Saturday, February 28, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Canadian Jets Intercepted Russian Bomber Before Obama's Visit Top
TORONTO — Fighter jets were scrambled to intercept a Russian bomber in the Arctic as it approached Canadian airspace on the eve of President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa last week, Canada's defense minister said Friday. Peter MacKay said the bomber never entered Canadian airspace. But he said two Canadian CF-18 jets met the bomber in international airspace and sent a "strong signal that they should back off." "They met a Russian aircraft that was approaching Canadian airspace, and as they have done in previous occasions they sent very clear signals that are understood, that the aircraft was to turnaround, turn tail, and head back to their airspace, which it did," MacKay said. "I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of having deliberately done this during the presidential visit, but it was a strong coincidence," he said of the Feb. 18 incident. Obama arrived in Ottawa the next day and Canadian security services were focused on his arrival. But the Arctic incident did not stretch Canada's resources, he said. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky said in a statement Friday that the plane never encroached on Canadian airspace and that Canada had been told about the flight beforehand. "The statements by Canada's defense minister about flights of our aircraft are absolutely incomprehensible. They are nothing but farce," Drobyshevsky said. Soviet aircraft regularly flew near North American airspace during the Cold War but stopped after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Several years ago, Russian jets resumed these types of flights, according to U.S. and Canadian authorities MacKay said Russia gives no warning prior to the flights, despite Canada's request for Russia to do so. "They simply show up on a radar screen," MacKay said. "This is not a game at all. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it is a real concern for Canada. "I've expressed at various times the deep concern our government has with increasingly aggressive Russian actions around the globe and Russian intrusions into our airspace," Harper said. "This government has responded every time the Russians have done that. We will continue to respond. We will defend our airspace." Mackay linked the Russian flights to the competition between Canada, Russia, the U.S. and other countries to secure Arctic resources. With polar ice melting there are new opportunities to exploit the region's oil, gas and mineral reserves. Canada has said it plans to build a new army training center in the region and a deep-water port the Arctic. "This has been a major priority of our government," MacKay said. "We know that the waters are opening up. We know that other countries have expressed interest in the Arctic." ___ Associated Press Writer Mansur Mirovalev in Moscow contributed to this report. More on Canada
 
The Resurrection Of Romney Top
As the Dow closed in on 7,000, a low it hasn't hit since the mid-'90s, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took to the stage of the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference with a full-throated defense of the free market. In an unmistakable signal of the path Romney hopes to chart out of the wilderness, the former presidential candidate exhorted his conservative followers to stay true to conservative principles. "America's challenges are different from year to year, yes, but our defining principles remain the same," he said. "Conservatives don't enter into each new political era trying to figure out what we believe. Facing new and complex problems, we find answers in principles that endure." Democrats would -- and certainly will -- restate Romney's prescription in simpler terms: More of the same. Romney sounded the free-market trumpet as a solution for everything from the economic collapse to the health care crisis so that, he said, "America stays America." He suggested: "Medicare should finally be reformed with a dose of free-market reality." He ridiculed the notion, put forward by Obama during his speech to Congress, that children should have access to education from birth until their first job. That was wrong, Romney said, because it would be "universal preschool and universal college." If that prospect isn't frightening enough, he warned "there were hints as well of universal health care and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world." Romney payed homage to the courts, which, he said, will be packed with activist judges who will "force their own biases on an unwilling nation." Hanging the hopes of the Republican Party on his brand of free-market economics, Romney pegged the Democrats as out-of-touch big spenders. "Republicans wanted to stimulate the economy; Democrats wanted to stimulate the government," he said of the differences between the two parties' recovery plans. The effectiveness of Romney's economic message is undermined, perhaps unfairly, by his appearance: the man couldn't look any more like a corporate raider if he was personally consulted by Richard Gere. And so when he tells the crowd that "Democrats' plan to take away [workers'] rights is an insult to the dignity and common sense of working people," well, you might forgive the guy in the back of the room, emptying the trash, if he's a bit unsure who, precisely, is insulting whose common sense. Then again, that guy's not Romney's target audience today. The CPAC audience has always been a receptive one, if not always fully ready to embrace him. In 2007, he won the presidential straw poll. Last year, in the very same room, Romney announced to the crowd that he was dropping his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Only, no one in the audience knew in advance, the consequence of the technologically arcane set-up of the hotel, where BlackBerry service was cut off in the lower ballroom. People in the audience - mainly frightened by the prospect of being stuck with a McCain candidacy - screamed "No!" and begged him to reconsider. Behind the curtains, Bay Buchanan wiped the moistness from her eyes. "This is rough," she told the Huffington Post , "very rough." He's still a crowd favorite. Outside the halls, attendees were raving about the qualifications Romney could bring to the ticket, one calling him the best hope for 2012. "He is the only guy who can legitimately run against Obama," said Jason Persinger, who had trekked from Ohio to take in the CPAC weekend. "With McCain running... a lot of people wanted him to pick Romney as his vice president. Considering where the economy is, he would have fared better." Others were equally convinced. "Absolutely, he would have been our nominee," if the economic situation was then what it is now, said a 48-year-old conservative businessman named Dan from New Jersey. Though Romney had carried the 2007 straw poll, his conservative credentials had still been in question. He was still, after all, a former Massachusetts governor. David Keene, the conference organizer, put it best in his introduction of Romney. "Just as we realized that he was one of us," he said, "he decided to go back to the private sector and not pursue the presidential nominee." "He is more important to us today than he was last year," offered Keene. "We didn't know then, because it was before the economic collapse, just how important the values...Mitt Romney had would be to our movement." John Stortstrom, executive director of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans, seconded Keene. "I give Mitt a little bit of leverage," said Stortstrom. "He's from Massachusetts. And if you're from a blue state and aren't 100 percent conservative that's okay. With McCain it was the opposite. He's out there from Arizona," where, presumably, it's not okay to buck the party. And yet, reservations persisted. Romney, observers noted, seemed much more at ease addressing the crowd, as opposed to the 2008 election when, at times, his speeches seemed like a robotic regurgitation of Republican talking points. But his pedigree remains problematic for some. One attendee wondered: "Do we want a CEO who laid off thousands of workers?" And while conservatives are more than willing to admit the former governor's advantageous perch for the Republican nomination, not all are ready to proclaim him one of their own. "Romney is a good man who did not run a particularly good campaign last time, but he also knows that very few Republicans get the nomination on the first try, including Reagan, Bush 41, Dole and McCain. So you would have to consider Romney as a serious contender for 2012," said Craig Shirley, a longtime Republican strategist and head of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs. "If he is a member of the family, it is through adoption and not birthright." Or, following Bobby Jindal's political bruising this week, through process of elimination. More on Mitt Romney
 
John Ridley: How Eric Holder and Michael Steele Spent Their February Top
We come to the end of another Black History Month. Eric Holder, the Nation's first black Attorney General, spent February demonstrating he owned the stones to call out Americans for being "in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards" when it comes having the tough discussion on race and ethnicity. That's when he wasn't putting the finishing touches on the bust-up of a major Narco ring. Michael Steele, the nation's first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, spent February explaining how he wants the RNC's new PR campaign to be "off the hook," featuring "urban-surburban hip-hop settings." That's when he wasn't giving a shout-out of " slum love " to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who is of Near Eastern ethnicity. Slum love, get it? 'Cause, like, Slumdog Millionaire was, like, big. Can you imagine Holder publicly wishing President Obama some ghetto affection? So much for the GOP's new face. Despite a few critical posts -- call them my tough love shout-outs -- I actually wish Michael Steele much success in reinventing the Republicans. There's nothing wrong with a smart, ideas-oriented adversarial Party. A new version of Eisenhower's Dynamic Conservatism, as opposed to the same version of "let's try tax cuts." Though I personally appreciate them. Steele, however, is not helping advance the cause, or sell the party beyond the base with his tone-deafness. Nor is he being helped by the "new" GOP. I'm sure Bobby Jindal is thankful 2012 is three years away, and I'm sure Sarah Palin is thankful for Bobby Jindal. For all the ills of liberal paternalism, conservatives are learning you can't do diversity overnight. What's clear now is that after Tuesday night's "I'm exotic like Obama, too" flame out by Jindal, Steele is going to have to work double time in finding a new messenger. First, perhaps, he needs to figure out what the message is and how to deliver it. For more perspective visit That Minority Thing.com More on Michael Steele
 
Editorial: Warning To The US: Beware Treating Afghanistan Like Iraq Top
President Obama is likely to announce in the coming days that he will withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. Many of these soldiers will end up in Afghanistan where the Taliban is getting stronger and the US-backed government weaker by the day. How much has the US learnt from its debacle in Iraq? One lesson not learnt in Washington is that it is a bad idea to become involved in a war in any so-called "failed state". This patronising term suggests that if a state has failed, foreign intervention is justified and will face limited resistance. But the greatest US foreign policy disasters over the last generation have all been in places where organised government had largely collapsed. More on Afghanistan
 
Lloyd Garver: Big Money, Big Sports Top
Who is the highest paid state-employee of your state: The Governor? The President of the state University? The guy who decides what the slogan should be for the license plate? If you live in Connecticut, among other places, it's an athletic coach. Jim Calhoun, men's basketball coach for the University of Connecticut is paid more than any state employee in Connecticut - -$1.6 million a year. At a recent press conference, Coach Calhoun was not particularly gracious about his salary. A reporter, Ken Krayeske started to ask Calhoun a question: "Coach, considering that you're the highest paid state employee, and there's a two billion dollar budget deficit, do you think..." "Not a dime back," Calhoun responded, before the reporter even finished his question. The coach went on, "I'd like to be able to retire someday. I'm getting tired." Did the reporter have a valid point? Should public universities be paying that much of taxpayers' money to coaches? Should a school pay one coach the same amount that it could pay ten or twenty professors? In these tough economic times, should more money be available for things like scholarships instead of coaches' salaries? It's not just the coaches of public colleges who earn huge salaries. Pete Carroll, USC's football coach, is the highest compensated employee among all of those employed by private universities in the United States. He earns in the neighborhood of $4.4 million a year. That's a pretty nice neighborhood. Coach Carroll is not the only private college coach up there in the financial stratosphere. There are several coaches who earn about four times as much as the presidents of their schools. How would you like to make four times as much as your boss? Of course, there is a difference between how public and private universities should be viewed. A private university is like a private business. Unless we're bailing out that business financially, they have a right to spend that money any way they want, even if it's paying some guy who wears a bad sports jacket and yells at kids all day. The traditional rationalization for paying coaches so much is that athletic teams can bring huge amounts of money to schools. Connecticut's men's and women's basketball teams make about $12 million a year for the school. Successful teams also bring prestige to a college. Some young kids dream of going to college where their favorite team plays. And when those kids do go there, most of them will pay tuition. All of this probably explains why the Athletic Department at most universities has a beautiful multi-million dollar facility while a musty closet serves as the offices for the Department of Conversational Lithuanian. But even if some schools make big bucks by paying out big bucks for their coaches, are those salaries a good idea, especially in these difficult times? Are they the moral equivalent of those auto execs taking their private planes to Washington? Is there any way the public isn't going to see those salaries as obscene these days? Actually, there is another way to look at paying them so much. If you think of sports as entertainment, maybe people need this kind of diversion more than ever in these awful economic times. When was the era of the wonderful "screwball" movie comedies? It was in the 30s, during the Great Depression. People apparently needed something to help them stop thinking about how empty their pockets were. Isn't it possible that when a person scream his lungs out to root for his, that helps him forget momentarily that tomorrow he has to spend the day looking for a job yet again? So maybe it shouldn't be so startling that a football coach is the highest paid private college employee in the land. What is startling is the guy who's Number Two. He's a dermatologist. Columbia University's David N. Silvers, professor of dermatology, earns about $4.3 million a year. I guess this somehow must make economic sense to those who run Columbia. Maybe there are millions of boys and girls who have posters of famous skin doctors on their walls. Just as the movie character Rudy dreamt of going to and playing for Notre Dame his whole life, there must be kids who dream of going to Columbia because of Dr. Silvers. And someday those kids will be tuition-paying students. Far fetched? Maybe not. Let's face it, what is more important to college age kids than dermatology? Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Home Improvement" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at lloydgarver@gmail.com . Check out his website at lloydgarver.com and his podcasts on iTunes .
 
Michael J. Panzner: Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You Top
Right now, all eyes are on Washington's latest efforts to try and "fix" our troubled economy. Pretty soon, though, the focus is going to shift. Around the country, people will be turning their attentions to the next round of fallout from the burgeoning crisis. Only this time, the bad news won't be about rising rivers of red ink. Instead, it will be about the blood running in the streets. After almost four decades of relative calm and complacency, there are signs that the social mood is beginning to sour. Americans are becoming unsettled by circumstances they don't understand. They are frightened by job cuts, bank failures, and widespread foreclosures. They resent what they see as bailouts for the rich and bonuses for bad behavior. Not surprisingly, they are also getting pretty angry about it. Up until now, however, Americans have been content to give Washington enough time to live up to its promises. After all, central bankers and other policymakers have managed to pull rabbits out of their hats before. In addition, new leadership has given many people a fresh sense of hope. But the truth is that those who are in charge are floundering and don't have the answers. In fact, they have been behind the curve ever since Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke first insisted in the spring of 2007 that the subprime crisis would remain "contained." Worse still, Washington's "solution" is to repeat the mistakes that helped get us into this mess to begin with: borrowing and spending beyond our means -- and trying to delay a thorough economic cleansing that is long overdue. Unfortunately, history suggests that when the gulf between expectations and reality widens too far, people start saying "Enough!" At that point, they start responding in a more aggressive, less tolerant fashion. Already we are seeing such a shift taking place in a growing number of places around the world. Day by day, reports roll in of marches, strikes, protests, and violence, spreading from country to country in Europe and elsewhere. Today, for instance, Bloomberg reported that arsonists in Berlin were torching Porsches and BMWs as the "recession fuels attacks on wealth." On Wednesday, according to Reuters , Greek protestors shut down airports and disrupted public services, the latest in a wave of protests in that country amid a sharp economic downturn. Last Saturday, Agence France-Presse reported , 120,000 Irish protestors brought Dublin's city center to a standstill over government austerity measures aimed at stabilizing the once high-flying economy. Suddenly, it's more than just statistics and data points for Germans, Latvians, Russians, Bulgarians, the British, the French, Lithuanians, and many others. It's no longer a question of hanging on until things get better. Rather, it's about angry people, many of them young and restless, who feel lied to, marginalized, and extremely hard done by -- and who are no longer willing to put up with it. Welcome to your future, America. More on The Bailouts
 
AIG Facing Possible Breakup Top
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Nearly six months after American International Group Inc. got its first massive bailout from the government, it's still stumbling. The big insurer keeps losing money and is unable to sell some of its biggest assets. Some Wall Street analysts have stopped tracking it. And it appears on the verge of getting another helping hand from Washington. Like Citigroup Inc., which on Friday received another round of federal support, AIG is considered too big and too important to fail. "If the government lets AIG fail, I think you are going to see an enormous sort of shock wave across all industries because AIG had their finger in a lot of different areas," said Russell Walker, a risk management professor at Northwestern University in Chicago. Expectations are that AIG and the government will announce soon, perhaps as early as Monday, their latest plan to prop up the New York-based company. Late Friday, AIG confirmed it will report its fourth-quarter earnings on Monday before the market opens. The Financial Times, citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity, reported this week that the government will swap the 80 percent stake it currently holds in AIG for even bigger pieces of three units that would be split off from the company: AIG's Asian operations, its international life insurance business and its U.S. personal lines business. A fourth unit made up of AIG's other businesses and troubled assets could be created as well or sold off in pieces, according to the FT report. In return for the breakup, the government would relax the terms, or cancel, a portion of the $60 billion loan that was at the center of a restructured $150 billion rescue package, the newspaper said. The company may also need another loan, its fourth, from the government as it is expected to report a $60 billion fourth-quarter loss Monday. AIG has been forced to seek more help because of a combination of factors including the recession and its falling stock price, now well under $1. Perhaps its biggest problem is the asset sales that were supposed to help the company pay back government loans aren't happening, in part because the credit crisis that initially landed AIG in trouble last summer is also preventing would-be buyers from getting financing. "If companies actually have cash, or the ability to make a purchase, they are not jumping on AIG right now," said Donn Vickrey, an analyst with Gradient Analytics Inc. "The prudent thing for (companies) to do is just say 'no' at this point unless it's just an insanely cheap price." That advice doesn't bode well for AIG, which said in October it would sell off business units to repay an original $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve that it received a month earlier. The loan was reduced to $60 billion in November as part of the larger restructured rescue package totaling $150 billion; it had roughly $38 billion outstanding as of this week. As of Feb. 13, AIG had already sold interests in nine businesses. But it needs to sell more. "In ordinary times, the sale of these assets would have been relatively easy," said Bob Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, a New York-based industry group. "The inability to sell the assets today appears to be more of a function of the inability to finance the deals as opposed to interest in purchasing many of these assets." According to analysts, AIG has been unable to solicit bids for some of its top units, including American Life Insurance, AIG's U.S. life insurance operation; American International Assurance, Asia's largest life insurer; International Lease Finance Corp., AIG's aircraft leasing subsidiary; and a broker-dealer operation called AIG Advisor Group. The lack of interest can be seen in the company's stock price. Shares of AIG fell 10 cents, or 19 percent, to 42 cents Friday. Shares are down 96 percent since its first bailout was announced. Some analysts have given up hope. "Given the current problems and increased government involvement, it is an unanalyzable company," Stifel Nicolaus & Co. analyst Michael Paisan wrote in a note to investors Tuesday, adding he is ending his coverage of the company. "We have very little confidence in the ability to analyze future earnings." Last week, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. analyst Bijan Moazami also dropped coverage of AIG, saying the company's predicament is so uncertain that "analysis of AIG is no longer relevant." The government steps expected to be announced could put more of a burden on U.S. taxpayers, but the Obama administration may have no other option than to take a bigger interest in the beleaguered insurer. On Friday, Citigroup agreed to give the government up to a 36 percent stake in the struggling bank, a move intended to strengthen its capital base. Citi has already received $45 billion in cash from the government. Problems at AIG did not come from its traditional insurance operations, but instead from its financial services units, and primarily its business insuring mortgage-backed securities and other risky debt against default. The government maintains it needed to bail AIG out last September, saying the company's failure would have further disrupt markets and threaten the already fragile economy. AIG's traditional insurance subsidiaries are widely viewed as safe. If AIG needed to file for bankruptcy protection, "AIG's insurance subsidiaries are separately capitalized and would continue to operate," Hartwig said. In recent days, AIG has said that it's evaluating "potential new alternatives" to fix its problems. Exactly what those are, the company won't say. "We continue to work with the U.S. government to evaluate potential new alternatives for addressing AIG's financial challenges," AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto said Friday. "We will provide a complete update when we report financial results in the near future." Hartwig said, "we don't know what the form of the deal might be," and added, "obviously there are hot and heavy negotiations going on." More on AIG Bailout
 
Presented By: Top
 
Jim Bunning Threatens To Resign From Senate To Hurt GOP Top
The Louisville Courier-Journal has another bombshell about Sen. Jim Bunning, the embattled Republican who is increasingly going rogue in an effort to hold onto his seat. In recent weeks, Senate Republican leaders have walked right up to the edge of declaring open war on Bunning. Minority Leader (and fellow Kentucky senator) Mitch McConnell and others reportedly believe Bunning is likely to lose his reelection race in 2010, and so are trying to nudge him into retirement by sending signals that the party establishment will not back him. Bunning has responded aggressively, threatening to sue the Senate Republicans' campaign arm if it doesn't fully back his reelection. And now the latest: Bunning "reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation." The Kentucky Republican suggested that possible scenario at a campaign fundraiser for him on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because of the politically sensitive nature of Bunning's remarks. The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement -- a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate. "I would get the last laugh. Don't forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor," one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying. "The only logical extension of that comment is, '(Make me mad) ... enough and I'll resign, and then you've got 60 Democrats,' " said another source who was present at the event. Read the full story here . A Democratic Senate aide told the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim: "Bunning has always been a loose cannon. It's just surprising that Mitch McConnell decided to light a match so close to him. With only 41 Republicans left, you'd think they'd be a little more careful not to actively alienate members of the caucus."
 
Schwarzenegger Declares California Drought Emergency Top
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Friday because of three years of below-average rain and snowfall in California, a step that urges urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent. "This drought is having a devastating impact on our people, our communities, our economy and our environment, making today's action absolutely necessary," the Republican governor said in his statement. Mandatory rationing is an option if the declaration and other measures are insufficient. The drought has forced farmers to fallow their fields, put thousands of agricultural workers out of work and led to conservation measures in cities throughout the state, which is the nation's top agricultural producer. Agriculture losses could reach $2.8 billion this year and cost 95,000 jobs, said Lester Snow, the state water director. State agencies must now provide assistance for affected communities and businesses and the Department of Water Resources must protect supplies, all accompanied by a statewide conservation campaign. Three dry winters have left California's state- and federally operated reservoirs at their lowest levels since 1992. Federal water managers announced last week that they would not deliver any water this year to thousands of California farms, although that could change if conditions improve. The state has said it probably would deliver just 15 percent of the water contractors have requested this year. Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought in June but stopped short of calling a state of emergency. His 2008 executive order directed the state Department of Water Resources to speed water transfers to areas with the worst shortages and help local water districts with conservation efforts. Over the last few weeks, storms have helped bring the seasons' rain totals to 87 percent of average, but the Sierra snowpack remains at 78 percent of normal for this time of year. State hydrologists say the snowpack must reach between 120 to 130 percent of normal to make up for the two previous dry winters and replenish California's key reservoirs. Court decisions intended to protect threatened fish species also have forced a significant cutback in pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, the heart of the state's delivery system. The governor, farmers and lawmakers have argued for years that California must upgrade its decades-old water supply and delivery system and build new reservoirs. "The situation is extremely dire," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, adding that the governor's action Friday "underscores the urgency of serving the long-term structural problems." The state delivers water to more than 25 million Californians and more than 750,000 acres of farmland. Schwarzenegger's order leaves the door open for more severe restrictions later. Additional measures can include mandatory water rationing and water reductions if there is no improvement in water reserves and residents fail to conserve on their own. At least 25 water agencies throughout the state already have imposed mandatory restrictions, while 66 others have voluntary measures in place. The state prefers such local efforts so it does not have to call for statewide rationing, Snow said Almond farmer Shawn Coburn of Mendota said the move comes too late for many growers who already are halfway through the season. Some farmers didn't bring in bees to pollinate, while others sprayed their orchards with chemicals that keep nuts from forming. "It's too late," he said. "It's going to sound horrible coming from a farmer because you never turn down help, but come on, this thing is over with." ___ Associated Press writer Tracie Cone in Fresno contributed to this report.
 
Sito Negron: Rick Perry's Anvil, Mexico's Hammer. Or, everything that's wrong with the Drug War, Reason No. 5259. Top
What's everything that's wrong with the Drug War? Well, we have new examples almost daily. This week, we had Texas Gov. Rick Perry calling Texas the anvil to Mexico's hammer in a brief news conference at the Chamizal Memorial on Tuesday. We all know whatever gets between the hammer and anvil gets crushed. Ain't life grand here on the border? Let's put some context to Perry's remarks. -- He's asking for millions of dollars in federal aid to build Texas law enforcement and border security apparatus to essentially use the border as the face of the anvil. -- He said he didn't care if the U.S. military operated on the border, as long as soldiers are properly trained. -- When asked whether he supported legalizing marijuana, he said it was an easy question and a short answer. No. In a totalitarian state, something is a crime just because the government or the esteemed leader calls it so. In a freedom-loving country such as ours, the government has the burden to prove something ought to be considered a crime. Some things are obvious, such as physical harm to another. Other things are less obvious and must be carefully evaluated. Marijuana, in particular, has not been. It's criminal because the government says it is. There is no evidence anyone has ever overdosed from marijuana. There is no evidence marijuana is more addictive than coffee, and there is ample evidence it is less addictive than alcohol, tobacco, or heroin. It is not a narcotic, although it often is referred to as one. This is simply made up language, which is irrational. Public policy based on stuff that's made up is on its face bad public policy. Prohibition has given rise to a massive police apparatus, a massive prison apparatus, and immense profits the Mexican cartels now are benefiting from. They have made, literally, billions. In a cost-benefit analysis of what it costs us to maintain marijuana prohibition v. the potential harm to society if it were decriminalized or legalized, it seems like a real conservative would realize, quickly, that something about this doesn't add up in a freedom-loving country like the U.S. of A. As a good conservative, Perry ought to understand that the awesome power of government, ESPECIALLY its police powers, ought only be used in extreme circumstances. Clearly, we ought to go after criminals who harm others, and criminal organizations that threaten civil stability. At the same time, we ought to take a hard look at how the threat to stability evolved. We have played a role in giving the cartels greater power, and harmed our own traditions -- or at least our ideals -- of civil liberty, through the ever-escalating Drug War. War? Hell, yes. In capital letters. Perry said this on Tuesday, when asked how long the violence would last: "The issue of how long this will last I think is really directed more to the federal government of the United States and if they're going to engage in a substantial way. I think this could be put to bed rather quickly. When you think about the number of billions of dollars the United States government has committed to a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan, a very small amount of that directed to this war against these drug cartels could end that war very quickly." A few days later, Mexico announced it was sending 5,000 more troops to Juarez. They might have success in killing or capturing cartel soldiers, but there's something else: Reports of human rights violations skyrocketed in Juarez in 2008, when the military first was sent to the city. ( Click here and here for background stories.) Human rights? Who cares? We're at war. In war, innocents, by definition, become collateral damage. Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong friend. Or you're on the wrong street, or take the wrong phone call or shop at the wrong market during a firefight or have the wrong relative during a round of house calls. There's no way to avoid it. So Perry is saying, the human toll is worth it. Why? Well, we don't exactly know. We know drugs can destroy lives, but do we know how many more lives they would destroy under a different approach? Do we know how many lives might be saved by taking profits and power away from the drug gangs who turn regions of Mexico -- not to mention many inner cities in the U.S. -- into war zones? We don't, because Perry and others can only say 'no,' even to marijuana, for which there is overwhelming evidence to allow adults the personal choice to use. There is an old adage in journalism. Follow the money. If we follow the money, we can easily find some clear winners in the Drug War: The pandering politicians trying to look tough; the expanding bureaucracy of police and military and jailers; and of course, the cartels. The rest of us, well, we're just caught between the hammer and the anvil. More on Mexico
 
National Guard To Pull Out Of New Orleans After 3 1/2 years Top
NEW ORLEANS — Three and a half years after Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard is pulling the last of its troops out of New Orleans this weekend, leaving behind a city still desperate and dangerous. Residents long distrustful of the city's police force are worried they will have to fend for themselves. "I don't know if crime will go up after these guys leave. But I know a lot more of us will be packing our own pieces now to make sure we're protected," said Calvin Stewart, owner of a restaurant and store. New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley said his rebuilt police department is up to the job of protecting the city. "I think we're ready to handle things," he said. The National Guardsmen were welcomed as liberators when they arrived in force in a big convoy more than four days after Katrina struck New Orleans in August 2005 and plunged the city into anarchy. The force was eventually 15,000 strong. The last of the troops were removed in January 2006 as civil authority returned, but then, after a surge in bloodshed, 360 were sent back in beginning in mid-2006 to help police keep order. As of February, only about 100 troops were left in the city. With Louisiana facing a $341 million budget deficit, state lawmakers were reluctant to keep the Guard in place any longer. The Guard was used to patrol the less populated sections of the city where Katrina's floodwaters left most houses uninhabitable. That included the woeful Ninth Ward, where renovated houses are outnumbered by moldy, boarded-up wrecks and weed-choked vacant lots. In their camouflage uniforms and Humvees, the troops were often a welcome sight. "We don't have enough cops. It's not that they're bad, it's just that there's not enough of them. These guys are Johnny-on-the-spot when you need them," said 57-year-old Tom Hightower, who is still trying to get the mold out of his house. He added: "This is still a spooky place after dark." The troops had full arrest powers but were required to call New Orleans police on serious matters. In their time on the streets, Guard troops were involved in only one shooting, and the district attorney ruled it justified. The Guardsmen answered lots of calls involving domestic violence, reported to be up in New Orleans since the hurricane, and handled car wrecks, house and business alarms and other problems. "One of the biggest things we did was keep those places safe so people could rebuild," said Sgt. Wayne Lewis, a New Orleans native who has been patrolling the streets since January 2007. "People would put the things to rebuild in their houses and thieves would come along and take them right out again. We stopped a lot of that." New Orleans had 210 murders in 2007, making it the murder capital of America, with the highest per-capita rate in the country. That number dropped to 179 in 2008. Nevertheless, "crime continues to be this community's No. 1 concern. Even with the lower numbers it is still unacceptably high," said Rafael Goyeneche, executive director of the Metropolitan Crime Commission. Before the hurricane, the police force had more than 1,600 officers. But its ranks were reduced after the storm by more than 30 percent because of desertions, dismissals, retirements and suicides. (New Orleans has only about 70 percent of its pre-Katrina population of 455,000.) The department has climbed back up to about 1,500 officers, and hopes to add by the end of April more than two dozen Guardsmen who liked the work so much they signed on. The Guard was supposed to leave on Jan. 1, but Louisiana lawmakers approved funding to keep 100 troops through February to give the police more time to recruit officers. The Guard's departure, which will take place after the final patrol ends at 3 a.m. Sunday, will be low-key. There will be no convoy, no bands playing. The last few Guardsmen on the street will check in their vehicles and head home for good. "I don't think the city is ready for us to leave," said Lt. Ronald Brown, who has been part of Task Force Gator since April 2007. "I'd like to see us stay. I think we make a difference, but I guess it's a money thing."
 
More U.S. Women Trying To Sell Their Eggs Top
Drawn by payments of up to $10,000, an increasing number of women are offering to sell their eggs at U.S. fertility clinics as a way to make money amid the financial crisis. Nicole Hodges, a 23-year-old actress in New York City who has been out of work since November, says she has decided to sell her eggs because she desperately needs cash.
 
Court Rejects Obama Bid To Stop Wiretapping Suit Top
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program. A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay in a case involving a defunct Islamic charity. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the Oregon chapter of the charity, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, was allowed to proceed. Now, civil libertarians hope the case will become the first chance for a court to rule on whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal or not. It cited the so-called state secrets privilege as a defense against the lawsuit. "All we wanted was our day in court and it looks like we're finally going to get our day in court," said Al-Haramain's lawyer, Steven Goldberg. "This case is all about challenging an assertion of power by the executive branch which is extraordinary." A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. The decision by the three-judge appeals panel is a setback for the new Obama administration as it adopts some of the same positions on national security and secrecy as the Bush administration. Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a review of all state secrets claims that have been used to protect Bush administration anti-terrorism programs from lawsuits. Yet even as that review continues, the administration has invoked the privilege in several different cases, including Al-Haramain. The case began when the Bush administration accidentally turned over documents to Al-Haramain attorneys. Lawyers for the defunct charity said the papers showed illegal wiretapping by the National Security Agency. The documents were returned to the government, which quickly locked them away, claiming they were state secrets that could threaten national security if released. Lawyers for Al-Haramain argued that they needed the documents to prove the wiretapping. The U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 designated the charity as an organization that supports terrorism before the Saudi Arabian government closed it. The Bush administration redesignated it in 2008, citing attempts to keep it operating. The 9th Circuit eventually agreed that the disputed documents were protected as state secrets. But the court ruled that the Oregon chapter of Al-Haramain could try to find another way to show it had standing to sue the government over domestic wiretapping. A number of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, tried to sue the government over warrantless wiretapping but were denied standing because they could not show they were targeted. Ann Brick, a lawyer for the ACLU of Northern California, said the court has now crafted a way to review the issue in which "national security isn't put at risk, but the rule of law can still be observed."
 
Larry Graziano: Wal-Mart Employee Dies After Setting Self On Fire Outside Store Top
BLOOMINGDALE, Ill. — Police in a Chicago suburb say a Wal-Mart employee has died after setting himself on fire outside the store where he worked. Police watch commander Randy Sater says 58-year-old Larry Graziano of Carol Stream set himself ablaze late Thursday outside the store in Bloomingdale. It was not immediately clear how he caught on fire, but Sater says lighter fluid was involved. The Cook County Medical Examiner's office says Graziano was taken to a hospital and pronounced dead early Friday. Sater says Graziano told police he "couldn't take it anymore." Police say bystanders tried to help, but Graziano fought them off. Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman says Graziano had been with the company for seven years and that he had no reported personnel issues.
 
Lawrence Baxter, Bill Brown and James Cox: Finally, a Bridge to Somewhere Top
President Obama turned the corner in his address to the joint Houses of Congress. How? He began to shift from management to leadership. While acknowledging the hole in which we find ourselves, he articulated his vision for pulling this country (and the world) out from that hole and, more importantly, what lofty goals lay beyond. He hit the mark when he called for banks to start lending and for an overhaul of our regulatory system. (In fact, he chastised the banks for failing to lend.) Parsing his speech further, the president put to rest the notion that banks will be nationalized. Behind his declaration that the federal government will carefully monitor lending and bank management is the notion of conservatorship, not nationalization. How should it work? We believe three principles should guide actions designed to restore health to the financial system: · immediate protective conservatorship of the banking conglomerates in distress; · restructuring of the financial services industry; and · comprehensive regulatory modernization. We begin by pointing out the obvious: investors will not be attracted to the plague they perceive on the banks' balance sheets. There can be no disagreement that toxic assets must be excised, but our strategy requires that this be done carefully and patiently. The burdened banks should be placed under protective conservatorship. To be clear, though, we are not talking about the traditional receivership and very rarely used conservatorship powers of the FDIC, which were designed for seizure situations involving isolated institutions that could be resolved easily or closed permanently. Rather, we are talking about something more akin to what was done with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As with those institutions, the intent of our proposal is to signal that the institutions involved are likely to survive in restructured form so long as they are protected from the immediate demands of creditors. This step is necessary if financial institutions are to become attractive to investors again. This would be different from nationalization, where this is no indication that government-backed managers would do any better job than their private counterparts. Yet inaction is not the answer either. When all is said and done we cannot be left with banks and other financial institutions that cannot be managed at current scale or in combinations that continue to intensify dangerous levels of risk, conflict of interest and inconsistent missions. We believe that such conservatorships are the appropriate vehicles to implement a process of purging the banks of their toxins and restoring to the marketplace a strong array of good banks. The conservatorship is the most effective use of the power government now has to control the future of the financial system and force the behemoths to · shed their healthy assets, devolving these into separated "good" banks, investment companies and insurance companies which can attract investor funds; · demonstrate that the devolved entities have a manageable coherence of function; and · if needed, divest surplus assets in order to reduce the devolved subsidiaries to levels of proven manageability (i.e. sizes at which there is a clear record of high performance and safe management). Meanwhile, the government would provide continued support in the form of the conservatorship that offers protection from creditors and possible backstops against losses for the remaining "bad asset" husks. This system worked well to stabilize Fannie and Freddie, so it should be accorded a level of credibility that a purely new program would not enjoy. In addition (and unlike the Fannie/Freddie approach) shareholders would not only be apportioned a share of the potential losses but would also receive shares in the new green shoots. At the same time, a leaner, more diversified financial services industry requires more effective oversight. This implies, as almost everyone seems to agree, that we need major regulatory modernization. Whether a "super regulator" is the answer is unclear, given the problems of functional diversity and the limitations of capacity and scale already outlined. But the regulatory system should at least be coherent, coordinated and comprehensive, which it is not at present, and capable of explanation in two large-type pages or less, which is also not the case now. The hub of any evolving regulatory system must be an agency with authority to monitor the safety and stability of the financial system and its multiple participants, whether they be national banks, state banks, savings and loans, hedge funds, insurance companies or the like. To accomplish this objective, it is high time to set aside the regulatory turf battles that have plagued our fragmented financial system for a century or more. Would this course of action wind back the clock? Yes, to some degree, though only to basic principles. Geographic restrictions probably never made sense once networks and systems were developed for managing, operating and servicing remotely. But the wisdom that rebelled against unbridled product deregulation has been vindicated over and over again, from the collapse of the Citi-Travelers-Salomon combination to the present debacle. Glass-Steagall was out of date, but the concerns about conflicts of interest within the financial industry and opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are not. And our vanity about management capacity has surely been deflated over the past few weeks as we have learned that stupidity prospers at every level of management to the very highest, and that the self-assuredness of executive titans becomes downright dangerous when basic information for decisions, let alone checks and balances, is more of a management and regulatory mantra than something people actually have or can use. Just because investment bankers, commercial bankers and retail bankers think they can generate excess profits by being freed to operate under the discipline of the market, such as it has proved to be, does not mean it is un-American to stop them if this hurts us all. Conservatorship should be taxpayer-focused, not industry-focused. The authors are on the faculty at the Duke University School of Law.
 
Lawrence Baxter, Bill Brown and James Cox: Finally, a Bridge to Somewhere Top
President Obama turned the corner in his address to the joint Houses of Congress. How? He began to shift from management to leadership. While acknowledging the hole in which we find ourselves, he articulated his vision for pulling this country (and the world) out from that hole and, more importantly, what lofty goals lay beyond. He hit the mark when he called for banks to start lending and for an overhaul of our regulatory system. (In fact, he chastised the banks for failing to lend.) Parsing his speech further, the president put to rest the notion that banks will be nationalized. Behind his declaration that the federal government will carefully monitor lending and bank management is the notion of conservatorship, not nationalization. How should it work? We believe three principles should guide actions designed to restore health to the financial system: · immediate protective conservatorship of the banking conglomerates in distress; · restructuring of the financial services industry; and · comprehensive regulatory modernization. We begin by pointing out the obvious: investors will not be attracted to the plague they perceive on the banks' balance sheets. There can be no disagreement that toxic assets must be excised, but our strategy requires that this be done carefully and patiently. The burdened banks should be placed under protective conservatorship. To be clear, though, we are not talking about the traditional receivership and very rarely used conservatorship powers of the FDIC, which were designed for seizure situations involving isolated institutions that could be resolved easily or closed permanently. Rather, we are talking about something more akin to what was done with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As with those institutions, the intent of our proposal is to signal that the institutions involved are likely to survive in restructured form so long as they are protected from the immediate demands of creditors. This step is necessary if financial institutions are to become attractive to investors again. This would be different from nationalization, where this is no indication that government-backed managers would do any better job than their private counterparts. Yet inaction is not the answer either. When all is said and done we cannot be left with banks and other financial institutions that cannot be managed at current scale or in combinations that continue to intensify dangerous levels of risk, conflict of interest and inconsistent missions. We believe that such conservatorships are the appropriate vehicles to implement a process of purging the banks of their toxins and restoring to the marketplace a strong array of good banks. The conservatorship is the most effective use of the power government now has to control the future of the financial system and force the behemoths to · shed their healthy assets, devolving these into separated "good" banks, investment companies and insurance companies which can attract investor funds; · demonstrate that the devolved entities have a manageable coherence of function; and · if needed, divest surplus assets in order to reduce the devolved subsidiaries to levels of proven manageability (i.e. sizes at which there is a clear record of high performance and safe management). Meanwhile, the government would provide continued support in the form of the conservatorship that offers protection from creditors and possible backstops against losses for the remaining "bad asset" husks. This system worked well to stabilize Fannie and Freddie, so it should be accorded a level of credibility that a purely new program would not enjoy. In addition (and unlike the Fannie/Freddie approach) shareholders would not only be apportioned a share of the potential losses but would also receive shares in the new green shoots. At the same time, a leaner, more diversified financial services industry requires more effective oversight. This implies, as almost everyone seems to agree, that we need major regulatory modernization. Whether a "super regulator" is the answer is unclear, given the problems of functional diversity and the limitations of capacity and scale already outlined. But the regulatory system should at least be coherent, coordinated and comprehensive, which it is not at present, and capable of explanation in two large-type pages or less, which is also not the case now. The hub of any evolving regulatory system must be an agency with authority to monitor the safety and stability of the financial system and its multiple participants, whether they be national banks, state banks, savings and loans, hedge funds, insurance companies or the like. To accomplish this objective, it is high time to set aside the regulatory turf battles that have plagued our fragmented financial system for a century or more. Would this course of action wind back the clock? Yes, to some degree, though only to basic principles. Geographic restrictions probably never made sense once networks and systems were developed for managing, operating and servicing remotely. But the wisdom that rebelled against unbridled product deregulation has been vindicated over and over again, from the collapse of the Citi-Travelers-Salomon combination to the present debacle. Glass-Steagall was out of date, but the concerns about conflicts of interest within the financial industry and opportunities for regulatory arbitrage are not. And our vanity about management capacity has surely been deflated over the past few weeks as we have learned that stupidity prospers at every level of management to the very highest, and that the self-assuredness of executive titans becomes downright dangerous when basic information for decisions, let alone checks and balances, is more of a management and regulatory mantra than something people actually have or can use. Just because investment bankers, commercial bankers and retail bankers think they can generate excess profits by being freed to operate under the discipline of the market, such as it has proved to be, does not mean it is un-American to stop them if this hurts us all. Conservatorship should be taxpayer-focused, not industry-focused. The authors are on the faculty at the Duke University School of Law.
 
Charles A. Clarkson: Digging Us a Deeper Hole: Runaway Housing Subsidies Top
If we take President Obama at his word when he said Tuesday "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," some forensic accounting is in order as we evaluate our current fiscal and budget priorities. If we dig below the surface of our recent capital allocation policies, we will find massive, perverse housing subsidies, bigger than the $250 billion a year we spend on debt service, weighing down the economy. Few Americans realize it, but more than predatory lending or deregulation, more than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or Wall Street's "innovative" mortgage-backed financial products, decades of runaway housing subsidies are a fundamental cause of the housing bubble. They drove sprawl and oversupply which brought about a collapse in home prices. In fact, our addiction to overallocating capital to housing remains deeply embedded in our policies today. Policy makers' quasi-religious commitment to housing of any kind has made them the enablers. Weaning ourselves off the addiction is vital to regaining our economic health. The new White House Office of Urban Affairs may be in a position to help change the pattern, because it needs to fight sprawl in order to revitalize urban economies. But it will have to cross deeply entrenched interests and hidebound practices to do it. The average citizen always assumed that homeownership paid for itself. But developers have long depended on federal, state and local subsidies to build housing developments, and they lobby hard for them. Subsidies from Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans Administration and mortgage interest deductions played important roles in creating this bubble. State and local subsidies, though less visible, have been huge and pivotal factors in the crisis. Most of us don't realize our property taxes rarely cover the costs of services and infrastructure that greenfield construction requires. Homeowners pay only a fraction of these costs, while taxpayer-funded municipalities pick up the tab on police, fire, water, schools, roads etc. This has allowed many developers to build and profit from sprawl, at taxpayer expense, while local and state governments have had to use other revenues to cover these costs, or go bust. Despite the seriousness of the problem, there has been almost no transparent analysis of the fiscal impact of the various giveaways and shortfalls, no connecting of the dots from federal to state to local subsidies to homebuilders. As a result, the true extent of the problem has stayed under the radar. But one important exception, a 2005 study, estimates government housing subsidies nationally at $84 million dollars a day (over $300 billion a year). From 2000 to 2025, the study projects taxpayers will subsidize transportation, infrastructure and development costs of sprawl for metro Los Angeles, Washington/Baltimore and San Francisco to the tune of $120 billion -- not counting the costs of police, fire, schools, health care, energy and many other big housing-related government costs. Imagine what the true aggregate cost nationally might be. Now imagine what would have happened if the homebuilding industry had to provide taxpayers with transparent cost-benefit analysis of their projects to qualify for subsidies. Many projects wouldn't have been built, so there would have been little if any excess housing inventory, and many fewer underwater mortgages and resulting foreclosures. It would have reduced sprawl, making our center cities more vibrant and financially healthier. Many of them probably wouldn't now face the prospect of laying off large numbers of municipal workers, and wouldn't find affordable housing projects unaffordable. Core city asset values would have gone up along with tax revenues and in the suburbs average home size would have remained sustainable, with lower energy usage and shorter gas-guzzling commutes. Government budgets would be much more balanced and our economy would be stronger. Lack of transparency to date is a tragedy. It has meant that taxpayers inadvertently created the housing bubble and, now that it has burst, will be forced to pay again to clean up the mess. If, as President Obama urges, taxpayers should be treated as investors, we need transparency to evaluate the cost of and return on our public investment. We must understand how we got into this predicament, start demanding that projects which enjoy taxpayer largesse actually serve the public interest, and that they at least begin to pay their own way. Grants for new projects should require state and local fiscal impact analysis, impact fees and other mechanisms to insure that the true costs of development aren't foisted back on taxpayers. The Administration's $75 billion anti-foreclosure package has the potential to change untenable mortgages and prevent four million more foreclosures in the short run. We have the new White House Office on Urban Affairs, and a new stimulus package with billions for "shovel-ready" projects. These are welcome steps. But without broad-based transparency, accountability and discipline in allocating public funds, we could end up sowing the seeds of more red ink and future crisis, and all those shovels will only dig us a deeper hole. More on Housing Crisis
 
Presented By: Top
 
Five Suspected Witches Burnt To Death In Kenya Top
NAIROBI: Five elderly people suspected of practising witchcraft were burnt to death in western Kenya, police have said. More on Kenya
 
GE Cuts Quarterly Dividend To 10 Cents A Share Top
WASHINGTON — For the first time since the Great Depression, General Electric Co. is cutting its quarterly dividend, a move that allows the struggling conglomerate to save $9 billion a year as it braces for a tough 2009. GE, one of the nation's largest companies, said Friday it will pay shareholders a 10-cents-per-share dividend beginning in the third quarter, 68 percent lower than the company's original plan of 31 cents. The dividend cut _ long predicted by Wall Street _ is the company's first since 1938 and follows similar actions by other industrial companies amid the worst financial crisis in seven decades. Dow Chemical Co. announced its first dividend cut in 97 years earlier this month. In a statement Friday, CEO Jeff Immelt said that GE's board of directors cut the payout to strengthen its balance sheet and provide "additional flexibility." GE is trying to protect its top 'AAA' credit rating despite growing doubts over the stability of its GE Capital lending unit. "We believe it is the right precautionary action at this time to further strengthen our company for the long-term," Immelt said in the statement. Shares of the Fairfield, Conn.-based company fell 59 cents, or 6.5 percent, to close at $8.51 Friday. The stock price has plummeted over the past year, trading at its lowest levels since the mid-1990s. Analysts had questioned GE's ability to pay a generous dividend while it hunted for money to shore up GE Capital. The unit, which makes a wide range of loans, for overseas home mortgages and big energy projects, has suffered during the banking and credit crisis. GE is in the process of restructuring that business by cutting jobs, injecting it with more cash and reducing its dependence on risky debt. GE Capital was the largest profit driver at the company in recent years, but has suffered mounting losses on growing loan defaults. GE said in January that fourth-quarter profits at GE Capital dropped by two-thirds to $1.03 billion. The company said it set aside $10 billion for GE Capital loan losses, $1 billion more than it had projected just a month earlier. GE, which has paid dividends every quarter since 1899, said in December that its dividend would cost $13.4 billion out of a projected 2009 cash flow of $16 billion. The cut was deeper than some investors had predicted, which may have contributed to the fact that GE's stock still dropped after the announcement, said Eric Boyce, a portfolio manager at Hester Capital Management in Austin, Texas. Boyce, whose firm owns 600,000 GE shares, said it was the right decision, but that it will become part of Immelt's legacy. "He was the steward of the ship when they made this historic dividend cut after he staunchly defended being able to maintain it," Boyce said. "That is egg on his face in retrospect." Even as the recession deepened, GE resisted calls to conserve cash by shrinking its payout. Immelt said as recently as January that a cut was not in the works. The company planned to pay $1.24 this year, the same as 2008, although that annual payout was the first in 32 years to be held flat. Then in January, GE reported a 46-percent drop in fourth quarter earnings and warned 2009 would be tough. In February, Immelt said GE would reevaluate its dividend for the second half of the year, although GE has stuck by plans to pay 31 cents per share for the first two quarters. Earlier this month, GE said Immelt gave up a bonus and nearly $12 million in incentive pay because of GE's poor performance. To stabilize its finances, GE has taken steps such as raising $15 billion in capital from investors that include Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett. It has also reduced its reliance on riskier commercial paper short term debt and lowered its leverage ratios. GE said Friday that it does not have plans to raise more equity after the dividend cut. Analysts said those steps should put GE on better footing. "It made sense to cut the dividend," said Matt Collins, an analyst with Edward Jones. "In this environment, it doesn't make sense to pay out $13 billion a year." The broad recession is also eating into profits at the company's industrial unit, which makes aircraft engines, home appliances, light bulbs and wind turbines. GE says profits could be flat in its industrial businesses this year. GE's top-notch 'AAA' credit rating is also under scrutiny because of GE Capital's problems. Many analysts believe that a ratings cut could come as early as this year, an action that could force GE to pay more to borrow money. Both Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's said in statements Friday that the dividend cut would be a factor as they consider GE's creditworthiness. But both left their top credit ratings unchanged after the news.
 
Lloyd Chapman: 100 Percent of Stimulus Spending Will Go To Top One Percent of U.S. Firms Top
So far, all of the billions, or should I say trillions of dollars the federal government has spent to stimulate our nation's failing economy has gone to the top 1 percent of firms in the U.S. The nation's largest financial institutions have received the overwhelming majority of the so-called bailout funds. By now, I am sure everyone has heard that financial institutions that received over $350 billion in taxpayer dollars did not use the money to free up credit as they were supposed to do. In reality, the money was used to buy other failing financial institutions, purchase private jets, throw lavish parties and give billions of dollars in bonuses to executives that should have been fired for incompetence. If the purpose of the stimulus bill is to create jobs, President Obama and Congress have made a significant mistake because the firms that comprise the top 1 percent of firms in America have not created one net new job since 1977. According to the most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, firms with fewer than 20 employees comprise over 90 percent of all U.S. firms and are responsible for more than 97 percent of the new jobs created in America. These 26 million firms employ over 50 percent of the private sector work force. If President Obama and Congress seriously want to create jobs and stimulate the national economy, small businesses should be the focus of the stimulus bill, not banks and Fortune 500 firms. Some of the nation's top economic experts, such as Dr. Laura Tyson and former Hewlett-Packard President Carly Fiorina, have acknowledged the most efficient manner for the government to stimulate the economy is to direct federal infrastructure funds to the small businesses where most Americans work. So what's the hold up here? It seems painfully obvious that directing federal infrastructure dollars to small business, is a cost effective and efficient way to stimulate the economy. Why won't President Obama and Congress simply create policies that accomplish that? It doesn't seem reasonable or logical to try and create jobs by directing federal funds to firms that essentially have not created one net new job in over 20 years. More on Small Business
 
Scritti Politti: February 27, 2009 Top
I quite liked Mark McKinnon's piece in The Daily Beast , today , about Twitter "jumping the shark." I especially liked his admonition that we all must honor our connections to our friends and loved ones by relishing those relationships in the time-tested, offline ways that have always served us. I will keep that spirit this weekend, when I perform one of those classic rites of true friendship - helping someone pack their moving van. As for Twitter jumping the shark, well, let me toot my own horn by saying that I warned everyone last June that eventually, it would be your Congress that would ruin Twitter for everyone , or at the very least, tragically displace the more gentlemanly tradition of dueling . Also, just as a point of debate, while I agree that this weeks news of Twittering Congresscritters does nothing but spur the regress of the medium, I would posit that Twitter jumped the shark in the same way all internet paraphenalia does - at the very moment CNN dedicated a show to reading it out loud, on the teevee . Facebook statuses, I'm certain, will be next. [Naturally, if you want to follow me on Twitter... I won't stop you !] The Curious Case Of Buck McKeon : And now, the incredibly true story of a U.S. Representative taking a grand stand in support of plainly idiotic "crony capitalism." A taste : Well right now we do student loans through a really pointless mechanism of basically laundering the money through private firms. All of the downside risk is borne by the government in case of default. And the lenders receive federal subsidies for doing the service of undertaking no-risk lending. But of course the companies also take a slice off the top for profits and salaries for executives and so forth. Consequently, this is more expensive than just directly lending the money. And the government is bearing all the risk anyway. So what Obama is proposing to do is to save taxpayers money by simply having the government make the loans. What's not to like? Well: But there's already been pushback from Republicans. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.), ranking Republican on the House Education Committee, lashed out against the proposed shift, calling it a "government takeover of the private-sector-based student loan program, taking away options and benefits from students while adding tens of billions" of dollars to the deficit. The government is not, however, "taking over" anything. The government already completely controls the industry since it's existence is predicated on the existence of federal subsidies. Obama is simply proposing to cut out the middle man and save some money. Press Pre-Emption : The sad thing about the idea of "too big to fail," is that you'd think the "big" side of the equation would attract some scrutiny before the "fail" aspect manifested itself. This article in Fortune indicates a sensible shift in practices , as they take an look at whether bond giant Pimco has arrived at the "too big to fail" threshold before that inquiry becomes a sigh of resignation. MSNBC Adds Disclosures To Analyst Appearances : I was enthusiastic in the immediate moments following MSNBC's decision to disclose to viewers that Barry McCaffrey works for DynCorps. It's a small victory, but an "incomplete" one, according to CJR's Clint Hendler , who succinctly demonstrates why this stuff really matters: But Gregory's introduction neglected to mention that DynCorp has many other military contracting interests outside of Afghanistan that were far more relevant to the topic at hand. Like those interests, say, in Iraq. One of them is the joint venture Global Linguist Solutions, of which DynCorp is a majority owner. And while McCaffrey is merely one member of the DynCorp board, he chairs the board over at GLS, which has a five-year, $4.6 billion contract to provide translation and interpretive services to U.S forces operating in Iraq. Today, Obama announced that America's Iraq combat mission would end by August 31, 2010, and, per the country's Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, that he intended to "remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." The GLS contract will not expire until 2013. Math would indicate that McCaffrey's company stands to lose up to $920 million of revenue for each year that U.S. troops leave Iraq before the contract expires. While McCaffrey endorsed Obama's withdrawal plan as "sensible" on MSNBC today, in the past GLS has been sensitive to the possibility that shifts in White House policy could jeopardize its business. Days after Obama's election, they issued a press release (.pdf) quoting portions of Obama's Iraq platform that warned against quick withdrawal, and assuring that the election results would "not cause interruption" in their contract. Is Kellogg's Taking Hits From A Phelps Backlash? : Yes, according " a company called 'Vanno' that tracks the brand reputations of more than 5,600 companies ." Of course, Vanno's metrics are described as something that "kind of looks like it was made by a 12 year old," so take it with a bowlful of, you know, "salt." Your Daily Dose Of WTF!?! : Uhm, yes. That Kyra Phillips report on sword swallowing? It really happened . More on CNN
 
Glenn Hurowitz: Celebrate 24,000 Dead Americans! Top
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, has announced it is holding a counter-protest to the Capitol Climate Action, the biggest civil disobedience on climate issues in U.S. history. They're calling it the "Celebrate Coal! and Keep Energy Affordable" rally. A better name might be the "Celebrate 24,000 Dead Americans!" rally, because that's how many people toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants kills every year, and costs Americans $167 billion in additional health care costs. Other titles CEI could have chosen: Celebrate Unemployment! Coal kills jobs . Investments in energy efficiency create more than twice the number of jobs as investments in coal, according to the latest numbers from Professor Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the University of Massachusetts. Every dollar sunk into a coal plant, even if it's spent making it marginally cleaner, is a job creation dollar almost half wasted. New coal plants are so expensive that they actually cost jobs. Celebrate Economic Collapse! As the biggest U.S. source of global warming pollution, coal is a major contributor to the $271 billion annual drag on the economy global warming is projected to cause by 2025 (it's already causing a multi-billion drag). Unless we solve the climate crisis, it's going to be that much harder to overcome our economic woes. Celebrate Weather Disasters! Expect more intense (and possibly more frequent) hurricanes like Katrina and Rita in a global warming world - and many more climate refugees . Celebrate Species Extinction! According to the journal Nature , "New analyses suggest that 15-37% of a sample of 1,103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050." Celebrate Mercury Poisoning! Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of man-made mercury pollution. Mercury from coal pollution can interfere with the development of babies' brains and neurological systems. One in six babies born in America (as well as Jeremy Piven ) have elevated levels of mercury in their blood, putting them at risk of learning disabilities, developmental delays, and problems with fine motor coordination. If it was up to CEI, we would still have lead in our gasoline, no seatbelts in our cars, and more pesticides in children's food. These are the guys who backed deregulation of Wall Street CEO's - and are now opposing action on climate to get the economy back on track. If Congress listens to CEI and Big Coal, we won't be able to solve global warming, switch to clean energy, and create the millions of green jobs we need to put people back to work and restore prosperity. You can help make sure they don't by signing up for the Capitol Climate Action here . More on Extreme Weather
 
Producers Plan To File For Arbitration Against Tearful Jeremy Piven Top
NEW YORK — Jeremy Piven is not off the hook yet. The producers of "Speed-the-Plow" said Friday they will file for arbitration to settle their dispute with the actor for abruptly quitting the Broadway show after his doctor said he was suffering from mercury poisoning. The action came after no agreement was reached Thursday in a grievance hearing requested by the producers. A panel composed of Actors' Equity and Broadway League representatives were unable to reach a required unanimous decision. In a terse, two-sentence statement, the producers said: "The grievance went as expected yesterday. The grievance committee (made up of League and Equity representatives) did not rule for either side and we will be filing for arbitration as provided by our contract." No date was given for the filing by lead producer Jeffrey Richards. Samantha Mast, Piven's spokeswoman, said: "We're not aware the producers have filed anything to initiate an arbitration, but if they do so, we are confident that the producers will not prevail in arbitration, just as they did not prevail in the grievance proceeding they initiated." Under Actors' Equity rules, the arbitration will be heard by a professional arbitrator, acceptable to both Equity and the League. He or she will be chosen from a list of nine designated people, who will hold the hearing within 30 days of the filing and issue a decision within 30 days of that meeting. The 43-year-old Piven, the Emmy- and Golden Globe-winning star of HBO's "Entourage," departed the production of David Mamet's satiric comedy after his physician said he had high levels of mercury in his body. In a tearful interview with The New York Times after Thursday's hearing, Piven said his illness stemmed from eating fish twice a week for 20 years, not from consuming too much sushi, as some reports suggested. "Speed-the-Plow" opened last October to favorable reviews and by the time the revival ended its limited engagement Feb. 22 at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre, it had recouped its $2.26 million production costs. Three different actors _ understudy Jordan Lage, Norbert Leo Butz and William H. Macy _ followed Piven in the role of movie mogul Bobby Gould. Mamet's three-character play about Hollywood glamour, sex and power, also starred Elisabeth Moss of AMC's "Mad Men" and Raul Esparza.
 
Why Doesn't Chicago Have A Great Public Market? The Straight Dope Explains Top
I've said it before: Chicago can never seriously consider itself a world-class food city until it builds a market like this. Why can't we have a public market like Cleveland's? More on Food
 
Bill Barol: The Rocky Top
The irony of this post isn't lost on me: I'm a blogger passing on a video about the final days of the Rocky Mountain News, which published its final edition today. Bloggers come in for some gentle criticism in the film. Sportswriter Jeff Legwold remembers the old newspaperman's admonition If your mother says she loves you, check it out, and adds: "I still follow that rule. I don't think everybody blogging is following that rule. And until we tell people that's the difference, a lot more people like us are going to be sitting here telling this story." Other factors are noted as well: The rise of the Internet as a whole, the leaching away of classified ads to sites like craigslist, the downturn in the economy. Those are the hard facts behind the Rocky's death. What "Final Edition," by rockymountainnews.com Multimedia Producer Matthew Roberts, shows is something more ineffable: The human cost to the employees and the loss to the community. It's impossible to imagine a newspaper covering its own funeral in such a visceral and immediate way twenty years ago. The tools of new media made it possible for Roberts to shoot, cut and distribute the story of the Rocky's closing in something very close to real time. Editor/Publisher John Temple talks in the film about the paper's openness over the years to new ways of telling stories. In Roberts' lovely, heartbreaking video the Rocky showed that openness to the very last minutes of its life. Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo .
 
Mark Nickolas: Bunning Threatens to Resign Early and Give Dems 60 Senate Seats If GOP Doesn't Back Off Top
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is a first-rate crack pot (recall here , here and here ), but his insanity might hasten the speed at which Democrats take back this Senate seat, per the latest installment from the Louisville Courier-Journal : The Kentucky Republican suggested that possible scenario at a campaign fundraiser for him on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because of the politically sensitive nature of Bunning’s remarks. The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement — a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate. “I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying. “The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event. Let's hope Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) keep provoking Bunning. Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base , and this story was from his original post, " Bunning Threatens To Resign Early And Let Dem Have 60 Seats If GOP Doesn't Back Off ."
 
Up In Arms: Michelle Obama's Sleeveless Style Sparks Controversy (POLL, PHOTOS) Top
*Scroll down for slideshow and polls* Michelle Obama made the sleeveless dress something of a signature look this past week, choosing to bare her arms four times in seven days. The First Lady impressed many, but also made a few waves on Tuesday night when she broke with tradition and wore a sleeveless Narciso Rodriguez dress to the President's address before Congress. Opinion was divided over whether it was appropriate to show so much skin at such a ceremonial event. Social Secretary Desiree Rogers defended the decision, telling the Washington Post that Mrs. Obama's feeling is "If I want to wear no sleeves to hear my husband speak, that's what I'm going to do." After appearing in a (relatively) conservative houndstooth suit last Friday, the First Lady went sleeveless in a purple Jason Wu dress to speak to culinary students in the White House kitchen on Sunday afternoon. That night she co-hosted a black-tie dinner for the nation's governors (along with her husband, the President), donning a sparkly strapless gown by Chicago native Peter Soronen . The next night, on Wednesday, she went sleeveless again with an emerald Kai Milla dress to the White House's Stevie Wonder concert. On Friday, the White House released the Michelle Obama's official portrait in which she again bared her arms, this time in a more sober black Michael Kors dress. Take a look at Michelle Obama's sleeveless ensembles this past week. Then tell us where you stand on this important national issue in the polls below. SLIDESHOW: POLLS: More on Michelle Obama Style
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)