/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today commented on the release of a revised "outcome document" for the United Nations Durban Review Conference on Racism (Durban II), to be held in April of 2009. The document reaffirms the entire original Declaration and Program of Action of the first Durban Conference, which was an anti-Semitic hate-filled event. This proposed text singles out Israel for criticism while ignoring those who propagate racism and intolerance, while also aiming to restrict freedom of expression in the name of preventing "Islamophobia." Ros-Lehtinen has urged the U.S. to refrain from attending from Durban II, proposed legislation to prevent U.S. funds from being used in any way to support that conference, and held a meeting in June with foreign diplomats, State Department officials, Members of Congress, human rights groups and other non-governmental organizations to discuss an alternative forum to combat discrimination and intolerance. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:
"Even as Israel fights for its life against violent Palestinian extremists in Gaza, enemies of freedom continue to single out the Jewish state for castigation. Iran, Libya, Cuba, and their fellow repressive regimes at the UN continue to deny the Jewish state's right to exist, and they aim, through Durban II and other UN efforts, to prevent Israel from defending itself.
The closer it gets to Durban II's start date, the more clearly we see that the fix is in, and that Durban II has nothing to do with anti-racism and everything to do with attacking Israel and the Jewish people.
Free nations should unite against violent radical Islamists and prevent the further manipulation of the UN to legitimize their extremist agenda. The U.S. and other responsible nations must stand up to the dictatorships that have hijacked much of the UN in general and Durban II in particular. We should, like Canada and Israel, refuse to fund or participate in that hate-fest, and we must lend our legitimacy only to those efforts that truly advance the cause of tolerance and non-discrimination."
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
All Political Parties Side with Israel in Israeli/Palestinian Conflict after Viewing Video
/PRNewswire/ -- A new national study conducted among 309 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that after watching a video news clip, all political parties significantly increased their support for Israel while holding Palestine responsible for the on-going attacks.
The study was conducted by HCD Research on December 29 to obtain Americans' perceptions of a video news clip which contained the Israeli/Palestinian perspectives on the situation and their justifications for the attacks. To view believability curves and detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
Prior to viewing the video clip, respondents, and in particular, Democrats were split on who is most responsible for the recent attacks in Israel and Palestine. Before watching the video, 12% blamed Israel and 33% blamed Palestine. After watching the video, 11% blamed Israel, over half (53%) blamed Palestine; an increase of 20% of those siding with Israel.
When asked if the U.S. should intervene in this situation, the majority (64%) reported no, compared to 13% indicated yes, and 24% who reported they weren't sure.
Among the findings:
"Who do you think is mostly responsible for the Israeli/Palestinian attacks that started this past week?"
BEFORE watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Israel 12% 19% 7% 11%
Palestine 33% 20% 49% 31%
Both 51% 59% 40% 54%
Neither 4% 3% 4% 4%
AFTER watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Israel 11% 20% 5% 10%
Palestine 53% 46% 63% 50%
Both 34% 33% 30% 39%
Neither 2% 1% 2% 2%
"Do you think that the US should intervene in this situation?"
BEFORE watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 12% 19% 10% 7%
No 63% 55% 57% 79%
Not sure 25% 26% 34% 15%
AFTER watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 13% 19% 13% 7%
No 64% 62% 56% 74%
Not sure 24% 20% 32% 19%
While viewing the video clip, participants indicated their levels of believability by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also post-viewing questions.
The Media Curves web site provides the media and general public with a venue to view Americans' perceptions of popular and controversial media events and advertisements.
The study was conducted by HCD Research on December 29 to obtain Americans' perceptions of a video news clip which contained the Israeli/Palestinian perspectives on the situation and their justifications for the attacks. To view believability curves and detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
Prior to viewing the video clip, respondents, and in particular, Democrats were split on who is most responsible for the recent attacks in Israel and Palestine. Before watching the video, 12% blamed Israel and 33% blamed Palestine. After watching the video, 11% blamed Israel, over half (53%) blamed Palestine; an increase of 20% of those siding with Israel.
When asked if the U.S. should intervene in this situation, the majority (64%) reported no, compared to 13% indicated yes, and 24% who reported they weren't sure.
Among the findings:
"Who do you think is mostly responsible for the Israeli/Palestinian attacks that started this past week?"
BEFORE watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Israel 12% 19% 7% 11%
Palestine 33% 20% 49% 31%
Both 51% 59% 40% 54%
Neither 4% 3% 4% 4%
AFTER watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Israel 11% 20% 5% 10%
Palestine 53% 46% 63% 50%
Both 34% 33% 30% 39%
Neither 2% 1% 2% 2%
"Do you think that the US should intervene in this situation?"
BEFORE watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 12% 19% 10% 7%
No 63% 55% 57% 79%
Not sure 25% 26% 34% 15%
AFTER watching the video
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 13% 19% 13% 7%
No 64% 62% 56% 74%
Not sure 24% 20% 32% 19%
While viewing the video clip, participants indicated their levels of believability by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also post-viewing questions.
The Media Curves web site provides the media and general public with a venue to view Americans' perceptions of popular and controversial media events and advertisements.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Blagojevich Statement Less Believable Than Michael Vick...More Believable Than Drew Peterson
/PRNewswire/ -- A new national study conducted among 313 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Governor Rod Blagojevich's speech on December 19 was slightly effective in gaining support from all parties, yet viewers were still uncertain of his believability.
Prior to viewing the speech, 66% of respondents reported that Blagojevich was guilty of the allegations regarding his office. The percentage dropped slightly (55%) after viewing Blagojevich's denial speech. In addition, prior to viewing the speech, 70% of respondents indicated that Blagojevich should step down from office, compared to 54% after viewing the speech.
Although viewers slightly increased their support for Blagojevich, when asked to rate him on scales of likeability, believability and sincerity, his believability scored significantly lower than the other categories.
The study was conducted by HCD Research on December 22 to obtain Americans' perceptions of a speech by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, on December 19, in which he denies guilt and vows to fight charges regarding his alleged scheme to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat. To view believability curves and detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
While viewing the video clip, participants indicated their levels of believability by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked pre and post-viewing questions.
The believability curves that were generated for Blagojevich's denial speech were compared to believability curves from previous studies conducted by HCD Research, which focused on statements from prominent figures in the media who were accused of or connected to alleged criminal activity. Below is a comparison of how Blagojevich ranks among other subjects of past studies (the higher the number, the more believable they were):
Believability Scores
Andy Petitte 61.6
Gov Spitzer 51.2
Michael Vick 47.8
Senator Craig 47.7
Gov Blagojevich 44.3
Drew Peterson 42.6
Paris Hilton 39.2
Governor Blagojevich, with a believability score of 44.3, was considered more believable than Drew Peterson and Paris Hilton and less believable than Andy Petitte, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Michael Vick and Senator Larry Craig.
Among the findings:
"Do you think Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of the crimes he is being accused of?"
BEFORE Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 66% 67% 63% 68%
No 3% 1% 4% 3%
Not sure 32% 32% 34% 29%
AFTER Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 55% 53% 54% 58%
No 5% 5% 6% 5%
Not sure 40% 42% 40% 37%
"Do you think Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich should step down from office?"
BEFORE Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 70% 69% 71% 69%
No 7% 7% 6% 8%
Not sure 24% 25% 23% 23%
AFTER Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 54% 53% 54% 56%
No 16% 19% 15% 14%
Not sure 30% 28% 31% 30%
"Do you think the public should withhold judgment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich until he is proven guilty or innocent of these crimes?"
BEFORE Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 52% 55% 56% 47%
No 27% 24% 26% 32%
Not sure 20% 22% 18% 21%
AFTER Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 61% 68% 61% 54%
No 23% 18% 22% 29%
Not sure 16% 14% 17% 17%
Prior to viewing the speech, 66% of respondents reported that Blagojevich was guilty of the allegations regarding his office. The percentage dropped slightly (55%) after viewing Blagojevich's denial speech. In addition, prior to viewing the speech, 70% of respondents indicated that Blagojevich should step down from office, compared to 54% after viewing the speech.
Although viewers slightly increased their support for Blagojevich, when asked to rate him on scales of likeability, believability and sincerity, his believability scored significantly lower than the other categories.
The study was conducted by HCD Research on December 22 to obtain Americans' perceptions of a speech by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, on December 19, in which he denies guilt and vows to fight charges regarding his alleged scheme to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat. To view believability curves and detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.
While viewing the video clip, participants indicated their levels of believability by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked pre and post-viewing questions.
The believability curves that were generated for Blagojevich's denial speech were compared to believability curves from previous studies conducted by HCD Research, which focused on statements from prominent figures in the media who were accused of or connected to alleged criminal activity. Below is a comparison of how Blagojevich ranks among other subjects of past studies (the higher the number, the more believable they were):
Believability Scores
Andy Petitte 61.6
Gov Spitzer 51.2
Michael Vick 47.8
Senator Craig 47.7
Gov Blagojevich 44.3
Drew Peterson 42.6
Paris Hilton 39.2
Governor Blagojevich, with a believability score of 44.3, was considered more believable than Drew Peterson and Paris Hilton and less believable than Andy Petitte, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Michael Vick and Senator Larry Craig.
Among the findings:
"Do you think Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is guilty of the crimes he is being accused of?"
BEFORE Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 66% 67% 63% 68%
No 3% 1% 4% 3%
Not sure 32% 32% 34% 29%
AFTER Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 55% 53% 54% 58%
No 5% 5% 6% 5%
Not sure 40% 42% 40% 37%
"Do you think Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich should step down from office?"
BEFORE Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 70% 69% 71% 69%
No 7% 7% 6% 8%
Not sure 24% 25% 23% 23%
AFTER Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 54% 53% 54% 56%
No 16% 19% 15% 14%
Not sure 30% 28% 31% 30%
"Do you think the public should withhold judgment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich until he is proven guilty or innocent of these crimes?"
BEFORE Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 52% 55% 56% 47%
No 27% 24% 26% 32%
Not sure 20% 22% 18% 21%
AFTER Watching Speech
Total Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes 61% 68% 61% 54%
No 23% 18% 22% 29%
Not sure 16% 14% 17% 17%
Statement by the Press Secretary on Irresponsible Reporting by New York Times
Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed.
The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises. For example, the President highlighted a factor that economists agree on: that the most significant factor leading to the housing crisis was cheap money flowing into the U.S. from the rest of the world, so that there was no natural restraint on flush lenders to push loans on Americans in risky ways. This flow of funds into the U.S. was unprecedented. And because it was unprecedented, the conditions it created presented unprecedented questions for policymakers.
In his address the President also explained in detail the failure of financial institutions to perform normal and necessary due diligence in creating, buying and selling new financial products -- a problem that almost no one saw as it was happening.
That the NYT ignored such an important economic speech to the American people and the complex causes of the crises is gross negligence.
The Times story frequently repeats a charge by the Administration's critics: a 'laissez faire' attitude toward regulation. We make no apology for understanding the concept of regulatory balance. That is, regulation should be stringent enough to protect the greater public good and safety but not overly strong so that it unnecessarily inhibits innovation, creativity and productivity gains that are the sole source of increasing Americans' standards of living. But while repeating this charge, the reporters gave glancing attention to the fact that it was this Administration that pushed for strengthened regulation and oversight, greater transparency, and housing reform.
The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market -- even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks. And while the story notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, it neglects that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials -- in particular the chairmen of the banking committees. In fact, even in the midst of what by then was a housing crisis, it took Congress nearly a full year to pass specific legislation called for by the President in the summer of 2007, especially legislation to reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
There are many more reporting failures in this story -- failure to consider the impact of monetary policy; ignoring the regional nature of housing markets; and ignoring the Bush Administration's historic proposal to overhaul the nation's regulatory system, for example. But then a review of these issues would wave complicated the reporters' myopic point of view that only Bush Administration policies could possibly be responsible for the housing and finance crises.
The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises. For example, the President highlighted a factor that economists agree on: that the most significant factor leading to the housing crisis was cheap money flowing into the U.S. from the rest of the world, so that there was no natural restraint on flush lenders to push loans on Americans in risky ways. This flow of funds into the U.S. was unprecedented. And because it was unprecedented, the conditions it created presented unprecedented questions for policymakers.
In his address the President also explained in detail the failure of financial institutions to perform normal and necessary due diligence in creating, buying and selling new financial products -- a problem that almost no one saw as it was happening.
That the NYT ignored such an important economic speech to the American people and the complex causes of the crises is gross negligence.
The Times story frequently repeats a charge by the Administration's critics: a 'laissez faire' attitude toward regulation. We make no apology for understanding the concept of regulatory balance. That is, regulation should be stringent enough to protect the greater public good and safety but not overly strong so that it unnecessarily inhibits innovation, creativity and productivity gains that are the sole source of increasing Americans' standards of living. But while repeating this charge, the reporters gave glancing attention to the fact that it was this Administration that pushed for strengthened regulation and oversight, greater transparency, and housing reform.
The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration. Democratic leaders brazenly encouraged Fannie and Freddie to loosen lending standards and instead encouraged the housing GSEs to play a larger and larger role in the housing market -- even while explicitly acknowledging the rising risks. And while the story notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, it neglects that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials -- in particular the chairmen of the banking committees. In fact, even in the midst of what by then was a housing crisis, it took Congress nearly a full year to pass specific legislation called for by the President in the summer of 2007, especially legislation to reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
There are many more reporting failures in this story -- failure to consider the impact of monetary policy; ignoring the regional nature of housing markets; and ignoring the Bush Administration's historic proposal to overhaul the nation's regulatory system, for example. But then a review of these issues would wave complicated the reporters' myopic point of view that only Bush Administration policies could possibly be responsible for the housing and finance crises.
American Small Business League: Obama to Create Loopholes for Venture Capitalists
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the American Small Business League:
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to create significant changes in federal contracting law that will allow some of the nation's wealthiest investors to receive federal contracts earmarked for small businesses. Under the banner of "increasing access to capital" for small businesses, the policies will allow firms controlled by individual venture capitalist and even large venture capital firms to participate in federal small business contracting programs.
The Obama Administration's new pro-venture capital policy could virtually repeal the Small Business Act for legitimate American small businesses by modifying the longstanding federal definition of a small business as "independently owned."
Under the proposed Obama Administration policy, "independently owned" will be changed to include firms that are not independently owned, but are actually controlled by wealthy investors and possibly some of the nation's largest venture capital firms.
Opponents of the new policy say it appears to be designed more to increase wealthy venture capitalist access to billions of dollars in federal small business contracts as opposed to "increasing access to capital" for legitimate small businesses.
If the policy is successfully implemented it could force the average American small business to compete head-to-head with firms controlled by wealthy investors for even the smallest government orders for goods and services. Thousands of middle class jobs could be lost as billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to a small number of venture capitalist controlled firms.
The plan will likely include a provision that would exempt the venture capitalist owned firms from capital gains taxes. The Obama-Biden Transition Team website, www.change.gov mentions such a proposal.
The appointment of multi-millionaire venture capitalist Karen Mills to head the Small Business Administration (SBA) is the latest indication that President-elect Obama is moving forward with his plans to divert government small business contracts to venture capital controlled firms.
The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and its members have been lobbying for the new loophole in federal contracting law for more than two years. The NVCA and its members have contributed millions of dollars to Obama and key Democratic leaders in Congress such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. (http://www.maplight.org/map/us/interest/F2500)
"The easiest and quickest way to stimulate our nation's failing economy is for the government to spend infrastructure funds with America's 27 million small businesses that create all the new jobs and employ most Americans," American Small Business League President Lloyd Chapman said. "This new Obama policy will do just the opposite and will push our economy closer to a depression by diverting billions of dollars in federal funds away from middle class America and into the hands of small number of wealthy investors that backed Obama."
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to create significant changes in federal contracting law that will allow some of the nation's wealthiest investors to receive federal contracts earmarked for small businesses. Under the banner of "increasing access to capital" for small businesses, the policies will allow firms controlled by individual venture capitalist and even large venture capital firms to participate in federal small business contracting programs.
The Obama Administration's new pro-venture capital policy could virtually repeal the Small Business Act for legitimate American small businesses by modifying the longstanding federal definition of a small business as "independently owned."
Under the proposed Obama Administration policy, "independently owned" will be changed to include firms that are not independently owned, but are actually controlled by wealthy investors and possibly some of the nation's largest venture capital firms.
Opponents of the new policy say it appears to be designed more to increase wealthy venture capitalist access to billions of dollars in federal small business contracts as opposed to "increasing access to capital" for legitimate small businesses.
If the policy is successfully implemented it could force the average American small business to compete head-to-head with firms controlled by wealthy investors for even the smallest government orders for goods and services. Thousands of middle class jobs could be lost as billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to a small number of venture capitalist controlled firms.
The plan will likely include a provision that would exempt the venture capitalist owned firms from capital gains taxes. The Obama-Biden Transition Team website, www.change.gov mentions such a proposal.
The appointment of multi-millionaire venture capitalist Karen Mills to head the Small Business Administration (SBA) is the latest indication that President-elect Obama is moving forward with his plans to divert government small business contracts to venture capital controlled firms.
The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and its members have been lobbying for the new loophole in federal contracting law for more than two years. The NVCA and its members have contributed millions of dollars to Obama and key Democratic leaders in Congress such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. (http://www.maplight.org/map/us/interest/F2500)
"The easiest and quickest way to stimulate our nation's failing economy is for the government to spend infrastructure funds with America's 27 million small businesses that create all the new jobs and employ most Americans," American Small Business League President Lloyd Chapman said. "This new Obama policy will do just the opposite and will push our economy closer to a depression by diverting billions of dollars in federal funds away from middle class America and into the hands of small number of wealthy investors that backed Obama."
Monday, December 22, 2008
Exclusive interview with Condoleezza Rice
AFP's exclusive interview with outgoing Secretary of State for the Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice. She announced an upcoming trip to China. Rice also discussed the situation in the Middle East and her own plans for the future.
Libertarians Accuse Obama of "Hawkish" Foreign Policy
America's largest third-party is accusing Barack Obama of pursuing the same "hawkish" foreign policy of his predecessor George Bush. "What we hoped to see with the incoming Obama administration were plans for a total withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq," says William Redpath, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Instead, we're seeing the same missteps of the Bush administration that have kept our troops in the Middle East since 2001."
This past September, the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution calling for the withdraw of U.S. troops from Afghanistan "without undue delay." However, current Pentagon plans call for potentially doubling the size of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to 60,000 troops.
"Shifting troops from one front to another is not 'bringing them home,' as Democrats promised to do in 2006," says Redpath. "Obama is pursuing a hawkish foreign policy that should worry any advocates of non-intervention. He'll keep us in that region for his entire presidency."
"The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances," reads the Libertarian Party's platform. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
This past September, the Libertarian National Committee passed a resolution calling for the withdraw of U.S. troops from Afghanistan "without undue delay." However, current Pentagon plans call for potentially doubling the size of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to 60,000 troops.
"Shifting troops from one front to another is not 'bringing them home,' as Democrats promised to do in 2006," says Redpath. "Obama is pursuing a hawkish foreign policy that should worry any advocates of non-intervention. He'll keep us in that region for his entire presidency."
"The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances," reads the Libertarian Party's platform. "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."
Jury's Out on Regulators' New Proposal to Address Abusive Overdraft Loans
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Federal banking regulators yesterday withdrew proposed rules that would have largely failed to protect consumers from astronomically high-cost, unsolicited overdraft loans. The Fed then immediately issued a new proposal containing two alternative approaches. The impact the new proposal will have on abusive fees depends primarily on which approach the Fed ultimately chooses.
Consumers pay $17.5 billion per year in overdraft fees that banks charge after routinely allowing consumers to overdraw their accounts by checks, ACH transactions, ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases. This exceeds the $15.8 billion banks extend in the overdraft loans themselves. Banks automatically enroll consumers in their most expensive overdraft programs, but surveys have found that accountholders overwhelmingly want a choice about whether or not to participate.
Representatives from the Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, and the National Consumer Law Center are pleased that the weak rule issued by the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) wasn't made final as originally proposed. That proposal failed to require banks to obtain consumers' affirmative "opt-in" before enrolling account holders in their overdraft programs.
In its new proposal, the Fed focuses only on ATM and certain debit transactions. The good news is that the Fed has acknowledged that overdraft fees on these transactions are especially abusive because consumers don't expect to be able to overdraw their accounts at an ATM or debit terminal. Overdraft loans from debit and ATM transactions are astronomically expensive -- a CRL study (http://responsiblelending.org/) found that the typical overdraft loan triggered by a debit card, incurring a $34 fee, is only $17.
"Debit card overdrafts are costing consumers billions of dollars a year," said Eric Halperin, D.C. director of the Center for Responsible Lending. "Consumers should have the right to decide whether they want to pay a $35 fee to buy a $5 hamburger."
The Fed's proposal asks for comments on two different approaches. The first maintains the status quo by requiring banks only to permit consumers to opt out of these extremely expensive loans, allowing continued abuses. The second approach would require banks to get consumers' permission before covering their ATM and most debit transactions for a fee. We urge the Fed to adopt this second, significantly stronger approach, known as opt-in. Consumers who believe the Fed should adopt the stronger approach should let the Fed know during its open comment period.
"We applaud the Fed for proposing that consumers be given the right to opt-in to use overdraft loans, but are dismayed that the Fed did not go further in protecting consumers from what are essentially payday loans," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for CFA.
For instance, the proposed rule does not require that consumers be provided with federal truth-in-lending disclosures about the APR of overdraft loans. A recent FDIC study noted that charging a $27 overdraft fee for a $20 debit card transaction would be the equivalent of a 3,520% APR if the overdraft is repaid in two weeks.
Gail Hillebrand, Consumers Union Financial Services Campaign Manager, added, "Requiring banks to get the opt-in permission of consumers for overdraft fees on debits is a good step forward, but the new proposal seeks comment on whether to impose this common-sense requirement."
Even if it adopts the second approach, the Fed's rule should have gone further still. While the Fed proposed to prohibit most overdrafts caused solely by debit card "holds" -- when a hold by a merchant exceeds the actual amount charged -- it did not address check holds, when banks intentionally delay the availability of deposits, or banks' ability to manipulate the order in which transactions are cleared in order to maximize overdrafts.
A recent FDIC study confirmed years of previous research on overdraft practices: Banks automatically enroll consumers in the most expensive overdraft option; debit card transactions are the most common trigger of overdraft fees; and lower-income account holders are more likely to pay overdraft fees, stripping what little money they have from their accounts and driving them further into the red.
"Overdraft fees disproportionately affect the most vulnerable consumers, including low-income and young consumers," said Chi Chi Wu, National Consumer Law Center. "Addressing overdraft fees related to ATM and debit transactions is a move in the right direction toward protecting them and all consumers. But we need to do more. Much more."
The FDIC study also found that consumers pay the most overdraft fees when their banks allow overdrafts for ATM and debit transactions and clear transactions in order from highest to lowest to maximize fees.
"Consumers find themselves financially squeezed like never before," said Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director for USPIRG. "While the Fed could have done more, the opt-in proposal, if adopted, would provide some measure of relief for consumers who are essentially being forced to take out payday loans."
Consumers pay $17.5 billion per year in overdraft fees that banks charge after routinely allowing consumers to overdraw their accounts by checks, ACH transactions, ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases. This exceeds the $15.8 billion banks extend in the overdraft loans themselves. Banks automatically enroll consumers in their most expensive overdraft programs, but surveys have found that accountholders overwhelmingly want a choice about whether or not to participate.
Representatives from the Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, and the National Consumer Law Center are pleased that the weak rule issued by the Federal Reserve, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) wasn't made final as originally proposed. That proposal failed to require banks to obtain consumers' affirmative "opt-in" before enrolling account holders in their overdraft programs.
In its new proposal, the Fed focuses only on ATM and certain debit transactions. The good news is that the Fed has acknowledged that overdraft fees on these transactions are especially abusive because consumers don't expect to be able to overdraw their accounts at an ATM or debit terminal. Overdraft loans from debit and ATM transactions are astronomically expensive -- a CRL study (http://responsiblelending.org/) found that the typical overdraft loan triggered by a debit card, incurring a $34 fee, is only $17.
"Debit card overdrafts are costing consumers billions of dollars a year," said Eric Halperin, D.C. director of the Center for Responsible Lending. "Consumers should have the right to decide whether they want to pay a $35 fee to buy a $5 hamburger."
The Fed's proposal asks for comments on two different approaches. The first maintains the status quo by requiring banks only to permit consumers to opt out of these extremely expensive loans, allowing continued abuses. The second approach would require banks to get consumers' permission before covering their ATM and most debit transactions for a fee. We urge the Fed to adopt this second, significantly stronger approach, known as opt-in. Consumers who believe the Fed should adopt the stronger approach should let the Fed know during its open comment period.
"We applaud the Fed for proposing that consumers be given the right to opt-in to use overdraft loans, but are dismayed that the Fed did not go further in protecting consumers from what are essentially payday loans," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for CFA.
For instance, the proposed rule does not require that consumers be provided with federal truth-in-lending disclosures about the APR of overdraft loans. A recent FDIC study noted that charging a $27 overdraft fee for a $20 debit card transaction would be the equivalent of a 3,520% APR if the overdraft is repaid in two weeks.
Gail Hillebrand, Consumers Union Financial Services Campaign Manager, added, "Requiring banks to get the opt-in permission of consumers for overdraft fees on debits is a good step forward, but the new proposal seeks comment on whether to impose this common-sense requirement."
Even if it adopts the second approach, the Fed's rule should have gone further still. While the Fed proposed to prohibit most overdrafts caused solely by debit card "holds" -- when a hold by a merchant exceeds the actual amount charged -- it did not address check holds, when banks intentionally delay the availability of deposits, or banks' ability to manipulate the order in which transactions are cleared in order to maximize overdrafts.
A recent FDIC study confirmed years of previous research on overdraft practices: Banks automatically enroll consumers in the most expensive overdraft option; debit card transactions are the most common trigger of overdraft fees; and lower-income account holders are more likely to pay overdraft fees, stripping what little money they have from their accounts and driving them further into the red.
"Overdraft fees disproportionately affect the most vulnerable consumers, including low-income and young consumers," said Chi Chi Wu, National Consumer Law Center. "Addressing overdraft fees related to ATM and debit transactions is a move in the right direction toward protecting them and all consumers. But we need to do more. Much more."
The FDIC study also found that consumers pay the most overdraft fees when their banks allow overdrafts for ATM and debit transactions and clear transactions in order from highest to lowest to maximize fees.
"Consumers find themselves financially squeezed like never before," said Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director for USPIRG. "While the Fed could have done more, the opt-in proposal, if adopted, would provide some measure of relief for consumers who are essentially being forced to take out payday loans."
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Corruption Watchdog Blasts Obama Labor Secretary Nominee; Hilda Solis Supports Coercive Card Check and Says Illegal Aliens are Americans
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Dr. Carl Horowitz, director of the Organized Labor Accountability Project of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), today reacted to Barack Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) for Labor Secretary. He said:
This is a terrible nomination. Solis is a total flack for the union bosses. I predict an explosion of union corruption, especially with infrastructure stimulus funds flowing to unions like the Laborers and Teamsters, which still have not freed themselves from the influence of organized crime.
Solis is a co-sponsor of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the unions' top legislative priority. EFCA would force private-sector employers to recognize a particular union as the sole bargaining agent if its organizers can get at least 50 percent of affected workers to sign a card indicating their desire to join, ending secret elections.
This "card check" is inherently coercive. There have been many documented instances of union organizers giving reluctant employees a choice between signing a card and facing potential retaliation should the union become the collective bargaining agent. I guess that's what the unions mean by 'free choice.'
Solis also has made controversial statements about citizenship. In 1996, while serving as a California state senator, she said, 'We are all Americans whether you are legalized or not.' As Labor Secretary, Solis would be in charge of issuing labor certifications.
Solis recently introduced legislation to explore the possibility of naming a national park after United Farm Workers founder Cesar Chavez.
This is a terrible nomination. Solis is a total flack for the union bosses. I predict an explosion of union corruption, especially with infrastructure stimulus funds flowing to unions like the Laborers and Teamsters, which still have not freed themselves from the influence of organized crime.
Solis is a co-sponsor of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the unions' top legislative priority. EFCA would force private-sector employers to recognize a particular union as the sole bargaining agent if its organizers can get at least 50 percent of affected workers to sign a card indicating their desire to join, ending secret elections.
This "card check" is inherently coercive. There have been many documented instances of union organizers giving reluctant employees a choice between signing a card and facing potential retaliation should the union become the collective bargaining agent. I guess that's what the unions mean by 'free choice.'
Solis also has made controversial statements about citizenship. In 1996, while serving as a California state senator, she said, 'We are all Americans whether you are legalized or not.' As Labor Secretary, Solis would be in charge of issuing labor certifications.
Solis recently introduced legislation to explore the possibility of naming a national park after United Farm Workers founder Cesar Chavez.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Caroline Kennedy Goes Public
Senate hopeful Caroline Kennedy made her case in upstate N.Y. as the media intensely followed her every move, reports Meg Oliver (CBS News). (Dec. 18)
The Debt We Owe Laura Bush
By Matt Towery of TownHall.com
With so many newspapers columns about bailouts and debt, I thought I might just change the pace by paying tribute to a woman to whom we as Americans are indebted -- First Lady Laura Bush.
I know President Bush doesn't read columns, but with all due respect, he needs to read this one. So, I'm writing it to him.
Dear Mr. President,
This message has nothing to do with you or your presidency. I'll leave that to others. But, then again, it has everything to do with you and your presidency.
Being an ex-elected official and candidate for statewide office -- now permanently "reformed" by not participating anymore -- I know what the wives of political leaders go through. Not that I can ever know how tough it gets when one reaches the level of the presidency. But I can imagine.
For this and other reasons, I want to thank you personally and on behalf of a great number of Americans for the service your wife, Laura, has given to America.
Like plenty of us political men, you married "over your head," which I'm sure you know. Many of us are lucky to have bright, devoted and strong wives who not only help hold our families together during our years in political office, but who could themselves tackle many of the issues we do, often with superior skill to our own.
In the case of your own Laura, she helped raise two bright and beautiful young women. Sure they had a few teenage incidents. Whose kids don't? But they have brought honor to your family and have been a great reflection on their parents.
Then there is the side of your wife for which we as a nation owe a huge debt.
I know that most Americans know that Mrs. Bush was a librarian when you met her. But I'm not sure everyone knows that she earned not only her bachelor's degree from Southern Methodist University but also a master's degree from the University of Texas. This woman is no wallflower.
And, as you know Mr. President, she has in her always friendly, warm and articulate manner, put her keen mind to work for America.
While she has been best known for her tireless efforts to promote global literacy, Laura Bush has been just as active on a range of issues -- from her "Women's Health and Wellness Initiative," to her fight to end oppression against women in nations such as Afghanistan, where she actually took the place of her husband in presenting the weekly presidential radio address in 2001.
But you know all of that, Mr. President.
But I want others to recognize how active she has been on behalf of people who need help and often can't fight for themselves. And we all recognize that while this is a kind and caring woman, she can be passionate and, in her own way, fight effectively for others. In fact, she is still fighting for the women of Afghanistan.
I can only imagine how proud you were of her performance on "Meet the Press" recently, where she deftly handled a range of issues in a way that seemed to me to be as competent and articulate as say, Sen. Hillary Clinton or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In fact, I was blown away by her ability to take anything Tom Brokaw asked of her and ace it.
What makes this all the more interesting is to see her just a week or so later, live in the White House showing the Christmas decorations to a national audience. I loved the part when the dog ran right past her, and she cracked a joke and never missed a beat.
So whether it's the Christmas tree or denouncing the disfigurement of young girls in a nation so very far away, Laura Bush is able to handle the task with grace and ease.
I guess it is a bit presumptuous to write a sitting president in a national column. But we all know this will never reach George W. Bush. But it just would not be fair, particularly given the tough years this nation and her husband have endured, not to at least recognize one of the greatest first ladies in American history.
Sources:
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=2f0e41dc-5cf5-430a-8d4f-804ef4b95f7b&t=c
Matt Towery
With so many newspapers columns about bailouts and debt, I thought I might just change the pace by paying tribute to a woman to whom we as Americans are indebted -- First Lady Laura Bush.
I know President Bush doesn't read columns, but with all due respect, he needs to read this one. So, I'm writing it to him.
Dear Mr. President,
This message has nothing to do with you or your presidency. I'll leave that to others. But, then again, it has everything to do with you and your presidency.
Being an ex-elected official and candidate for statewide office -- now permanently "reformed" by not participating anymore -- I know what the wives of political leaders go through. Not that I can ever know how tough it gets when one reaches the level of the presidency. But I can imagine.
For this and other reasons, I want to thank you personally and on behalf of a great number of Americans for the service your wife, Laura, has given to America.
Like plenty of us political men, you married "over your head," which I'm sure you know. Many of us are lucky to have bright, devoted and strong wives who not only help hold our families together during our years in political office, but who could themselves tackle many of the issues we do, often with superior skill to our own.
In the case of your own Laura, she helped raise two bright and beautiful young women. Sure they had a few teenage incidents. Whose kids don't? But they have brought honor to your family and have been a great reflection on their parents.
Then there is the side of your wife for which we as a nation owe a huge debt.
I know that most Americans know that Mrs. Bush was a librarian when you met her. But I'm not sure everyone knows that she earned not only her bachelor's degree from Southern Methodist University but also a master's degree from the University of Texas. This woman is no wallflower.
And, as you know Mr. President, she has in her always friendly, warm and articulate manner, put her keen mind to work for America.
While she has been best known for her tireless efforts to promote global literacy, Laura Bush has been just as active on a range of issues -- from her "Women's Health and Wellness Initiative," to her fight to end oppression against women in nations such as Afghanistan, where she actually took the place of her husband in presenting the weekly presidential radio address in 2001.
But you know all of that, Mr. President.
But I want others to recognize how active she has been on behalf of people who need help and often can't fight for themselves. And we all recognize that while this is a kind and caring woman, she can be passionate and, in her own way, fight effectively for others. In fact, she is still fighting for the women of Afghanistan.
I can only imagine how proud you were of her performance on "Meet the Press" recently, where she deftly handled a range of issues in a way that seemed to me to be as competent and articulate as say, Sen. Hillary Clinton or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In fact, I was blown away by her ability to take anything Tom Brokaw asked of her and ace it.
What makes this all the more interesting is to see her just a week or so later, live in the White House showing the Christmas decorations to a national audience. I loved the part when the dog ran right past her, and she cracked a joke and never missed a beat.
So whether it's the Christmas tree or denouncing the disfigurement of young girls in a nation so very far away, Laura Bush is able to handle the task with grace and ease.
I guess it is a bit presumptuous to write a sitting president in a national column. But we all know this will never reach George W. Bush. But it just would not be fair, particularly given the tough years this nation and her husband have endured, not to at least recognize one of the greatest first ladies in American history.
Sources:
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=2f0e41dc-5cf5-430a-8d4f-804ef4b95f7b&t=c
Matt Towery
Thursday, December 18, 2008
All American Blogger: Obama’s Energy Sec. Wants Gasoline Price Increase Of 300%
Found this article on the All American Blogger and thought you'd want to be in the know as Obama and his team begin to bring great change to Americans. Should this be accurate, we Americans will have no change in our pockets.
....To the green mafia, the price of gasoline should be so high that people can’t drive to work and have to rely on public transportation. And if the market won’t keep the price high, government will......
Click here to read.
....To the green mafia, the price of gasoline should be so high that people can’t drive to work and have to rely on public transportation. And if the market won’t keep the price high, government will......
Click here to read.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder: 'UN Anti-Racism Conference Must Not Become Another Platform for Spreading Anti-Semitism'
PP Note: Guess the real question is what stance Barack Obama will take? Will this conference be a repeat of the last one where the U.S. walked out? Or will Hillary be happy to sit there with a smile on her face courtesy of her new boss?
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Ronald S. Lauder, has praised the minister of foreign affairs of the Netherlands, Maxime Verhagen, for making a clear statement regarding an upcoming United Nations conference on combating racism.
In an interview with Dutch radio, Verhagen had said that his government might boycott a United Nations anti-racism conference in Geneva in April 2009 unless anti-Israel statements are removed from official draft documents. "It seems like the sole intention is to criticize Israel and condemn the West for slavery and its colonial history," Minister Verhagen had said, warning of a repeat of the first UN anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel debacle.
WJC President Ronald S. Lauder said: "We appreciate the Dutch government's principled stance, and we hope that other democratic countries will take this as an example and make their voice heard as well. The United Nations anti-racism conference must not become yet another platform for spreading anti-Semitism and unfairly singling out Israel for criticism. Sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is high time that the UN live up to its own founding principles!"
Lauder pointed out that any imbalanced conclusion of the UN conference would render the final declaration meaningless and reflect badly on the UN's ability to fulfill the purpose of the Geneva forum. "Avoiding a repeat of Durban I is a crucial litmus test for the UN and its member states," the WJC president said, adding that the World Jewish Congress would continue to lobby governments on this issue.
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Ronald S. Lauder, has praised the minister of foreign affairs of the Netherlands, Maxime Verhagen, for making a clear statement regarding an upcoming United Nations conference on combating racism.
In an interview with Dutch radio, Verhagen had said that his government might boycott a United Nations anti-racism conference in Geneva in April 2009 unless anti-Israel statements are removed from official draft documents. "It seems like the sole intention is to criticize Israel and condemn the West for slavery and its colonial history," Minister Verhagen had said, warning of a repeat of the first UN anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel debacle.
WJC President Ronald S. Lauder said: "We appreciate the Dutch government's principled stance, and we hope that other democratic countries will take this as an example and make their voice heard as well. The United Nations anti-racism conference must not become yet another platform for spreading anti-Semitism and unfairly singling out Israel for criticism. Sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is high time that the UN live up to its own founding principles!"
Lauder pointed out that any imbalanced conclusion of the UN conference would render the final declaration meaningless and reflect badly on the UN's ability to fulfill the purpose of the Geneva forum. "Avoiding a repeat of Durban I is a crucial litmus test for the UN and its member states," the WJC president said, adding that the World Jewish Congress would continue to lobby governments on this issue.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Jesse Jackson Jr. on Video with Blagojevich in August 2008
Jesse Jackson Jr. “I haven’t Met With Rod Blagojevich in 4 years”… Problem is, this video shows otherwise…
Posted: 11 Dec 2008 02:30 PM CST
The cookie continues to crumble… Barack Obama has chosen to surround himself with crooks and liars.
It was just yesterday that Jesse Jackson Jr. soberly exclaimed that he had not met Rod Blagojevich in 4 years…
I mean, that sounds odd considering the fact that Jesse is a member of the Illiniois delegation to the House of Reps, and Rod is the State governor and both come from the same party…
Anyway, here’s a video taken in Denver (thanks Ace) during the Democratic National Convention in August which shows the two men not only being in the same vicinity, but also embracing each other…
Incidentally, it wasn’t just a random hug, but a hug fest which Jesse orchestrated:
An emotional U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. called on warring Democrats to unite Wednesday at their national convention and said he wouldn’t be satisfied unless Gov. Rod Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan hugged....
Posted: 11 Dec 2008 02:30 PM CST
The cookie continues to crumble… Barack Obama has chosen to surround himself with crooks and liars.
It was just yesterday that Jesse Jackson Jr. soberly exclaimed that he had not met Rod Blagojevich in 4 years…
I mean, that sounds odd considering the fact that Jesse is a member of the Illiniois delegation to the House of Reps, and Rod is the State governor and both come from the same party…
Anyway, here’s a video taken in Denver (thanks Ace) during the Democratic National Convention in August which shows the two men not only being in the same vicinity, but also embracing each other…
Incidentally, it wasn’t just a random hug, but a hug fest which Jesse orchestrated:
An emotional U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. called on warring Democrats to unite Wednesday at their national convention and said he wouldn’t be satisfied unless Gov. Rod Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan hugged....
Colin Powell Gives Advice to the Republican Party...
Yep, Colin Powell, who endorsed the Democratic candidate for President (Barack Obama in case you've forgotten his name) is giving us advice. He thinks Sarah Palin polarized the Party, doesn't like Rush Limbaugh either.
Gee. I am SHOCKED. Just SHOCKED.
After we get through twisting the Republican Party around like Powell would have us do, let's go check with the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org to see what else we should do.
The only people listening to Colin Powell these days are his liberal friends. At least Liberman is "technically" an Independent... although I gotta say I can't imagine why he stuck with the Democratic Party after they stabbed him in the back, but hey, what do I know, I'm just a stalwart Republican carrying the conservative banner.
Powell Blasts Palin for Polarizing, Endangering Republican Party (Video)
Sarah Palin helped push the Republican Party farther to the right this election – a polarization which could lead to the downfall of the party, insists Colin Powell.
Oh, and he also says Republicans should stop listening to conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and we need to rethink the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
http://www.wowowow.com/post/powell-palin-helped-polarize-republican-party-video-155358
Gee. I am SHOCKED. Just SHOCKED.
After we get through twisting the Republican Party around like Powell would have us do, let's go check with the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org to see what else we should do.
The only people listening to Colin Powell these days are his liberal friends. At least Liberman is "technically" an Independent... although I gotta say I can't imagine why he stuck with the Democratic Party after they stabbed him in the back, but hey, what do I know, I'm just a stalwart Republican carrying the conservative banner.
Powell Blasts Palin for Polarizing, Endangering Republican Party (Video)
Sarah Palin helped push the Republican Party farther to the right this election – a polarization which could lead to the downfall of the party, insists Colin Powell.
Oh, and he also says Republicans should stop listening to conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and we need to rethink the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
http://www.wowowow.com/post/powell-palin-helped-polarize-republican-party-video-155358
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
