We have been busy for the last couple of days - playing chess - harvesting "cherry" tomatoes, continuing the restoration of the stove, kind of all "on the go".
Today Robert arrived from Madrid with a car full of great gifts - like an early Christmas. Raul also arrived from the Alicante area. He has been working for a while in France.
Tonight Mira will be holding a ceremony - more tomorrow.
Saturday 13 August 2011
Thursday 11 August 2011
Pachamama. "Possible Futures" Film Awards.
7-Year-Old Points to Brighter Future
- by Cathryn Wellner
- August 10, 2011
- 6:00 pm
When 7-year-old Ishi runs along a mountain path, cuts out a funny face in dough and jumps into her father’s arms, I fall totally in love. When she holds up the solar panel that lights her home and cooks her food, I cheer. Ishi is the pint-sized star of Nitin Das’s Superhero, a short film that may change more hearts than Al Gore.
Superhero is the 2011 Grand Award Winner in the Possible Futures Film Contest, sponsored by The Pachamama Alliance, and FOUR YEARS. GO. Contest entries came from 44 countries. Nitin’s film won the top spot out of 317.
He was a brand manager for India Today before leaving the corporate sector to follow his passion. Superhero and A Tale of 3 Bananas: A Story of War, Politics and Bananas are two small samples of this gifted filmmaker’s ability to use humor and whimsy to carry a serious message.
Nitin shot “Superhero” in the village of Kaaza, in the remote Himalayan desert of India’s Spiti Valley. The film’s message is simple: Ishi “is doing her bit to save the planet even though she is only 7 years old. How old are you?”
Both Superhero and the second-place winner, Smooch, fulfill the contest’s challenge “to create a new vision for the future of humanity—one that will become defined by our relationships to human justice, environmental sustainability, peace and individual fulfillment.”
But don’t stop with these two inspiring film. All of the entries are online and every one of them will give you hope.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/7-year-old-points-to-brighter-future.html#ixzz1Ujf6jsTx
Live Intensley, Live Dangerously, Live Courageously and ENJOY LIFE
Living Dangerously – Osho
What does it mean exactly? It simply means that in life there are always alternatives. You are always at a crossroads, always and always. Each moment is a crossroads, and you have to choose where you are going, what is going to be your path; each moment you have to choose. Each moment is decisive because you are discarding many ways and choosing one.
Now, if you choose the comfortable, the convenient, then you will never be able to live intensely. The comfortable, the convenient, the conventional, which the society approves, means that you are ready to become a psychological slave. That’s why all this convenience… The society will give you everything, if you give your freedom to it. It will give you respectability, it will give you great posts in the hierarchy, in the bureaucracy – but you have to drop one thing: your freedom, your individuality. You have to become a number in the crowd. The crowd hates the person who is not part of it. The crowd becomes very tense seeing a stranger amongst it, because the stranger becomes a question mark.
You have been living a certain life, a certain style, a certain religion, a certain politics. You have been following the way of the mob, and you were very comfortable, cozy, because those surrounding you were all people just like you. What you were doing, they were doing. Everybody else was doing the same; that gave the feeling that you were doing the right thing. So many people could not be wrong. And in gratitude that you are following them, they give you respectability, honour. Your ego is fulfilled. Life is convenient, but it is flat. You live horizontally – a very thin slice of life, just like a slice of bread cut very thin. In a linear way you live.
To live dangerously means to live vertically.
Each moment then has a depth and a height. It touches the highest star and the deepest bottom. It knows nothing of the horizontal line. But then you are a stranger in the crowd, then you are behaving differently from everybody else. And this creates an unease in people, for the simple reason that they are not enjoying their life, they have not lived their life, they have not taken the responsibility to live it, they have not risked anything to have it – but because everybody else was also like them, the question was not arising.
But this stranger comes who lives in a different way, behaves in a different way, and suddenly something is stirred in them. Their repressed life, which is like a spring, forcibly repressed, suddenly starts stirring, starts creating questions that this way too is possible. And this man seems to be having a different shine to his eyes, a different joy around him. He walks, sits, stands, not like everybody else. Something is unique about him. But the most impressive thing about him is he seems to be utterly contented, blissful – as if he has arrived.
Living dangerously means whenever there are alternatives, beware: don’t choose the convenient, the comfortable, the respectable, the socially acceptable, the honourable. Choose something that rings a bell in your heart. Choose something that you would like to do in spite of any consequences. Then whatever happens is welcome. You will never regret.
Living dangerously means: don’t put stupid conditions between you and life – comfort, convenience, respectability. Drop all these things, and allow life to happen to you, and go with it without bothering whether you are on the highway or not, without bothering where you are going to end.
From ‘Living Dangerously‘, © 2011 by Osho, published by Watkins.
This article was written by Cygnus,
Now, if you choose the comfortable, the convenient, then you will never be able to live intensely. The comfortable, the convenient, the conventional, which the society approves, means that you are ready to become a psychological slave. That’s why all this convenience… The society will give you everything, if you give your freedom to it. It will give you respectability, it will give you great posts in the hierarchy, in the bureaucracy – but you have to drop one thing: your freedom, your individuality. You have to become a number in the crowd. The crowd hates the person who is not part of it. The crowd becomes very tense seeing a stranger amongst it, because the stranger becomes a question mark.
You have been living a certain life, a certain style, a certain religion, a certain politics. You have been following the way of the mob, and you were very comfortable, cozy, because those surrounding you were all people just like you. What you were doing, they were doing. Everybody else was doing the same; that gave the feeling that you were doing the right thing. So many people could not be wrong. And in gratitude that you are following them, they give you respectability, honour. Your ego is fulfilled. Life is convenient, but it is flat. You live horizontally – a very thin slice of life, just like a slice of bread cut very thin. In a linear way you live.
To live dangerously means to live vertically.
Each moment then has a depth and a height. It touches the highest star and the deepest bottom. It knows nothing of the horizontal line. But then you are a stranger in the crowd, then you are behaving differently from everybody else. And this creates an unease in people, for the simple reason that they are not enjoying their life, they have not lived their life, they have not taken the responsibility to live it, they have not risked anything to have it – but because everybody else was also like them, the question was not arising.
But this stranger comes who lives in a different way, behaves in a different way, and suddenly something is stirred in them. Their repressed life, which is like a spring, forcibly repressed, suddenly starts stirring, starts creating questions that this way too is possible. And this man seems to be having a different shine to his eyes, a different joy around him. He walks, sits, stands, not like everybody else. Something is unique about him. But the most impressive thing about him is he seems to be utterly contented, blissful – as if he has arrived.
Living dangerously means whenever there are alternatives, beware: don’t choose the convenient, the comfortable, the respectable, the socially acceptable, the honourable. Choose something that rings a bell in your heart. Choose something that you would like to do in spite of any consequences. Then whatever happens is welcome. You will never regret.
Living dangerously means: don’t put stupid conditions between you and life – comfort, convenience, respectability. Drop all these things, and allow life to happen to you, and go with it without bothering whether you are on the highway or not, without bothering where you are going to end.
From ‘Living Dangerously‘, © 2011 by Osho, published by Watkins.
Wednesday 10 August 2011
David Dene's "take" on the English riots.
Well, here I am in Spain with a 45% unemployment level amongst the "youth" and 21% unemployment overall.
Quite amazing figures. Violence and rioting - not much. It looks as though we are "going down the tubes", ie going "broke", and, with more austerity down the line, of course, the situation will deteriorate.
There is no light at the end of the tunnel as our economic paradigm is dysfunctional and suicidal.
It seems as though the English Establishment are seriously out of touch with the disenfranchised youth of England. The youth have been "seen and NOT heard" in the past, now, they are being heard since they are making news.
What does it mean ? What can be done to restore "order"? These are of course big questions, and to my mind, they require bold thinking, in the league of Roosevelt and Churchill.
The policy's of the IMF, World Bank, and Governments have created chasms between poor and rich, and, in England, the poor are rioting because they have nothing to loose, and, they are 21st century humans and are angry. In Spain they are Indignant. Interesting differences.
Young people need to have a sense of self worth and "reason to be" - that's the job the governments need to get down to. Governments need to get their heads out of their "financial bottoms", and start to create something that works out of the "turgid mess" which is fermenting in the world's financial capitals.
Maybe better still, flush the "turgid mess" down the toilet and start again. That is why "great men, or women" are needed, and fast. !
Tuesday 9 August 2011
Rioting in the streets of England. WHY?
Published on Tuesday, August 9, 2011 by Penny Red
Panic on the Streets of London
I’m huddled in the front room with some shell-shocked friends, watching my city burn. The BBC is interchanging footage of blazing cars and running street battles in Hackney, of police horses lining up in Lewisham, of roiling infernos that were once shops and houses in Croydon and in Peckham. Last night, Enfield, Walthamstow, Brixton and Wood Green were looted; there have been hundreds of arrests and dozens of serious injuries, and it will be a miracle if nobody dies tonight. This is the third consecutive night of rioting in London, and the disorder has now spread to Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Birmingham. Politicians and police officers who only hours ago were making stony-faced statements about criminality are now simply begging the young people of Britain’s inner cities to go home. Britain is a tinderbox, and on Friday, somebody lit a match. How the hell did this happen? And what are we going to do now?
In the scramble to comprehend the riots, every single commentator has opened with a ritual condemnation of the violence, as if it were in any doubt that arson, muggings and lootings are ugly occurrences. That much should be obvious to anyone who is watching Croydon burn down on the BBC right now. David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, called the disorder 'mindless, mindless'. Nick Clegg denounced it as 'needless, opportunistic theft and violence'. Speaking from his Tuscan holiday villa, Prime Minister David Cameron – who has finally decided to return home to take charge - declared simply that the social unrest searing through the poorest boroughs in the country was "utterly unacceptable." The violence on the streets is being dismissed as ‘pure criminality,’ as the work of a ‘violent minority’, as ‘opportunism.’ This is madly insufficient. It is no way to talk about viral civil unrest. Angry young people with nothing to do and little to lose are turning on their own communities, and they cannot be stopped, and they know it. Tonight, in one of the greatest cities in the world, society is ripping itself apart.
Violence is rarely mindless. The politics of a burning building, a smashed-in shop or a young man shot by police may be obscured even to those who lit the rags or fired the gun, but the politics are there. Unquestionably there is far, far more to these riots than the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting sparked off the unrest on Saturday, when two police cars were set alight after a five-hour vigil at Tottenham police station. A peaceful protest over the death of a man at police hands, in a community where locals have been given every reason to mistrust the forces of law and order, is one sort of political statement. Raiding shops for technology and trainers that cost ten times as much as the benefits you’re no longer entitled to is another. A co-ordinated, viral wave of civil unrest across the poorest boroughs of Britain, with young people coming from across the capital and the country to battle the police, is another.
Months of conjecture will follow these riots. Already, the internet is teeming with racist vitriol and wild speculation. The truth is that very few people know why this is happening. They don’t know, because they were not watching these communities. Nobody has been watching Tottenham since the television cameras drifted away after the Broadwater Farm riots of 1985. Most of the people who will be writing, speaking and pontificating about the disorder this weekend have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up in a community where there are no jobs, no space to live or move, and the police are on the streets stopping-and-searching you as you come home from school. The people who do will be waking up this week in the sure and certain knowledge that after decades of being ignored and marginalised and harassed by the police, after months of seeing any conceivable hope of a better future confiscated, they are finally on the news. In one NBC report, a young man in Tottenham was asked if rioting really achieved anything:
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
"Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."
Eavesdropping from among the onlookers, I looked around. A dozen TV crews and newspaper reporters interviewing the young men everywhere ‘’’
There are communities all over the country that nobody paid attention to unless there had recently been a riot or a murdered child. Well, they’re paying attention now.
Tonight in London, social order and the rule of law have broken down entirely. The city has been brought to a standstill; it is not safe to go out onto the streets, and where I am in Holloway, the violence is coming closer. As I write, the looting and arson attacks have spread to at least fifty different areas across the UK, including dozens in London, and communities are now turning on each other, with the Guardian reporting on rival gangs forming battle lines. It has become clear to the disenfranchised young people of Britain, who feel that they have no stake in society and nothing to lose, that they can do what they like tonight, and the police are utterly unable to stop them. That is what riots are all about.
Riots are about power, and they are about catharsis. They are not about poor parenting, or youth services being cut, or any of the other snap explanations that media pundits have been trotting out: structural inequalities, as a friend of mine remarked today, are not solved by a few pool tables. People riot because it makes them feel powerful, even if only for a night. People riot because they have spent their whole lives being told that they are good for nothing, and they realise that together they can do anything – literally, anything at all. People to whom respect has never been shown riot because they feel they have little reason to show respect themselves, and it spreads like fire on a warm summer night. And now people have lost their homes, and the country is tearing itself apart.
Noone expected this. The so-called leaders who have taken three solid days to return from their foreign holidays to a country in flames did not anticipate this. The people running Britain had absolutely no clue how desperate things had become. They thought that after thirty years of soaring inequality, in the middle of a recession, they could take away the last little things that gave people hope, the benefits, the jobs, the possibility of higher education, the support structures, and nothing would happen. They were wrong. And now my city is burning, and it will continue to burn until we stop the blanket condemnations and blind conjecture and try to understand just what has brought viral civil unrest to Britain. Let me give you a hint: it ain’t Twitter.
I’m stuck in the house, now, with rioting going on just down the road in Chalk Farm. Ealing and Clapham and Dalston are being trashed. Journalists are being mugged and beaten in the streets, and the riot cops are in retreat where they have appeared at all. Police stations are being set alight all over the country. This morning, as the smoke begins to clear, those of us who can sleep will wake up to a country in chaos. We will wake up to fear, and to racism, and to condemnation on left and right, none of which will stop this happening again, as the prospect of a second stock market clash teeters terrifyingly at the bottom of the news reports. Now is the time when we make our choices. Now is the time when we decide whether to descend into hate, or to put prejudice aside and work together. Now is the time when we decide what sort of country it is that we want to live in. Follow the #riotcleanup hashtag on Twitter. And take care of one another.
Monday 8 August 2011
Does the ECB actually have any Capital Base. Looks like a mere 4.25% This looks like extreme risk taking. to save the "markets".. !
ECB takes landmark decision and agrees to buy Spanish and Italian debt;
Cost of borrowing drops for Italy and Spain but questions remain over long-term market stability
Following an announcement by the ECB last night, suggesting that it was willing to purchase Spanish and Italian government debt, markets rebounded this morning. The cost of borrowing for Spain and Italy fell significantly, with early reports suggesting that the ECB had already begun buying five-year bonds of both countries. Stock markets across Europe posted early gains. It is not clear whether the ECB’s decision gained unanimous support within the bank’s Governing Council, with Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, and others, voting against the purchase of Irish and Portuguese bonds last week. The WSJ quotes Open Europe’s study showing that even before the purchases of Italian and Spanish debt, if the value of the ECB's asset holdings falls just 4.25%, "its entire capital base would be wiped out”.
Der Spiegel quotes German government officials suggesting that the eurozone bailout fund, the EFSF, will not be increased in size despite calls from EU officials and markets. Open Europe was quoted twice in the Sunday Times arguing that in order for the EFSF to act as an effective backstop for struggling countries, it would require loan guarantees amounting to at least 25% of each Triple-A rated country's GDP, adding “The choice that was always apparent is drawing closer. Appease the markets but run over the voters and create a full fiscal union - or break up the eurozone." Open Europe’s Raoul Ruparel appeared on BBC News discussing the crisis, and was quoted on the BBC’s and Telegraph’s live blogs.
Cost of borrowing drops for Italy and Spain but questions remain over long-term market stability
Following an announcement by the ECB last night, suggesting that it was willing to purchase Spanish and Italian government debt, markets rebounded this morning. The cost of borrowing for Spain and Italy fell significantly, with early reports suggesting that the ECB had already begun buying five-year bonds of both countries. Stock markets across Europe posted early gains. It is not clear whether the ECB’s decision gained unanimous support within the bank’s Governing Council, with Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, and others, voting against the purchase of Irish and Portuguese bonds last week. The WSJ quotes Open Europe’s study showing that even before the purchases of Italian and Spanish debt, if the value of the ECB's asset holdings falls just 4.25%, "its entire capital base would be wiped out”.
Der Spiegel quotes German government officials suggesting that the eurozone bailout fund, the EFSF, will not be increased in size despite calls from EU officials and markets. Open Europe was quoted twice in the Sunday Times arguing that in order for the EFSF to act as an effective backstop for struggling countries, it would require loan guarantees amounting to at least 25% of each Triple-A rated country's GDP, adding “The choice that was always apparent is drawing closer. Appease the markets but run over the voters and create a full fiscal union - or break up the eurozone." Open Europe’s Raoul Ruparel appeared on BBC News discussing the crisis, and was quoted on the BBC’s and Telegraph’s live blogs.
Sunday 7 August 2011
The Unmaking of a President Governing in prose is one thing. Preferring weasel words to governing at all is another by Matthew Norman
I have cut the article down to the last paragraph 'cos that says it all. !!
Published on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 by The Independent/UK
The man elected as the peacenik, ultra-liberal enemy of entrenched poverty would be remembered as the ruthless Bin Laden assassin who presided over the most vicious assault on the poor in modern US history. Whatever the future holds for the one-time reincarnation of JFK, tomorrow no one other than Michelle will be tempted to sing "Happy Birthday Mr President" in the breathily adoring tones of Marilyn Monroe.
Published on Wednesday, August 3, 2011 by The Independent/UK
The man elected as the peacenik, ultra-liberal enemy of entrenched poverty would be remembered as the ruthless Bin Laden assassin who presided over the most vicious assault on the poor in modern US history. Whatever the future holds for the one-time reincarnation of JFK, tomorrow no one other than Michelle will be tempted to sing "Happy Birthday Mr President" in the breathily adoring tones of Marilyn Monroe.
©independent.co.uk
Saturday 6 August 2011
American Legislative Exchange Council. Could this organization be one of the major contributors to the erosion of democracy in the USA.
What is ALEC?
ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line.Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.)
Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law.
ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. We agree. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door.
Who funds ALEC?
More than 98% of ALEC's revenues come from sources other than legislative dues, such as corporations, corporate trade groups, and corporate foundations. Each corporate member pays an annual fee of between $7,000 and $25,000 a year, and if a corporation participates in any of the nine task forces, additional fees apply, from $2,500 to $10,000 each year. ALEC also receives direct grants from corporations, such as $1.4 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2009. It has also received grants from some of the biggest foundations funded by corporate CEOs in the country, such as: the Koch family Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Koch-managed Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Scaife family Allegheny Foundation, the Coors family Castle Rock Foundation, to name a few. Less than 2% of ALEC’s funding comes from “Membership Dues” of $50 per year paid by state legislators, a steeply discounted price that may run afoul of state gift bans.Is it nonpartisan as claimed?
ALEC describes itself as a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The facts show that it currently has one Democrat out of 104 legislators in leadership positions. ALEC members, speakers, alumni, and award winners are a “who’s who” of the extreme right. ALEC has given awards to: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, George H.W. Bush, Charles and David Koch, Richard de Vos, Tommy Thompson, Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Rick Perry, Congressman Mark Foley (intern sex scandal), and Congressman Billy Tauzin. ALEC alumni include: Speaker of the House John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, Congressman Joe Wilson, (who called President Obama a “liar” during the State of the Union address), former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, former House Speaker Tom DeLay, Andrew Card, Donald Rumsfeld (1985 Chair of ALEC’s Business Policy Board), Governor Scott Walker, Governor Jan Brewer, and more. Featured speakers have included: Milton Friedman, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, George Allen, Jessie Helms, Pete Coors, Governor Mitch Daniels and more.What goes on behind closed doors?
The organization boasts 2,000 legislative members and 300 or more corporate members. The unelected corporate representatives (often registered lobbyists) sit as equals with elected representatives on nine task forces where they have a “voice and a vote” on model legislation. Corporations on ALEC task forces VOTE on the "model" bills and resolutions, and sit as equals with legislators voting on the ALEC task forces and various working groups. Corporate and legislative governing boards also meet jointly each year. (ALEC says only the legislators have a final say on all model bills. ALEC has previously said that "The policies are debated and voted on by all members. Public and private members vote separately on policy. It is important to note that laws are not passed, debated or adopted during this process and therefor no lobbying takes place. That process is done at the state legislature.") The long-term representation of Koch Industries on the governing board means that Koch has had influence over an untold number of ALEC bills. Due to the questionable nature of this partnership with corporations, legislators rarely discuss the origins of the model legislation they bring home. Though thousands of ALEC-approved model bills have been publicly introduced across the country, ALEC’s role facilitating the language in the bills and the corporate vote for them is not well known.(ALEC legislators sometimes compare the organization to the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), yet the two organizations could not be more different. NCSL has zero corporate members. It is funded largely by state government appropriations and conference fees; it has a truly bipartisan governance structure, and there is a large role for nonpartisan professional staff; it does not vote on or promote model legislation; meetings are public and so are any agreed upon documents. Corporations do sponsor receptions at NCSL events through a separate foundation. For more information, see the document ALEC & NCSL.)
How do corporations benefit?
Although ALEC claims to take an ideological stance (of supposedly "Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty"), many of the model bills benefit the corporations whose agents write them, shape them, and/or vote to approve them. These are just a few such measures:- Altria/Philip Morris USA benefits from ALEC’s newest tobacco legislation -- an extremely narrow tax break for moist tobacco that would make fruit flavored tobacco products cheaper and more attractive to youngsters.
- Health insurance companies such as Humana and Golden Rule Insurance (United Healthcare), benefit directly from ALEC model bills, such as the Health Savings Account bill that just passed in Wisconsin.
- Tobacco firms such as Reynolds and pharmaceutical firms such as Bayer benefit directly from ALEC tort reform measures that make it harder for Americans to sue when injured by dangerous products.
- Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) benefits directly from the anti-immigrant legislation introduced in Arizona and other states that requires expanded incarceration and housing of immigrants, along with other bills from ALEC’s crime task force.
- Connections Academy, a large online education corporation and co-chair of the Education Task Force, benefits from ALEC measures to privatize public education and promote private on-line schools.
How do legislators benefit?
Why would a legislator be interested in advancing cookie-cutter bills that are corporate give-aways for global firms located outside of their district? ALEC’s appeal rests largely on the fact that legislators receive an all-expenses-paid trip that provides many part-time legislators with vacations that they could not afford on their own, along with the opportunity to rub shoulders with wealthy captains of industry (major prospective out-of-state donors to their political campaigns). For a few hours of work on a task force and a couple of indoctrination sessions by ALEC experts, part-time legislators can bring the whole family to ALEC’s annual convention, work for a few hours, then stay in swank hotels, attend cool parties -- even strip clubs-- and raise funds for the campaign coffer, all heavily subsidized by the corporate till. In 2009, ALEC spent $251,873 on childcare so mom and dad could have fun.Is it lobbying?
In most ordinary people's view, handing bills to legislators so they can introduce them is the very definition of lobbying. ALEC says "no lobbying takes place." The current chairman of ALEC’s corporate board is W. Preston Baldwin III, until recently a lobbyist and the Vice President of State Government Affairs at UST Inc., a tobacco firm now owned by Altria/Phillip Morris USA. Altria is advancing a very short, specific bill to change the way moist tobacco products (such as fruit flavored “snus”) are taxed-- to make it cheaper and more attractive to young tobacco users according to health experts. In fact, 20 of the 24 corporate representatives on ALEC’s “Private Enterprise Board” are lobbyists representing major firms such as Koch Industries, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Wal-Mart and Johnson and Johnson.ALEC makes old-fashioned lobbying obsolete. Once legislators return to their state with corporate-sponsored ALEC legislation in hand, the legislators themselves become “super-lobbyists” for ALEC’s corporate agenda, cutting out the middleman. Yet ALEC enjoys a 501(c)(3) classification, which allows it to keep its tax-exempt status while accepting grants from foundations, corporations, and other donors. In our view, the activities that corporate members engage in should be considered lobbying by the IRS, and the entity that facilitates that effort to influence state law, ALEC, should also be considered to be engaged predominantly in lobby-related activities, not simply “educational” activities. Re-classifying ALEC as primarily engaged in lobbying facilitation would mean that donations to it would not count as tax-deductible for businesses and foundations. Common Cause filed a complaint with the IRS on July 14, 2011, setting forth evidence supporting its complaint that ALEC is engaged in lobbying despite its claims to do no lobbying.
Is it legal?
ALEC’s operating model raises many ethical and legal concerns. Each state has a different set of ethics laws or rules. The presence of lobbyists alone may cause ethics problems for some state legislators. Wisconsin, for instance, generally requires legislators who go to events with registered lobbyists to pay on their own dime, yet in many states, legislators use public funds to attend ALEC meetings. According to one study, $3 million in public funds was spent to attend ALEC meetings in one year. Some legislators use their personal funds and are reimbursed by ALEC. Such “scholarships” may be disclosed if gifts are required to be reported. But should the legislators be allowed to accept this money when lobbyists are present at the meeting? Still other legislators use their campaign funds to go and are again reimbursed by ALEC; in some states, campaign funds are only allowed to be used to attend campaign events.In short, many state ethics codes might consider the free vacation, steeply discounted membership fees, free day care or travel scholarships to be “gifts” that should be disallowed or disclosed.
Friday 5 August 2011
Who is in charge at The White House. ?
The US Dictatorship and its White House Servant ‘President’ by Finian Cunningham | |||||||
 | |||||||
Global Research, August 1, 2011 | |||||||
| |||||||
If there is one thing that the office of President Barack Obama demonstrates it is that democracy does not exist in the United States. This may seem a rather outlandish statement. For many people, the fact that the 44th president is the first black man to preside over the White House – with its American colonial-style architecture – is a tribute to the triumph of US democracy. But many other more telling facts indicate that Obama is but a figurehead of an unelected government in the US. This unelected power of corporate elites – commercial, financial, military – governs with the same core policies regardless of who is sitting in the White House. Whether these policies are on social, economic or foreign matters, the elected president must obey the direction ordained by the unelected elite. That kind of untrammeled power structure conforms more closely in practice to dictatorship, not democracy. As Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown reveal in their analyses of the US budget debacle, Obama is pathetically doing the bidding of Wall Street – much like an errand boy [1] [2]. Brown writes: “The debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The gamblers lost their bets and were bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers; and if anyone should be held to account, it is these gamblers. “The debt ceiling crisis is a manufactured one, engineered to extort concessions that will lock the middle class in debt peonage for decades to come. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to issue the money it needs to pay its debts.” Obama’s servile toeing of Wall Street’s line is not the behavior of a free leader boldly defending the interests of the people and the greater good. Rather, his behaviour is that of one doing what he is told to do – and doing it with grateful deference. In this way, of course, Obama is hardly different from his predecessors. But of difference is just how blatant the White House is now appearing to function as a mere tool of the rich and powerful elite. The irony is that Obama’s election was presented as a potent symbol of American democracy; the truth is that the two-party system has become a threadbare cover for immense feebleness when it comes to serving the diktat of elite power as opposed to the good of the people. “The most powerful office in the world” would be more accurately referenced as “the most feeble purveyor of elite interests”. Obama’s presence in the White House indulges a superficial moral/political correctness while the masters whip us all into austere servitude. The US “war on terror” is another illustration of America’s dictatorship of the elite – and Obama’s pathetic servile role of carrying out the masters’ orders in defiance of the will of the people. Recall that Obama’s bid for presidential election in 2008 was avowedly based on ending the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also denounced his incumbent rival George W Bush over the use of special powers that enabled such aberrations as the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp and a host of draconian home security policies infringing on civil rights Obama also signaled in his inaugural speech – reiterated again soon after in Cairo – that under his watch the US was resetting foreign policy – turning away from the militarist policies of Bush to a more enlightened approach for settling conflicts with the Muslim World and Iran in particular. “If they unclench their fist, we will extend our hand,” Obama declared with seemingly heartfelt eloquence. But on every count, Obama has reneged on his supposed opposition to the US “war on terror”. Indeed, under his watch, the US has expanded its militarist foreign policy – which is apparently predicated on the belief that “western democracy is threatened by Islamic extremism”. Obama has done nothing to roll back draconian home security policies, indeed appears to have extended them. And he continues his predecessor’s deception of conflating Iran and its alleged nuclear ambitions as part of this phony “Islamic extremists” narrative. To perform such a disgraceful U-turn on so many election promises, the presidency of Barack Obama is clear proof that the holder of office in the White House is not the one who is setting policy – rather, he is following policy that is set by unelected others. When news broke about the massacre in Norway where more than 70 people were killed in a twin bomb and gun attack, Obama reacted like an automaton of the unelected power system, instead of like an independent, reasonable political leader. Even though it was clear within hours of the atrocity that the perpetrator was a blond-haired Norwegian with fascist and deeply Islamophobic views, nevertheless Obama reacted immediately to present it as an act of Islamic terrorism. Speaking from the White House, Obama said: “It's a reminder that the entire international community has a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring, and that we have to work co-operatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks.” The president may not have used the words “Islamic terrorism” but it is clear that he was invoking the massacre as part of the “war on terror” which is predicated on the notion of Islamic terrorism. In this mindset, Obama was not alone. British Prime Minister David Cameron moved into action stations, saying that British intelligence would help their Norwegian counterparts to track down the culprits – again implying that the perpetrators were part of an international organization – which in war on terror code means an Islamic organization. The US and British news media also jumped to the conclusion that the Norwegian attacks must have something to with Al Qaeda or some other “Jihadist” group. That such a widespread and erroneous reflex response from Western political leaders and news media – the so-called free press – can be elicited so uncritically shows how trenchantly the war on terror and its Islamophobic mindset are embedded. The consequences of this are deeply disturbing. For a start, such a mindset of the Western political and media establishment can only lead to further Islamophobia in these societies. There were reports of hate attacks against ordinary Muslims across Europe immediately after the Norway atrocity, no doubt caused by the malign and erroneous way that politicians and the media attributed the incident to Islamists. Even more disturbing is that the war on terror mindset fomented by Western governments and media over the past 10 years has led to the creation of lunatic fascist psychopaths like Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the Norway mass murder. Breivik and others like him think that Europe and the US must be defended from some kind of Muslim threat. This kind of logic does not conjure from thin air. It is rather the logical conclusion of the war on terror mindset that Western governments and news media have pushed down the throats of their citizens for a decade. The sad part is that the majority of Western citizens are not convinced by the phony crusading of their governments and media, nor of the alleged threat of Islamic extremists. Most people realize that whatever Islamic extremists operate, they are either a creation of Western intelligence or a backlash against Western imperialism. That is why Obama’s avowed election promises to end America’s criminal wars and reset foreign policy on a more reasonable, democratic footing got him elected. The even sadder part is that as Obama’s ineffectual election shows, the US (and its Western lackeys) is being driven further and further into bankrupting, criminal wars of aggression that will cause more victims of violence and social mayhem at home and abroad. And it’s all because democracy in the US (and elsewhere in the West) is non-existent. The US is a dictatorship. And Mr Obama is too ineffectual (save for the masters) and irrelevant to be even loosely called its dictator. Finian Cunningham is a Global Research Correspondent based in Belfast, Ireland. NOTES | |||||||
Global Research Articles by Finian Cunningham | |||||||
 | |||||||
Email this article to a friend
Print this articleThursday 4 August 2011
Obama on how to use "the poor", to solve problems.
The President’s most recent comment on power and wealth appears, in the light of his capitulation in recent days, another damning piece of unintended irony. On April 20, at a Town Hall meeting at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, CA, the President inadvertently gave a hint regarding how easy it would be to do what he actually ended up doing — even while criticizing Republicans for neglecting the poor.
Here’s what Obama said, to loud applause from the well-heeled folks at Facebook:
"Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout.
Here’s what Obama said, to loud applause from the well-heeled folks at Facebook:
"Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout.
Government by Corporation. Peak Oil. Hungry People. Written by David Dene
We are living in strange times.
If the US Government Bond Markets look shaky, and are downgraded by the "rating agencies",then, of course, the corporate market has to be the next place for investments, and, we know that there is a massive amount of money needing a "safe home". Certainly there is 1.5 Trillion Dollars looking for that "safe place".
Short term gains in the "markets" look like a strong possibility. The long term looks increasingly ghastly with massive unemployment throughout the "Western World", Governments especially that of the USA having been "castrated" by corporate interests.
Governments will then fail to meet the needs of an increasingly impoverished, and possibly hungry, population who will have no money to invest in the products of the corporate "power house", therefore QED, a very nasty situation begins to unfold with massive polarization between rich and poor.
I think that road will lead to civil unrest.
"Security" is being stepped up. The new Spanish passports will be "biometric" with an Iris scan as part of "the deal". The Guardia Civil will have hand held Biometric scanners. (Not common knowledge)
I spent time with a lady who is part of the design team. We were on an "Experiencing English Conversation" week, so I had the opportunity to "grill" her as part of my "remit". !
So, will increased "security", scare people into acceptance of a "status quo"?. I do not think so.
I think we are seeing a new type of "bubble" building, different from other "bubbles", because the money is there on the balance sheets and needs to be invested, rather than the other way around, as for instance, in "The South Sea Bubble", where the money was not "surplus", it was small savings from many people invested in the dream of "peanut" fortunes. ! It burst and many people lost their money.
Here we have massive amounts of money looking for a home. This money keeps the stock markets, "buoyant", looking good with investment, however there may well be a collapse in real profitability owing to decreasing GDP.
Our present economic model is quite "fanciful", totally unsustainable, and doomed.
Burst this bubble and..............!!
Oil pumps around 89 million dollars into the system every day.(Pricing at 1 dollar a barrel). Scientific analysis declares that we are on, or about to hit, Peak Oil. The curve registering the life of an Oil Field is a Bell Curve - fast up - level out - fast down. The "level out" scenario is "Peak Oil". The ILEA tell us that we have been on the same level of world oil production for the last 5 or 6 years. We will know when we hit peak oil because we will start the decline. We may well be there.
Extrapolate from that, and take into account a changed climate and we hit the first "shock horror" - higher food prices - we have them, and it could be that those higher food prices sparked and continue to spark the revolutionary zeal spreading across North Africa into the Gulf.
I think a new paradigm has to unfold. I think it is unfolding with quite a number of new economic models "on the table", which do not require ever expanding markets as their bases.
We do not have an ever expanding planet, so an ever expanding market is logically an impossibility.
People used to believe that the Earth was flat and that Charles Darwin was a heretic - that was "social agreement".
Our present economic structure is clearly an insanity held together by "social agreement". There is, of course, a very large amount of "fear", and profit, driving that "agreement".
What about Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Benefits, Sickness Benefits, Police, Army, and in short, "Public Services". ? The present model is to "privatise" them all.
The present agreement on the raising of the "debt limit" in America, orchestrated by Mr. Obama, has the potential to "Corporatize" America which will remove great chunks of democracy from that country.
We are seeing a take over of Democratic Government in the USA by Corporations.
The Corporate "Master Plan" is certainly working. "The Plan" requires a subservient population, kept "under control".
We are coming to a cross roads, and my bet lies with "the people". I see an unstoppable dramatic change occurring, which will not stabilize until we are in balance with ourselves and the natural world.
The "wake up" call is there and loud enough to be heard. The hungry and disenfranchised hear it first.
Obama Quote on "the poor and needy"
On April 20, at a Town Hall meeting at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, CA, the President inadvertently gave a hint regarding how easy it would be to do what he actually ended up doing — even while criticizing Republicans for neglecting the poor.
Here’s what Obama said, to loud applause from the well-heeled folks at Facebook:
"Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout."
Here’s what Obama said, to loud applause from the well-heeled folks at Facebook:
"Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor, people who are powerless and don't have lobbyists or don't have clout."
Wednesday 3 August 2011
A very "Unfair " Solution to the debt crisis. by Senator Bernie Sanders
Sanders Votes No on ‘An Extremely Unfair Agreement’
WASHINGTON - August 2 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after voting against what he called “an extremely unfair” deficit-reduction package:
“I believe that Vermonters and people across the country are extremely dismayed that all of the burden for deficit reduction will fall on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. This extremely unfair agreement does not ask the wealthiest people in this country, most of whom are doing extremely well, or large profitable corporations to contribute one penny. This is not only immoral, it is bad economic policy and will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.
“It is impossible at this point to determine exactly what programs will be cut or by how much. That will be determined later in the committee process and I will do everything I can to defend priorities important to Vermont. What we can say, however, is that vitally important programs for Vermont, like LIHEAP, education, Head Start, child care, community health centers, the MILC program for dairy farmers, Pell grants for college students, nutrition programs, environmental protection, affordable housing, community action agencies, small business loans and many other programs will be on the chopping block.
“Further, the so-called deficit reduction super committee of six senators and six House members will have the power to make devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans.
“All of us understand that the current deficit situation is unsustainable and that we need responsible action to address it. It is unconscionable, however, that this agreement would place the entire burden on working families and some of the most vulnerable people in our country.”
“I believe that Vermonters and people across the country are extremely dismayed that all of the burden for deficit reduction will fall on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. This extremely unfair agreement does not ask the wealthiest people in this country, most of whom are doing extremely well, or large profitable corporations to contribute one penny. This is not only immoral, it is bad economic policy and will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.
“It is impossible at this point to determine exactly what programs will be cut or by how much. That will be determined later in the committee process and I will do everything I can to defend priorities important to Vermont. What we can say, however, is that vitally important programs for Vermont, like LIHEAP, education, Head Start, child care, community health centers, the MILC program for dairy farmers, Pell grants for college students, nutrition programs, environmental protection, affordable housing, community action agencies, small business loans and many other programs will be on the chopping block.
“Further, the so-called deficit reduction super committee of six senators and six House members will have the power to make devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans.
“All of us understand that the current deficit situation is unsustainable and that we need responsible action to address it. It is unconscionable, however, that this agreement would place the entire burden on working families and some of the most vulnerable people in our country.”
###
Senator Bernie Sanders Links:
An Interesting comparison between Roosvelt and Obama's re-actions to raising the debt limit of the USA.
Published on Tuesday, August 2, 2011 by Too Much
Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?Doing Debt Ceiling Battle the FDR Way
At times of fiscal crisis, President Franklin Roosevelt believed, you don’t give the awesomely affluent a free pass. You pound them — and then you pound some more.
The answer from today’s White House: not much. Advocacy for equality has to take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, once fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly put at risk our nation’s full faith and credit.
But history offers another alternative. Back in 1943, halfway through World War II, a President of the United States confronted a debt ceiling crisis eerily similar to our own. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, faced a congressional opposition to inconveniencing the rich — with higher taxes — every bit as rabid as ours.
FDR’s choice, in the face of this opposition? He doubled down on equality.
Roosevelt’s debt ceiling battle actually began in the months right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed dollars — and lots of them — to wage and win the new war. FDR wanted those dollars raised as equitably as possible.
That would require, FDR and his New Dealers believed, a steeply graduated income tax, with tax rates on income in the top income brackets much higher than rates on income in the bottom brackets.
How high should the top rates go? All the way, FDR proposed, to 100 percent. At a time of “grave national danger,” the President told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,” an income just shy of $350,000 in today’s dollars.
The year before, gun executive Carl Swebilius had pulled in $243,204 after taxes, the equivalent of over $3.7 million today. Steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary. But conservatives in Congress looked the other way. They never gave FDR’s plan any love.
Four months later, Roosevelt would try again. In his Labor Day message, FDR repeated his $25,000 “supertax” income cap call. Again Congress ignored him.
FDR would not back down. In early October, the President flexed his authority under the newly enacted Emergency Price Control Act and issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes, a move, he pronounced, needed “to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.”
America’s wealthiest, New Dealers explained afterwards to the press, “should be willing to get along on more than $2,000 a month while marines endure tortures on Guadalcanal Island for $60 a month and room and board.”
FDR’s executive order would infuriate conservatives. They saw red, literally. The “only logical stopping place for this movement,” fumed Princeton economist Harley Lutz, would be “a completely communistic equalization of incomes.” FDR’s salary cap, roared New Bedford publisher Basil Brewer, just might “lose the war.”
In Congress, meanwhile, lawmakers vowed to kill FDR’s executive order by any legislative means necessary. Roosevelt, in response, simply kept pushing. In January 1943, he reminded Congress that “the receipt of very large net incomes from any source constitutes a gross inequity undermining national unity” and asked lawmakers to make taxes on America’s highest incomes “fully effective.”
Roosevelt also asked Congress, in his 1943 budget message, to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Conservatives indicated they would — if the ceiling bill included a rider that repealed the President’s $25,000 salary cap executive order.
Lawmakers would not go along with a debt ceiling hike, California Republican Bertrand Gearhart told reporters, until FDR’s “thoroughly un-American” salary cap, “fraught with such disaster to the Republic, is wiped from the books.”
At this point, no “realistic” observer could have faulted FDR if he simply threw in the towel. The 1942 mid-term elections the previous November, after all, had significantly strengthened the congressional conservative camp, in large part because millions of New Deal voters — soldiers overseas and workers who had migrated far from home for wartime factory work — couldn’t vote.
But FDR threw in nothing. To reporters and Congress, he reiterated his support for the $25,000 salary cap. Of course, the President added, he would “rescind” his cap in an instant if Congress passed legislation that limited all individual after-tax income, not just salary, to $25,000.
And if Congress couldn’t see fit to go that far, the President helpfully suggested, he hoped lawmakers would enact “steeply graduated rates” that brought taxes on top-bracket income up to the 90 percent neighborhood.
Eventually, both the House and Senate would pass the debt ceiling bill — with the salary cap repeal rider attached. Most Democrats went along, noting, as Senator Alben Barkley put it, “the importance of increasing the debt limit.”
Roosevelt well understood that importance, too. He would let the higher debt ceiling bill become law, without his signature. But FDR quickly signaled no surrender in his continuing battle to make sure that “not a single war millionaire will be created in this country as a result of the war disaster.”
Congress, Roosevelt pointed out, “had authorized the drafting of men into the armed forces at $600 a year regardless of what they had earned in civilian life,” but, with the salary cap repeal, had “refused to reduce the salary of a man not drafted no matter how high his income might be.”
The President, to be sure, had definitely lost the debt ceiling battle over his executive salary cap, as he no doubt knew he would. But sometimes a President can win by “losing.” FDR did not prevail on the salary cap. He did prevail in his far broader struggle to shape the wartime finance debate.
Roosevelt’s relentless campaign to cap top incomes kept that debate focused on taxing the rich. Conservatives didn’t want to do that taxing. They wanted a national sales tax instead, as do many conservatives today. But FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never let that regressive sales tax notion get traction.
The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.
Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income tax, after exploiting every tax loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal tax.
None of the debt ceiling “deals” that House and Senate leaders advanced last week asked any of these top 400 — or any other rich Americans — to pay a penny more in taxes than they do now. In the 2011 debt ceiling struggle, inequality has clearly triumphed.
So what ought we learn, amid this triumph for greed, from FDR’s debt ceiling battle? Maybe this: We really can have a more equal America. We just need to fight for it.
Monday 1 August 2011
Open Europe Blog on the Spanish Election to be held on November 20th
And they're off! What will the Spanish elections mean for the eurozone and the UK?
News in earlier today, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has finally set a date for national elections - 20 November. Parliament will be dissolved on 26 September. As expected, Zapatero will step down and make way for a new socialist party leader, Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba (pictured on the right), who was selected by his party earlier this year.Elections were originally planned for early 2012, with an ultimate deadline of March 2012, but in view of the economic crisis and increasing pressure from the public, the press, the opposition, and some members of his own party, Zapatero finally caved in today. Spain’s main opposition party, the Partido Popular (PP) are now tipped for a big win, according to opinion polls and the PP’s recent successes in regional elections. However, Spain’s economic problems indicate that stormy times are ahead.
“I have chosen the date to project economic and political certainty”, Zapatero said. Conveniently for Zapatero, October’s budget will now be delayed until next year, after the elections. The election campaign will now certainly be dominated by the impending budget, and the need for deeper austerity cuts. This debate could be tricky for the PP, who will have to strike a balance in the election campaign between identifying in detail the cuts it envisions, and not scaring the electorates back into the arms of the Socialists. And with an eye on the Conservatives' record in last year's election campaign in the UK, the PP will want to avoid leaving any sort of impression that it's flip-flopping over cuts. What's clear is that whichever party ends up at the helm will have to make tough decisions to navigate Spain through the eurozone crisis’ Bermuda triangle.
El Pais also notes cynically that the date of the election happens to fall on the anniversary of the death of Spain’s notorious right-wing dictator Franco. The left-wing government was quick to dismiss the ‘coincidence’ saying it’s a date “like any other”.
A few questions:
What will this mean for the eurozone crisis? Well, the timing of the elections may not buy Spain any favours with financial markets. The uncertainty that comes with any election is far from ideal given the already rising borrowing costs. In addition, the election will put a complete pause on the economic reform and austerity programmes. It's also unclear whether the expanded EFSF will get ratified by the Spanish Parliament before the election - something which the French and German governments, not to mention investors, are keen to see done asap. If Spain misses any important targets over the next few months due to the elections, be sure that the markets will push borrowing costs even higher.
How will a PP-led government differ from a Socialist one? At a recent event of ours, the PP's Secretary of Economy and Employment Álvaro Nadal set out his priorities for the coming years noting that the PP will go much further on labour market reforms than its predecessor, particularly with changes to the collective bargaining system, in addition to more privatisations and stricter budget conditions for regions. In terms of restructuring the Cajas (the regional saving banks), it looks as if PP will continue where Zapatero left off, since the reforms were very much based on a cross-party deal in the first place. Nadal suggested that the mandate given to the PP in the recent regional elections and polls shows that the people are ready and willing to accept these reforms. Once past the uncertainty of the elections, a Spanish reform-minded government, with a strong mandate from the electorate, can only be good news for the eurozone.
Interestingly, Nadal said that a PP run government would probably not support Eurobonds - which is becoming increasingly fashionable as a "solution" to the eurozone crisis. Nadal said,"For [Spain] it would be suicidal. The current eurobonds are very ill-designed. We need a method to encourage fiscal discipline but they are not it". Nadal concluded by reiterating a stance taken by Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, saying, “We have been treating this as a liquidity problem when actually it is a solvency one”.
How will social discontent in Spain impact on the elections? Intertwined with its economic problems, Spain is also suffering from serious social discontent at the moment. The so-called ‘indignados’ (indignant protesters) will pose a serious challenge to both parties during the election campaign, but probably hurt the incumbent government the most. Support for the indignados is high and growing, not really a surprise in a country with unemployment rates of 21% (climbing to 45% youth unemployment). Last weekend saw crowds of 35,000 march through Madrid, more are on the way.
A few questions:
What will this mean for the eurozone crisis? Well, the timing of the elections may not buy Spain any favours with financial markets. The uncertainty that comes with any election is far from ideal given the already rising borrowing costs. In addition, the election will put a complete pause on the economic reform and austerity programmes. It's also unclear whether the expanded EFSF will get ratified by the Spanish Parliament before the election - something which the French and German governments, not to mention investors, are keen to see done asap. If Spain misses any important targets over the next few months due to the elections, be sure that the markets will push borrowing costs even higher.
How will a PP-led government differ from a Socialist one? At a recent event of ours, the PP's Secretary of Economy and Employment Álvaro Nadal set out his priorities for the coming years noting that the PP will go much further on labour market reforms than its predecessor, particularly with changes to the collective bargaining system, in addition to more privatisations and stricter budget conditions for regions. In terms of restructuring the Cajas (the regional saving banks), it looks as if PP will continue where Zapatero left off, since the reforms were very much based on a cross-party deal in the first place. Nadal suggested that the mandate given to the PP in the recent regional elections and polls shows that the people are ready and willing to accept these reforms. Once past the uncertainty of the elections, a Spanish reform-minded government, with a strong mandate from the electorate, can only be good news for the eurozone.
Interestingly, Nadal said that a PP run government would probably not support Eurobonds - which is becoming increasingly fashionable as a "solution" to the eurozone crisis. Nadal said,"For [Spain] it would be suicidal. The current eurobonds are very ill-designed. We need a method to encourage fiscal discipline but they are not it". Nadal concluded by reiterating a stance taken by Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, saying, “We have been treating this as a liquidity problem when actually it is a solvency one”.
How will social discontent in Spain impact on the elections? Intertwined with its economic problems, Spain is also suffering from serious social discontent at the moment. The so-called ‘indignados’ (indignant protesters) will pose a serious challenge to both parties during the election campaign, but probably hurt the incumbent government the most. Support for the indignados is high and growing, not really a surprise in a country with unemployment rates of 21% (climbing to 45% youth unemployment). Last weekend saw crowds of 35,000 march through Madrid, more are on the way.
What will this mean for the UK? In fact, a PP victory is Spain could provide the Coalition with a potential centre-right ally in Europe at a time when both Germany and France could see centre-left governments take over within the next two years. And there's scope for deals to be struck between the Coalition and a PP-led Spanish government, including on some crucial economic issues such as services liberalisation, the EU better regulation agenda, bank recapitalisation, and potentially also on external trade. (However, other areas will be trickier, including the EU budget where any Spanish government and any UK government are poles apart).
What's clear is that a successful Spanish economy is absolutely vital for the health of the eurzone and the European economy. A vibrant Spain would do a lot to get the eurozone back on track.
Spanish General Election set for November 20th., 2011
Spanish election to be held on 20 November
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero announced on Friday that a Spanish general election will be held on 20 November. Zapatero had planned to serve out his full term until March 2012, but with the government looking like it may fail to garner enough parliamentary support to pass its next budget, he was forced to call an election. As planned, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba will replace Zapatero as leader of the Socialist party in the run up to the election. A recent poll conducted by Metroscopia and published by El Pais on Sunday put the centre-right party Partido Popular, currently in opposition, 14 percentage points ahead of the governing Socialist party with 44.8% of the vote.
Open Europe blog FT EurActiv Saturday’s Times Saturday’s Guardian Saturday’s Independent FT Weekend Saturday’s Telegraph EUobserver La Moncloa Friday’s El Pais Friday’s El Mundo
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero announced on Friday that a Spanish general election will be held on 20 November. Zapatero had planned to serve out his full term until March 2012, but with the government looking like it may fail to garner enough parliamentary support to pass its next budget, he was forced to call an election. As planned, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba will replace Zapatero as leader of the Socialist party in the run up to the election. A recent poll conducted by Metroscopia and published by El Pais on Sunday put the centre-right party Partido Popular, currently in opposition, 14 percentage points ahead of the governing Socialist party with 44.8% of the vote.
Open Europe blog FT EurActiv Saturday’s Times Saturday’s Guardian Saturday’s Independent FT Weekend Saturday’s Telegraph EUobserver La Moncloa Friday’s El Pais Friday’s El Mundo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)