want to disturb her and argued the child had ‘two parents, not one’ and was in ‘good hands’.
These breaches led staff to declare the trial a failure and the mother was asked to leave the unit in April this year. She moved in to her husband’s flat but the children were then handed over to foster parents.
Her solicitor said he planned to use independent experts to prove that the children want to live with their parents and have been damaged by the social workers’ intervention. He added: ‘We may ultimately look towards human rights laws.’
The father, aged 56, said: ‘We have tried very hard to do everything that was asked of us. My wife has cooked healthy foods like home-made spaghetti bolognese and mince and potatoes; we’ve cut out snacks and only ever allowed the kids sweets on a Saturday. But nothing we’ve done has ever been enough.
‘The pressure of living in the family unit would have broken anyone. We were being treated like children and cut off from the outside world. To have a social worker stand and watch you eat is intolerable. I want other families to know what can happen once social workers become involved. We will fight them to the end to get our beloved children back.’
It is estimated 26 million British adults will be obese by 2030, with obesity levels running at an all-time high among children. Official statistics show those who are overweight spend 50 per cent more time in hospital, placing extra strain on the NHS.
Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, said: ‘This is a disgrace. These parents have clearly attempted to comply. They have, if you like, played Dundee City Council’s game and yet they are still losing their children.’
Dundee City Council said: ‘The council always acts in the best interests of children, with their welfare and safety in mind.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033486/Your-children-fat-again.html#ixzz1XH2OwQIX
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
More stimulus?
How's this for stimulus, give me $500,000 and I'll start a business with a bunch of jobs....Where is all of this money going? How's it stimulating, when my company is telling me for the last 3 years, "The economy is so bad we're freezing pay"? Read the original here.
Obama Jobs “Plan”: $300 Billion In Spending
Written By : William Teach
Plan has to be put in quotations, of course, because a) we haven’t actually seen it yet, b) we’ll probably never see it, we’ll just hear about it Thursday night and during press conferences and campaign speeches, a c) we all know it will be the same old tired and failed ideas, per MSNBC: Obama to propose $300 billion to jump-start jobs
The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again. Republicans offered Tuesday to compromise with him on jobs — but also assailed his plans in advance of his prime-time speech.
According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president’s proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan was still being finalized and some proposals could still be subject to change.
The White House is also considering a tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed. That could cost about $30 billion. Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction. Advocates of that plan have called for spending of $50 billion, but the White House proposal is expected to be smaller.
None of these ideas worked back when the Democrats passed their $843 billion Stimulus plan. The best it can do is provide some short term jobs. None of these ideas stimulated commerce which led to increased hiring in the private sector. Remember that $7-$13 extra a week you had in your paycheck? Did it get you to buy anything more than an extra meal a week? How about extending jobless benefits? After extension after extension, the unemployment rate is still over 9%. Tax credit to hire the unemployed? Sure, companies that were going to hire anyhow liked it, but, it obviously did not stimulate extra hiring.
Public works? Interestingly, the recession was said to have officially ended in June 2009, but most Stimulus measures kicked in after that. So, we can say that it was the Bush policies that ended the official recession, but the Obama policies made the economy worse.
Politico reports much the same, and also says he wants to offset these “ideas” with tax increases later.
What we can also expect from Obama’s campaign speech to a joint session of Congress will be these brief ideas, along with raising taxes on evil rich people like himself, patent reform, and free trade agreements (has the White House sent them over to Congress yet?). That, and lots of calls for bipartisanship followed by excoriating Republicans.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
Obama Jobs “Plan”: $300 Billion In Spending
Written By : William Teach
Plan has to be put in quotations, of course, because a) we haven’t actually seen it yet, b) we’ll probably never see it, we’ll just hear about it Thursday night and during press conferences and campaign speeches, a c) we all know it will be the same old tired and failed ideas, per MSNBC: Obama to propose $300 billion to jump-start jobs
The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again. Republicans offered Tuesday to compromise with him on jobs — but also assailed his plans in advance of his prime-time speech.
According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president’s proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan was still being finalized and some proposals could still be subject to change.
The White House is also considering a tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed. That could cost about $30 billion. Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction. Advocates of that plan have called for spending of $50 billion, but the White House proposal is expected to be smaller.
None of these ideas worked back when the Democrats passed their $843 billion Stimulus plan. The best it can do is provide some short term jobs. None of these ideas stimulated commerce which led to increased hiring in the private sector. Remember that $7-$13 extra a week you had in your paycheck? Did it get you to buy anything more than an extra meal a week? How about extending jobless benefits? After extension after extension, the unemployment rate is still over 9%. Tax credit to hire the unemployed? Sure, companies that were going to hire anyhow liked it, but, it obviously did not stimulate extra hiring.
Public works? Interestingly, the recession was said to have officially ended in June 2009, but most Stimulus measures kicked in after that. So, we can say that it was the Bush policies that ended the official recession, but the Obama policies made the economy worse.
Politico reports much the same, and also says he wants to offset these “ideas” with tax increases later.
What we can also expect from Obama’s campaign speech to a joint session of Congress will be these brief ideas, along with raising taxes on evil rich people like himself, patent reform, and free trade agreements (has the White House sent them over to Congress yet?). That, and lots of calls for bipartisanship followed by excoriating Republicans.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
Iraq Troop reduction: Politics or Strategy?
Read the original here.
Sources: Obama Administration To Drop Troop Levels In Iraq To 3,000
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.
Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.
"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.
Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.
"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said. Another source said the actual total could be as high as 5,000 when additional support personnel are included.
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that the U.S. has operated responsibly to meet the year-end deadline to remove troops from Iraq, per a 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.
He added that negotiations with the Iraqis will determine the outcome, and while costs are a factor in every decision, the administration makes decisions on what is best for the United States.
The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."
Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said reducing the troop presence to 3,000 "would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."
"The biggest winner of a U.S. decision to move to 3,000 troops in Iraq would the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs would rejoice," he said.
Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.
"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."
On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.
Fox News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/#ixzz1XGohwhwt
Sources: Obama Administration To Drop Troop Levels In Iraq To 3,000
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.
Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.
"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.
Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.
"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said. Another source said the actual total could be as high as 5,000 when additional support personnel are included.
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that the U.S. has operated responsibly to meet the year-end deadline to remove troops from Iraq, per a 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.
He added that negotiations with the Iraqis will determine the outcome, and while costs are a factor in every decision, the administration makes decisions on what is best for the United States.
The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."
Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said reducing the troop presence to 3,000 "would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."
"The biggest winner of a U.S. decision to move to 3,000 troops in Iraq would the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs would rejoice," he said.
Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.
"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."
On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.
Fox News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/#ixzz1XGohwhwt
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Rhetoric or Slander?
Hmm...the age of post-racial politics and civility, huh. And I hardly think that exclaiming "You Lie" to a statement that was in fact admitted later to be false, is the same as saying that a political group want to lynch people. Read the original here.
By JAKE SHERMAN | 8/31/11 7:50 AM EDT
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html#ixzz1Wc1QeRAJ
Andre Carson: Tea Party Wants Blacks 'Hanging On A Tree'
A top lawmaker in the Congressional Black Caucus says tea partiers on Capitol Hill would like to see African Americans hanging from trees and accuses the movement of wishing for a return to the Jim Crow era.
Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC’s chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would “love to see us as second-class citizens” and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree.”Continue Reading
Carson's quote, West's response
Carson also said the tea party is stopping change in Congress, likening it to “the effort that we’re seeing of Jim Crow.”
The explosive comments, caught on tape, were uploaded on the internet Tuesday, and Carson’s office stood by the remarks. Jason Tomcsi, Carson’s spokesman, said the comment was “in response to frustration voiced by many in Miami and in his home district in Indianapolis regarding Congress’ inability to bolster the economy.” Tomcsi, in an email, wrote that “the congressman used strong language because the Tea Party agenda jeopardizes our most vulnerable and leaves them without the ability to improve their economic standing.
“The Tea Party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities,” Tomcsi wrote. “We are talking about child nutrition, job creation, job training, housing assistance, and Head Start, and that is just the beginning. A child without basic nutrition, secure housing, and quality education has no real chance at a meaningful and productive life.”
Carson is hardly the first lawmaker to use heated rhetoric. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) yelled “you lie” as President Barack Obama was addressing Congress. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) yelled “baby killer” at former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) as abortion was being discussed during the health care debate.
Carson, who represents Indianapolis, is the second Muslim to ever serve in Congress. He has been in office since 2008, and took the seat that was held by his late grandmother — Rep. Julia Carson (D-Ind.).
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html#ixzz1Wc1aRlES
By JAKE SHERMAN | 8/31/11 7:50 AM EDT
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html#ixzz1Wc1QeRAJ
Andre Carson: Tea Party Wants Blacks 'Hanging On A Tree'
A top lawmaker in the Congressional Black Caucus says tea partiers on Capitol Hill would like to see African Americans hanging from trees and accuses the movement of wishing for a return to the Jim Crow era.
Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC’s chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would “love to see us as second-class citizens” and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree.”Continue Reading
Carson's quote, West's response
Carson also said the tea party is stopping change in Congress, likening it to “the effort that we’re seeing of Jim Crow.”
The explosive comments, caught on tape, were uploaded on the internet Tuesday, and Carson’s office stood by the remarks. Jason Tomcsi, Carson’s spokesman, said the comment was “in response to frustration voiced by many in Miami and in his home district in Indianapolis regarding Congress’ inability to bolster the economy.” Tomcsi, in an email, wrote that “the congressman used strong language because the Tea Party agenda jeopardizes our most vulnerable and leaves them without the ability to improve their economic standing.
“The Tea Party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities,” Tomcsi wrote. “We are talking about child nutrition, job creation, job training, housing assistance, and Head Start, and that is just the beginning. A child without basic nutrition, secure housing, and quality education has no real chance at a meaningful and productive life.”
Carson is hardly the first lawmaker to use heated rhetoric. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) yelled “you lie” as President Barack Obama was addressing Congress. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) yelled “baby killer” at former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) as abortion was being discussed during the health care debate.
Carson, who represents Indianapolis, is the second Muslim to ever serve in Congress. He has been in office since 2008, and took the seat that was held by his late grandmother — Rep. Julia Carson (D-Ind.).
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html#ixzz1Wc1aRlES
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Immigration Reform?
Well, I suppose deciding to enforce laws the way you want is a kind of reform. Read the original here.
Obama to deport illegals by 'priority'
Washington Times:
Bowing to pressure from immigrant rights activists, the Obama administration said Thursday that it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as attending school, having family in the military or having primary responsible for other family members’ care.
The move marks a major step for President Obama, who for months has said he does not have broad categorical authority to halt deportations and said he must follow the laws as Congress has written them.
But in letters to Congress on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she does have discretion to focus on “priorities” and that her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases to see who meets the new criteria.
“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”
The move won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had strenuously argued with the administration that it did have authority to take these actions, and said as long asCongress is deadlocked on the issue, it was up to Mr. Obama to act.
“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, who has taken a leadership role on the issue since the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 2009.
The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge.
Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in instances where someone already has been ordered deported.
Administration officials made the announcement just before Mr. Obama left for a long vacation out of Washington, and as members of Congress are back in their home districts.
The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”
“The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”
Immigration legislation has been stalled in Congress for years as the two parties have sparred over what to include.
Republicans generally favor stricter enforcement and a temporary program that would allow workers in the country for some time, but eventually return to their home countries. Democrats want the legislation to include legalization of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country, and want the future guest-worker program to also include a path to citizenship so those workers can stay permanently.
Since 2007, when the issue stalled in the Senate, more than 1 million illegal immigrants have been deported.
Democrats said those deportations are breaking up families and that it’s an unfair punishment for a broken system.
Obama to deport illegals by 'priority'
Washington Times:
Bowing to pressure from immigrant rights activists, the Obama administration said Thursday that it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as attending school, having family in the military or having primary responsible for other family members’ care.
The move marks a major step for President Obama, who for months has said he does not have broad categorical authority to halt deportations and said he must follow the laws as Congress has written them.
But in letters to Congress on Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she does have discretion to focus on “priorities” and that her department and the Justice Department will review all ongoing cases to see who meets the new criteria.
“This case-by-case approach will enhance public safety,” she said. “Immigration judges will be able to more swiftly adjudicate high-priority cases, such as those involving convicted felons.”
The move won immediate praise from Hispanic activists and Democrats who had strenuously argued with the administration that it did have authority to take these actions, and said as long asCongress is deadlocked on the issue, it was up to Mr. Obama to act.
“Today’s announcement shows that this president is willing to put muscle behind his words and to use his power to intervene when the lives of good people are being ruined by bad laws,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, who has taken a leadership role on the issue since the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in 2009.
The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge.
Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in instances where someone already has been ordered deported.
Administration officials made the announcement just before Mr. Obama left for a long vacation out of Washington, and as members of Congress are back in their home districts.
The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”
“The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”
Immigration legislation has been stalled in Congress for years as the two parties have sparred over what to include.
Republicans generally favor stricter enforcement and a temporary program that would allow workers in the country for some time, but eventually return to their home countries. Democrats want the legislation to include legalization of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country, and want the future guest-worker program to also include a path to citizenship so those workers can stay permanently.
Since 2007, when the issue stalled in the Senate, more than 1 million illegal immigrants have been deported.
Democrats said those deportations are breaking up families and that it’s an unfair punishment for a broken system.
Hispanic voters are a key voter bloc as Mr. Obama seeks re-election next year, but many of them felt he broke his promise to them to work on legislation once he took office. Thursday’s move already was paying dividends as Hispanic advocacy groups praised the steps.
“After more than two years of struggle, demonstrations, direct actions and other activities, the administration has signaled that they are capable of delivering direct relief for immigrant families,” said Casa de Maryland, a pro-immigrant group. “We eagerly await confirmation from community members that their families can now expect to remain together.”
Two years ago, some staffers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had prepared a draft memo arguing that the administration retained broad powers that could serve “as a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ “
But agency leaders and others in the administration had argued that the memo was inaccurate.
It was unclear Thursday how many people might be affected by the new rules. Pressure groups said up to 300,000 people could be eligible. In fiscal year 2010 alone, the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.
Given the case-by-case basis of Thursday’s announcement, though, the groups said the actual number of people allowed to stay could be far lower.
In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on catching illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes or are part of gangs.
The chief beneficiaries of the guidance are likely to be immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who asked Homeland Security this year to exempt illegal-immigrant students from deportation, said the move will free up immigration courts to handle cases involving serious criminals.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
“After more than two years of struggle, demonstrations, direct actions and other activities, the administration has signaled that they are capable of delivering direct relief for immigrant families,” said Casa de Maryland, a pro-immigrant group. “We eagerly await confirmation from community members that their families can now expect to remain together.”
Two years ago, some staffers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had prepared a draft memo arguing that the administration retained broad powers that could serve “as a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ “
But agency leaders and others in the administration had argued that the memo was inaccurate.
It was unclear Thursday how many people might be affected by the new rules. Pressure groups said up to 300,000 people could be eligible. In fiscal year 2010 alone, the government deported nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants who it said did not have criminal records.
Given the case-by-case basis of Thursday’s announcement, though, the groups said the actual number of people allowed to stay could be far lower.
In June, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior immigration law enforcement, issued guidance expanding authority to decline to prosecute illegal immigrants. The goal, ICE leaders said, was to focus on catching illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes or are part of gangs.
The chief beneficiaries of the guidance are likely to be immigrant students who would have been eligible for legal status under the Dream Act, which stalled in Congress last year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who asked Homeland Security this year to exempt illegal-immigrant students from deportation, said the move will free up immigration courts to handle cases involving serious criminals.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Who's holding back the Recovery?
Money quote:
VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.
The President certainly has an opinion, read the original here.
Obama accuses Congress of holding back U.S. recovery
Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:00am EDT
* Construction, trade, payroll tax bills could help -Obama
* Republican governor says Obama has responsibility to act
By Laura MacInnis
VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.
In remarks recorded on Wednesday on his campaign-style bus tour in Illinois and aired during his holiday in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Obama said the stalled construction, trade and payroll tax bills could give a boost to the economy.
"The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That's the problem right now. That's what's holding this country back," the president said in his weekly radio address, which is also transmitted on the Internet.
Wall Street stocks have suffered four weeks of losses because of investor jitters, partly over concerns that the United States may be headed for another recession after barely growing in the first half of 2011.
With the national unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent, Obama's re-election hopes may hinge on his ability to convince voters he is steering the U.S. economy the right way.
He has been criticized for taking off to Martha's Vineyard, a wealthy island retreat near Boston, at at time when some 14 million Americans are out of work. Such breaks are typical for U.S. presidents, and the Obamas also took vacations in Martha's Vineyard in August of 2010 and 2009.
The White House has said the president would spend much of his nine-day absence from Washington working on the job and growth package he will unveil in an early September speech.
In his Saturday remarks, Obama acknowledged the country remained far from full health.
"We're going through a tough time right now. We're coming through a terrible recession," he said. "So we need folks in Washington -- the people whose job it is to deal with the country's problems, the people who you elected to serve -- we need them to put aside their differences to get things done."
Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives and Democrats control the Senate. A bitter fight between the two parties over deficit-cutting brought the country to the edge of a debt default and sparked a credit ratings downgrade this month.
In the Republicans' weekly address, Ohio Governor John Kasich said it was wrong for the president to stand aside and blame others for the impasse that has also affected legislation related to immigration, energy and other issues.
"Divided government is no excuse for inaction," said Kasich, a former chairman of the House Budget Committee.
"There's just no substitute for leadership from the president of the United States," Kasich said. "It's my hope President Obama will listen to the people and partner with Republicans to get our economy back to creating jobs and producing growth."
The governor also called on conservative Republicans to show more willingness to compromise as required.
"It's just as important that Republicans not be stiff-necked about working across the aisle when important work must be done," he said, suggesting: "It's OK to compromise on policy, as long as you don't compromise on your principles." (Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.
The President certainly has an opinion, read the original here.
Obama accuses Congress of holding back U.S. recovery
Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:00am EDT
* Construction, trade, payroll tax bills could help -Obama
* Republican governor says Obama has responsibility to act
By Laura MacInnis
VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.
In remarks recorded on Wednesday on his campaign-style bus tour in Illinois and aired during his holiday in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Obama said the stalled construction, trade and payroll tax bills could give a boost to the economy.
"The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That's the problem right now. That's what's holding this country back," the president said in his weekly radio address, which is also transmitted on the Internet.
Wall Street stocks have suffered four weeks of losses because of investor jitters, partly over concerns that the United States may be headed for another recession after barely growing in the first half of 2011.
With the national unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent, Obama's re-election hopes may hinge on his ability to convince voters he is steering the U.S. economy the right way.
He has been criticized for taking off to Martha's Vineyard, a wealthy island retreat near Boston, at at time when some 14 million Americans are out of work. Such breaks are typical for U.S. presidents, and the Obamas also took vacations in Martha's Vineyard in August of 2010 and 2009.
The White House has said the president would spend much of his nine-day absence from Washington working on the job and growth package he will unveil in an early September speech.
In his Saturday remarks, Obama acknowledged the country remained far from full health.
"We're going through a tough time right now. We're coming through a terrible recession," he said. "So we need folks in Washington -- the people whose job it is to deal with the country's problems, the people who you elected to serve -- we need them to put aside their differences to get things done."
Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives and Democrats control the Senate. A bitter fight between the two parties over deficit-cutting brought the country to the edge of a debt default and sparked a credit ratings downgrade this month.
In the Republicans' weekly address, Ohio Governor John Kasich said it was wrong for the president to stand aside and blame others for the impasse that has also affected legislation related to immigration, energy and other issues.
"Divided government is no excuse for inaction," said Kasich, a former chairman of the House Budget Committee.
"There's just no substitute for leadership from the president of the United States," Kasich said. "It's my hope President Obama will listen to the people and partner with Republicans to get our economy back to creating jobs and producing growth."
The governor also called on conservative Republicans to show more willingness to compromise as required.
"It's just as important that Republicans not be stiff-necked about working across the aisle when important work must be done," he said, suggesting: "It's OK to compromise on policy, as long as you don't compromise on your principles." (Editing by Mohammad Zargham)
Government Motors claims no responsibility for General Motors warranties
Remember when the President said that the "US will guarantee GM, Chrysler warranties..."? He may have to, as GM says it is not responsible to fix and redeem warranties for previous GM cars. Read the original here.
GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs
Reuters.com
Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:47pm EDT
* New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM
* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.
The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]
Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.
But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.
The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.
"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."
David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.
John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.
"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."
GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.
"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."
In late afternoon trading, GM shares were down $1.62 at $21.98 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The case is Trusky v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 11-12815. (Editing by Robert MacMillan
GM says bankruptcy excuses it from Impala repairs
Reuters.com
Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:47pm EDT
* New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM
* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.
The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]
Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.
But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.
The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.
"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices, conduct, or alleged breaches of liability under the warranty."
David Fink, Trusky's lawyer, declined to comment.
John Penn, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute who is not involved in the case, said the question of "successor liability" is common for manufacturing companies that go through bankruptcy.
"The fact it comes up now is not a surprise, as this type of issue was widely discussed during GM's bankruptcy," said Penn, now a partner at Haynes and Boone in Fort Worth, Texas. "The court will need to evaluate the claims to see if they fit within any cubbyhole of liability that New GM assumed."
GM said an argument similar to Trusky's failed this year in a case involving its OnStar security and navigation product.
"There are no specific factual allegations that New GM -- as opposed to Old GM -- did anything at all in relation to her vehicle," Jeffers wrote. "Plaintiff here is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM."
In late afternoon trading, GM shares were down $1.62 at $21.98 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The case is Trusky v. General Motors Co, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 11-12815. (Editing by Robert MacMillan
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Israel, Liberalism, and Moral Cowardice (repost)
From American Thinker. As Israel recovers from another coordinated terror attack, read the original here.
August 17, 2011
Israel, Liberalism, and Moral Cowardice
By James Lewis
There are touchstones of morality in life. In 1938, resisting Hitler was a big one in Europe; in 1990, support for freedom in the Soviet Empire was another one.
Today we have a new test of character.
Americans have never had much of a problem telling the good guys from the bad guys.It isn't that hard. If they are head-chopping murderers who go around burning girls' schools in Afghanistan, committing random rapes in Norway, and truck-bombing civilians in open-air markets in Iraq, chances are that they are bad guys.
See? That wasn't so hard. So why don't the liberals get what's obvious to a child of six?After wrestling with it for years, I think it all comes down to moral cowardice.
Today we are surrounded by moral cowards; people who have chosen to evade choices between good and evil. Every day when they hear the news they shrivel up again like snails drawing into their shells, because moral cowardice is not a one-time thing. It a lifetime practice of shifty evasions. Courage is a muscle that can be trained, and so is cowardice.
Israel isn't the only question liberals keep dodging. Shifty evasion is how they run their lives. Ask an honest question and you'll get a shifty answer. Just watch their eyes.
Israel isn't their only failure of the moral sense. Every time Hollywood pulls another Caligula stunt they know they'll get away with it because of the passive collusion of millions of liberals, who keep paying for their wares, no matter how corrupting. Hollywood's moral monsters keep pushing the limits, and liberals keep paying them. Liberals around the world are paying for the corruption of your children.
No, Israel isn't their only failure.
Israel is our moral touchstone today because that country is on the front line fighting the risorgiamento of Islamist fascismo. If you don't think that's true, take another hard look. You can google tons of indisputable facts.
The Declaration of Independence took a stand on foreign tyranny; the Civil War abolished the intolerable shame of slavery and still preserved the Union; World War I pushed back Prussian imperialism; World War II knocked out Hitler and Imperial Japan; the Cold War brought down the Soviet Empire.
Five historic choices, and all expressed our basic values.
America made the right choices -- and not easy ones -- at five crucial turning points in world history. You may think that's patriotic humbug, but it's true. Lincoln called constitutional government the "last, best hope of mankind," and he was not given to empty rhetoric. Lincoln had to make the toughest choices in American history, and he always came back to basics. In the end, after all was said and done, we knew it in our bones.
The newest upsurge of barbarism in the world is impossible to ignore -- unless you're a liberal and blind. (But I repeat myself.) If you see the same international danger that everybody else does, you can either fight 'em or join 'em. The hard Left, like Bill Ayers and Code Pink, has chosen to join the fascists because they hate and despise free people. They are despicable lowlifes. We know where decent people stand, because morality hasn't changed. It is what it is. You know it and I know it.
Americans didn't go around apologizing for our basic decency until the rise of El Jefe El Magnifico, Barry the Bombastic. Europe had a Prince William the Silent, but we've got 'em beat hands down, 'cause we have Barry Who Won't Ever Shut Up. Every time his numbers drop he makes another whiny complaint to over national TV, and his numbers drop even lower. It's a kind of tic he can't control.
A fresh team of leaders is emerging. Some of them are Republican presidential contenders. Some are freedom fighters in Europe, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders. Millions of modernist Muslims quietly despise their wife-beating and child-abusing ideologues.
If the West would stand up for its own values the rest of the world would heave a big sigh and get back to sanity. Ordinary decency isn't that different in Cairo and Kansas. Turn off the hate propaganda and the Muslim world will find a path back to modernity. They don't really want to live in misery and despair.
Which brings me back to Israel.
In the last couple of weeks Israel has seen its own Cottage Cheese rebellion, a democratic eruption about as alarming as the American Tea Party. While next door in Syria the dictatorship has sent 200 battle tanks to kill as many Sunni rebels as possible, the Cottage Cheesers have carried out a model of peaceful protest. Hundreds of thousands of young people turned out to protest the high price of food and housing. They pitched neat little tents along the center strips of thoroughfares in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. There they have slept overnight and chanted slogans, waved signs, and got the thumbs up sign from thousands of drivers passing by.
I tell you, it's as scary as Tea.
The Netanyahu government reacted quickly. Not a single man, woman or child was attacked by tanks. Nobody got hurt. The cops were out in force, but I haven't seen pictures of rioters throwing Molotov cocktails the way they did in London, Paris and Athens. Nobody even tossed a cottage cheese pie. But hundreds of thousands of ordinary people made their case in perfect freedom, and the Cabinet in Jerusalem took urgent action. Elected officials ran around trying to fix things, the way they're supposed to.
Six months into Obama's "Arab Spring" not a single democracy has emerged in the Arab world, in spite of Obama forcing Hosni Mubarak to resign -- an 82-year old ally who kept the peace for thirty years. The Egypt-Israeli peace treaty is now in tatters thanks to Obama and the phony-baloney "Arab Spring."
The only stable country in the Middle East is little Israel, which hasn't even bothered to call an election to fix the Cottage Cheese crisis. It wasn't needed.
Meanwhile, Obama the Big Bad Wolf has huffed and puffed and blown the house down, except that all the bad old dictatorships are just getting fresh new dictators. So much for the Enlightened One and his Hope and Change for the Muslim world.
Islamic fascism has received a fresh boost from Obama's community disorganizing. The Moo Bro candidate in Egypt has sworn to renew the war with Israel. Iran's fascists have taken over the formerly free country of Lebanon, and Iran has sent its torture battalions to help Syria beat up its eighty percent Sunni Muslim population. Tehran is still purging its Green Movement protesters without a peep of protest from Washington. Ahmadinejad is getting ever closer to ICBMs with nuclear warheads. In three years they may have the range to hit us right here at home.
Today no Arab country can trust the United States. We used to support moderate regimes, but we've shafted our biggest Arab ally right in front of God and everybody. Don't think that lesson's been lost in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Or in Beijing and Moscow.
Our Hero has opened Pandora's Box all right, but it was Jimmy Carter who started it by falling for the seductive charms of Ayatollah Khomeini. Thanks to Jimmy Carter the most talented people in the Middle East have been exposed to three decades of abuse, tyranny and war. Jimmy has never bothered to say "sorry." You see, he really meantwell.
But it all starts with the moral cowardice of the liberal West. Millions of liberals voted for Bombastic Barack because the media threatened to call them racists if they didn't. So the liberals collapsed, the way they always do, and they forgot to think. They got suckered good and proper by the Chicago Machine and the Demagogues, and they will never admit it.
So -- if you want to see the true enablers of the radical Left-Islamofascist alliance, look no further than your gutless friends and neighbors.
It's not good news, I know, but I thought you oughtta know.
August 17, 2011
Israel, Liberalism, and Moral Cowardice
By James Lewis
There are touchstones of morality in life. In 1938, resisting Hitler was a big one in Europe; in 1990, support for freedom in the Soviet Empire was another one.
Today we have a new test of character.
Americans have never had much of a problem telling the good guys from the bad guys.It isn't that hard. If they are head-chopping murderers who go around burning girls' schools in Afghanistan, committing random rapes in Norway, and truck-bombing civilians in open-air markets in Iraq, chances are that they are bad guys.
See? That wasn't so hard. So why don't the liberals get what's obvious to a child of six?After wrestling with it for years, I think it all comes down to moral cowardice.
Today we are surrounded by moral cowards; people who have chosen to evade choices between good and evil. Every day when they hear the news they shrivel up again like snails drawing into their shells, because moral cowardice is not a one-time thing. It a lifetime practice of shifty evasions. Courage is a muscle that can be trained, and so is cowardice.
Israel isn't the only question liberals keep dodging. Shifty evasion is how they run their lives. Ask an honest question and you'll get a shifty answer. Just watch their eyes.
Israel isn't their only failure of the moral sense. Every time Hollywood pulls another Caligula stunt they know they'll get away with it because of the passive collusion of millions of liberals, who keep paying for their wares, no matter how corrupting. Hollywood's moral monsters keep pushing the limits, and liberals keep paying them. Liberals around the world are paying for the corruption of your children.
No, Israel isn't their only failure.
Israel is our moral touchstone today because that country is on the front line fighting the risorgiamento of Islamist fascismo. If you don't think that's true, take another hard look. You can google tons of indisputable facts.
The Declaration of Independence took a stand on foreign tyranny; the Civil War abolished the intolerable shame of slavery and still preserved the Union; World War I pushed back Prussian imperialism; World War II knocked out Hitler and Imperial Japan; the Cold War brought down the Soviet Empire.
Five historic choices, and all expressed our basic values.
America made the right choices -- and not easy ones -- at five crucial turning points in world history. You may think that's patriotic humbug, but it's true. Lincoln called constitutional government the "last, best hope of mankind," and he was not given to empty rhetoric. Lincoln had to make the toughest choices in American history, and he always came back to basics. In the end, after all was said and done, we knew it in our bones.
The newest upsurge of barbarism in the world is impossible to ignore -- unless you're a liberal and blind. (But I repeat myself.) If you see the same international danger that everybody else does, you can either fight 'em or join 'em. The hard Left, like Bill Ayers and Code Pink, has chosen to join the fascists because they hate and despise free people. They are despicable lowlifes. We know where decent people stand, because morality hasn't changed. It is what it is. You know it and I know it.
Americans didn't go around apologizing for our basic decency until the rise of El Jefe El Magnifico, Barry the Bombastic. Europe had a Prince William the Silent, but we've got 'em beat hands down, 'cause we have Barry Who Won't Ever Shut Up. Every time his numbers drop he makes another whiny complaint to over national TV, and his numbers drop even lower. It's a kind of tic he can't control.
A fresh team of leaders is emerging. Some of them are Republican presidential contenders. Some are freedom fighters in Europe, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders. Millions of modernist Muslims quietly despise their wife-beating and child-abusing ideologues.
If the West would stand up for its own values the rest of the world would heave a big sigh and get back to sanity. Ordinary decency isn't that different in Cairo and Kansas. Turn off the hate propaganda and the Muslim world will find a path back to modernity. They don't really want to live in misery and despair.
Which brings me back to Israel.
In the last couple of weeks Israel has seen its own Cottage Cheese rebellion, a democratic eruption about as alarming as the American Tea Party. While next door in Syria the dictatorship has sent 200 battle tanks to kill as many Sunni rebels as possible, the Cottage Cheesers have carried out a model of peaceful protest. Hundreds of thousands of young people turned out to protest the high price of food and housing. They pitched neat little tents along the center strips of thoroughfares in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. There they have slept overnight and chanted slogans, waved signs, and got the thumbs up sign from thousands of drivers passing by.
I tell you, it's as scary as Tea.
The Netanyahu government reacted quickly. Not a single man, woman or child was attacked by tanks. Nobody got hurt. The cops were out in force, but I haven't seen pictures of rioters throwing Molotov cocktails the way they did in London, Paris and Athens. Nobody even tossed a cottage cheese pie. But hundreds of thousands of ordinary people made their case in perfect freedom, and the Cabinet in Jerusalem took urgent action. Elected officials ran around trying to fix things, the way they're supposed to.
Six months into Obama's "Arab Spring" not a single democracy has emerged in the Arab world, in spite of Obama forcing Hosni Mubarak to resign -- an 82-year old ally who kept the peace for thirty years. The Egypt-Israeli peace treaty is now in tatters thanks to Obama and the phony-baloney "Arab Spring."
The only stable country in the Middle East is little Israel, which hasn't even bothered to call an election to fix the Cottage Cheese crisis. It wasn't needed.
Meanwhile, Obama the Big Bad Wolf has huffed and puffed and blown the house down, except that all the bad old dictatorships are just getting fresh new dictators. So much for the Enlightened One and his Hope and Change for the Muslim world.
Islamic fascism has received a fresh boost from Obama's community disorganizing. The Moo Bro candidate in Egypt has sworn to renew the war with Israel. Iran's fascists have taken over the formerly free country of Lebanon, and Iran has sent its torture battalions to help Syria beat up its eighty percent Sunni Muslim population. Tehran is still purging its Green Movement protesters without a peep of protest from Washington. Ahmadinejad is getting ever closer to ICBMs with nuclear warheads. In three years they may have the range to hit us right here at home.
Today no Arab country can trust the United States. We used to support moderate regimes, but we've shafted our biggest Arab ally right in front of God and everybody. Don't think that lesson's been lost in Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Or in Beijing and Moscow.
Our Hero has opened Pandora's Box all right, but it was Jimmy Carter who started it by falling for the seductive charms of Ayatollah Khomeini. Thanks to Jimmy Carter the most talented people in the Middle East have been exposed to three decades of abuse, tyranny and war. Jimmy has never bothered to say "sorry." You see, he really meantwell.
But it all starts with the moral cowardice of the liberal West. Millions of liberals voted for Bombastic Barack because the media threatened to call them racists if they didn't. So the liberals collapsed, the way they always do, and they forgot to think. They got suckered good and proper by the Chicago Machine and the Demagogues, and they will never admit it.
So -- if you want to see the true enablers of the radical Left-Islamofascist alliance, look no further than your gutless friends and neighbors.
It's not good news, I know, but I thought you oughtta know.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Why the Government Won't Protect You from Getting Screwed by Your Cable Company
Read the original here.
You hate your cable company, right? Seems like everyone does. Cable television routinely scores lower in customer satisfaction than just about anything else—including congress. So why don't you just switch providers? Oh yeah, you can't. You're so screwed!
The sad truth is, most Americans don't have a choice of cable providers. Sure, there are a lot of cable companies out there, but odds are there's only one you can use. While no one cable company dominates the nation, there are a lot of regional cable fiefdoms. Live in San Francisco? It's Comcast for you. New York City? Time Warner. That matters because it translates into high prices and crummy service.
Nationally speaking, there's plenty of competition. But locally, that's just not true. For the overwhelming majority of us it's the local cable-opoly, or get bent. Which means we pay exorbitant bills, suffer four hour install time windows, and just suck it up when our cable provider throttles our download speeds or caps our bandwidth.
The only way this changes is with competition. When a competing cable company is present, your cable bill typically goes down by 15-percent, and service generally improves. But almost nobody has a competing cable company.
Simply put, you're paying way too much for Nickelodeon.
The cable industry is a patchwork of micro-monopolies. Or more accurately, natural monopolies: situations of little or no competition that doesn't break enough laws to get regulated. A natural monopoly occurs when it's so expensive to enter a market that it doesn't make sense for a competitors to come in. With cable TV, there's a massive fixed cost to enter a new market—putting in new cable lines. So, basically, whoever showed up first—or the company that bought them—has the legacy right of being the local cable company.
For decades, cable operators were allowed to set up exclusive regional franchises. A cable company would come into an area, and more or less tell the municipal area in charge of franchising that it needed an exclusive for the next, say, 12-15 years if it was going to build out lines. That ended in 1992 with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, but the damage was done.
Cable companies had already divided up the nation like Europe colonizing Africa. By the time regulation arrived, the land grab was already over.
The last reliable statistic shows that a mere 2-percent of American markets had a choice of cable providers. That's from 2003, the last time the FCC produced a statistic. (At least that they could supply us with.) You may be surprised to learn that the FCC doesn't have anything to do with cable franchising. Nor does the FTC. An FTC spokesman told Gizmodo that "we don't look at industries considered common carriers, like airlines, phone companies and utilities."
Throughout most of cable's history, it's been regulated at the local level. Counties and cities were the agencies responsible for allowing cable franchises. That is changing, slightly. More than 20 states now have franchise authority, due largely to intensive lobbying by telcos like Verizon and AT&T.
You know you're fucked when you're relying on AT&T to make things better.
Ultimately, this patchwork of local regulation means cable companies themselves are often more powerful than the body overseeing them. And as long as none of the micro-monopolies grows too large nationally, it can continue to control the local weather.
But what about those second cable companies that some people have? They're typically overbuilders, a company that builds new lines in an area where one cable company already exists. They tend to be quite small. The best known, for example, is probably WideOpenWest Networks, or WOW. WOW has just 410,000 subscribers. And that's because it's really, really hard for a second company to come into an existing market.
While everyone has a right to access the poles, the same isn't true of the wires that hang from them. In short, if you're an upstart cable company coming into a new area, you have to run your own lines. It's very expensive, and it also means you can easily be crushed by the existing monopoly.
One cable industry insider, who would only speak on background, explained how it works:
First you have to overcome a mishmash of local regulations. You have to get a permit to come in, which can be a legal hassle, with a wait time of many months just to get approval. Then its time to build.
To build a new network and make it price-competitive, you have to reach 100-percent of customers in that area. Which means building an extensive network of lines, all the way to the door. If you're very lucky you may capture 10 to 20-percent of the market. You do that by offering steep discounts on bundled services. This gets you new customers, but at a loss.
Then, Comcast, or Cablevision, or Time Warner—or whichever provider is dominant in the area—comes along behind you with sweetheart deals for any of its customers who were leaving. They offer discounted packages and teaser rates. Poof. They're gone. That's five percent of the market. Now you've spent a fortune on new lines and infrastructure, for very few new customers.
So there's very little financial incentive for a competitor to try to build. It's just too damn hard to build a customer base. To do that, you need to be a giant company to begin with. Like, say, a telco.
If you're lucky, you may have the option for Verizon FiOS or AT&T U-Verse. But probably not. Verizon only passes (cable lingo for is available at) 15 million premises nationwide, and has just 3.7 million video subscribers. AT&T is even smaller, at 3.2 million. Comcast, by comparison, has 22 million video subscribers.
What's more, there's no evidence that telcos are having a positive effect on pricing. In fact, in some areas where AT&T managed to get the laws changed, like Michigan, prices have gone up.
But wait! What about satellite? Doesn't satellite fix everything? No.
According to the Government Accountability Office, satellite services have little-to-no effect on cable prices. (And besides, satellite service is terrible. Who doesn't want to watch TV when it's overcast outside?)
Ultimately what all of this means is that consumers are left with little recourse. Because there's plenty of competition nationally, nobody is looking out for you locally.
Except us.
All this week, Gizmodo is going to take a long-hard look at the cable industry, and how to improve it. We want to fix cable, and we need your help to make it happen.
We want to hear your horror stories of bad cable experiences, and your ideas of how to make things better. We'll collect the best of these and publish them on Friday. Tweet us with the hashtag#fixcable, email us at tips@gizmodo.com with #fixcable in the subject line, or just fill in the form at the bottom of this page.
Come on. We are totally going to do this thing.You can keep up with Mat Honan, the author of this post, on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+
By Mat Honan
gizmodo.com
You hate your cable company, right? Seems like everyone does. Cable television routinely scores lower in customer satisfaction than just about anything else—including congress. So why don't you just switch providers? Oh yeah, you can't. You're so screwed!
The sad truth is, most Americans don't have a choice of cable providers. Sure, there are a lot of cable companies out there, but odds are there's only one you can use. While no one cable company dominates the nation, there are a lot of regional cable fiefdoms. Live in San Francisco? It's Comcast for you. New York City? Time Warner. That matters because it translates into high prices and crummy service.
Nationally speaking, there's plenty of competition. But locally, that's just not true. For the overwhelming majority of us it's the local cable-opoly, or get bent. Which means we pay exorbitant bills, suffer four hour install time windows, and just suck it up when our cable provider throttles our download speeds or caps our bandwidth.
The only way this changes is with competition. When a competing cable company is present, your cable bill typically goes down by 15-percent, and service generally improves. But almost nobody has a competing cable company.
Simply put, you're paying way too much for Nickelodeon.
The cable industry is a patchwork of micro-monopolies. Or more accurately, natural monopolies: situations of little or no competition that doesn't break enough laws to get regulated. A natural monopoly occurs when it's so expensive to enter a market that it doesn't make sense for a competitors to come in. With cable TV, there's a massive fixed cost to enter a new market—putting in new cable lines. So, basically, whoever showed up first—or the company that bought them—has the legacy right of being the local cable company.
For decades, cable operators were allowed to set up exclusive regional franchises. A cable company would come into an area, and more or less tell the municipal area in charge of franchising that it needed an exclusive for the next, say, 12-15 years if it was going to build out lines. That ended in 1992 with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, but the damage was done.
Cable companies had already divided up the nation like Europe colonizing Africa. By the time regulation arrived, the land grab was already over.
The last reliable statistic shows that a mere 2-percent of American markets had a choice of cable providers. That's from 2003, the last time the FCC produced a statistic. (At least that they could supply us with.) You may be surprised to learn that the FCC doesn't have anything to do with cable franchising. Nor does the FTC. An FTC spokesman told Gizmodo that "we don't look at industries considered common carriers, like airlines, phone companies and utilities."
Throughout most of cable's history, it's been regulated at the local level. Counties and cities were the agencies responsible for allowing cable franchises. That is changing, slightly. More than 20 states now have franchise authority, due largely to intensive lobbying by telcos like Verizon and AT&T.
You know you're fucked when you're relying on AT&T to make things better.
Ultimately, this patchwork of local regulation means cable companies themselves are often more powerful than the body overseeing them. And as long as none of the micro-monopolies grows too large nationally, it can continue to control the local weather.
But what about those second cable companies that some people have? They're typically overbuilders, a company that builds new lines in an area where one cable company already exists. They tend to be quite small. The best known, for example, is probably WideOpenWest Networks, or WOW. WOW has just 410,000 subscribers. And that's because it's really, really hard for a second company to come into an existing market.
While everyone has a right to access the poles, the same isn't true of the wires that hang from them. In short, if you're an upstart cable company coming into a new area, you have to run your own lines. It's very expensive, and it also means you can easily be crushed by the existing monopoly.
One cable industry insider, who would only speak on background, explained how it works:
First you have to overcome a mishmash of local regulations. You have to get a permit to come in, which can be a legal hassle, with a wait time of many months just to get approval. Then its time to build.
To build a new network and make it price-competitive, you have to reach 100-percent of customers in that area. Which means building an extensive network of lines, all the way to the door. If you're very lucky you may capture 10 to 20-percent of the market. You do that by offering steep discounts on bundled services. This gets you new customers, but at a loss.
Then, Comcast, or Cablevision, or Time Warner—or whichever provider is dominant in the area—comes along behind you with sweetheart deals for any of its customers who were leaving. They offer discounted packages and teaser rates. Poof. They're gone. That's five percent of the market. Now you've spent a fortune on new lines and infrastructure, for very few new customers.
So there's very little financial incentive for a competitor to try to build. It's just too damn hard to build a customer base. To do that, you need to be a giant company to begin with. Like, say, a telco.
If you're lucky, you may have the option for Verizon FiOS or AT&T U-Verse. But probably not. Verizon only passes (cable lingo for is available at) 15 million premises nationwide, and has just 3.7 million video subscribers. AT&T is even smaller, at 3.2 million. Comcast, by comparison, has 22 million video subscribers.
What's more, there's no evidence that telcos are having a positive effect on pricing. In fact, in some areas where AT&T managed to get the laws changed, like Michigan, prices have gone up.
But wait! What about satellite? Doesn't satellite fix everything? No.
According to the Government Accountability Office, satellite services have little-to-no effect on cable prices. (And besides, satellite service is terrible. Who doesn't want to watch TV when it's overcast outside?)
Ultimately what all of this means is that consumers are left with little recourse. Because there's plenty of competition nationally, nobody is looking out for you locally.
Except us.
All this week, Gizmodo is going to take a long-hard look at the cable industry, and how to improve it. We want to fix cable, and we need your help to make it happen.
We want to hear your horror stories of bad cable experiences, and your ideas of how to make things better. We'll collect the best of these and publish them on Friday. Tweet us with the hashtag#fixcable, email us at tips@gizmodo.com with #fixcable in the subject line, or just fill in the form at the bottom of this page.
Come on. We are totally going to do this thing.You can keep up with Mat Honan, the author of this post, on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
London Burning
Read the original with pictures here.
LONDON RIOTS: David Cameron Returns Home As Police Face Gangs With Petrol Bombs
By Emily Allen and Rob Cooper
Last updated at 1:43 PM on 9th August 2011
David Cameron today warned rioters that they would face the 'full force of the law' as he recalled Parliament, after violence swept across the country for a third night. An unprecedented 16,000 police officers will be on the streets of the capital tonight, the Prime Minister announced, compared with just 6,000 last night. Today huge swathes of the capital woke up to the charred debris of burned out buildings and streets littered with waste.
Theresa May caused fury today by appearing to rule out using the Army and water cannons to quell any future disorder. Police were last night criticised for being absent when much of the looting and ransacking took place and, when they were present, keeping their distance from rioters.
Today a 26-year-old man who was shot as he sat in a car during rioting in Croydon died in hospital.
After cutting short his Tuscany holiday to deal with the worsening public disorder crisis, Mr Cameron said today: 'We will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain's streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding.
'Let me, first of all, completely condemn the scenes that we have seen on our television screens and people have witnessed in their communities.
'These are sickening scenes - scenes of people looting, vandalising, thieving, robbing, scenes of people attacking police officers and even attacking fire crews as they're trying to put out fires. This is criminality, pure and simple, and it has to be confronted and defeated.
'I feel huge sympathy for the families who've suffered, innocent people who've been burned out of their houses and to businesses who have seen their premises smashed, their products looted and their livelihoods potentially ruined.
'I also feel for all those who live in fear because of these appalling scenes that we've seen on the streets of our country. People should be in no doubt that we are on the side of the law- abiding - law-abiding people who are appalled by what has happened in their own communities.
'I am determined, the Government is determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions.
'And I have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality: you will feel the full force of the law and if you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment.
'And to these people I would say this: you are not only wrecking the lives of others, you're not only wrecking your own communities - you are potentially wrecking your own life too.
'My office this morning has spoken to the Speaker of the House of Commons and he has agreed that Parliament will be recalled for a day on Thursday so I can make a statement to Parliament and we can hold a debate and we are all able to stand together in condemnation of these crimes and also to stand together in determination to rebuild these communities.'
Last night copycat violence broke out in Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol, with further reports of violence in Nottingham and Leeds as it spread from the capital for the first time.
Among the most serious of incidents was the arrest of three people on suspicion of attempting to murder a police officer in north London early this morning. Armoured vehicles - known as 'Jankels' - were used to push back a mob of 150 rioters in Clapham, south London, while dozens of businesses were gutted by fire or looted until shelves were bare.
Children aged as young as eight were reportedly seen fleeing shops with games consoles in Ealing.
Despite 6,000 officers on the streets of London alone, many residents reported a lack of police while marauding gangs were a law unto themselves.
An 'unprecedented' number of police will be on the streets of London tonight with 'all able-bodied officers in the Met' out on duty, said Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh.
Officers from 26 forces outside the capital have also been drafted in to help out as police confirmed that 525 people have now been arrested since rioting began on Saturday and over 100 have been charged.
England's friendly international against the Netherlands tomorrow at Wembley has been called off amid fears that it could be targeted by thugs. West Ham and Charlton football clubs had already postponed their Carling Cup clashes tonight on police advice.
Amid the unrest, with a year to go until the games, senior members of the International Olympic Committee are in the capital today. As London is cleaned-up they are expected to watch beach volleyball at Whitehall.
TV PRESENTER 'ARRESTS' RIOTER
Television star Dan Snow 'arrested' a rioter as he looted a shop outside his London home, it was revealed today.
The 6ft 6in presenter confronted yobs as they raided a shoe shop outside his property in Notting Hill gate at around 11pm last night.
As around 50 people caused chaos outside he bravely rugby-tackled a thug and held him until police arrived.
He told The Times: 'As I came up I could hear police sirens coming up the road.
'One of them belted out of the shoe shop. He didn't see me coming, so I rugby-tackled him. He was quite surprrised.'
Last night 44 police officers were injured - four of them seriously - as the capital endured the worst night of violence it has seen for decades.
London Ambulance Service said it took 22 people to hospital from the main areas of the disturbances, although others were treated at the scene or made their own way to accident and emergency departments. Some rioters threw missiles at ambulances or threatened medics as they tried to care for the injured.
Deputy Mayor of London Kit Malthouse told LBC radio: 'Officers were extremely brave. What we are trying to do this morning is maximise the number of police officers we have out again tonight.
'We have something like 6,000 on duty last night. We need to get even more out tonight, and that includes officers from outside London, so we are appealing to other forces to help us where they can.'
The violence started on Saturday after father-of-four Mark Duggan, 29, was shot dead by police marksman last Thursday. This morning a post-mortem examination revealed he died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. An inquest was adjourned until December 12.
Acting Scotland Yard Commissioner Tim Godwin said there had been 'far too many' young people on the capital's streets last night and called on parents and guardians to keep youngsters in tonight.
He said there are no plans for the army to get involved.
'We've got the full support of the Government in getting as much mutual aid from outside of London as is necessary and I would like to take this opportunity to remind people of what I said last night as things were escalating.
'There were far too many young people on the streets of London last night, in places which were both dangerous and violent and I urge all the citizens of London, and the guardians and parents of young people especially, to keep them in tonight.
'We will be very robust in policing any disorder we get tonight.
'This is not just a game. This is criminality, this is burglary, this is violence, and we will pursue each and every one that has been involved in this and we will be making sure they are brought to justice and to court.
'We have a significant investigative asset that's in place.'
In one of the most serious incidents, the well-known Reeves furniture store in Croydon, south London, which first opened in 1867, was completely destroyed by a huge fire.
Owner Trevor Reeves told Sky News: 'It has just provided my family and the 15 or 20 staff and families that were supported, it's just completely destroyed.
'Words fail me. It's just gone, it's five generations. My father is distraught at the moment. It's just mindless thuggery.'
Residents complained that police were very slow to respond as a huge Debenhams store was ransacked. This morning the whole high street was cordoned off as a major investigation and clear-up got underway.
Rioting began in Hackney shortly after 4pm yesterday when a mob of hooded youths began hurling missiles at officers and setting fire to bins and cars. Masked rioters on BMX bicycles armed with batons attacked a crowded London bus during the evening rush-hour, chasing terrified commuters as they tried to escape.
The thugs, some as young as eight, forced the driver to stop the double-decker by pelting it with champagne bottles stolen from a nearby Tesco. About 40 passengers – some carrying screaming toddlers – burst out of the exits and sprinted away.
Within hours similar scenes erupted in Lewisham, spreading to Peckham, Deptford and Croydon in south east London.
Hundreds of fires were started all over the capital, from Camden in the north, Woolwich in the south east, Ealing in west London and then, more worryingly as police lost control of the streets last night, locals were forced to take the law into their own hands to protect their homes and businesses.
In Dalston and Hackney, north-east London, shopkeepers and their families fought back against looting youths and forced them from the streets. As surrounding areas were pillaged members of the town's large Turkish community stood firm outside their homes and businesses.
Home Secretary Theresa May this morning appeared to rule out bringing in the Army and using water cannon. She told BBC Breakfast: 'The way we police is by consent.'
'British policing has always meant and always depended on the support of local communities and that's what we need now.'
She told Sky News the capital needed 'robust policing' - and rejected suggestions that police budget cutting had any impact on violence.
'Don't let police budgets be used as an excuse for what is going on on our streets is sheer criminality and nothing else.'
Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former Army officer, hit out and told the Telegraph that tougher policing should be used in mainland Britain for the first time.
He said: ‘I find it strange that we are willing to use these sort of measures against the Irish yet when Englishmen step out of line and behave in this atrocious and appalling way, we are happy to mollycoddle them.'
Met Police Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh appeared to contradict the Home Secretary and said using the military had not been ruled out.
'All options were discussed last night and that means, not that we're doing it, the people of London need to know that the Commissioner and his management board team are considering everything and working through those options as we go forward,' he told BBC Breakfast.
Mr Kavanagh said it was 'a shocking and appalling morning for London to wake up to' and he was struck by the 'sheer scale and speed with which the attacks took place across London last night'. It 'was truly unprecedented' he said.
He said there was a 'changing nature' in the make-up of the rioters, with the profile changing 'dramatically' last night from 14 to 17-year-olds to 'older groups in cars doing organised looting'.
He added: 'And there was the far more focused attempt at injuring London Ambulance staff, there to help the community, trying to injure Fire Brigade officers and, of course, police officers.'
Elsewhere, West Midlands Police said it had made about 100 arrests and confirmed that a police station in Handsworth, Birmingham, was on fire. Merseyside Police said there were a number of incidents in South Liverpool, including cars being set on alight.
Avon and Somerset Police reported around 150 rioters were in Bristol city centre, with main roads closed and a number of shops damaged.
Gangs of looters - who appeared to be teenagers and young adults from a range of different backgrounds - raided hundreds of shops and businesses across London, making off with TVs and other electrical goods, cigarettes, clothes and alcohol.
Staff at Birmingham Children's Hospital formed a 'human shield' as they barricaded themselves inside after rioters threatened to set it on fire - in an evil bid to 'win respect' from fellow thugs.
Police ordered an immediate lock-down of the hospital after rioters used Twitter to spread the word and encourage thugs to storm the wards just after 9pm last night. Gangs of rioters rounded on the hospital - which cares for some of Britain's sickest children - armed with broken bottles and knives hoping to 'out-riot' yobs running amok in London.
A hospital spokesman said: 'We were told by police to lock the hospital down. They asked us not to let anyone in or out until it was safe to do so. 'It is extremely dangerous and our main concern is for the welfare of our patients and staff.'
In Medway, Kent, a group of around 15 youths arrived by train and went on the rampage, while violence was also reported in Chatham, Rainham and Gillingham.
Yob also went on the rampage in Nottingham where up to 40 cars were damaged, there were attempts to loot shops and a container of 200 tyres was set on fire.
Cars and wheelie bins were torched during five hours of violence across Liverpool. A Tesco store in Myrtle Street was looted and police came under attack in Admiral Street with some of the rioters aged as young as 10.
Of the attempted murder of a police officer, Scotland Yard said the three people were apprehended following an incident in Brent, north west London, that led to a police officer being injured by a car while trying to stop looters.
WHERE THE VIOLENCE HAPPENED
HACKNEY Masked rioters on BMX bicycles armed with batons attacked a crowded London bus during the evening rush-hour, chasing terrified commuters as they tried to escape
The thugs forced the driver to stop the double-decker by pelting it with champagne bottles stolen from a nearby Tesco
A thug used an axe to break into a Tesco supermarket. More than 30 gang members then streamed in, stealing bottles of alcohol which they used as missiles in later attacks
CROYDON Fire destroyed a landmark furniture store. Black smoke could be seen across South London as House of Reeves, on Reeves Corner, was razed
Looters raided a branch of Argos, smashing the rear doors and making off with satnavs, CD players and camcorders
PECKHAM A woman and small child were taken by ambulance to hospital with burns and breathing difficulties after a shop below their flat was set ablaze
Hundreds of teenagers had earlier smashed up a bus before setting it on fire. Wheelie bins were also set alight and placed in the middle of the road
A line of police stood helpless a quarter of a mile away in Rye Lane
BIRMINGHAM Shop windows were smashed in Birmingham as large crowds gathered following rumours of copycat riots
Police established an exclusion zone up to half a mile around the city’s famous Bullring shopping centre. McDonald’s, Jessops and LA fitness were targeted, with bins thrown through the windows
Disturbances were also reported in EALING, FULHAM, LEWISHAM, CLAPHAM, OXFORD CIRCUS, WALTHAM FOREST, WALTHAMSTOW ISLINGTON, PONDERS END, CAMDEN, KENSINGTON AND KING'S ROAD
A force spokesman said: 'At approximately 2.50am on Tuesday, August 9 a male police officer was injured by a car in Fulton Road, Brent. He has been taken to a north London hospital where he remains in a stable condition.
'It is believed the injury occurred when police stopped some cars as their occupants were suspected of being involved in looting of a nearby electrical store. It is believed the driver of one of the cars drove away injuring the police officer in the process. Three people were later stopped by police and arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.'
As the trouble intensified, at 2.30am the Met changed its tactics in the Lavender Hill, Clapham, introducing armoured vehicles to push back more than 150 people where substantial damage was being caused to shops and local businesses.
Because the tactic proved a success police are now considering using the same methods elsewhere.
A large blaze at a Sony distribution centre near Enfield, north London, also sent plumes of thick smoke across the sky last night.
In Croydon, one woman was seen leaping from a burning building on Surrey Street as flames threatened to engulf her. Police also revealed a man was shot in the suburb, and though he is in a serious condition he was not fatally injured.
LONDON RIOTS: David Cameron Returns Home As Police Face Gangs With Petrol Bombs
By Emily Allen and Rob Cooper
Last updated at 1:43 PM on 9th August 2011
David Cameron today warned rioters that they would face the 'full force of the law' as he recalled Parliament, after violence swept across the country for a third night. An unprecedented 16,000 police officers will be on the streets of the capital tonight, the Prime Minister announced, compared with just 6,000 last night. Today huge swathes of the capital woke up to the charred debris of burned out buildings and streets littered with waste.
Theresa May caused fury today by appearing to rule out using the Army and water cannons to quell any future disorder. Police were last night criticised for being absent when much of the looting and ransacking took place and, when they were present, keeping their distance from rioters.
Today a 26-year-old man who was shot as he sat in a car during rioting in Croydon died in hospital.
After cutting short his Tuscany holiday to deal with the worsening public disorder crisis, Mr Cameron said today: 'We will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain's streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding.
'Let me, first of all, completely condemn the scenes that we have seen on our television screens and people have witnessed in their communities.
'These are sickening scenes - scenes of people looting, vandalising, thieving, robbing, scenes of people attacking police officers and even attacking fire crews as they're trying to put out fires. This is criminality, pure and simple, and it has to be confronted and defeated.
'I feel huge sympathy for the families who've suffered, innocent people who've been burned out of their houses and to businesses who have seen their premises smashed, their products looted and their livelihoods potentially ruined.
'I also feel for all those who live in fear because of these appalling scenes that we've seen on the streets of our country. People should be in no doubt that we are on the side of the law- abiding - law-abiding people who are appalled by what has happened in their own communities.
'I am determined, the Government is determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions.
'And I have this very clear message to those people who are responsible for this wrongdoing and criminality: you will feel the full force of the law and if you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment.
'And to these people I would say this: you are not only wrecking the lives of others, you're not only wrecking your own communities - you are potentially wrecking your own life too.
'My office this morning has spoken to the Speaker of the House of Commons and he has agreed that Parliament will be recalled for a day on Thursday so I can make a statement to Parliament and we can hold a debate and we are all able to stand together in condemnation of these crimes and also to stand together in determination to rebuild these communities.'
Last night copycat violence broke out in Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol, with further reports of violence in Nottingham and Leeds as it spread from the capital for the first time.
Among the most serious of incidents was the arrest of three people on suspicion of attempting to murder a police officer in north London early this morning. Armoured vehicles - known as 'Jankels' - were used to push back a mob of 150 rioters in Clapham, south London, while dozens of businesses were gutted by fire or looted until shelves were bare.
Children aged as young as eight were reportedly seen fleeing shops with games consoles in Ealing.
Despite 6,000 officers on the streets of London alone, many residents reported a lack of police while marauding gangs were a law unto themselves.
An 'unprecedented' number of police will be on the streets of London tonight with 'all able-bodied officers in the Met' out on duty, said Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh.
Officers from 26 forces outside the capital have also been drafted in to help out as police confirmed that 525 people have now been arrested since rioting began on Saturday and over 100 have been charged.
England's friendly international against the Netherlands tomorrow at Wembley has been called off amid fears that it could be targeted by thugs. West Ham and Charlton football clubs had already postponed their Carling Cup clashes tonight on police advice.
Amid the unrest, with a year to go until the games, senior members of the International Olympic Committee are in the capital today. As London is cleaned-up they are expected to watch beach volleyball at Whitehall.
TV PRESENTER 'ARRESTS' RIOTER
Television star Dan Snow 'arrested' a rioter as he looted a shop outside his London home, it was revealed today.
The 6ft 6in presenter confronted yobs as they raided a shoe shop outside his property in Notting Hill gate at around 11pm last night.
As around 50 people caused chaos outside he bravely rugby-tackled a thug and held him until police arrived.
He told The Times: 'As I came up I could hear police sirens coming up the road.
'One of them belted out of the shoe shop. He didn't see me coming, so I rugby-tackled him. He was quite surprrised.'
Last night 44 police officers were injured - four of them seriously - as the capital endured the worst night of violence it has seen for decades.
London Ambulance Service said it took 22 people to hospital from the main areas of the disturbances, although others were treated at the scene or made their own way to accident and emergency departments. Some rioters threw missiles at ambulances or threatened medics as they tried to care for the injured.
Deputy Mayor of London Kit Malthouse told LBC radio: 'Officers were extremely brave. What we are trying to do this morning is maximise the number of police officers we have out again tonight.
'We have something like 6,000 on duty last night. We need to get even more out tonight, and that includes officers from outside London, so we are appealing to other forces to help us where they can.'
The violence started on Saturday after father-of-four Mark Duggan, 29, was shot dead by police marksman last Thursday. This morning a post-mortem examination revealed he died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. An inquest was adjourned until December 12.
Acting Scotland Yard Commissioner Tim Godwin said there had been 'far too many' young people on the capital's streets last night and called on parents and guardians to keep youngsters in tonight.
He said there are no plans for the army to get involved.
'We've got the full support of the Government in getting as much mutual aid from outside of London as is necessary and I would like to take this opportunity to remind people of what I said last night as things were escalating.
'There were far too many young people on the streets of London last night, in places which were both dangerous and violent and I urge all the citizens of London, and the guardians and parents of young people especially, to keep them in tonight.
'We will be very robust in policing any disorder we get tonight.
'This is not just a game. This is criminality, this is burglary, this is violence, and we will pursue each and every one that has been involved in this and we will be making sure they are brought to justice and to court.
'We have a significant investigative asset that's in place.'
In one of the most serious incidents, the well-known Reeves furniture store in Croydon, south London, which first opened in 1867, was completely destroyed by a huge fire.
Owner Trevor Reeves told Sky News: 'It has just provided my family and the 15 or 20 staff and families that were supported, it's just completely destroyed.
'Words fail me. It's just gone, it's five generations. My father is distraught at the moment. It's just mindless thuggery.'
Residents complained that police were very slow to respond as a huge Debenhams store was ransacked. This morning the whole high street was cordoned off as a major investigation and clear-up got underway.
Rioting began in Hackney shortly after 4pm yesterday when a mob of hooded youths began hurling missiles at officers and setting fire to bins and cars. Masked rioters on BMX bicycles armed with batons attacked a crowded London bus during the evening rush-hour, chasing terrified commuters as they tried to escape.
The thugs, some as young as eight, forced the driver to stop the double-decker by pelting it with champagne bottles stolen from a nearby Tesco. About 40 passengers – some carrying screaming toddlers – burst out of the exits and sprinted away.
Within hours similar scenes erupted in Lewisham, spreading to Peckham, Deptford and Croydon in south east London.
Hundreds of fires were started all over the capital, from Camden in the north, Woolwich in the south east, Ealing in west London and then, more worryingly as police lost control of the streets last night, locals were forced to take the law into their own hands to protect their homes and businesses.
In Dalston and Hackney, north-east London, shopkeepers and their families fought back against looting youths and forced them from the streets. As surrounding areas were pillaged members of the town's large Turkish community stood firm outside their homes and businesses.
Home Secretary Theresa May this morning appeared to rule out bringing in the Army and using water cannon. She told BBC Breakfast: 'The way we police is by consent.'
'British policing has always meant and always depended on the support of local communities and that's what we need now.'
She told Sky News the capital needed 'robust policing' - and rejected suggestions that police budget cutting had any impact on violence.
'Don't let police budgets be used as an excuse for what is going on on our streets is sheer criminality and nothing else.'
Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former Army officer, hit out and told the Telegraph that tougher policing should be used in mainland Britain for the first time.
He said: ‘I find it strange that we are willing to use these sort of measures against the Irish yet when Englishmen step out of line and behave in this atrocious and appalling way, we are happy to mollycoddle them.'
Met Police Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh appeared to contradict the Home Secretary and said using the military had not been ruled out.
'All options were discussed last night and that means, not that we're doing it, the people of London need to know that the Commissioner and his management board team are considering everything and working through those options as we go forward,' he told BBC Breakfast.
Mr Kavanagh said it was 'a shocking and appalling morning for London to wake up to' and he was struck by the 'sheer scale and speed with which the attacks took place across London last night'. It 'was truly unprecedented' he said.
He said there was a 'changing nature' in the make-up of the rioters, with the profile changing 'dramatically' last night from 14 to 17-year-olds to 'older groups in cars doing organised looting'.
He added: 'And there was the far more focused attempt at injuring London Ambulance staff, there to help the community, trying to injure Fire Brigade officers and, of course, police officers.'
Elsewhere, West Midlands Police said it had made about 100 arrests and confirmed that a police station in Handsworth, Birmingham, was on fire. Merseyside Police said there were a number of incidents in South Liverpool, including cars being set on alight.
Avon and Somerset Police reported around 150 rioters were in Bristol city centre, with main roads closed and a number of shops damaged.
Gangs of looters - who appeared to be teenagers and young adults from a range of different backgrounds - raided hundreds of shops and businesses across London, making off with TVs and other electrical goods, cigarettes, clothes and alcohol.
Staff at Birmingham Children's Hospital formed a 'human shield' as they barricaded themselves inside after rioters threatened to set it on fire - in an evil bid to 'win respect' from fellow thugs.
Police ordered an immediate lock-down of the hospital after rioters used Twitter to spread the word and encourage thugs to storm the wards just after 9pm last night. Gangs of rioters rounded on the hospital - which cares for some of Britain's sickest children - armed with broken bottles and knives hoping to 'out-riot' yobs running amok in London.
A hospital spokesman said: 'We were told by police to lock the hospital down. They asked us not to let anyone in or out until it was safe to do so. 'It is extremely dangerous and our main concern is for the welfare of our patients and staff.'
In Medway, Kent, a group of around 15 youths arrived by train and went on the rampage, while violence was also reported in Chatham, Rainham and Gillingham.
Yob also went on the rampage in Nottingham where up to 40 cars were damaged, there were attempts to loot shops and a container of 200 tyres was set on fire.
Cars and wheelie bins were torched during five hours of violence across Liverpool. A Tesco store in Myrtle Street was looted and police came under attack in Admiral Street with some of the rioters aged as young as 10.
Of the attempted murder of a police officer, Scotland Yard said the three people were apprehended following an incident in Brent, north west London, that led to a police officer being injured by a car while trying to stop looters.
WHERE THE VIOLENCE HAPPENED
HACKNEY Masked rioters on BMX bicycles armed with batons attacked a crowded London bus during the evening rush-hour, chasing terrified commuters as they tried to escape
The thugs forced the driver to stop the double-decker by pelting it with champagne bottles stolen from a nearby Tesco
A thug used an axe to break into a Tesco supermarket. More than 30 gang members then streamed in, stealing bottles of alcohol which they used as missiles in later attacks
CROYDON Fire destroyed a landmark furniture store. Black smoke could be seen across South London as House of Reeves, on Reeves Corner, was razed
Gangs of youths, some armed with knives, fought with police as supermarkets and other businesses were attacked
Looters raided a branch of Argos, smashing the rear doors and making off with satnavs, CD players and camcorders
PECKHAM A woman and small child were taken by ambulance to hospital with burns and breathing difficulties after a shop below their flat was set ablaze
Hundreds of teenagers had earlier smashed up a bus before setting it on fire. Wheelie bins were also set alight and placed in the middle of the road
A line of police stood helpless a quarter of a mile away in Rye Lane
BIRMINGHAM Shop windows were smashed in Birmingham as large crowds gathered following rumours of copycat riots
Police established an exclusion zone up to half a mile around the city’s famous Bullring shopping centre. McDonald’s, Jessops and LA fitness were targeted, with bins thrown through the windows
Disturbances were also reported in EALING, FULHAM, LEWISHAM, CLAPHAM, OXFORD CIRCUS, WALTHAM FOREST, WALTHAMSTOW ISLINGTON, PONDERS END, CAMDEN, KENSINGTON AND KING'S ROAD
A force spokesman said: 'At approximately 2.50am on Tuesday, August 9 a male police officer was injured by a car in Fulton Road, Brent. He has been taken to a north London hospital where he remains in a stable condition.
'It is believed the injury occurred when police stopped some cars as their occupants were suspected of being involved in looting of a nearby electrical store. It is believed the driver of one of the cars drove away injuring the police officer in the process. Three people were later stopped by police and arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.'
As the trouble intensified, at 2.30am the Met changed its tactics in the Lavender Hill, Clapham, introducing armoured vehicles to push back more than 150 people where substantial damage was being caused to shops and local businesses.
Because the tactic proved a success police are now considering using the same methods elsewhere.
A large blaze at a Sony distribution centre near Enfield, north London, also sent plumes of thick smoke across the sky last night.
In Croydon, one woman was seen leaping from a burning building on Surrey Street as flames threatened to engulf her. Police also revealed a man was shot in the suburb, and though he is in a serious condition he was not fatally injured.
Disturbances were reported in Harrow, in the north west of the city and Clapham, in south London, where shops were looted, including the Debenhams store and a row of shops in Lavender Hill.
Unrest was also been reported in Fulham, at Wandsworth Bridge Road, and in Ealing in west London where windows at a Tesco supermarket were smashed and rubbish strewn across the street.
A bus at High Street Kensington was attacked and unrest was reported in Camden, Chalk Farm, Enfield, Bethnal Green and Portabello Road, Notting Hill.
Some people in Hackney and Clapham Junction were forced to flee their homes following the violence. Police have also urged football clubs to cancel any up-coming London fixtures this week until the violence has been brought under control.
Last night about 1,700 extra police officers were brought in from neighbouring forces to help contain the trouble, including officers from Thames Valley Police, Kent, Essex, Hampshire, Surrey, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Sussex.
Commander Christine Jones, said: 'The violence we have seen is simply inexcusable. Ordinary people have had their lives turned upside down by this mindless thuggery. The Met will ensure that those responsible will face the consequences of their actions and be arrested.'
Roy Ramm, a former Scotland Yard commander, said the Met could lose control of London’s streets.
‘That has to be a possibility and the Home Secretary and commissioner are going to have to make some difficult decisions.
He said that by using mobile phones and social networks ‘these people can mass and change direction very quickly and the police tactics are being subverted.’
Croydon pub landlord Alan McCabe told BBC he was furious about the fires raging in Croydon.
'I have never seen such a disregard for human life. I hope they rot in hell.
'The grief they have caused people, the fear they have put in people's hearts, decent people who have done nothing to anyone.'
In Birmingham police said several shops near the Bullring shopping centre were attacked and property stolen as youths rampaged around the city centre causing thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The disorder started at about 7.45pm when a mob of around 40 youths charged from the station into the main shopping area smashing shops and causing havoc. One group grabbed hundreds of coat hangers throwing them onto the streets and tipping over rubbish bins.
Among the damaged shops were a Sainsbury's Local, Adidas, JD Sports, Primark, TMobile and stationery shop Savers, which is located yards away from Jamie Oliver's restaurant Jamie's Italian.
Shocked diners at Wagamamas and Jamie's Italian stopped eating to stand up and look at the riots in progress.
Back in London, on Peckham High Street, around 500 youths gathered near riot police, while a gang of 10 looters raided a loan shop and an ABC Pharmacy was targeted by men using plastic bags to cover their faces.
Dresses were among the items taken from a clothing store, while a cashpoint and a branch of Coral bookmakers were also badly damaged.
Three lines of riot police charged at a large group of youths outside Peckham Library, forcing them to retreat.
At Westfield Shopping Centre in Shepherd's Bush, barriers were erected, and Kilburn High Street was closed off. Police were also on the streets in Harlesden.
The widespread rioting led to railway station closures while numerous roads were also shut.
Among the mainline stations that were shut last night were Peckham Rye and Queens Road, Peckham, as well as Barking in east London, West Croydon in south east London, and Bethnal Green in east London.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023874/LONDON-RIOTS-David-Cameron-returns-home-police-face-gangs-petrol-bombs.html#ixzz1UXJFGWgT
Unrest was also been reported in Fulham, at Wandsworth Bridge Road, and in Ealing in west London where windows at a Tesco supermarket were smashed and rubbish strewn across the street.
A bus at High Street Kensington was attacked and unrest was reported in Camden, Chalk Farm, Enfield, Bethnal Green and Portabello Road, Notting Hill.
Some people in Hackney and Clapham Junction were forced to flee their homes following the violence. Police have also urged football clubs to cancel any up-coming London fixtures this week until the violence has been brought under control.
Last night about 1,700 extra police officers were brought in from neighbouring forces to help contain the trouble, including officers from Thames Valley Police, Kent, Essex, Hampshire, Surrey, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Sussex.
Commander Christine Jones, said: 'The violence we have seen is simply inexcusable. Ordinary people have had their lives turned upside down by this mindless thuggery. The Met will ensure that those responsible will face the consequences of their actions and be arrested.'
Roy Ramm, a former Scotland Yard commander, said the Met could lose control of London’s streets.
‘That has to be a possibility and the Home Secretary and commissioner are going to have to make some difficult decisions.
He said that by using mobile phones and social networks ‘these people can mass and change direction very quickly and the police tactics are being subverted.’
Croydon pub landlord Alan McCabe told BBC he was furious about the fires raging in Croydon.
'I have never seen such a disregard for human life. I hope they rot in hell.
'The grief they have caused people, the fear they have put in people's hearts, decent people who have done nothing to anyone.'
In Birmingham police said several shops near the Bullring shopping centre were attacked and property stolen as youths rampaged around the city centre causing thousands of pounds worth of damage.
The disorder started at about 7.45pm when a mob of around 40 youths charged from the station into the main shopping area smashing shops and causing havoc. One group grabbed hundreds of coat hangers throwing them onto the streets and tipping over rubbish bins.
Among the damaged shops were a Sainsbury's Local, Adidas, JD Sports, Primark, TMobile and stationery shop Savers, which is located yards away from Jamie Oliver's restaurant Jamie's Italian.
Shocked diners at Wagamamas and Jamie's Italian stopped eating to stand up and look at the riots in progress.
Back in London, on Peckham High Street, around 500 youths gathered near riot police, while a gang of 10 looters raided a loan shop and an ABC Pharmacy was targeted by men using plastic bags to cover their faces.
Dresses were among the items taken from a clothing store, while a cashpoint and a branch of Coral bookmakers were also badly damaged.
Three lines of riot police charged at a large group of youths outside Peckham Library, forcing them to retreat.
At Westfield Shopping Centre in Shepherd's Bush, barriers were erected, and Kilburn High Street was closed off. Police were also on the streets in Harlesden.
The widespread rioting led to railway station closures while numerous roads were also shut.
Among the mainline stations that were shut last night were Peckham Rye and Queens Road, Peckham, as well as Barking in east London, West Croydon in south east London, and Bethnal Green in east London.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023874/LONDON-RIOTS-David-Cameron-returns-home-police-face-gangs-petrol-bombs.html#ixzz1UXJFGWgT
Monday, August 8, 2011
Credit downgrade is whose fault? Some have no opinion
Read the original here.
No Statement Or Comment From Obama On U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade
(CNSNews.com) - More than 48 hours after Standard & Poors lowered its triple-A credit rating for the United States, President Obama has not said a thing about it, although one of his advisers is blaming tea party conservatives.
The president's Saturday morning radio address had been taped in advance of his weekend trip to Camp David, but if he chooses to, the president can always do a live broadcast to reflect changing events. S&P's downgrade was announced Friday after the stock markets closed.
According to the White House Web site, Obama has "no public schedule" on Monday, but Politico reported he will attend two fund-raisers in Washington Monday evening.
The president's adviser David Axelrod told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the S&P's downgrade from AAA to AA+ for the first time in U.S. history was a "tea party downgrade."
"I think first of all, people are less concerned about that than where we go moving forward," Axelrod said. "But let's look at the history of this: The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a tea party downgrade. The tea party brought us to the brink of a default," Axelrod said.
No Statement Or Comment From Obama On U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade
(CNSNews.com) - More than 48 hours after Standard & Poors lowered its triple-A credit rating for the United States, President Obama has not said a thing about it, although one of his advisers is blaming tea party conservatives.
The president's Saturday morning radio address had been taped in advance of his weekend trip to Camp David, but if he chooses to, the president can always do a live broadcast to reflect changing events. S&P's downgrade was announced Friday after the stock markets closed.
According to the White House Web site, Obama has "no public schedule" on Monday, but Politico reported he will attend two fund-raisers in Washington Monday evening.
The president's adviser David Axelrod told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the S&P's downgrade from AAA to AA+ for the first time in U.S. history was a "tea party downgrade."
"I think first of all, people are less concerned about that than where we go moving forward," Axelrod said. "But let's look at the history of this: The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a tea party downgrade. The tea party brought us to the brink of a default," Axelrod said.
Credit Downgrade is whose fault?
Read the original here.
Democrats Seek To Pin Credit Downgrade On Tea Party
While continuing to cast doubt on the credibility of Standard & Poor’s, several Democrats on Sunday said there is an even greater culprit in the downgrade of the nation’s credit rating: the tea party.
“I believe this is, without question, the tea party downgrade,” Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, a day that also saw mounting anxieties in world markets over the downgrade among myriad other economic woes worldwide. Some of the world’s top financial ministers issued a joint statement Sunday night committing themselves to preserve the stability of financial markets and their economies.
David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Obama, used the exact same phrase in dubbing the credit rating drop the “tea party downgrade,” as Democrats tried to position themselves as reasonable, pragmatic leaders and conservative Republicans as irresponsible ideologues who caused the downgrade by refusing to accept any new taxes.
That’s exactly the kind of blame game that led Standard & Poor’s, one of three key credit-ratings agencies, to strip the U.S. federal government of its AAA status Friday night and reducing it to AA+ for the first time in the nation’s history.
“Congress and the administration are jointly responsible for the conduct of fiscal policy. So, this is not really about either political party,” David Beers, the head of S&P’s government debt-rating unit, said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”
In justifying its actions, S&P cited the political gridlock that continues to paralyze Washington. Although Democrats and Republicans eventually came together last week and crafted a compromise bill to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, S&P decided it wasn’t enough to save the nation’s AAA status, a rating still held by France, Sweden and other countries, and businesses such as Coca-Cola Co. and Microsoft Corp.
“Even with the agreement of Congress and the administration this past week … the underlying debt burden of the U.S. government is rising and will continue to do so most likely over the next decade,” Mr. Beers said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, defended the tea party and said that without the movement, trillions of dollars in spending cuts wouldn’t be possible.
“Thank God they’re here,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“This is the first time we’ve ever raised the debt ceiling where we tried to actually reduce spending. That’s a good thing, but we’re woefully short,” he said. “The tea party hasn’t destroyed Washington. Washington was destroyed before the tea party got here. The hope is that the tea party and middle-of-the-road people can find common ground to turn this country around before we become Greece.”
Democrats, who also had harsh words for S&P, said there’s enough blame to go around.
Lawrence H. Summers, former director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council, on Sunday called the agency’s track record “terrible.” He referenced S&P’s highly positive ratings for mortgage-backed securities that tanked in 2008, which many blame for the ongoing economic crisis.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, in his first public comments on the credit downgrade, told CNBC that S&P had shown “terrible judgment.”
“They’ve handled themselves very poorly. And they’ve shown a stunning lack of knowledge about the basic U.S. fiscal budget math,” he said.
Democrats weren’t alone in their stinging critiques of S&P. Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Steve Forbes, former Republican presidential candidate and CEO of Forbes Inc., said the downgrade was “outrageous” and “a political move.”
“I’m surprised S&P would play politics. The U.S. government can pay the interest and principal on the bonds,” he added.
S&P also has come under fire for a $2 trillion error in its calculations of projected U.S. debt, which the agency later corrected. Democrats noted that Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, the other two major ratings agencies, haven’t stripped the U.S. of its AAA status.
“They made a $2 trillion mistake. The other ratings agencies did not downgrade the U.S. debt because they did not make that $2 trillion mistake,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
Despite the initial error, S&P’s broader analysis hasn’t changed, Mr. Beers said. The agency also warned of another downgrade if Congress and the administration can’t get a handle on the mounting national debt.
Also speaking on “This Week,” S&P Managing Director John Chambers said there is “at least 1 in 3 chance” that the credit rating could be lowered further in the next six to 24 months.
While Republicans see the threat of another downgrade as evidence that the federal government must reduce spending drastically, some Democrats see the move as justification for tax increases.
“Look, I think this Standard & Poor’s downgrade is a good thing, because I think it underlines the fact that you can’t [tackle the national debt] without raising revenues,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who ran for president in 2004 and later led the Democratic National Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“The vast majority of the American people want us to raise revenues, particularly on all those gazillionaires that Republicans’ tax cuts mostly benefit,” Mr. Dean said. “So let’s do the right thing. Let’s everybody put something into the pot.”
Mr. Dean also took shots at the tea party, saying the activists’ conduct during the debt ceiling debate proves “they’ve been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it.”
The nation’s best chance to avoid further downgrade may lie with a so-called “supercommittee” to be formed as part of the debt ceiling deal Mr. Obama struck with Republicans last week.
The 12 members of that committee must be named by Aug. 16, and there has been widespread speculation that Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, architect of the 2012 Republican budget, will be chosen. But Mr. Ryan on Sunday poured cold water on the notion that the supercommittee will come to the rescue.
“I wouldn’t call it super. … I’m not putting all my stock in this committee,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I don’t think it’s going to be what fixes all of our fiscal problems. … Ultimately, I really think you need to change leadership in Washington if you want to fix this problem,” he added.
At best, Mr. Ryan said, the “supercommittee” will identify $1 trillion to $2 trillion in additional cuts, far below the $4 trillion threshold S&P cited as necessary to put the nation back on firmer financial footing.
Mr. Ryan also is an example of how jockeying for partisan advantage affects the nation’s finances.
When he proposed a long-term budget this year, Democrats immediately pounced on the fact that it scaled back Medicare spending in later years. One commercial by the liberal Agenda Project told viewers to “ask Paul Ryan and his friends in Congress” to explain grandmothers in wheelchairs being pushed off cliffs.
On Sunday’s talk shows, Mr. Dean reiterated that Democratic line in the sand, and did so immediately after having said “everybody” needed to sacrifice.
“There’s some things you can’t put into the pot. If Medicare eligibility goes up to 67, you’re going to see people running against Democrats in primaries. You know, we’re not going to penalize old people,” he said.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Democrats Seek To Pin Credit Downgrade On Tea Party
While continuing to cast doubt on the credibility of Standard & Poor’s, several Democrats on Sunday said there is an even greater culprit in the downgrade of the nation’s credit rating: the tea party.
“I believe this is, without question, the tea party downgrade,” Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, a day that also saw mounting anxieties in world markets over the downgrade among myriad other economic woes worldwide. Some of the world’s top financial ministers issued a joint statement Sunday night committing themselves to preserve the stability of financial markets and their economies.
David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Obama, used the exact same phrase in dubbing the credit rating drop the “tea party downgrade,” as Democrats tried to position themselves as reasonable, pragmatic leaders and conservative Republicans as irresponsible ideologues who caused the downgrade by refusing to accept any new taxes.
That’s exactly the kind of blame game that led Standard & Poor’s, one of three key credit-ratings agencies, to strip the U.S. federal government of its AAA status Friday night and reducing it to AA+ for the first time in the nation’s history.
“Congress and the administration are jointly responsible for the conduct of fiscal policy. So, this is not really about either political party,” David Beers, the head of S&P’s government debt-rating unit, said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”
In justifying its actions, S&P cited the political gridlock that continues to paralyze Washington. Although Democrats and Republicans eventually came together last week and crafted a compromise bill to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, S&P decided it wasn’t enough to save the nation’s AAA status, a rating still held by France, Sweden and other countries, and businesses such as Coca-Cola Co. and Microsoft Corp.
“Even with the agreement of Congress and the administration this past week … the underlying debt burden of the U.S. government is rising and will continue to do so most likely over the next decade,” Mr. Beers said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, defended the tea party and said that without the movement, trillions of dollars in spending cuts wouldn’t be possible.
“Thank God they’re here,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“This is the first time we’ve ever raised the debt ceiling where we tried to actually reduce spending. That’s a good thing, but we’re woefully short,” he said. “The tea party hasn’t destroyed Washington. Washington was destroyed before the tea party got here. The hope is that the tea party and middle-of-the-road people can find common ground to turn this country around before we become Greece.”
Democrats, who also had harsh words for S&P, said there’s enough blame to go around.
Lawrence H. Summers, former director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council, on Sunday called the agency’s track record “terrible.” He referenced S&P’s highly positive ratings for mortgage-backed securities that tanked in 2008, which many blame for the ongoing economic crisis.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, in his first public comments on the credit downgrade, told CNBC that S&P had shown “terrible judgment.”
“They’ve handled themselves very poorly. And they’ve shown a stunning lack of knowledge about the basic U.S. fiscal budget math,” he said.
Democrats weren’t alone in their stinging critiques of S&P. Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Steve Forbes, former Republican presidential candidate and CEO of Forbes Inc., said the downgrade was “outrageous” and “a political move.”
“I’m surprised S&P would play politics. The U.S. government can pay the interest and principal on the bonds,” he added.
S&P also has come under fire for a $2 trillion error in its calculations of projected U.S. debt, which the agency later corrected. Democrats noted that Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, the other two major ratings agencies, haven’t stripped the U.S. of its AAA status.
“They made a $2 trillion mistake. The other ratings agencies did not downgrade the U.S. debt because they did not make that $2 trillion mistake,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
Despite the initial error, S&P’s broader analysis hasn’t changed, Mr. Beers said. The agency also warned of another downgrade if Congress and the administration can’t get a handle on the mounting national debt.
Also speaking on “This Week,” S&P Managing Director John Chambers said there is “at least 1 in 3 chance” that the credit rating could be lowered further in the next six to 24 months.
While Republicans see the threat of another downgrade as evidence that the federal government must reduce spending drastically, some Democrats see the move as justification for tax increases.
“Look, I think this Standard & Poor’s downgrade is a good thing, because I think it underlines the fact that you can’t [tackle the national debt] without raising revenues,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who ran for president in 2004 and later led the Democratic National Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“The vast majority of the American people want us to raise revenues, particularly on all those gazillionaires that Republicans’ tax cuts mostly benefit,” Mr. Dean said. “So let’s do the right thing. Let’s everybody put something into the pot.”
Mr. Dean also took shots at the tea party, saying the activists’ conduct during the debt ceiling debate proves “they’ve been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it.”
The nation’s best chance to avoid further downgrade may lie with a so-called “supercommittee” to be formed as part of the debt ceiling deal Mr. Obama struck with Republicans last week.
The 12 members of that committee must be named by Aug. 16, and there has been widespread speculation that Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, architect of the 2012 Republican budget, will be chosen. But Mr. Ryan on Sunday poured cold water on the notion that the supercommittee will come to the rescue.
“I wouldn’t call it super. … I’m not putting all my stock in this committee,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I don’t think it’s going to be what fixes all of our fiscal problems. … Ultimately, I really think you need to change leadership in Washington if you want to fix this problem,” he added.
At best, Mr. Ryan said, the “supercommittee” will identify $1 trillion to $2 trillion in additional cuts, far below the $4 trillion threshold S&P cited as necessary to put the nation back on firmer financial footing.
Mr. Ryan also is an example of how jockeying for partisan advantage affects the nation’s finances.
When he proposed a long-term budget this year, Democrats immediately pounced on the fact that it scaled back Medicare spending in later years. One commercial by the liberal Agenda Project told viewers to “ask Paul Ryan and his friends in Congress” to explain grandmothers in wheelchairs being pushed off cliffs.
On Sunday’s talk shows, Mr. Dean reiterated that Democratic line in the sand, and did so immediately after having said “everybody” needed to sacrifice.
“There’s some things you can’t put into the pot. If Medicare eligibility goes up to 67, you’re going to see people running against Democrats in primaries. You know, we’re not going to penalize old people,” he said.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Standards too high or is the US just sidestepping the issue?
Ahhh....the waiver. Favorite tool of the Obama administration. Read the original here.
Obama Administration Exempting Schools From Federal Law’s Testing Mandate
(AP) - State and local education officials have been begging the federal government for relief from student testing mandates in the federal No Child Left Behind law, but school starts soon and Congress still hasn't answered the call.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he will announce a new waiver system Monday to give schools a break.
The plan to offer waivers to all 50 states, as long as they meet other school reform requirements, comes at the request of President Barack Obama, Duncan said. More details on the waivers will come in September, he said.
The goal of the No Child Left Behind law is to have every student proficient in math and reading by 2014. States have been required to bring more students up to the math and reading standards each year, based on tests that usually take place each spring. The step-by-step ramping up of the 9-year-old law has caused heartburn in states and most school districts, because more and more schools are labeled as failures as too few of their students meet testing goals.
Critics say the benchmarks are unrealistic and brands schools as failures even if they make progress. Schools and districts where too few kids pass the tests for several years are subject to sanctions that can include firing teachers or closing the school entirely.
Through the waivers, schools will get some relief from looming deadlines to meet testing goals as long as they agree to embrace other kinds of education reforms such as raising standards, helping teachers and principals improve, and focusing on fixing the lowest performing schools.
Duncan and Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council at the White House, said the administration will encourage every state to apply and will work with them to meet the requirements.
Nothing in this plan for temporary relief from some aspects of the federal law will undermine what Congress is still discussing in terms of revising federal education laws, Duncan said. The long-awaited overhaul of the law began earlier this year in the U.S. House, but a comprehensive reform appears far from the finish line.
"What we do in terms of flexibility can be a bridge or transition," he said. "We all want to fix the law. This might help us get closer to that."
The chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, however, says he is worried about Duncan's waiver plan.
"I remain concerned that temporary measures instituted by the department, such as conditional waivers, could undermine the committee's efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., in a statement, referring to the formal name of the No Child Left Behind law.
The Obama administration requested a revision more than a year ago. Duncan said another school year is about to start and state education officials have told him they can't keep waiting for relief from the mandates.
"I can't overemphasize how loudly the outcry is to do something now," Duncan said.
Duncan has warned that 82 percent of U.S. schools could be labeled failures next year if No Child Left Behind is not changed. Education experts have questioned that estimate, but state officials report a growing number of schools facing sanctions under the law.
Montana Schools Superintendent Denise Juneau said she welcomed the waiver proposal, as long as it offers relief from the 2014 deadline. She said her state isn't afraid of high standards and education reform but needs enough time to reach those standards and freedom to institute change in a way that works for Montana.
Montana decided to skip a planned increase in its testing goals this past school year.
"I don't mind the goals and we're certainly not afraid of accountability. They can set the bar wherever they want. They just have to let us have the flexibility to get there," Juneau said. "We can definitely meet any bar they throw at us."
The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said he understands why it was time for the administration to take action.
"This Congress faces real challenges reaching bipartisan, bicameral agreement on anything," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, in a written statement. "Given the ill-advised and partisan bills that the House majority has chosen to move, I understand Secretary Duncan's decision to proceed with a waiver package to provide some interim relief while Congress finishes its work."
Harkin said he remains committed to keep working toward a bipartisan solution to reform the federal education law.
Obama Administration Exempting Schools From Federal Law’s Testing Mandate
(AP) - State and local education officials have been begging the federal government for relief from student testing mandates in the federal No Child Left Behind law, but school starts soon and Congress still hasn't answered the call.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he will announce a new waiver system Monday to give schools a break.
The plan to offer waivers to all 50 states, as long as they meet other school reform requirements, comes at the request of President Barack Obama, Duncan said. More details on the waivers will come in September, he said.
The goal of the No Child Left Behind law is to have every student proficient in math and reading by 2014. States have been required to bring more students up to the math and reading standards each year, based on tests that usually take place each spring. The step-by-step ramping up of the 9-year-old law has caused heartburn in states and most school districts, because more and more schools are labeled as failures as too few of their students meet testing goals.
Critics say the benchmarks are unrealistic and brands schools as failures even if they make progress. Schools and districts where too few kids pass the tests for several years are subject to sanctions that can include firing teachers or closing the school entirely.
Through the waivers, schools will get some relief from looming deadlines to meet testing goals as long as they agree to embrace other kinds of education reforms such as raising standards, helping teachers and principals improve, and focusing on fixing the lowest performing schools.
Duncan and Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council at the White House, said the administration will encourage every state to apply and will work with them to meet the requirements.
Nothing in this plan for temporary relief from some aspects of the federal law will undermine what Congress is still discussing in terms of revising federal education laws, Duncan said. The long-awaited overhaul of the law began earlier this year in the U.S. House, but a comprehensive reform appears far from the finish line.
"What we do in terms of flexibility can be a bridge or transition," he said. "We all want to fix the law. This might help us get closer to that."
The chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, however, says he is worried about Duncan's waiver plan.
"I remain concerned that temporary measures instituted by the department, such as conditional waivers, could undermine the committee's efforts to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., in a statement, referring to the formal name of the No Child Left Behind law.
The Obama administration requested a revision more than a year ago. Duncan said another school year is about to start and state education officials have told him they can't keep waiting for relief from the mandates.
"I can't overemphasize how loudly the outcry is to do something now," Duncan said.
Duncan has warned that 82 percent of U.S. schools could be labeled failures next year if No Child Left Behind is not changed. Education experts have questioned that estimate, but state officials report a growing number of schools facing sanctions under the law.
Montana Schools Superintendent Denise Juneau said she welcomed the waiver proposal, as long as it offers relief from the 2014 deadline. She said her state isn't afraid of high standards and education reform but needs enough time to reach those standards and freedom to institute change in a way that works for Montana.
Montana decided to skip a planned increase in its testing goals this past school year.
"I don't mind the goals and we're certainly not afraid of accountability. They can set the bar wherever they want. They just have to let us have the flexibility to get there," Juneau said. "We can definitely meet any bar they throw at us."
The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said he understands why it was time for the administration to take action.
"This Congress faces real challenges reaching bipartisan, bicameral agreement on anything," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, in a written statement. "Given the ill-advised and partisan bills that the House majority has chosen to move, I understand Secretary Duncan's decision to proceed with a waiver package to provide some interim relief while Congress finishes its work."
Harkin said he remains committed to keep working toward a bipartisan solution to reform the federal education law.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Congressional Dems push for Internet Sales Tax
Read the original here.
Democrats Turn To Online Sales Tax For New Revenues Following Debt Battle
While the nation was captivated by the debt crisis – and whether tax increases would be part of any deal to reduce federal deficits – a group of Democratic senators and congressmen have rolled out legislation that would raise new revenues by targeting online sales from retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
These lawmakers say that states are losing billions in uncollected state and local sales tax on Internet sales and are touting the support of online retailers like Amazon who say they’re fine with an across-the-board system that would make tax collections simple.
But small businesses say the new legislation is unfair and puts them at a cost disadvantage at a time when they can least afford it.
The bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., last week called the Main Street Fairness Act, has drawn support from several Democrats, including Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Peter Welch of Vermont and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to face the burden of reporting all of their online purchases. Main Street retailers collect sales taxes on behalf of consumers, why shouldn’t online retailers do the same,” Durbin said in a statement Friday.
Durbin noted that states are expected to lose up to $24 billion in uncollected state and local taxes this year on Internet and catalog sales.
“This bill will level the playing field for local businesses, by ensuring that online retailers collect the same sales taxes that brick-and-mortar retailers already do,” Conyers said. “This will help our state and local governments avoid devastating layoffs and cuts to essential services vital to the well-being of our local communities.”
But several tech groups strongly oppose the bill.
“Congress often says that small businesses are the backbone of the economic recovery, but these new collection costs will break the backs of many small online businesses,” said Steve, DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a tech trade group.
“It’s a cruel irony to call this job-killing bill the ‘Main Street Fairness Act,’” DelBianco added. “Online sales are about the only way small retailers can survive being steamrolled by the big-box chains who are behind this bill.”
Retailers are only required to collect sales tax in states where they also have a physical presence under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling known as the Quill decision. The high court ruled that a sales tax on out-of-state sellers would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce because of the complexity of states’ and municipalities’ sales tax rules.
That means out-of-state retailers can offer their customers a discount online, but consumers have to report the sales tax owed on online purchases on their tax returns.
In response to the Quill decision, 44 states and the District of Columbia are working with local governments and the business community to adopt a sweeping interstate system to simplify their sales tax rules and administrative requirements, called the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. So far, 24 states have changed their laws in compliance with this interstate agreement.
But the Quill decision said Congress would have to authorize such an agreement, which supporters say the bill does.
Amazon.com Inc., the largest online Internet retailer, threw its support behind the bill.
“Amazon.com has long supported a simple, nationwide system of state and local sales tax collection, evenhandedly applied to all sellers, no matter their business model, location, or level of remote sales,” Paul Misener, vice president of Amazon’s global public policy, said in a letter to Durbin that the Illinois senator included in a press release.
“To this end, I am writing to thank you for your bill that would allow states that sufficiently simplify their rules to require collection of sales tax by out-of-state sellers,” he wrote.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents more than 200 retailers, also supports the bill, saying it would end special treatment for online-only retailers and relieve consumers of the tax-reporting requirement.
“For too long, U.S. tax policy has favored online-only retailers over the brick-and-mortar stores that creates the jobs and serves our communities,” said Katherine Lugar, a spokeswoman for the association.
“Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers by giving a handful of companies a competitive advantage over everyone else,” he said. “It’s time to close this decades-old loophole and level the playing field for all retailers.”
But the Computer and Communications Industry Association opposes the bill, saying that taxing small Internet businesses with the most potential for economic growth is unfair.
“E-commerce has enabled businesses to broaden the scope of their activities beyond traditional geographical limitations,” said Ed Black, president and CEO of CCIA. “Sadly, this bill seeks to re-impose onto e-commerce businesses the very burdens that innovation has enabled them to overcome, and has given them a chance for success.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/03/with-spending-cuts-only-deal-passed-dems-seek-new-revenues-in-online-sales/#ixzz1TzX4UirB
Democrats Turn To Online Sales Tax For New Revenues Following Debt Battle
While the nation was captivated by the debt crisis – and whether tax increases would be part of any deal to reduce federal deficits – a group of Democratic senators and congressmen have rolled out legislation that would raise new revenues by targeting online sales from retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
These lawmakers say that states are losing billions in uncollected state and local sales tax on Internet sales and are touting the support of online retailers like Amazon who say they’re fine with an across-the-board system that would make tax collections simple.
But small businesses say the new legislation is unfair and puts them at a cost disadvantage at a time when they can least afford it.
The bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., last week called the Main Street Fairness Act, has drawn support from several Democrats, including Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Peter Welch of Vermont and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to face the burden of reporting all of their online purchases. Main Street retailers collect sales taxes on behalf of consumers, why shouldn’t online retailers do the same,” Durbin said in a statement Friday.
Durbin noted that states are expected to lose up to $24 billion in uncollected state and local taxes this year on Internet and catalog sales.
“This bill will level the playing field for local businesses, by ensuring that online retailers collect the same sales taxes that brick-and-mortar retailers already do,” Conyers said. “This will help our state and local governments avoid devastating layoffs and cuts to essential services vital to the well-being of our local communities.”
But several tech groups strongly oppose the bill.
“Congress often says that small businesses are the backbone of the economic recovery, but these new collection costs will break the backs of many small online businesses,” said Steve, DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a tech trade group.
“It’s a cruel irony to call this job-killing bill the ‘Main Street Fairness Act,’” DelBianco added. “Online sales are about the only way small retailers can survive being steamrolled by the big-box chains who are behind this bill.”
Retailers are only required to collect sales tax in states where they also have a physical presence under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling known as the Quill decision. The high court ruled that a sales tax on out-of-state sellers would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce because of the complexity of states’ and municipalities’ sales tax rules.
That means out-of-state retailers can offer their customers a discount online, but consumers have to report the sales tax owed on online purchases on their tax returns.
In response to the Quill decision, 44 states and the District of Columbia are working with local governments and the business community to adopt a sweeping interstate system to simplify their sales tax rules and administrative requirements, called the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. So far, 24 states have changed their laws in compliance with this interstate agreement.
But the Quill decision said Congress would have to authorize such an agreement, which supporters say the bill does.
Amazon.com Inc., the largest online Internet retailer, threw its support behind the bill.
“Amazon.com has long supported a simple, nationwide system of state and local sales tax collection, evenhandedly applied to all sellers, no matter their business model, location, or level of remote sales,” Paul Misener, vice president of Amazon’s global public policy, said in a letter to Durbin that the Illinois senator included in a press release.
“To this end, I am writing to thank you for your bill that would allow states that sufficiently simplify their rules to require collection of sales tax by out-of-state sellers,” he wrote.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents more than 200 retailers, also supports the bill, saying it would end special treatment for online-only retailers and relieve consumers of the tax-reporting requirement.
“For too long, U.S. tax policy has favored online-only retailers over the brick-and-mortar stores that creates the jobs and serves our communities,” said Katherine Lugar, a spokeswoman for the association.
“Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers by giving a handful of companies a competitive advantage over everyone else,” he said. “It’s time to close this decades-old loophole and level the playing field for all retailers.”
But the Computer and Communications Industry Association opposes the bill, saying that taxing small Internet businesses with the most potential for economic growth is unfair.
“E-commerce has enabled businesses to broaden the scope of their activities beyond traditional geographical limitations,” said Ed Black, president and CEO of CCIA. “Sadly, this bill seeks to re-impose onto e-commerce businesses the very burdens that innovation has enabled them to overcome, and has given them a chance for success.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/03/with-spending-cuts-only-deal-passed-dems-seek-new-revenues-in-online-sales/#ixzz1TzX4UirB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
