Sunday, July 31, 2011

A new jury to put the British public interest first

A campaign has been launched to hold to account Britain's 'feral' elite for the series of crises which have scarred the country

Something is unraveling before our eyes. From bankers to media-barons, private interests have bankrupted and corrupted the public realm. Power, for so long hidden in the pockets of a cosy elite, has been exposed. Those who wield it have been found wanting ? in scruples, in morals and in decency.

Things are now in flux, but will not stay so for long.

Without decisive and sustained action, power will fall back into the hands of a small elite who have their own, and not the public's interest at heart.

They want to prevent public revulsion turning into public action. But, it's time for real change. Things cannot be allowed to turn back to business as usual.

Britain can no longer be just the plaything of a handful of powerful, remote interest groups treating the wider public with contempt.

The current press and political scandal is not an isolated event.

It's the third crisis in quick succession.

First, the bankers and their bonuses, then some politicians and their expenses and now there is the press, profiting from peoples' pain, grief and private lives.

These crises share common origins.

Left to their own devices politicians, bankers and media moguls could not regulate themselves.

They share a common culture in which greed is good, everyone takes their turn at the trough, and private interest takes precedence over the public good. They have protected each other and left the British people with a financial and political crisis.

They do what they can get away with, not seeming to care for the common life of our country. And, they are scared of only one thing. Us. The public. If public organisations and citizens are vigilant, that elite won't be able to get away with it again. With the right checks and balances we can put the public interest back into the heart of the system.

Only we, the public, can hold power truly to account by testing whether what happens is in the public interest.

To work out how to do it we call for a new Public Jury for the British public interest to propose reforms of banking, politics, media and the police.

The Jury would be made up of 1,000 citizens drawn as a random sample of the electorate. It will be a jury of our peers. We do not need yet another inquiry in which one elite asks another elite to tell them what cannot be done.

The Jury will be funded out of the public purse, with a paid secretariat with the resources to commission research and call witnesses.

It will have the power to require attendance where persons will be asked by the public to explain themselves.

Reporting within a year of its launch the convention will study and report on:

? Media ownership and the public interest

? The role of the financial sector in the crash

? MP selections and accountability

? Policing and public interest

? How to apply a 'public interest first' test more generally to British political and corporate life

Signed by:

Greg Dyke

Henry Porter

Lord Stewart Wood

Lord Smith of Clifton

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC

John Kampfner, Index on Censorship

Philip Pullman, author

Gordon Roddick

Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party

Professor Zygmunt Bauman, Leeds University

Professor Francesca Klug OBE

Professor David Marquand, Mansfield College, Oxford University

Professor Kate Pickett, University of York

Professor Richard Grayson, University of London

Ann Pettifor, Prime Economics

Peter Facey, Unlock Democracy

Deborah Doane, World Development Movement

John Christenson, Tax Justice Network

Richard Murphy, Tax Research LLP

Charlie McConnell, Schumacher College

Professor Tim Jackson, University of Surrey

Guy Shrubsole, Public Interest Research Centre

Richard Hawkins, Public Interest Research Centre

Alan Mac Dougall, PIRC

Neal Lawson, Compass

Martin McIvor, Renewal

Gavin Hayes, Compass

Andrew Simms, nef fellow

Will Straw, founder of Left Foot Forward

Clifford Singer, Other Taxpayers Alliance

Dave Prentis, General Secretary, Unison

Heather Wakefield, Unison

Polly Toynbee, The Guardian

Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian

Laurie Penny, journalist

Heather Savigny, UEA

Professor Judith Marquand, Wolfson College, Oxford University

Professor Alan Finlayson, University of Swansea

Professor Jonathan Rutherford, Middlesex University

Professor Danny Dorling, University of Sheffield

Professor George Irvin, University of London, SOAS

Professor Prem Sikka, University of Essex

Professor Richard Wilkinson, Emeritus Professor of Social Epidemiology

Professor Stefano Harney, QMUL

Professor Peter Case, Bristol Business School

Owen Jones, author of Chavs

Howard Reed, Landman Economics

Stewart Lansley, research fellow, University of Bristol

Professor John Weeks, SOAS

Jenny Jones AM, Green Party

Jeremy Leggett, founder and CEO, Solar Century

Tamasin Cave, Spinwatch

Professor Victoria Chick, UCL

Ruth Potts, The Great Transition, New Economics Foundation

Stewart Wallis, executive director, New Economics Foundation

Rajesh Makwana, director, Share The World's Resources

To support the call for a People's Jury for the British Public Interest go to www.compassonline.org.uk


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/31/public-jury-feral-elite-letter

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Omar al-Bashir Gloria Arroyo Joe Biden Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud

Kwasi Kwarteng: The rising star of politics and letters | profile

With a glittering CV and three books out this summer, the MP is tipped for a brilliant career, even being the first black Tory cabinet minister

'If I want to read a book, I write one," said Benjamin Disraeli, the first political "outsider" to become Tory prime minister. Few of those to follow Disraeli into the House of Commons over the last century and a half can have taken that Victorian lesson to heart as strongly as Kwasi Kwarteng. That the new MP will have no fewer than three books coming out in the space of a month, just a year and a half into his parliamentary career, suggests that this self-styled "black Boris" (as in Johnson) also sees scribbling as a route to the top of the greasy pole.

Kwarteng is often said to be a very different type of Tory, though this is almost entirely due to his Ghanaian parentage. In most respects, his background is as traditional as it gets, his path from Eton through Cambridge resembling the histories of the imperial administrators whom he sketches in his new book Ghosts of Empire, to be published by Bloomsbury next month.

Kwarteng's father was educated in what was then called the Gold Coast, in a leafy Anglican school emulating the English public school, down to its Winchester-educated English headmaster, becoming an administrator of post-imperialism as a Commonwealth Secretariat economist. Kwasi, born in London, was sent away to board at prep school at eight. "Probably too young, but I loved it," he has said.

As his book revisits the Victorian confidence which made the empire, its author has rarely been thought short of confidence himself. "Scholars' house at Eton was a competitive intellectual hothouse," said one contemporary. "But everyone said that probably the greatest brain of the lot was the guy with the extraordinary name." Kwarteng's interview at Trinity College, Cambridge, became the stuff of an oft-retold Eton school legend. A relatively young tutor ended a slightly nervy interview by mentioning that this was his first time interviewing entrance candidates. "Oh, don't worry, sir, you did fine," smiled the 18-year-old Kwarteng reassuringly.

He proved less unflappable as a University Challenge contestant two years later, swearing: "Oh fuck, I've forgotten" after buzzing in. Somehow it was missed by the production team. Cue viewer complaints and a starring role for Kwarteng in a "Rudiversity Challenge" news story on page three of the Sun no less. It proved a very minor glitch. Kwarteng's friends were not surprised when the college quiz quartet ended the series as national champions, another accolade for this habitual acquirer of school and university prizes. But Kwarteng's reputation was as a rather personable swot, enjoying arguments over the dinner table, combining charm with the impression of being better read than everybody else.

After a masters as a Kennedy scholar at Harvard, and a Cambridge PhD in economic history, he went to work as a fund manager, but the scholarly bug still bit. Ghosts of Empire seems unlikely to join a recent fashion for historical pro-empire boosterism. Kwarteng is billed to speak in a London debate this autumn against the motion that "Britain's former colonies should stop blaming the empire for their ills", the Tory MP taking what would traditionally be the left's line. Kwarteng's instinctive position is on the fence of such a polarised debate, less interested in "good thing" versus "bad thing" polemics about empire and more in the value of studying how we became the societies that we are today.

"This is his first book," says Bloomsbury's jacket and publicity material preparing for the 15 August launch. But it may take a photo-finish to verify that. In its riverside offices last week, rival publisher Biteback received the first copies of another Kwarteng tome, Gridlock Britain, a wonkish polemic about Britain's transport problems. Kwarteng, a member of the transport select committee, believes in markets rather than integrated planning and demands road pricing on the eyecatching ground that tax-funded free roads represent the last gasp of "socialism".

On the very same day that his other new book was winging its way to Kwarteng, the MP's office was submitting, just a few days late, the manuscript of After the Coalition, a book with which seven members of the Tory class of 2010 will seek to make the party conference weather this autumn. He has been a key player behind the book, alongside Liz Truss MP; he pitched the book for publication and has been the point man in its co-ordination.

Kwarteng is economically "dry", but his politics are less clearly defined than others in the group, such as the independent-minded rightwinger Priti Patel or the formidable lawyer Dominic Raab. (Charlie Elphicke, Brandon Lewis and Chris Skidmore, another historian, complete the group). Unusually, all seven MPs will claim joint responsibility and do not plan to reveal who has written which chapter, in an attempt to pitch a coherent manifesto.

It is a calculated gamble. Those who present themselves as the voice of a new generation must have plenty to say. They want to talk to their own party about the radical reforms they might attempt without those pesky Lib Dems to placate, though Kwarteng will be among those keeping an ambitious eye on the Downing Street reaction.

There is nothing new about a non-white Conservative MP. In 1895, Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree won Bethnal Green with a strongly pro-empire pitch. But it took a century to elect his successors. Beyond Nirj Deva's brief spell in Parliament after 1992, it took two Conservatives of Asian origin breaking through in 2005 to diversify the all-white benches. David Cameron has been eager to promote proof that the party has changed, but MPs worry about being pigeonholed by tokenism. The answer to this conundrum has been strength in numbers. After the 2010 election, there are no longer two non-white Tory MPs but more than a dozen, liberated to be able to strike a wide variety of approaches in engaging (or not) with race, and the range of issues that motivated each of them to enter politics. The declining novelty value may dampen the tendency to hail any black politician as our first black prime minister in the quest to identify a "British Obama".

Kwarteng cannot complain that his selection as a Tory candidate was reported with references to the "black Boris", since his own campaign team had enthusiastically propagated the label, his friendship with his fellow old Etonian featuring in his pitch to a "primary" selection meeting of 400.

Strength in numbers brings its challenges too. The Tory class of 2010 ? with nearly 150 new MPs ? is a great competitive hothouse, especially once MPs start thinking about boundary changes that will shrink the Commons.

Kwarteng has a little work to do to stand out in this highly talented cohort. Despite his multiple volumes, foreign affairs specialist Rory Stewart appears the most academically gifted, a mixed political blessing, while Louise Mensch has been the loyalist with the highest media profile.

Many new Tory MPs are remarkably confident in disdaining the traditional route of leadership loyalty. Few now see getting a junior ministry in an overcrowded coalition as a way to win definition in the party. Kwarteng has been a confident Commons performer, though some thought him a little too eager to assist the whips with helpful questions. More than a quarter of the class of 2010 have already rebelled against the whip, though Kwarteng has yet to blemish his loyalty copybook.

Is the "black Boris" tag that apposite? He is a more diligent character, keener on the library than the Bullingdon. "He reminds me more of Ken Clarke than Boris, with a confidence to argue any point in the Commons, whether you feel he believes it or not," says one MP.

Other contrasts may prove to Kwarteng's advantage too. Johnson has thrived as a directly elected London mayor but, like Ken Livingstone, struggled in the Commons, having been famous before he arrived.

Kwarteng has built an impressive reputation, trusted on the inside, though remaining off the radar of a surprising number of Westminster players. His habit of being seen in the tea rooms with grandees and senior MPs reminds one colleague of the quiet, assiduous networking of John Major. He is thought to have his eyes on the whips' office too, though publishing books is not the usual route in.

With such a crowded field wanting to be noticed as the voice of this Tory generation, a name to remember won't do any harm.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/jul/31/observer-profile-kwasi-kwarteng

Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud King Abdulla Osama bin Laden Tony Blair Sam Brownback

What We're Debating Is Pretty Straightforward

Sen. Marco Rubio

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/30/sen_rubio_save_the_whole_house_or_it_will_all_burn_down.html

Rev. Al Sharpton Than Shwe Aung San Suu Kyi Yulia Tymoshenko Elizabeth Windsor

Chilcot to 'heavily criticise' Tony Blair over Iraq war

Official inquiry into Iraq war expected to focus on former PM's alleged failure to consult cabinet fully in run-up to invasion

Tony Blair is reported to be heading for heavy criticism by the official inquiry into the Iraq war, which is likely to focus on his alleged failure to consult the cabinet fully in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

The Mail on Sunday reports today that Sir John Chilcot, the former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office who is chairing the inquiry, has identified a series of concerns. These include:

? Failing to keep cabinet ministers fully informed of Blair's plans in the run-up to the invasion in March 2003. The committee is understood to have been impressed by the criticism voiced by Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary, that Blair ran a sofa government.

? Failing to make proper preparations for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

? Failing to present intelligence in a proper way. In his inquiry into the use of intelligence, published in July 2004, Butler said the usual MI6 caveats were stripped out of the famous Downing Street arms dossier of September 2002.

? Failing to be open with ministers about understandings Blair reached with George Bush in the year running up to the invasion.

Blair hit out at the Mail on Sunday. A spokesman for the former prime minister said: "This is a deliberate attempt by the Mail on Sunday to prejudge a report that hasn't even been written yet. We are not going to comment until the report is actually published."

Angus Robertson, the SNP's leader at Westminster, said: "The tapestry of deceit woven by Tony Blair over the past decade has finally unravelled. Despite his best attempts to fudge the issue when he was called to give evidence, the Chilcot inquiry have recognised the former prime minister's central role in leading the UK into worst foreign policy disaster in recent history.

"While no inquiry will ever bring back those lost in Iraq, this comprehensive review by Sir John Chilcot will at least provide some explanation of the decisions which led to the disastrous invasion."

There has been speculation at senior levels of Whitehall that Chilcot and the members of his inquiry are planning to criticise Blair when they publish their report in the autumn. Some members of the inquiry, including the former British ambassador to Moscow, Sir Rod Lyne, put Blair under pressure in his two appearances before them.

Members of the inquiry have said in private to former colleagues in Whitehall that the best way to gauge the inquiry's findings is to identify areas that have been raised repeatedly by Chilcot and his team. Three key areas which fall into this category are: the lack of proper cabinet consultation; the use of intelligence; and the failure to make preparations for the post-war reconstruction.

It is expected that the inquiry will take a dim view of the Downing Street dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, published on 24 September 2002. This included the notorious claim that Iraq could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes.

In launching the report, Blair told an emergency session of the Commons: "His [Saddam Hussein's] weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down; it is up and running now."

Blair later stated he was wrong to have been so categorical about Iraq's WMD programme.

The inquiry is likely to criticise Alastair Campbell, Blair's former director of communications, who was instrumental in drawing up the dossier.

Campbell has always maintained that Sir John Scarlett, then chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was in charge of the dossier.

However, Major General Michael Laurie told the inquiry in a letter in May that the dossier was designed to "make the case for war".

Campbell wrote back to the inquiry to say: "Witnesses who were directly involved in the drafting of the dossier have made clear to several inquiries that at no time did I put anyone in the intelligence community under pressure, or say to them or anyone else that the then prime minister's purpose in publishing the dossier was to make the case for war."

The inquiry is also expected to focus on Blair's assurances to Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war. Blair rejects criticism that he told the former president in a meeting at his Texas ranch in April 2002 that he would support an invasion as long as the US agreed to try to secure agreement from the United Nations.

In addition, the inquiry will address the failure to make adequate preparations for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Major General Tim Cross, who was attached to the US post-war Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, told the inquiry of a meeting he had with Blair on 18 March 2003, two days before the invasion.

In written evidence, he said: "I told him that there was no clarity on what was going to be needed after the military phase of the operation, nor who would provide it. Although I was confident that we would secure a military victory, I offered my view that we should not begin that campaign until we had a much more coherent postwar plan."

Cross told the inquiry in person in December 2009: "He nodded and didn't say anything particular. I didn't expect him to look me in the eye and say, 'This is terrible, we are going to pull the whole thing off.' I was just one of a number of people briefing him."


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/31/chilcot-criticise-tony-blair-iraq

Tom DeLay Elizabeth Dole John Edwards Dianne Feinstein Bill Frist

Senate Leaders Embrace Debt Deal

Both the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate are throwing their weight behind a debt-limit agreement sealed with President Barack Obama and top leaders of Congress.

Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said that both his party and opposition Republicans gave more ground than they wanted to. He said it'll take members of both political parties to pass the measure.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the pact "will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending" and he assured the markets that a first-ever default on U.S. obligations won't occur.

Both the leaders said they will brief their colleagues tomorrow on the details of the agreement.



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement | WordPress Tutorials

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=138606483&ft=1&f=

Rudy Giuliani Jimmy Carter Dick Cheney Barack Obama George Soros

California Donors Expected to Raise $100M for 2012 Candidates

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/06/27/california_donors_expected_to_raise_100m_for_2012_candidates_258264.html

John Howard Mike Huckabee Saddam Hussein Hu Jintao Kim Jong Il

A chilling and cruel tale of two cities | Kevin McKenna

There is obscene poverty right on the SNP's doorstep and yet it wastes time on sectarian posturing

In Escape From New York, John Carpenter's malevolent and under-rated 1981 classic, Manhattan has become a walled penitentiary where America's most violent criminals are deposited and then forgotten. What social structure that exists is administered with extreme prejudice by the Duke, the meanest, baddest, smartest "mutha" in the joint. When the president's plane crashes inside the city limits, Kurt Russell, a Purple Heart hero gone bad, is given 24 hours to rescue his unappreciative leader.

Many who have been enthralled by Carpenter's dystopian vision of law and order in a dim future have observed all sorts of social and apocalyptic messages in the film. Sometimes, though, it's best simply to sit back and enjoy 99 minutes of stygian menace, grotesque humour and the coolest soundtrack in Hollywood history.

Then another set of statistics is released indicating that the north-east of Glasgow has been cast adrift from civilisation and I think of Carpenter's vision. Polite society seems carefully to be walking backwards away from this area of Glasgow in the manner of one who has just encountered an unleashed rottweiler. Last week, we learned that more than a third of people in this benighted area do not have a single school qualification between them ? the lowest rating in the UK. Indeed, every one of Glasgow's constituencies was placed below the British average while every Edinburgh constituency appeared in the top third for academic attainment.

Part of the SNP's great four-year confidence trick on the Scottish public is the way it has perfected the art of the vapid and supercilious responses even in the face of a genuinely catastrophic social revelation such as this. "The Scottish government is committed to raising attainment and ambition across the board." Translated, this simply means: "Who cares?"

In each of those countries affected by the Arab Spring, we are told that the people are fed up with corruption, low wages, scarcity of goods and the violence of the security forces. Yet in Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Algeria, adults will live 10 years longer than in parts of Glasgow.

The SNP, though, is simply the latest Scottish and British administration which has disengaged from the problems of this neighbourhood. In the last 30 years, Glasgow's East End has reached a point where it now always records the worst score in every social indicator of poverty and deprivation. Worklessness, life expectancy, cancer, heart disease, knife crime, educational attainment, drug abuse, single-parent families, people claiming benefits ? Glasgow's East End is dying a very slow and painful death.

Meanwhile in Edinburgh, there is an edifying vignette of stories that will help us all mind the poverty gap. A couple of publicly funded heritage groups are squabbling over a multimillion redevelopment of one patch: Charlotte Square. It seems that some mews cottages are in the line of fire and this has shaken the Barbouratti to the very depths of their foundation garments. Round the corner, an artist is putting the finishing touches to a 10-year project to depict biblical scenes out of matches and wastepaper. The council has contributed �120k to this. And down the road (Edinburgh is a very small city), the royal family is preparing to annex the Canongate for a private wedding ceremony of someone who is about 10th in line to the throne. This is expected to cost us around �500k.

The Edinburgh international festival will begin in earnest next week and will soak up another �6m of public funds while generating incalculable economic benefits for one of the richest cities in Europe. Scotland's three national galleries, every one of them in Edinburgh, will attract the gaze of many of the festival tourists.

I stand in no one's shadow when it comes to my admiration and love for our capital city and, indeed, I am already organising a couple of wee peregrinations to the Shortbread City for the purposes of getting cultured during the festival. Rarely in the civilised world will you find a community epitomising blight, deprivation and death living so close to one that represents privilege, wealth and beauty. It must be a core responsibility of government to seek ways of bridging this chasm between Scotland's haves and have-nots.

Here, though, is what has been engaging the SNP government while this obscenity on its doorstep has gradually been revealed: a 40-point plan that will jail poor people for singing off-colour songs; fighting the Crown Estates for more revenue and expressing outrage that the Electoral Commission may be put in charge of the independence referendum.

In the weeks ahead, we will encounter more public sector strikes following the announcement of a plan to make workers pay more and work longer for their pensions. We will also be told how the economy of Scotland, and Glasgow in particular, has been gelded by the existence of such a large public sector and its "index-linked" pensions, as if no one is entitled to such a thing these days. We have such a large public sector because many people in Scotland, and especially in Glasgow, are in need of state intervention. They are poor, infirm and live in bad places. The circumstances of poverty and deprivation in many neighbourhoods going back 150 years are congenital. Most of those killed in our two world wars were poor and working class and Glasgow had more of these than most as they had flooded in to satisfy the demands of the ship, steel and coal industries. For decades, they had endured slave wages, crowded slums and no paid holidays.

Their privations funded the lifestyles of the merchant class and built the military hardware that defeated a kaiser and a f�hrer. Generations of poor people who live beyond Glasgow Cross have been viewed as expendable by our governments; it has been no great mischief when they have fallen. There were never any war reparations or rebuilding programmes to make amends for the years of sacrifice of these people and the generations of torture they endured at the hands of those whose fortunes they built.

We have been building a wall around the north-east of Glasgow and soon it will be so tall that we will be spared sight of their squalid little lives. If this government held a poverty summit and ceased its worthless sectarian posturing, and if the plight of our urban poor was made an urgent priority, then it will be entitled to have its independent Scotland.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/31/glasgow-edinburgh-poverty-chasm

Mitch McConnel Rush Limbaugh George Bush George W. Bush Hillary Clinton

Peter King's reckless claim of al-Shabaab's menace to the US | Karen Greenberg

The New York congressman seeks to put the spotlight on Somali Americans as a domestic terror threat. The facts show otherwise

This past week, Congressman Peter King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, held the third in a series of highly publicised hearings on the radicalisation of Muslims in the United States and the threat they allegedly pose to the American homeland. King's focus this time around was on Americans who support al-Shabaab, an organised insurgency in Somalia known for its brutal tactics and the ruthless control it exerts over its own members. According to King, the danger this faraway rebellion poses for the United States should not be minimised:

"With al-Shabaab's large cadre of American jihadis and unquestionable ties to al-Qaida, particularly its alliance with AQAP, we must face the reality that al-Shabaab is a growing threat to our homeland."

King claimed to base his findings on an investigation conducted by his staff. His conclusion was that the call of al-Shabaab has placed the American homeland in imminent peril.

Most of the criticism leveled at King has focused on his reckless use of Congress to articulate distrust and fear of Muslims in a way that upends the basic tenets of non-discrimination in the United States. But more to the point, there are numerous factual and interpretive mistakes in King's representation of the Somalia issue. These errors are worth noting, because if left uncorrected, they may propel the United States along another erroneous pathway, both at home and abroad.

First, King misrepresents the magnitude of the exodus of Americans to Somalia. King's figures are correct, but his conclusions are misleading. Since 2009, nearly 40 individuals have been indicted in the United States for providing some sort of support ? or wanting to provide some sort of support ? to al-Shabaab. According to the terrorism database at the Centre on Law and Security, which I direct, 20 individuals have been indicted for travelling to Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab, and an additional five have been indicted for attempting to travel there. Of these, 15 were US citizens. This is hardly a "large cadre of Americans".

Second, King confuses internationalist jihad with nationalist foreign insurgency. In the case of Somalia, the main imperative for fighting is not international jihad; it is the wresting of power from the group now in nominal control of the government, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). The individuals who join this insurgency are most often of Somali descent and are fighting to help their former countrymen and their families in a failed state where violence, famine and chronic water shortage plague one the poorest nations on earth. In fact, contrary to King's assumptions, recent research done by Thomas Hegghammer at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment suggests that most foreign fighters do not have terrorist intentions at the outset beyond the nationalist cause they are looking to serve.

Third, King infers that tenuous links between foreign insurgency and jihadi violence will result in terrorism in the United States, once these foreign fighters return, now trained in the tactics of violence. This may, in fact, be a realistic worry for the future. But at present, the statistics show, according to the study done by Hegghammer (who is currently a fellow at the Centre on Law and Security), that "not more than one in eight foreign fighters returned to perpetrate terrorism in the west", once they have left the nationalist cause for which they were fighting abroad. As to facts on the ground in the United States, there are no Somalia returnees who have been charged with planning to attack America. On the contrary, returnees who have been indicted have been charged with attempts to recruit for the struggle abroad.

Fourth, to bolster his conflation of terrorism and nationalist struggle, King misrepresents the strength of the ties between al-Shabaab and al-Qaida. While there may be some connection between some of the leaders, al-Shabaab's mission is very much its own. According to the National Counterterrorism Centre, al-Shabaab's links to al-Qaida have not reached the organisational level; it can therefore in no way be classified as a strong partner in the al-Qaida network. To quote from the NCC's website:

"While most of [Shabaab's] fighters are predominantly interested in the nationalistic battle against the TFG and not supportive of global jihad, al-Shabaab's senior leadership is affiliated with al-Qaida, and certain extremists aligned with al-Shabaab are believed to have trained and fought in Afghanistan."

A summary report by the Council on Foreign Relations concurs:

"Experts say there are links between individual al-Shabaab leaders and individual members of al-Qaida, but any organizational linkage between the two groups is weak, if it exists at all."

These exaggerations and errors suggest that King has fallen prey to three fallacies that have, unfortunately, characterised American counterterrorism policy since 9/11, generating a string of counterproductive policies. King, too, fails to distinguish between the various terrorists threats ? that is, the difference posed by Americans who reach out to al-Shabaab, as opposed to AQAP; he risks playing into the worldview of al-Qaida, which is constantly trying to claim inroads into foreign struggles; and finally, he succumbs to fantasy threat-inflation rather than encouraging realistic risk-avoidance ? it is one thing to be vigilant about fighters returning from Somalia and quite another to prosecute individuals merely for a desire to fight in the civil conflict there. A more feet-on-the-ground approach would begin with a simple observation: the only Somali American who attempted to commit violence against US targets was Mohamed Osman Mohamud ? and he appears to have no links to al-Shabaab or their cause.

The accurate analysis of homegrown terrorism in the United States is yet to be written. But its contours would look something like this: the incidence of terrorism arrests and indictments have gone down precipitously in 2011. Yet the serious nature of terrorism arrests for domestic terrorism has risen in recent years, as illustrated notably by the Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, the New York City subway bomber Najibullah Zazi and Major Hassan at Fort Hood. Somalis have not yet emerged as a group with the motivation and capacity to harm Americans at home or abroad.

It is responsible to consider the possibility of what will happen as Somali fighters are exposed to al-Qaida operatives and foreign training; it is not so to make the claim, as Peter King has, that Somali Muslims represent a real and present danger to the United States. Until the United States can have a fact-based discussion of terrorism and look towards threat management, rather than prevention strategies based on guesswork and hyperbole, the excesses of the war on terror ? and the harm that it has caused to America's core values ? will rage on.
? additional research for this piece was contributed by Susan Quatrone


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/31/al-shabaab-peter-king

John Howard Mike Huckabee Saddam Hussein Hu Jintao Kim Jong Il

A People's Jury of a thousand angry citizens | Neal Lawson and Andrew Simms

From banking to hacking public horror has failed to tame Britain's feral elites. We need a People's Jury

A new routine is emerging. First, a crisis occurs in a vital part of our lives: banks crash, MPs fiddle expenses, a media empire hacks phones. Public anger and outrage rises. Everyone says that something must be done. But frustration and apathy set in as it becomes obvious that nothing is done. A moment for change slips through our fingers. Meanwhile the next ? possibly bigger ? crisis lurks round the corner, perhaps banking again, or the energy companies. Why is this happening and what can we do about it?

We are witnessing a crisis of elites. Society has always had people in positions of power and huge influence. But now they have broken free of moral and regulatory constraints and operate, unashamedly, in their own interests. Remember Bob Diamond, the Barclays boss, lecturing MPs that the "time for remorse" was over.

Waves of extraordinary public horror, such as over the hacking of Milly Dowler and now Sara Payne's phones, refashion only ever so slightly relations at the top. For common to all these crises is excessive behaviour; greed, risk-taking and hubris, all the products of small, sheltered cliques wielding too much power.

It is the rise of corporate and media elites as first among equals, and their disproportionate influence over a demoted political class, which makes this era very different. And Britain feels particularly vulnerable. The US still has strong anti-corruption and monopoly laws. In Germany there is effective corporate governance of every major firm.And France has strong provisions for the public interest in areas like planning.

This is exactly what Britain has lost: any real notion of public interest and pride in the public domain. Hence the assault on public spaces like libraries and the replacement of multipurpose town squares at the heart of communities by private, single-function, gated shopping malls. The very concept of the public has been systematically eroded over the past four decades and replaced by private and corporate interests.

What was good for them was deemed good for all. But from banking to the media, transport and our utilities, that has been shown to be false. As the public tide went out, it left self-interested elites behind, operating with no predators, nothing to fear and no one to be accountable to.

Indeed they were given political sanction. Margaret Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society", while New Labour insisted that economic efficiency and social justice went hand in hand. All parties conflated the market with the state and squeezed the public out. With no pressure for higher ethical standards, the new all-powerful elites were like kids left free in the sweetshop, going feral as they lost all self-control and all touch with society.

The only means by which these crises can be avoided, or mitigated, is though the moral and institutional reassertion of a "public interest" in British political and corporate life. So today we, and a host of others, are calling for the government to set up a People's Jury to put the British public interest first. The jury would be made up of 1,000 citizens drawn at random from the electorate and funded out of the public purse. A paid secretariat will commission research and call witnesses to make our nation's elites answerable to the public. Reporting within a year of its launch the jury will report on how the public interest relates to media ownership; the role of the financial sector in the crash; MP selections and accountability; policing; and more generally on British political and corporate life.

The outcome would be a new public interest test with ethical procedures for the corporate world ? useful for example in the takeover by the junk food giant Kraft of Cadbury's ? and the proper treatment of national assets, services and utilities; and the outlawing of excessive concentrations of elite power in places like banking or the media.

There is an irony in that this call is coming from another group of the self-appointed and self-righteous. But in today's celebrity world this is the only way left to draw attention to an issue; and the issue is, letting the public decide.

Elites have always been with us and always will. What matters is whether they are in any way accountable to us. To constrain them requires constant vigilance and struggle. The truth is that for too long there has been no such struggle, and so we pay the price in banks that wreck our economy, politicians that line their pockets and media empires that intrude on our rights, our democracy and our grief, just to sell it back to us.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/31/peoples-jury-thousand-angry-citizens

Tom DeLay Elizabeth Dole John Edwards Dianne Feinstein Bill Frist

McConnell: 'Very close' to a debt deal

What will it take to find a solution to the U.S. debt crisis? Wolf Blitzer and Don Lemon break down the hurdles and options in "GET IT DONE -- Countdown to Debt Crisis," a CNN special report Sunday night at 9 ET on CNN.

Washington (CNN) -- Democrats and Republicans are "very close" to reaching a $3 trillion deal that would avoid a possible government default in coming days, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday.

"We had a very good day yesterday," the Kentucky Republican said, adding that the two sides "made dramatic progress" in negotiations on a deal that would cut government spending and raise the federal debt ceiling.

Another Republican senator, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, later told reporters he expected a Monday vote on a compromise.

"It feels like they're going to finish the deal today and then we'll have the vote tomorrow," Isakson said, adding he supports the plan under discussion.

House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, advised his Republican caucus that serious issues remain under discussion, but to be ready for a possible conference call on Sunday to discuss a proposed deal.

Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration agreed that progress has been made, but noted negotiations continue on difficult issues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, opened the Senate session Sunday by saying there was no agreement yet on raising the federal debt ceiling, but "we are cautiously optimistic."

"If there's a word right here that would sum up the mood, it would be relief -- relief that we won't default," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said on the CNN program. "That's not a certainty, but default is far less of a possibility now than it was even a day ago."

With the deadline to reach a debt ceiling agreement just two days away, congressional leaders and the White House are trying to complete the possible deal that would extend the debt limit through 2012 -- a presidential election year.

If Congress fails to raise the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Tuesday, Americans could face rising interest rates and a declining dollar, among other problems.

Some financial experts have warned of a downgrade of America's triple-A credit rating and a potential stock market plunge. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped for a sixth straight day on Friday.

Without an increase in the debt limit, the federal government will not be able to pay all its bills next month. President Barack Obama recently indicated he can't guarantee Social Security checks will be mailed out on time.

In Afghanistan on Sunday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen was unable to assure U.S. troops they would get their paychecks following the August 2 deadline without a deal. Mullen said August 15 would be the first payday jeopardized if the United States defaults.

Last week, a Department of Defense official told CNN on condition of not being identified that "it's not a question of whether, but when" military pay gets withheld if no agreement is reached.

Vice President Joe Biden arrived at the White House on Sunday morning, though no additional formal talks involving the administration and congressional leaders have been announced. A Democratic source told CNN on condition of not being identified that Biden was engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations with both congressional legislators and the administration.

Initial news of a possible deal came shortly after the Senate delayed consideration of a debt ceiling proposal by Reid late Saturday night, pushing back a key procedural vote by 12 hours. When that vote occurred on Sunday afternoon, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to end debate on the Reid proposal and move to a vote, extending consideration of the plan while negotiations continue.

The vote was 50-49, short of the super-majority of 60 required to pass.

Reid plans to insert a negotiated final agreement into the proposal once a deal has been reached. When it became clear that Democrats would lose Sunday's vote, Reid voted against his own plan in a procedural move to preserve the ability to bring it up again.

According to McConnell and other congressional and administration officials interviewed Sunday, as well as various sources who spoke to CNN on condition of not being identified, the deal under discussion would be a two-step process intended to bring as much as $3 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years.

Some sources provided differing targets for the total, ranging from $2.4 trillion up to $3 trillion.

A first step would include about $1 trillion in spending cuts while raising the debt ceiling about the same amount. The proposal also would set up a special committee of Democratic and Republican legislators from both chambers of Congress to recommend additional deficit reduction steps -- including tax reform as well as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

The committee's recommendations would be put to a vote by Congress, without any amendments, by the end of the year. If Congress fails to pass the package, a so-called "trigger" mechanism would enact automatic spending cuts. Either way -- with the package passed by Congress or the trigger of automatic cuts -- a second increase in the debt ceiling would occur, but with an accompanying congressional vote of disapproval.

In addition, the agreement would require both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such an amendment would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers to pass, followed by ratification by 38 states -- a process likely to take years.

Schumer told CNN that a main sticking point still under discussion was the trigger mechanism of automatic spending cuts in case Congress fails to enact the special committee's recommendations.

According to sources, cuts in the trigger mechanism would be across-the-board, including Medicare and defense spending, to present an unpalatable alternative for both parties in the event Congress fails to pass the special committee's proposal.

"You want to make it hard for them just to walk away and wash their hands," Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, told CNN. "You want them to say, if nothing happens, there will be a very tough degree of pain that will take place."

Preliminary reaction showed sensitivity to that pain. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said the automatic spending cuts under a trigger mechanism should not affect Medicare benefits for senior citizens.

"The way we understand it's going to be worded is it does not affect beneficiaries. It would affect providers and insurance companies," Levin said. "That should be the case, because if it hits beneficiaries, you're going to lose lots of Democratic votes."

Meanwhile, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, an aide to former Republican President George W. Bush, warned that automatic spending cuts for the military under the trigger would put national security at risk.

"By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the 'trigger mechanism,' there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out," Bolton said in a statement.

Overall, the agreement under discussion would increase the debt limit in two stages, both of which would occur automatically -- a key Democratic demand that would prevent a repeat of the current crisis before the next election.

McConnell, who appears to have become the lead Republican negotiator, said he is "very, very close to being able ... to recommend to my members that this is something that they ought to support."

The deal will not include tax increases, McConnell added, expressing a key demand of Republicans. Obama has pushed for a comprehensive approach that would include additional tax revenue as well as spending cuts and entitlement reforms to reduce budget deficits.

Reid, D-Nevada, said Saturday night that the delay in considering his proposal was additional time for negotiations at the White House.

His announcement capped a day of sharp partisan voting in the House and extended talks behind closed doors between congressional and administration officials. Concern continued to grow that Congress will fail to raise the nation's debt ceiling in time to avoid a potentially devastating national default this week.

Earlier Saturday, the Republican-controlled House rejected Reid's plan -- partisan payback for the Democratic-controlled Senate's rejection of Boehner's plan Friday night.

House members rejected Reid's plan in a 246-173 vote. Most Democrats supported the measure; every Republican voted against it.

For their part, Republicans continued to trumpet Boehner's proposal. The measure won House approval Friday, but only by a narrow margin after a one-day delay during which the speaker was forced to round up support from wary tea party conservatives.

Boehner's deal with conservatives -- which added a provision requiring congressional approval of a balanced budget amendment in order to raise the debt limit next year -- was sharply criticized by Democrats, who called it a political nonstarter.

Democratic leaders vehemently object not only to the balanced budget amendment, but also the GOP's insistence that a second debt ceiling vote be held before the next election. They argue that reaching bipartisan agreement on another debt ceiling hike during an election year could be nearly impossible, and that short-term extensions of the limit could further destabilize the economy.

Leaders of both parties now agree that any deal to raise the debt ceiling should include long-term spending reductions to help control spiraling deficits. But they have differed on both the timetable and requirements tied to certain cuts.

Boehner's plan proposed generating a total of $917 billion in savings while initially raising the debt ceiling by $900 billion. The speaker has pledged to match any debt ceiling hike with dollar-for-dollar spending cuts.

His plan would require a second vote by Congress to raise the debt ceiling by a combined $2.5 trillion -- enough to last through the end of 2012. It would create a special congressional committee to recommend additional savings of $1.6 trillion or more.

Any failure on the part of Congress to enact mandated spending reductions or abide by new spending caps would trigger automatic across-the-board budget cuts.

The plan also calls for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment before the second vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Reid's plan, meanwhile, would reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.4 trillion and raise the debt ceiling by a similar amount. It includes $1 trillion in savings based on the planned U.S. withdrawals from military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reid's plan also would establish a congressional committee made up of 12 House and Senate members to consider additional options for debt reduction. The committee's proposals would be guaranteed by a Senate vote with no amendments by the end of the year.

In addition, it incorporates a process based on a proposal by McConnell that would give Obama the authority to raise the debt ceiling in two steps while providing Congress the opportunity to vote its disapproval.

Among other things, Reid has stressed that his plan meets the key GOP demand for no additional taxes. Boehner, however, argued last week that Reid's plan fails to tackle popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, which are among the biggest drivers of the debt.

A recent CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.

According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

CNN's Ted Barrett, Kate Bolduan, Gloria Borger, Keating Holland, Brianna Keilar, Jeanne Sahadi, Xuan Thai, Jessica Yellin, Athena Jones, Lisa Desjardins, Dan Lothian and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement | WordPress Tutorials

Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/X1bCNeQXOG4/index.html

Islam Karimov Ted Kennedy John Kerry Ban Ki-moon Henry Kissinger

Letters: Down the tubes

It will definitely mar the high-speed rail passenger experience if, having saved an hour on a journey from Leeds to London, you then find you have to wait half an hour at Euston before being let on to the Victoria line because London Underground cannot cope with the extra arrivals (Report, July 30). Yet this is what Transport for London's initial figures show will be the case if a new tube line is not built to relieve Euston, once the proposed high-speed service goes beyond Birmingham. Instead of resorting to manufactured outrage, the proponents of HS2 should address TfL's calculations with evidence of their own. They should also admit that when Boris Johnson says this, he is not seeking to undermine high-speed rail (the principle of which he supports): he is trying to make it work.

Daniel Moylan

Deputy chairman, Transport for London


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/31/down-the-tubes-rail

Fidel Castro Hugo Chavez Dick Cheney Noam Chomsky Bill Clinton

Joss Stone: First Thought, Best Thought

Joss Stone's new album, her first on her own label, is called LP1.
Enlarge Courtesy of the artist

Joss Stone's new album, her first on her own label, is called LP1.

Courtesy of the artist

Joss Stone's new album, her first on her own label, is called LP1.

At 13, Joss Stone already sounded like a veteran soul singer. Now 24, Stone actually is a veteran of the music business ? and for the first time, she's taken control of her sound.

Stone rocketed to stardom in the U.K. after winning a BBC singing contest called Star for a Night with a voice that drew comparisons to that of Janis Joplin. By age 16, she'd taken off in the U.S., as well, with the release of her first album, a covers set called The Soul Sessions. But today, Stone writes her own music and owns her own label: Stone'd Records.

Stone's newest album, and her label's first release, is appropriately called LP1. She tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered, that the entire thing was recorded over the course of just six days in a Nashville studio ? an arrangement that suited her just fine.

"If you give yourself too much time, you kind of over-obsess about the music," Stone says. "It's not supposed to be like that. If you capture the first thought that you have when you're creating, and then play that to people, it's kind of like the listeners are part of that beginning. And that's the most exciting part."



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement | WordPress Tutorials

Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/24/138575404/joss-stone-first-thought-best-thought?ft=1&f=

Duchess of Cornwall Robert Mugabe Ralph Nader Saparmurat Niyazov Ehud Olmert

Potential Speed Bump on the Path to a Deficit Deal

� Previous | Main

July 31, 2011 10:09 AM

ABC News' Jake Tapper reports:

Here?s one of the problems with where the emerging outline of a potential deal.

There does not seem to be much concern that the super-committee, as first proposed by both Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Reid more than a week ago, wouldn?t be able to come up with a proposal.

?It?s not as though they?ll be starting from scratch,? a Democrat close to the negotiations says, referring to the Gang of 6 proposal, Bowles-Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin.

But what would force Congress to act on their recommendations?

The idea of triggers -- as one Democratic official close to the negotiations put it ? is to have the risk of a ?neutron bomb? going off to force the super-committee to act to reduce the deficit.

Republicans have negotiated tax increases off the trigger table, and Democrats have negotiated away any cuts to entitlement programs.

The White House believes the trigger to force Congress to pass the deficit reduction recommendations of the super-committee should be threatened cuts to both discretionary domestic spending and the Pentagon ? 50/50.

House Republicans are pushing for the across the board cuts.

Democrats do not think the threat of the sudden imposition of more than $1 trillion in across the board spending cuts is enough of a threat to House Republicans. They think a lot of them would like that and thus the super-committee would be doomed to fail.

-Jake Tapper

July 31, 2011 in Jake Tapper | Permalink | Share | User Comments (80)

User Comments

"all the cuts in social insurance programs.. what did the GOP give ????"

Ahhh... but the cuts are NOT specified. Yep SS and Medicare are targets but so is defense and there is a hole to raise taxes. So the GOP might not be aware as they think. For arguement sake, let's say it looks like a epublican would get in as the next President...let's say it together... NIGHTMARE!!!

The GOP also gave up the ability to make use of this non-issue in the next Presidential campaign and that's HUGE for the President. FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity and the other characters would be working overtime had this been an element.

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 2:03:58 PM

GRANT: "When are they going to close the tax loopholes for the wealthy and end the subsidies to big oil?"

As soon as we stop letting them buy elections.

Posted by: jock59801 | Jul 31, 2011 2:02:17 PM

@ JOCK: Its quite simple. Lets say you were hired on as CEO of a company that was hemhorraging money, up to its waist in debt. Your job, coming in, is to get that company running right. But instead, you INCREASED that debt til the company's on the brink of insolvency.

Wouldn't you think people would be MORE concerned with what YOU did than the guy who came before you? Sure, they did a bad job. But you came in AND MADE IT WORSE.

Corrollary to Obama, he made things far worse rather than better. So why shouldn't that be the more pertinent and relevant issue?

Posted by: Phydeux | Jul 31, 2011 2:01:39 PM

Tom Brokaw (Liberal) stated this morning that the Tea Party brought to the forefront the crisis of spending by our government. He said he was thankful to them, because this is a debate that needs to happen now.

Posted by: David From Texas | Jul 31, 2011 2:01:05 PM

Four years of a lame duck president with Obama's domestic and especially foriegn agenda would be disasterous.

Posted by: LongT | Jul 31, 2011 2:01:02 PM

Phydeux - yes, GE paid no taxes. And yet Obama is trying to close those loopholes and the Republicans are preventing it.

Posted by: jock59801 | Jul 31, 2011 2:00:33 PM

@PHYDEUX We need the EPA now more than ever. Here's a question for you. How many times has an energy company been forthright and honest about the scope of an energy related natural disaster?
--------
The answer is NEVER! Every single energy related natural disaster is accompanied by string of lies trying to mask their incompetence. You call for the elimination of the EPA, and I say we need tougher laws and more stringent inspections, and restrictions to preserve the natural state of our world. Letting the energy companies police themselves, would be like replacing the police with the mafia.

Posted by: Eric | Jul 31, 2011 2:00:13 PM

Here's a neutron bomb that if triggered would be anathema to Congress and an absolute WINDFALL for the nation!!:

If one or the other fails to do what they are required to do, then a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT shall be sent to the states for ratification that will once and for all assert that money is NOT free speech and therefore may be outlawed and regulated to the satisfaction of the American people without interference from the Supreme Court!!!!!!

Posted by: sameagain | Jul 31, 2011 1:58:39 PM

@Eric - Why should the government take care of the elderly and indigent? Since when is that their role? Why not let family, friends, and the millions of charities in this country founded on those principles do it? After all, that's how these things were done prior to the government sticking its nose in, and it worked quite well. In fact, private charities tend to be far more efficient and cost-effective with their donors' money.

As for tax breaks for yachts and jets, aren't those rather small potatoes to be whining about when corporations like GE pay no taxes and Obama turns right around and give Immelt a cushy new job? Talk about looking like you're in big business's pocket! Obama should be wearing a GE lapel pin, if not a brand on his hip.

Posted by: Phydeux | Jul 31, 2011 1:57:18 PM

If you invite a devil for dinner, the devil will eat you. The TEA devils are now holding the Republican party hostage. Now is the time for the Republicans to choose between: TEA or SANITY, PARTY or CULT, Dumb or Wise, Special Interest GLOVER or American Interet CLOVER, patriot or Anarchist, The GOOD or The Worst

Posted by: James Gospel | Jul 31, 2011 1:55:36 PM

all the cuts in social insurance programs.. what did the GOP give ???? I don't see any compromise on the GOP part. They are protecting the rich to the point of throwing the rest of America under the bus.... SMH

Posted by: jeanne021556 | Jul 31, 2011 1:55:26 PM

Phydeux - The debt accrued under Obama is more RECENT than Bush's, but how is it more RELEVANT? Debt is debt; it doesn't go away with time. Everybody helped get us into this. ESPECIALLY the voters, who constantly voted for people who promised us a government we didn't have to pay for (no new taxes).

Posted by: jock59801 | Jul 31, 2011 1:53:40 PM

"Susan; I hate to tell you this, but all Obama is interested in is 2012...."

AND so he should be!!! There is much, MUCH more work to do!!! Heck! We need an additional 4 years of him and another 8 of someone with similar characteristics (of either political pesuasion but same ideas) to get in there and "right" this boat. I'm all for another four years!!!

What's the alternative? Romney? (always liked him); Huntsman? (like him too) but they are like the President. Therefore I will stick with what we have!

The other candidates? Please.....

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 1:52:22 PM

When are they going to close the tax loopholes for the wealthy and end the subsidies to big oil?

Posted by: Grant | Jul 31, 2011 1:52:21 PM

@LONGT The key difference is that I support the spending programs of the Democrats to preserve our natural resources, care for the elderly and indigent, Educate our children, and combat hunger.

The denounce the Republicans and their tax breaks for wealthy people to buy yachts, subsidies for oil companies, offshore tax havens for greedy corporations, and often ridiculous defense programs.

And Remember this...The top earmark spender in congress is a REPUBLICAN from Kentucky! And they blame all the spending on Obama...What fools.

Posted by: Eric | Jul 31, 2011 1:52:18 PM

The GOP did MOST of this damage.

Posted by: MaeMobly | Jul 31, 2011 1:50:18 PM

Eric, hate to break it to you, but it was Obama and the Dems who have stolen the middle class's wealth by taking America's wealth and funnelling it into stimulus programs, Obamacare, and through countless government bureaucracies such as the EPA. That way, Obama could strangle oil production via EPA fiat, and cramp US manufacturing by requiring extensive environmental impact reviews and still not issuing permits.

Sure, the GOP has done its damage in the past. But in the last 2 years, Obama's only accelerated the damage and taken more money out of the private sector and put it into the pockets of Washington bureaucrats.

Posted by: Phydeux | Jul 31, 2011 1:49:14 PM

PHYDEUX - Enough with the lies about what Obama has added to this. He's added 1.44 to Bush's 5.07 trillion. And Obama's doesn't repeat next year like Bush's. So if you voted for Bush I can thank you for most of this.

Posted by: MaeMobly | Jul 31, 2011 1:47:46 PM

"Eric, I agree with you. This is a manufactured crisis the GOP cooked up to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They don't care about deficts or debt when they are in office. GW Bush ran up a huge defict/debt and so did Reagan. And the GOP voted to raise the debt ceiling many, many times when we had a GOP President."

I agree and disagree. Yep! It was indeed a manufactured crises (which became quite dangerous!) Susan honey, they have tried everything to bring this President down and FINALLY (only in their minds) they have got something which can get a bit of traction BUT I believe this will backfire upon them...and that's not wishful thinking either. The President has pretty much come out smelling like a rose--really. The electorate is more aware than I even give them credit for. ...and that ain't much.

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 1:46:09 PM

LONGT, I hate to tell you this, but so is everyone else.

Posted by: jock59801 | Jul 31, 2011 1:45:11 PM

Hey Susan. Enough about GW Bush, we all know what he did. What about the huge deficit run-ups caused by Obama? Can we talk about that for a change since its more relevant, recent, and far more impactful to our current situation?

Posted by: Phydeux | Jul 31, 2011 1:43:48 PM

@SUSAN Don't lose hope. President Obama is the leader of a divided government, and at this time must share power with House Republicans through compromise. The Republicans have revealed their true agenda - crippling social security and medicare to allow those that stole the wealth of the middle class to get away with their crime. The next election will not go well for these criminals, and President Obama and others will hold them accountable.

Posted by: Eric | Jul 31, 2011 1:43:07 PM

Make things that contribute to the deficit less profitable: Manufactured goods from China and IT services from India. Lack of tariffs on goods and services from these countries is a form of welfare for corporate CEOs who eliminate US jobs. The Tea Party is a cover for politicians on the take from these same CEOs.

Posted by: Ed | Jul 31, 2011 1:43:04 PM

BREAKING: Senate votes DOWN Democrat plan.

Posted by: David From Texas | Jul 31, 2011 1:42:37 PM

Susan; I hate to tell you this, but all Obama is interested in is 2012. He isn't interested in any of us unless it's our vote.

Posted by: LongT | Jul 31, 2011 1:40:46 PM

KM- I remember being able to deduct auto and credit card interest, that was nice, but honestly I don't think it was appropriate. Part of our middle & upper class problems were buying a new car every few years ( we didn't and don't need that). Part of our entitlement and waste has been in very poor habits, I think much of that is part of the Washington problem too. I think it would be good to fix the debt limit and force the hard choices of either across the board cuts or removing the various waste areas.

Posted by: Richie Rich | Jul 31, 2011 1:40:12 PM

"So many emotional people posting today. Looks like the "create a good crisis and don't waste it" political ploy has worked."

Ohhhhh... not at all! I'm perfectly content that I don't have to pay additional taxes (and I'm one who thought I should.) I'll just contribute to homeless shelter (get the deduction) and support some kid's sports program (another deduction.)

I think this debate was good though because America must concentrate upon its spending BUT it is more important to concentrate upon investment which has been sorely lacking in this country for decades. Trust me, America is NOT number one in a A LOT of things anymore.

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 1:39:43 PM

"So many emotional people posting today. Looks like the "create a good crisis and don't waste it" political ploy has worked."

Ohhhhh... not at all! I'm perfectly content that I don't have to pay additional taxes (and I'm one who thought I should.) I'll just contribute to homeless shelter (get the deduction) and support some kid's sports program (another deduction.)

I think this debate was good though because America must concentrate upon its spending BUT it is more important to concentrate upon investment which has been sorely lacking in this country for decades. Trust me, America is NOT number one in a A LOT of things anymore.

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 1:39:36 PM

Eric, I agree with you. This is a manufactured crisis the GOP cooked up to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. They don't care about deficts or debt when they are in office. GW Bush ran up a huge defict/debt and so did Reagan. And the GOP voted to raise the debt ceiling many, many times when we had a GOP President.

Obama needs to stop giving in to these lunatics. I regret voting for him so much. He is selling America down the river by caving in to the GOP.

Posted by: Susan | Jul 31, 2011 1:36:53 PM

ALL are to blame...Obama, Republicans, and Democrats and everyone else in the "in between" in Congress. I hope they ALL know 2012 is coming and AMERICA will have the final say.

Posted by: David From Texas | Jul 31, 2011 1:35:08 PM

We need to come together as a nation and stop blaming each other, we need to fix this crisis.
We have a Great Nation, let's not throw it away.
Where are all the grown-ups?

FYI:
Obama did not create this crisis we are in.
The Deficit was left for him to clean up, by the last administration. When Clinton was in office, we had "0" deficit. Let's not have selective memory, for our own political agenda.

Posted by: Sofia | Jul 31, 2011 1:34:59 PM

Re: "But what would force Congress to act on their recommendations?"

Why would Congress have to be forced? That's unconstitutional. No supercommittee has the right to impose anything on our Congress.

Congress is supposed to represent the people, remember?

Posted by: Susan | Jul 31, 2011 1:31:18 PM

Eric, I hate to bust your partisan bubble, but they've all been using S.S. as part of the general fund since Lyndon Johnson made it law in 1965. You people are beginning to crack me up!

Posted by: LongT | Jul 31, 2011 1:30:23 PM

If the Democrats don't get a compromise they believe is fair, I will support them 100%, in walking away from the Republicans. This is their crisis, they created it, and are using it reduce social security spending and medicare. They have spent the last 30 years raiding these programs for cash to distribute to their personal friends and campaign contributors. Now they want to scuttle these program s before people realize the money was stolen. this is the most disgraceful act of greed the world has ever seen, and if left un-resolved will destroy this once great nation.

Posted by: Eric | Jul 31, 2011 1:27:17 PM

So many emotional people posting today. Looks like the "create a good crisis and don't waste it" political ploy has worked.

Posted by: LongT | Jul 31, 2011 1:26:22 PM

"Our social security fund was suppose to be solvent (2 trillion plus), secure and locked away but the money isn't there. We are borrowing it to pay the people who receive it, people who sent their money to Washington for their own benefit. Where did it go?"===================Go back to 1983 , Reagan was president and he ( with bipartisan support ) started the outright taxation of SS benefits. SS was fine , until Reagan-ittes started monkeying around with it .

Posted by: danpan | Jul 31, 2011 1:24:42 PM

Congress seems to forget that Americans have taken note of this debacle. These politicians are in for a rude awakening in 2012

Posted by: what667 | Jul 31, 2011 1:21:29 PM

Hey Ron, I remember the Republicans getting Obama Care shoved down there throats. What happened to bipartisanship?

Posted by: Guinness1956 | Jul 31, 2011 1:08:39 PM

Obama ran for President with a major part of his campaign being to get health care coverage for every American.

And he was elected with that as a major part of his platform.

Posted by: Decker | Jul 31, 2011 1:19:22 PM

This country is completely defunct. It's not just Congress. I'm ready for a civil war against the Fascist scum that have stolen America from the working class.

Posted by: Clark Nova | Jul 31, 2011 1:12:05 PM

"We need to reduce jobs in the government sector and increase jobs in the private sector...."

That's a WONDERFUL and very "red, white, and blue!" But tell me how are you going to do that. When a mid-evel (low side) IT person runs 60K per year plus benefits in this country but in India I can get that same comparable person for 15-20K per year? As a business person I'm not THAT patriotic but I'll contribute to my nearest homeless shelter (of which I shall receive a major tax deduction)and support my kid's little league team.

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 1:10:48 PM

Listen, when you have a Congress that gives blank checks or opened ended checks to a corrupt banking institutions to illegally increase the debit to multi-trillions along with the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve illegally taxing Americans with a fraudulent Federal Income tax then you don't have a system of balances and checks but rather totalitarianism at it's best or a full scale operation of milking American's completely dry. Congress and the president are controlled by the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve and unless you repeal the Federal Reserve Act you can expect more of the same. More illegal wars and more homelessness; it's all planned!!!

Posted by: Donny | Jul 31, 2011 1:10:28 PM

To wipe out the deficit and balance the budget, everything must be on the table: cut spending, cut military budget, cut welfare to the rich and corporations, reform entitlement programs,get rid of Bush tax cut to the rich and close the tax loop holes on the rich and corporations. More impotantly, get rid of the TEA baggers and GLOVER in 2012

Posted by: James Gospel | Jul 31, 2011 1:09:49 PM

Hey Ron, I remember the Republicans getting Obama Care shoved down there throats. What happened to bipartisanship? The Democrats put us into this mess by not delivering a budget in the past 859 days.

Posted by: Guinness1956 | Jul 31, 2011 1:08:39 PM

This is all a complete waste of time. The US is going to get down-graded regardless of the agreement, and this Congress on deals with budgets up to 2013. Then the next elected Congress does not have to abide by these cuts. A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT IS OUR ONLY HOPE, and Barack will have no part of that.

Posted by: Guinness1956 | Jul 31, 2011 1:07:06 PM

At this point it's totally irrelevant exactly what they do, just do SOMETHING to calm the markets and prevent further damage to everyone's investments and retirement accounts. I'm afraid we're headed for a TARP repeat. The Tea Freaks in the House will torpedo any plan agreed to by the leadership and the White House, the stock market will implode, and then there will be an emergency session to pass something but by then the damage will have been done. The Tea Freaks are reprehensible. They are in way over their ignorant heads and they are irrevocably damaging the country. Compromise is what you do in negotiations in business. You'd think these clowns, who are always touting the superiority of the private sector, would at least understand how negotiation works.

Posted by: esq777 | Jul 31, 2011 1:06:32 PM

@PETER One more thing...the debt service percentage for 2011 is 1.8%. Past Republican administrations had percentages of %3.0.

Posted by: Eric | Jul 31, 2011 1:05:27 PM

What we need to do as a country and as American's is vote for NO GOP/REPUBLICANS in the next election. They are one of the main reasons that this country is going down. First, everyone on Wall-street should have fired and gone to jail for screwing over the Middle class. Second, all compnanies that ship jobs overseas should be faced to pay heavy fines and companies that fail to provide Health Care to AMERICANS, not those are NOT AMERICANS by birth should be closed down. Third, we should NOT import items for any more companies until we bring back our JOBS.

Posted by: Thomas | Jul 31, 2011 1:04:50 PM

"...There were no jobs created by ?job creators? only increased profit by using cheap overseas labor."

RIGHT ON!!! Apple's recent performance knocked the ball out of the park into the NEXT two States!!! I say GOOD for them and I wish I was still a shareholder! However, how many jobs did Apple create here in the USA? Let's not concentrate upon how many IPads that the company SOLD here in the hard-pressed USA but upon how many JOBS did they create.Folks. The numbers problem we face right now is so huge that going after the rich is like holding back the pay & perks of Congressmen. They sound great but the numbers are just not there. The real numbers are in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Even defense is not a huge capture."

You're absolutely correct and agree with you 100%!!! Maybe one day those who are of the partisan nature will wake up and realize that not only do we have some serious financial problems but have some serious competitive, education issue problems as well. We are focusing upon the wrong things... and that's in my IMHO of course...

"

Posted by: MyTakeOnThis61 | Jul 31, 2011 1:03:06 PM

PETER said "Folks. The numbers problem we face right now is so huge that going after the rich is like holding back the pay & perks of Congressmen. They sound great but the numbers are just not there. "
----------------------
That's simply not true. Imagine twelve people entering a room. and in the center of the room sitting on a table is a pie with twelve slices. One Person says that 11 slices of the pie are his and the other 11 people have to share a single slice of pie. That is exactly the distribution of wealth in the United States. The rich have hoarded the wealth of this nation for themselves, and continue to do so at an ever increasing rate. That have an entire political party lobbying for them in Washington. I believe that until we alleviate this central issue, our economy will worsen, and middle-class America will continue it's decline.

Posted by: Eric | Jul 31, 2011 1:02:55 PM

Vote the marxist out of the whitehouse in 2012 if you love America!!! 4 more years would be disastrous.

Posted by: rkm63 | Jul 31, 2011 1:02:13 PM

Post a comment



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement | WordPress Tutorials

Source: http://feeds.abcnews.com/click.phdo?i=2fa2189e02a2d70feb20e3993a3b87dd

Rick Santorum Arnold Schwarzenegger Rev. Al Sharpton Than Shwe Aung San Suu Kyi