By John Johnson 
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home
Tag Archives: Democratic Party
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/22/2013
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
11:40 A.M. EST
Q It’s cold.
MR. CARNEY: It is. It’s winter out there. It was winter last night. It was a dramatic change in the weather at that late hour. Then I went home. So, given that — (laughter) — we're going to move very quickly through this briefing today.
But I want to welcome you to the first full day of the President’s second term. It’s a tremendous honor and privilege to be here working for this President and for the country. And I know, because I remember being where you are, what an honor and privilege it is to be where you are covering a White House. So, with that, I just want to say thanks, and I'll take your questions.
Julie.
Q Thank you. I know last week you said that you were encouraged by the House Republicans’ decision to move forward on a debt ceiling package, but I'm wondering if you support the specific proposal that they’re going to vote on tomorrow, this three-month extension.
MR. CARNEY: Let me say a couple of things about that. First, the President has always been clear that it is not good for the economy to raise the debt ceiling in increments or short- term periods, that what we support is a long-term raising of the debt ceiling so that we don't have any doubt or uncertainty for businesses or the global economy about the simple proposition that the United States always pays its bills.
Having said that, what we saw happen last week was significant, in our view. The House Republicans made a decision to back away from the kind of brinksmanship that was very concerning to the markets, very concerning to business, very concerning to the American people — the simple proposition that they would insist on cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, in return for doing their job, paying their bills. That was obviously something the President could not and would not support. That’s why he made clear he would not negotiate over the debt ceiling. So the fact that the House Republicans have made this decision is certainly something that we welcome.
Q But do you support the idea that they're going to vote on something that would only continue this for three months?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we support the idea that the debt ceiling ought not to be a political football; that by becoming that does damage to our economy. So we would clearly — we want to see the debt ceiling sort of removed from the process of the very important debates that we have over what we pay for, how much revenue we bring in, how we get our fiscal house in order in a way that helps the economy grow, protects vulnerable citizens, seniors and middle-class families and moves the country forward.
So we'll see what the Congress produces, what emerges. There are obviously concerns I think both in the House and the Senate about some aspects of this, and once it does we'll take — we'll evaluate it. But I just want to make it clear that what happened, as I think most of you reported, was a very significant development in terms of deescalating the sense of conflict over this and reducing fear about a process that always had the potential of spinning out of control — as it did in the summer of 2011, which caused such great harm to our economy; created the month, in August of 2011, that was the lowest month in terms of job creation during this entire recovery; certainly did harm to the markets and overall economic growth. So we welcome that development.
Q So this is basically better than nothing, but still —
MR. CARNEY: Again, we don’t expect — we take heart from the numerous statements by Republicans leading up to this decision, statements in which Republicans made clear that it was not the right thing to do to play chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States; it was not the right thing to do to try to extract demands from the President of the Democratic Party in exchange for doing the responsible thing, which is paying the bills that you've already incurred. And we believe, when Senator Cornyn or others say we will not default, period, we will not let that happen. That we believe that’s true. And hopefully that will inform decisions made by Republicans in Congress going forward.
In the end, it's in the long-term interest of the United States economy that we remove the debt ceiling from this process that creates uncertainty, harms economic growth, does damage to the middle class, puts a stranglehold on markets. I mean, none of the outcomes here are good.
We can, as the President made clear, negotiate in good faith towards further fiscal — further deficit reduction, towards putting our fiscal house in order. We need to do that, and the President is eager to do that — more deficit reduction in a balanced way. We have already achieved nearly $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, but there is more work to do. But we have to do it in a way that’s fair and balanced.
Q And then just quickly on climate change. The President was pretty extensive in his remarks on climate change in his inaugural address yesterday. What was he trying to signal about where climate change would fall on his priority list in a second term, and is there any upcoming action that you can point to that he's going to take on that topic?
MR. CARNEY: The President has been clear since he took office that tackling climate change and enhancing energy security was and will be among his top priorities — will be among his top priorities in a second term. And yesterday he reiterated that commitment, as you said, in his inaugural address.
Let's take a step back and look at what the President was able to achieve in a first term. He took historic action — his administration did — to confront climate change, including proposing the first national standard for harmful carbon pollution for new power plants, as well as establishing unprecedented standards for cars and trucks that will slash emissions of carbon pollution while, at the same time, saving consumers billions of dollars.
And it's often forgotten because this is an executive action that he did in concert with major automobile companies, but taken by itself this single action did more to reduce carbon pollution than any other action that has been taken, in our view. And we need to continue to build on that. And the President intends to continue to build on that progress in the second term.
This is not only an issue of helping our climate and the environment, but it's one of our national security. So when we pursue energy independence, when we continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic production of fossil fuel energy but other forms of energy, we enhance our security and protect America's future in that way. And we also contribute to the effort to deal with climate change and all the impacts of climate change.
Reuters.
Q He also talked about immigration yesterday, Jay. How soon — will he submit a plan, an immigration overhaul plan, and how quickly will he do that?
MR. CARNEY: The President has spoken to this in the last several weeks and he made clear his intention to act on this very important issue early in his second term, and he will keep that commitment. I don't have a programmatic timetable for you today, but you can expect that he will move forward with that.
And I will remind people that comprehensive immigration reform, like so many of the issues that he talked about yesterday, is something that we can unite behind, that we can come together to act on. It has been an issue in the past. It has enjoyed bipartisan support from very prominent Republicans as well as Democrats. It's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for our economy.
As the President said, we shouldn't be giving foreign students degrees in computer science and engineering, and then expelling them from the country if they want to stay here and build businesses and help our economy grow. So this is something that he hopes and believes will enjoy bipartisan support when he addresses it, and he will address it early in his second term.
Q Separately, the Nebraska Governor has approved the route for the Keystone Pipeline. How is this going to impact — I mean, can he now go forward?
MR. CARNEY: Well, there are stages in this process. As you know, the State Department is conducting its assessment, as appropriate and as has been standard over the years, on behalf of the federal government, and I don't want to get ahead of that process. When the State Department has something to move forward on, we'll obviously address that issue when it does.
But it's interesting you mentioned the Nebraska Governor — this whole process, as you remember, got sort of derailed because of insistence on sort of politicizing something that was not political. It was a process that followed the format that had been used in the past in terms of the State Department's role in including these kinds of pipelines when they cross international boundaries. One of the things that delayed or postponed this process had to do with the opposition of the Nebraska Governor and others in that state to the route that Keystone was proposed to take, the pipeline was proposed to take.
So I think it's just an instructive reminder about how this ended up where it is now. But for now, the State Department has the reins.
Q Just to clarify on that, the next and final stages for the State Department to give final approval to the route and that's —
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to State on where they are on that process and what happens. I would have to refresh my memory on how that process then works from there. But right now, I don't want to get ahead of it, because the State Department has it. That was — as you know, and we all discussed this issue a lot last year, that is the stage that was necessary and —
Q But you're in receipt of a letter from the Governor of Nebraska? They said —
MR. CARNEY: I don't know personally if we are, but I don't dispute that we are.
Q The President laid out a number of priorities for his second term, not just immigration and climate change but also talked about tax reform, deficit reduction, as well as expansion of rights. Is there one among them that is his top priority? Let me stop there.
MR. CARNEY: His top priority is what it has been since he began running for this office in 2007, which is to restore the middle class and a sense of security that the middle class had been losing in the decade prior to him taking office.
So all of these agenda items that you mention are in service of the bigger goal here, which is to help the economy grow; help it provide more security to middle-class Americans; help it provide more ladders of opportunity to those who would move into the middle class. So that is the animation behind everything he does when it comes to — especially to domestic policy. And it is the sort of motivating factor behind what he talked about yesterday.
Q Does he feel that moving on deficit reduction this year is imperative to expanding the opportunities for the middle class?
MR. CARNEY: Absolutely. He wants to build on the significant deficit reduction that he has already achieved with Congress, close to $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. There is an opportunity here that we saw in the negotiations with the Speaker late last year that, if we move forward on it, could allow us to achieve additional significant deficit reduction that, taken as a whole, will mean that we will have hit the target of $4 trillion over 10 years, which will allow us to reduce our deficits and debt as a share of GDP in a way that will enhance economic growth and job creation.
So that is absolutely something he’s committed to. We’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple years on this issue. And he hopes that as we move — now that the Republicans have appeared to set aside flirtation with default as a means to move forward in these negotiations, that maybe we can make some additional progress.
Q And then, finally, is the President personally aware of the criticism the speech has received from some conservatives who feel it didn’t do enough to reach out to them, that it didn’t include enough olive branches to Republicans?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t spoken with him about that. I would simply say that, broadly, the speech seemed to have been well received and that it’s — what you heard the President talk about yesterday is completely in keeping with the major speeches he has given throughout his national political career, going back to the Convention address in 2004 in Boston where he talked about the fact that — as he did yesterday — we are not Republicans or Democrats first; we are Americans first.
And he made clear at the end of his speech yesterday that the oath he took — both yesterday and the day before — is very similar to the oath that members of Congress take, very similar to the oath that men and women in our armed forces take, and similar to the pledge that we make to our flag, every American makes. And the fundamental fact there is that we make these pledges and we give these oaths not to a party but to our country. And even though we have our differences, we need to act together to achieve things for the common good.
And that has been our history as a country and that is what the President believes will be our future in the next four years and beyond, because some of these fights that we've had, these disputes over the role of government, will obviously continue. They won't be resolved, and we can't wait for them to be resolved before we act. And I think despite all of our differences in the last two and four years, we have achieved significant things together. And the President looks forward to doing just that.
Some of the items that he talked about — I mean, it's hardly — like we were just talking about comprehensive immigration reform. That's not a — some of the leaders of that effort are major figures in the Republican Party — George W. Bush and John McCain. And that could be and should be the way it will be in the future, and the President hopes that's the case.
Jon.
Q Clarify for me the three-month extension on the debt ceiling. Does the President encourage members of the House to vote for that bill? And will he sign it? Would he veto it? What's the position on the bill?
MR. CARNEY: As I said, the bill still has to overcome some concerns expressed by members of the House and the Senate before it can pass both chambers and reach the President's desk. If it does and it reaches the President's desk, he would not stand in the way of the bill becoming law.
Broadly speaking, I would point you to what I said at the top, which is that the President's position is we have to remove these damaging fights over fulfilling our obligations to pay our bills from the process — well, we have to remove them entirely because they're so unhelpful to economic growth; they're so unhelpful to the middle class; they create terrible uncertainty for our businesses.
We can continue to engage, and we will, with members of Congress over the need to further reduce our deficit in a balanced way. The President has put forward plans, as you know, that demonstrate the fact that he’s willing to compromise, that he is willing to meet Republicans halfway on these issues, and he will continue to do that. But the debt needs to not be a part of that, because it's terrible for the economy and it seems also to be bad politics.
Q And on climate change, can you help me understand specifically what the President wants to pursue in the second term on this? Is this something that — does he have legislation he would like to see Congress pass? Are we back to cap and trade? What specifically does he want to do that he didn't in the first term?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the President has long supported congressional action on climate change. And while it's clear that bipartisan opposition to legislative action is still a reality, the President's position remains the same as it was in the first term.
He looks forward to building on the achievements made in the first term. And he looks at this in a broad way, because this isn't — deficit reduction, for example, is not a goal unto itself. We pursue it in a way that helps our economy grow and helps it create jobs. Otherwise, it's not worth the effort, in his mind.
Climate change is not — you don't pursue action that helps deal with that problem just because of the problem itself, but because there are huge opportunities there in alternative energy. Whether anyone in Washington or elsewhere likes it or not, clean energy technology is going to be a huge part of a 21st century global economy. We can make choices now that ensure that those industries are domestic, that we dominate those fields of endeavor and we create the jobs associated with those industries here in America — or we can substitute our dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on imports of clean energy technology. So the President believes that would be shortsighted.
So he looks at this in a more holistic way, and he will move forward in implementing some of the actions that he took in the first term, and building on the progress that was made in the first term.
Q But he dedicated more of that speech to climate change than any other specific policy area.
MR. CARNEY: I would encourage everyone who looks at the speech not to break it apart, because we view the inaugural address — the President views the inaugural address, and the speech he will give to Congress on February 12th, the State of the Union address, as part of a package — as two parts of a package.
And as has been tradition, and a tradition the President is keeping, inaugural addresses tend to be about the President's vision — that certainly was the case yesterday — about how we move forward together as a country. Policy specifics and — I think for those who do this in Washington, like number of words dedicated to each issue and which position they achieve in the address — I'll probably discourage you from doing that after he gives the State of the Union, but it's more appropriate for an address like that.
Q But why did it get such a prominent focus in this speech and such a relatively narrow focus, if at all, in the campaign?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I contest that assertion, because, in fact, he raised the challenge of climate change frequently in the campaign. He talked about it in press conferences, at recent press conference, as well as when asked about it, he addressed fully his commitment to dealing with this challenge and the impact it has on our economy and our people.
So it's an important issue. It's a priority. But it is not a singular priority, it is one of a host of priorities that he believes we can act on if we work together.
Q Did he run a single ad during the entire campaign that invoked climate change?
MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the ad-makers. I decided early on in that process not to view every ad that was broadcast, because who would have the time? So I can't remember, but it was certainly an issue that he talked about frequently on the campaign trail, and it's one that he believes is a priority.
Major.
Q So to follow up on Jonathan, cap and trade, that legislation that died in the Senate in 2010 — is that the beginning point for the President?
MR. CARNEY: I think I said that the President has long supported congressional action, but he recognizes that —
Q But a lot has happened —
MR. CARNEY: — there is bipartisan opposition to legislative action, as there was in the first term.
Q — something new needs to be drafted?
MR. CARNEY: I'm not going to speculate for you about future actions. The President made clear that he believes it's a priority. He has a record already of historic accomplishments in this area, but more needs to be done. And he looks forward to building on the progress that was achieved.
Q But I'm just trying to figure out how his prioritization translates into new legislative action.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have any announcements to make about next steps on that issue. But you can be sure, as he made clear yesterday, that it is an important priority that we need to work on together for the sake of the economy. And he looks forward to doing that.
Q You said the President would not stand in the way if a piece of legislation similar to what is being voted on in the House tomorrow passes. That means he would sign it?
MR. CARNEY: It means he wouldn’t stand in the way. Clearly, we support extension of the debt ceiling without drama or delay. That has been his position forever — as President and since we've had these rather novel debates about whether or not we should engage in games of chicken over the full faith and credit of the United States.
He believes that we ought to do this for longer periods of time. He believes that if it's too onerous for Congress — Republicans in Congress to deal with this responsibility that they can turn it over to him. He'll take the heat for making sure that we pay our bills, because it's the responsible and right thing to do. So if that were what transpires after this next round if Congress produces something, he would welcome that.
But again, we cannot forget — and I think — I'm sure you talked about, if not wrote about it — the major step that seems to have been taken by Republicans in acknowledging that using the debt ceiling for leverage did no one any good. The President wasn't going to negotiate over this. The threat of default alone was already causing harm to the economy and concern to business. And we certainly welcome what appears to be a decision by many Republicans to not pursue that strategy.
Q Is the President comfortable with what appears to be a coincidental convergence of the sequester and the continuing resolution, and if this is passed and signed, a debt ceiling conversation all coming together roughly later on this spring?
MR. CARNEY: The President will not negotiate over Congress' responsibility to pay the bills that Congress has already incurred. That is true today. It will be true in three months. It will be true for as long as he is President.
He has always indicated his interest in and desire to work with, engage with, and negotiate with Congress over how we continue to reduce our deficit in a responsible balanced way, and he will do that.
But I take, and the President takes some of the statements by Republican leaders and important and prominent Republicans about the absolute folly of pursuing a strategy that ties raising the debt ceiling to demands on spending cuts, the fact that it is folly — we take heart in that because we believe it's good for the economy to cease that practice. We're not going to engage in it any more in three months than we were going to engage in it now. But we will work with Congress on moving forward with balanced deficit reduction because it's important.
Q Following up on the other questions — do you reject some of the characterizations of the speech as different in tone, different in substance from what the President has said before? There are those who are describing it as a “more forceful and more confident embrace of the President's underlying liberal approaches to politics.” Many described his speech that way. You would reject that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would say that it was forceful. I would say that it was confident. And it was confident not in the sense of self-confidence, but confident about the potential that America has at this moment if we seize the moment and work together.
I would reject the idea that this was an “ism” speech. This was in fact the opposite of that. And that’s why it is tied I think very clearly to the speech that the President, then Senate candidate, gave in 2004 in Boston, and is linked to so many other major addresses that he’s given, which is he focuses on the fact that we are Americans first.
And I hardly think that pursuit of equal rights, pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, pursuit of sensible policies that deal with climate change and enhance our energy independence are ideological. The only “ism” that was a part of that speech was his rejection of absolutism. But you can be sure it was confident and it was forceful because he believes we have to act. We have to come together and act. We have responsibilities that we need to act on.
Q Not on behalf of liberalism or progressivism?
MR. CARNEY: Of course not. It’s on behalf of ideas that represent who we are as Americans. I mean, if you’re suggesting that it’s — I would reject the idea that pursuit of equal rights is a Democratic-only pursuit. Or pursuit of energy legislation that enhances our independence, increases our production of domestic forms of energy and addresses climate change is only a province of liberalism or the Democratic Party. I think — I would hope — I know that Republicans would reject that, too.
So this is his vision for how we can move together forward. And one of the things he made clear is we can’t expect to resolve all our differences before we act because those differences that we’ve had for generations about the role of government and the balance between what we do to assist our citizens — senior citizens and others, versus what we collect in revenue — those debates will continue and we can have them, but we should not allow them to become an excuse for inaction.
Q Jay, when you told John, don’t break up the speech into pieces, the White House itself was breaking it up into pieces. Yesterday afternoon I got an e-mail about gay rights — here’s what the President said on that issue, here’s a link to it, he’s moving forward on this. You did that with specific issues. So my question is you broke up the speech into pieces, told your supporters, hey, he’s pushing on these things, but now it sounds like today you’re saying on climate change you don’t have anything specific.
MR. CARNEY: Wait, Ed, first of all —
Q What are you going to do?
MR. CARNEY: The President will build on, when it comes to climate change, the progress that was achieved in his first term. And he looks forward to doing that on behalf of the economy, on behalf of the environment. He will build on the progress that was made in achieving equality for LGBT Americans. And, again, that is not a proposition that should be — that he believes will be embraced only by one political party or faction of the country, because there is a link here between the March on Washington and Seneca Falls and Stonewall. I mean, these are — the pursuit of equal rights is one that Democrats and Republicans have worked on together.
Q But Major said cap and trade, and you said, well, he wants legislation. You didn’t say — so he does still support cap and trade, or no?
MR. CARNEY: Yes. But we — he put forward and worked on legislation that did not succeed in Congress because of the opposition that exists there. And we are mindful of the fact that opposition exists there. But that doesn't mean — going back to the sort of overall premise of his speech — that we can't or shouldn't continue to make progress to deal with what is an important issue and a priority of his.
Q And when you said the speech is confident, he wants action — so then, why when he talked about entitlements did he only say essentially we need to protect these programs and make sure they're there? Where was the call for sacrifice?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think the call for sacrifice has been evident in the proposals the President has put forward on how we achieve deficit reduction in a balanced way, in a way that represents real compromise. And he made clear it is important to continue to reduce our deficit. And I think anybody who has been in this room for the past couple of years knows that this is an issue that has enjoyed the focus of the President's attention quite a bit and will continue to.
But it is not the only priority that he has. We need to, we must, because of the challenges we face, act on a series of priorities. And he will continue to work with Congress to achieve balanced deficit reduction in a way that ensures that we don't ask seniors and families with disabled children, or families struggling to send their kids to college to bear all the burden, but that we do this together.
And that's been the approach he's taken. That was the approach that he insisted on that led to significant achievement at the end of the year — or the beginning of this year with the fiscal cliff deal that ensured that millionaires and billionaires will be again paying income tax rates at the level that they paid under Bill Clinton. And we need to move forward and continue to do this in a balanced way.
Q Last thing — a counterterrorism playbook. I think The Washington Post reported over the weekend the administration is working on rules for counterterrorism moving forward in the days ahead. I understand obviously pieces of that may be of a classified nature that you can't talk about. But generally speaking, can you give us an update on where's the administration on kind of rewriting this playbook? And specifically, there's an allegation out there that you're going to give drone strikes a pass. Can you comment?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'm not going to comment. I will point you to statements that John Brennan and others have made about this. And the President's overall approach is that we need to do everything we can to keep Americans and America safe, as well as our allies, and we need to do it in ways that are consistent with our values and our laws. And that is certainly the approach that he has taken and will continue to take.
Q Is this coming out soon, in days, weeks?
MR. CARNEY: I'm not aware there’s a playbook that we're going to publish. But I would have to point you again to statements by John Brennan and others.
Q Jay, also yesterday during his inaugural address, the President said “our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.” In the past, the President has said that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be worked out at the state level. Does this suggest that he now believes it's something that should be worked out at the federal level?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President's position on this has been clear in terms of his personal views. And he believes that individuals who love each other should not be barred from marriage. And he talks about this in a — not about religious sacraments, but civil marriage. And that continues to inform his beliefs.
We have taken positions on various efforts to restrict the rights of Americans, which he generally thinks is a bad idea. And you know his position on Section 3 of DOMA. But the overall principle that we should not discriminate or treat differently LGBT Americans is one he believes in deeply.
Q But is it something that should be litigated at the federal level?
MR. CARNEY: Well, one of the reasons why we believe that DOMA, the Section 3 of DOMA is not constitutional is because we should not be addressing it in that way.
Q And what about Proposition 8? Will he now begin to actively oppose Proposition 8, which the Supreme Court is set to —
MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, the administration is not party to that case. And I have nothing more for you on it. We have, as you know, through the Department of Justice taken an active role in DOMA cases, which is why I can tell you the things I've told you about that. But on the Section 8 case, we're not involved.
Q And, Jay, just on Algeria — the Britons and other nations have criticized Algeria's response, calling it “harsh,” “hasty.” Does the President share that view? Does he believe that lives could have been saved if this was handled differently?
MR. CARNEY: Well, first, I'd like to say that the President extends his deepest condolences to the families of Victor Lovelady, Gordon Rowan, and Frederick Buttaccio, and all of those who were killed and injured in the terrorist attack in Algeria.
The blame for this tragedy rests with the terrorists who carried it out. And the United States condemns their actions in the strongest possible terms. This attack is another reminder of the threat posed by al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups in North Africa. We will remain vigilant against that threat, and we'll continue to work closely with all of our partners in the region to combat it. We will remain in close touch with the government of Algeria to gain a fuller understanding of what took place, so that we can work together to prevent tragedies like this in the future.
But let's be clear in terms of the specific question that you had. The blame for this tragedy rests with the terrorists who carried it out, and the United States condemns those actions in the strongest possible terms.
The Algerians have said, as you know, that these attackers intended to kill all of the hostages and blow up the facility. Now, obviously, that outcome would have made the situation even more tragic. But we are in touch with, as we have been — we'll continue to be in touch with the government of Algeria to gain a fuller picture of what happened. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that the blame for this lies with the terrorists.
Q Jay, the President talked yesterday about the drought and fires and severe storms. And I wondered, does he think that's changing the political climate in a way that creates an opening for legislative action maybe now that wasn't there a few years ago? Or is he really just putting his eggs in the administrative action basket?
MR. CARNEY: I'm not going to go — I appreciate the interest in this issue, one that the President shares. But I'm not going to preview or speculate about actions beyond what I've said already. The President made clear that climate change is real. That is certainly a conviction held by most Americans, and certainly backed up by the vast majority of the science.
No specific storm or weather event can be tied to climate change, but the fact is we have seen more severe storms. We have seen more severe weather events, droughts, and fires. And as we are experiencing — or certainly, the people of New Jersey and New York especially are experiencing — the impacts of those storms are devastating. The impacts of those events can be devastating. And it's all the more reason for us to act together.
Scott.
Q Thanks, Jay. I'm having a hard time thinking about the counterterrorism strategy, particularly with drone strikes and the President's comments yesterday about, “We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.” At a time when troops are coming home from Afghanistan, drone strike are intensifying, which feels like that is leading — is there an end to that, in other words, or is that — does he not see a drone strike as an act of war?
MR. CARNEY: Well, the President will continue to pursue a strategy that protects the country, protects the American people, protects our men and women overseas, and do so in a way that is consistent with our values. There is no question that after more than a decade of war, we are entering a new phase, we are entering a new time in our effort to combat al Qaeda and its affiliates and like-minded extremists who threaten the United States, threaten our allies.
But the President is very clear-eyed and understanding of the fact that that threat remains. Even as we have done great damage to al Qaeda central, to the core al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are dealing with al Qaeda affiliates in different parts of the region and the world, and we will continue to have to deal with them, working with our partners to make sure that those threats are contained and that we continue the President's overarching goal, when it comes to al Qaeda, which is its disruption, dismantlement, and ultimate defeat.
He's made great progress, the administration has made great progress, thanks to the remarkable work of our armed services, the remarkable work of our intelligence services. But that effort is not done, and we cannot be anything but vigilant in pursuit of that effort.
Q One other. Israelis vote today, and it looks like the government that will emerge — some of the key components of the coalition will be opposed to any talks with Palestinians, any talks — the idea of the two-state solution. What's the administration's strategy to engage a government like that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, we don't want to get ahead of election results. Israel is a vibrant democracy, and we look forward to learning the results of that election when they are available. And we have to wait and see the make-up of the next Israeli government, and how it approaches long-standing critical issues, including the one that you talked about.
The United States remains committed, as it has been for a long time, to working with the parties to press for the goal of a two-state solution. That has not changed and it will not change. We will continue to make clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis address all the permanent status issues that need to be addressed, and achieve the peace that they both deserve: two states for two peoples with a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine, living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.
We also continue to believe that unilateral action by either side does not help the cause of reaching a peace agreement. And we have made that clear to both sides, whether it's settlement activity or unilateral actions at the United Nations. We make our view very clear.
Q In long-term planning on this issue, which the President has cared about in the first term, do you think about the possibility that in this term, that framework that began in the early '90s may collapse, and how to manage it?
MR. CARNEY: This is a challenge and always has been for U.S. Presidents and administrations, and for everyone in the world, each country that has been engaged in this process in trying to help bring about a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If it were easy, obviously it would have been achieved. And this President is committed to continuing to work with both parties, continuing to encourage both parties to engage in direct negotiations, to help bring about resolution of the permanent status issues that can allow for the outcome that I just described.
But there is no question that it's hard work, and for that reason alone I would refrain from predicting success over the next four years. I think we will simply continue to work on it.
Jared.
Q Jay, yesterday, how was the President — how and when was the President briefed on the Algerian hostage situation?
MR. CARNEY: He was updated on it throughout the last several days. I don’t have a specific mode of how he was updated on it by his national security team, but he has been very on top of it.
Q But during the inauguration ceremonies or if anything, was he ever pulled aside?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have anything specific on that for you. As you know, wherever he goes he travels with a national security official. He's obviously in constant communication with his national security team on matters like this and other matters. And he was regularly updated on the situation.
Q So there wasn't any particular moment yesterday where he was told Americans had died?
MR. CARNEY: Again, not that I have — I don’t have that level of specificity for you. But you can be sure that he was updated regularly on the events, as he has been and had been over the previous several days going into late last week, and updated on both what we knew and on various reports that were conflicting. And this was a process that played out over a number of days and obviously ended in a tragic result, and he was updated all along.
Q Jay, related to the other question about Israel, I know you're not going to read out any travel plans at this point, but can you talk about the priorities for the President in terms of international travel as he begins his second term? For example, would a visit to Israel and Palestinian territories be in that list? A visit to Moscow for talks with Putin, et cetera?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any scheduling plans to announce or priorities to put forward. The President will continue to travel, as he did during his first term, continuing to pursue the development and deepening of our important multilateral and bilateral relationships around the world. He will participate in various summits and conferences as he has in his first term, but I don’t have any specific travel announcements to make.
I think Reid, yes.
Q Following up on Kristen's question earlier, does the President believe that gay marriage should be a state issue or a federal issue?
MR. CARNEY: I think I addressed that. The President believes that it's an issue that should be addressed by the states. As you know, and I can make it clear, that the President's personal view is that it's wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from doing so. The values that the President cares most deeply about are how we treat one another and respect one another.
For him, it just boils down to treating others the way that we would want to be treated ourselves. And the President has made it absolutely clear that his views are about civil marriage, as I said, not religious sacraments.
Victoria, and then — well, Victoria, and then we'll see. Maybe Cheryl.
Q Jay, how confident are you that U.S. intelligence isn't lagging behind events on the ground in Algeria with the recent siege and in Mali with the coup by U.S.-trained junior officers — and in other countries in that region?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would simply say that we have confidence in our intelligence community. I would note that the siege in Algeria was of a private British petroleum facility. It was not a government facility, a U.S. facility. And we are working with France and support their effort in Mali, and believe that the goal of preventing terrorists a safe haven is an important one as we’ve talked about.
Yes, in the back, in the purple shirt. Identify yourself.
Q Jeffrey Cunningham, Saudi Press.
MR. CARNEY: Nice to see you.
Q Nice to see you, too. Thank you. In the second term, does the President plan on addressing his first campaign promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay?
MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, the President remains committed to that. He agrees with military leaders as well as his immediate predecessor that we ought to do that. There are obviously obstacles in Congress to that, but we will continue to work towards that goal because he believes it’s in the best interests of our national security.
Q Thanks, Jay.
MR. CARNEY: I did say Cheryl.
Q Thanks. Jay, on Friday on your debt limit statement, you urged Congress to pass a clean debt limit increase. Did you have a specific concern that you used that language? And also, do you think that the Senate should be required to pass a budget?
MR. CARNEY: I believe the Senate leaders — Democratic leaders have addressed this question and have said that they intend to move forward with a budget. Having said that, I would note, as I have in the past, that anyone who believes that the stalemates and confrontations we’ve had over fiscal and budget policy over the last couple of years have been because of the Senate action on the budget I think misunderstand the situation.
The President has been very clear about his budget priorities. He has put forward specific and detailed budgets. He has engaged with Republican leaders to try to achieve bipartisan compromise resolutions that reduce our deficit in a balanced and fair way, and he will continue to do that. So I would point you to what the Senate said — Senate leaders have said about their intentions.
In terms of clean, we simply — I think that reiterates the point that we’ve been making all along that we won’t negotiate — we won’t allow the American economy, the American people be held hostage over whether or not the Congress is going to — in this case, the Republicans are going to allow the debt ceiling to be raised because it’s incredibly damaging.
And you can't — again, I think we’ve hopefully crossed this bridge, at least for now, which is a welcomed thing, and I think welcomed by the business community; welcomed by middle-class Americans, regular folks; welcomed by the global economy and the markets. And that can only be to the good.
Thanks, all.
END
12:27 P.M. EST
Memo To The GOP: Study DLC Demise Closely
By capblack
Denounced by liberal icon Jesse Jackson as the “suburban wing of the Democratic Party, ” the Democratic Leadership Council ( DLC ) was created in 1985 to (shhh!) woo White voters away from Republicans.
Its enviable zenith was electing Bill Clinton twice to the White House by offering Whites moderate policies while drawing majority shares of a stalemated liberal Black base.
The rise of President Obama seems to have ended its relevance. It officially closed its doors in 2011 and offers a GOP scrambling for diversity a valuable case study.
Republican reformers claim that the party needs more non-Whites in order to be competitive. The DLC won on the opposite premise.
Their centrist appeal aimed at White independents and conservative Reagan Democrats who were painting states red alongside straight-ticket Republican voters.
I’m curious to see how far Republicans will go to make their brand of conservatism appealing to hardcore liberal constituencies like American Blacks and, as of the last election, Latinos.
Appealing to the super-energized Ron Paul Republican libertarian youth movement seems a better bet. While cosmetics are nice, at day’s end, White Republicans and liberal American Blacks have found few reasons to unite.
American Blacks are individually choosing to be Republicans based upon shared values. This centrist and conservative demographic stands in stark contrast to Democrat peers who want more government in our lives.
That’s not a dynamic that even the much vaunted Heritage Foundation nor the RNC can alter. American Blacks must weigh liberal policy and conclude ourselves that it’s worthless.
I could be wrong, and a hitherto unseen army of new Jack Kemps could cheerfully march across America re-connecting the moribund GOP/Black alliance.
That would be a very welcome development- but unlikely. Latinos will likely be the outreach target given their more recent record of voting Republican for George W. Bush.
While not holding my breath for that day, nor for large numbers of American Blacks kissing liberalism goodbye, I do suggest that GOP planners study the demise of the centrist Democrat Leadership Council closely.
There are game-changing lessons waiting to be learned.
Cap Black, The Hood Conservative
504 214-3082
Donate/Stop Socialist Hate!
http://www.gofundme.com/197xk8
” Be your OWN Superhero!”
Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)
Italy's 3-year borrowing rate lowest since 2010
Italy has easily raised €3.5 billion ($4.64 billion) in the sale of 3-year bonds, paying the lowest interest rates for such debt since March 2010, as investors shrug off political uncertainty ahead of elections.
The borrowing rate dropped to 1.85 percent, from 2.05 percent at the last such auction last month. Demand was 1.45 times the offer.
Michael Hewson, senior analyst at CMC Markets, says the rates are dropping despite uncertainty over elections next month because investors see “diminishing risks of a potential euro break-up. “
The election is a race between centrist forces backing caretaker Premier Mario Monti, former Premier Silvio Berlusconi‘s center-right alliance with the Northern League and the center-left Democratic Party led by Pier Luigi Bersani. Bersani leads in the polls and has pledged to continue reforms.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News
Beset by risks, Japan seeks boost from stimulus
A 20 trillion yen ($224 billion) stimulus package announced Friday by Japan‘s newly installed prime minister Shinzo Abe will likely give the recession-struck economy a quick boost, but at the risk of adding to the country’s gargantuan debt without fostering sustainable, long-term growth.
The “Abenomics” strategy of “ultra” monetary easing and hefty government spending is bound to give the sagging economy a lift in coming months, perhaps even before a July election for the upper house of parliament that is viewed as a key test for the ruling Liberal Democrats.
“For the short-term, this makes a lot of sense,” said Masayuki Kichikawa, an economist with Bank of America-Merrill Lynch in Tokyo. Abe “needs to stimulate the economy to win the upper house election.”
A strong economic recovery has eluded Japan for more than 20 years since the bursting of its financial bubble in the early 1990s, and previous governments have faced criticism for failing to move aggressively enough to foster growth. The rapid aging of the population, a shrinking workforce, the global crisis, natural disasters and a weakening of Japan‘s industrial competitiveness have hindered efforts to get growth back on track.
But the stimulus will add to Japan‘s massive public debt and could fuel wasteful spending on unneeded construction projects.
“The size is huge, incredible,” said Masamichi Adachi, an economist with JP Morgan Securities in Tokyo. The extra spending, which will be the basis for a supplementary budget for the remainder of the fiscal year that ends March 31, will make Japan‘s fiscal situation “very challenging,” he said.
At a news conference, Abe said the measures are intended to spur a 2 percentage point rise in real economic growth and create some 600,000 jobs.
“We will break away from the chronically shrinking economy and aim to create an economy that can produce innovation and new demand that subsequently expand jobs and income,” Abe said. “To regain a strong economy, we need bold monetary policy and flexible fiscal policy.”
Japan‘s government debt is more than 200 percent of its gross domestic product, the worst among the industrialized nations, though the country’s massive savings and the fact that most debt is held domestically has prevented any serious trouble in its debt markets, so far.
With luck, the policy could help get the economy back on track for the short-term, Adachi said, especially if recoveries in the U.S. and China and a weakening of the Japanese yen against the U.S. dollar provide extra help.
But the impact in the medium and longer-term remains to be seen.
Japan‘s economy fell back into recession last fall as growth dragged due to weakening investment and the blow to exports from weak demand in Europe and China. Sales of Japanese cars and other products in China were hammered by anti-Japanese riots set off by a territorial dispute that has yet to be resolved.
Abe, who is serving his second term as prime minister and whose record in his Sept. 2006 to Sept. 2007 first term was undistinguished, has declared the economy his top priority.
The 20 trillion yen stimulus package includes 10.3 trillion yen ($117 billion) in central government spending, about half of which will go to public works.
At a news conference Friday, Abe denied that his party was relying on time-worn spending strategies that fostered corruption and waste during the Liberal Democrats‘ more than half-century in power after World War II.
“That’s not true,” he said. “Let me make it clear that this is not a pork-barrel package.”
A key aim is to promote reconstruction in northeastern coastal regions devastated by the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters. The government is also stepping up work on repairing and upgrading aging ports, tunnels, roads and other infrastructure — a priority that gained urgency following the collapse of a highway tunnel outside Tokyo in early December that killed nine people.
Among the dozens of other projects approved by the Cabinet on Friday are measures and equipment to step up police and coastal patrols, improved safety precautions at nuclear power plants, facilities related to police, traffic safety and aging military-related buildings.
The package will support research into cutting edge technology and medicine, rare-earth recycling and undersea minerals and resources.
It also includes funding for Japanese enterprises investing overseas and tourism promotion.
In his campaign for the Dec. 16 parliamentary election that returned the Liberal Democrats to power after three-and-a-half years in the opposition, Abe stressed his determination to rebuild Japan as a “monozukuri,” or manufacturing, nation and to ensure all Japanese can live secure lives.
In laying out his strategy on national television Friday, Abe accused the previous government, led by the Democratic Party of Japan, of “utterly failing” to figure out how to expand the economic pie.
Many in Japan believe that long-term growth will hinge on fundamental reforms of the government‘s powerful bureaucracy, politics and educational system.
In picking key industries, such as renewable energy, for support Abe’s administration is taking a strongly interventionist approach. Abe also has insisted that the Bank of Japan commit itself to an inflation target of about 2 percent and that it adjust its asset purchasing and other policies to allow for even more monetary easing after years of near-zero interest rates.
“Abenomics is big government, direct intervention,” said Kichikawa. While that approach could end up protecting inefficient industries, it also could be used to complement new private sector initiatives, for example supporting investments in costly renewable energy development.
“We need to see how the Abe administration will conduct this ‘new’ strategy,” he said. “Let’s see what the ‘new’ means.”
___
Associated Press writers Malcolm Foster and Mari Yamaguchi contributed to this story.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News
Indonesia convicts former beauty queen of graft
An Indonesian court has convicted a former beauty queen-turned-ruling party politician of graft and sentenced her to 4 1/2 years in jail.
The guilty verdict Thursday against Angelina Sondakh is the latest blow to the Democratic Party of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, whose second and final term in office is ending next year amid widespread disappointment at his efforts to clean up endemic corruption.
Sondakh was convicted of accepting kickbacks of $3.6 million from a company commissioned to build accommodation for athletes for the 2011 Southeast Asian Games. A former sports minister, another Yudhoyono party member, is awaiting trial on charges related to the scam.
Sondakh, who won Miss Indonesia in 2001, has denied any wrongdoing. She said she was considering appealing the court’s decision.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News
US troop plan in Afghanistan follows Iraq playbook
It’s the same debate, the same numbers and practically the same plan, but the White House is working harder to keep troops in Afghanistan than it did in similar but failed discussions in Iraq in 2011.
Security remains shaky in both war zones, but current and former U.S. officials say the Obama administration cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan after a dozen years of fighting and an ongoing threat by al-Qaida and its extremist Taliban allies. Defeating al-Qaida and bolstering Afghan forces to prevent the terror network’s return there has been a top priority for President Barack Obama since he took office, while ending the war in Iraq was the fulfillment of a campaign promise.
“We’ve made a lot of progress against al-Qaida, but the job is not done,” Doug Lute, the top White House military adviser on Afghanistan, told reporters this week. “The Afghan National Security Forces are a work in progress.”
The U.S. has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of about 100,000 as recently as 2010. Just how many troops might remain is at the heart of widespread discussion in Washington, where Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai meets with Obama on Friday.
As initially in Iraq, U.S. officials are considering keeping between 3,000 and 15,000 American troops in Afghanistan after 2014. That would not happen, however, if U.S. troops are denied legal immunity from prosecution in Afghanistan — which ultimately is what ended the same negotiations in Iraq.
“We’ve seen this movie so many times,” said Sen. John McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who remains troubled over the Iraq withdrawal. In an interview Wednesday, he urged the White House to keep more than a few thousand troops in Afghanistan “to make a difference and not just become targets for attacks by a resurgent Taliban.”
A Pentagon report to Congress in December concluded that only one of 23 Afghan National Army battalions was judged to be capable of operating in the field on its own — and even then needed international security advisers.
Afghanistan was dubbed “Obama‘s war” after the president surged troops there in 2009 to chase out extremist militants and eliminate their ability to return. By contrast, Obama as a candidate for president had called Iraq a “dumb war” and made ending it a campaign pledge.
However, the Obama administration negotiated with Baghdad throughout 2011 to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as a sort of insurance policy to block Iran from meddling in Iraq‘s Shiite-led government and, in turn, re-ignite the country’s Sunni insurgency. Ultimately, Iraq‘s parliament refused to renew an agreement to give legal immunity to thousands of American forces, and the U.S. military left at the end of that year as required under a deadline set in 2008 by the administration of President George W. Bush.
Former Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, a career U.S. diplomat who oversaw the administration’s failed negotiations in Baghdad in 2011, said “of course” Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq and is trying now to keep them in Afghanistan.
“The numbers are eerily familiar and the missions are eerily familiar,” said Jeffrey, who retired last year from the State Department. “I see him carrying out the same plan in Afghanistan that he tried to carry out in Iraq.”
Jeffrey added: “But this isn’t a war that Obama and the Democratic Party hate, and we haven’t achieved a military victory there. Once you commit these troops to the ground, you are stuck until you get a military victory. We more or less won the ground war in Iraq; we have not won the ground war in Afghanistan.”
A U.S. official in Baghdad, however, recently described a new low in escalating political tensions in Iraq that have prompted violence and protests. Baghdad political analyst Wathiq al-Hasehmi said in an interview this week that the U.S. troop withdrawal was “the biggest mistake ever made by the Americans.”
In a conference call this week with reporters to preview Karzai’s visit, Lute and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the White House would consider withdrawing all American forces from Afghanistan at the end of 2014 — again following the Iraq model — if they are no longer needed or are not given legal immunities. White House officials also are quick to point to the costs of deploying forces — at least an estimated $1 million per soldier each year in Afghanistan — against competing security concerns elsewhere in the world.
However, that may be a White House negotiating gambit to spook Karzai, who has irritated Washington by accusing U.S. troops of being “occupiers” in Afghanistan when American-led offensives have resulted in civilian deaths. But Karzai also has said he wants the U.S. to continue training and equipping Afghanistan‘s army and air force, and help protect its people and regional interests.
At the same time, Karzai wants U.S. forces to stay out of urban areas and villages — raising the question of what mission troops would undertake if they remain. Similarly, American troops stopped securing Iraqi cities in 2009, and morphed into a training-only mission in 2010. By 2011, most soldiers rarely left their secured bases and openly questioned why they were there. Just under 200 active-duty troops are currently in Baghdad, all with diplomatic immunity, to help the U.S. Embassy deliver weapons and equipment to Iraqi security forces.
Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, the vice chair of the House Senate Armed Service Committee, said the White House might as well withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan next year if it decides to strap the military’s mission by only keeping a few thousand there.
“It’s nearly worse to leave with too small a presence that endangers our people, than to get everybody out,” Thornberry said Wednesday. “If people know you’re not serious about staying there, and standing up for them, then they’ve got to cut deals because the bad guys are staying.
“I worry about the Iraq precedent,” he said, “because we left too soon and we are feeling some of the consequences, and I am afraid we’ll feel more.”
___
Associated Press writers Robert Burns in Washington and Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad contributed to this report.
Follow Lara Jakes on Twitter at https://twitter.com/larajakesAP
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
Italy's confused election gets another twist
Italy’s already chaotic election campaign has gotten a new twist with another big personality taking part: The country’s respected national anti-Mafia prosecutor has joined ranks with the center-left Democratic Party, a big win for a party already ahead in the polls before February elections.
Prosecutor Pietro Grasso choked up as he recounted how his hand trembled a few days ago when he signed a letter asking to end his 43-year career fighting the mob. He explained his “radical” decision to run for an as yet unknown office as wanting to leave a better country for his grandson.
Ex-Premier Silvio Berlusconi was also on front pages. Corriere della Sera revealed his divorce settlement with his second wife was €3 million a month, though he gets to keep the house.
Source: Fox World News
Italy's borrowing costs rise ahead of elections
Italy‘s borrowing costs rose slightly Thursday in an auction of six-month bonds held in the wake of Premier Mario Monti‘s resignation and uncertainty about his participation in the campaign for February’s elections.
The Italian Treasury sold the €8.5 billion ($11.24 billion) in paper Thursday, but the interest rate charged on the bond was 0.949 percent, up from 0.919 percent in November’s auction. Demand was 1.57 times the amount on offer.
Italy‘s borrowing costs have fallen over the past year thanks to a combination of the reforms introduced by Monti’s technical government and the European Central Bank‘s offer to buy up bonds in countries struggling with their debts. However, Monti resigned last week after Silvio Berlusconi‘s party yanked support for his technical government. He remains on in a caretaker role.
In his end-of-year press conference, Monti excluded running for office but said he would consider leading the next government if politicians who back his reform agenda request it. In the days since, he has published a detailed, 25-page political platform and urged like-minded politicians to back it. He sent his first tweet boasting of having saved Italy “from disaster” and calling for politics to be renewed.
All of which has led to widespread speculation that it’s just a matter of time before he becomes an official candidate, in one form or another. Italian newspapers on Thursday were full of speculation about Monti’s behind-the-scenes jockeying, whether he’ll head a ticket of likeminded politicians, his role in selecting other candidates to run, possible alliances and feuds that will be formed in the next two months.
“No one understands if he’ll remain neutral, if he’ll head a Monti ticket linked to other like-minded tickets, or if he will lead a single ticket that absorbs all the centrist parties,” analyst Luca Ricolfi wrote in Thursday’s La Stampa, adding that it is unlikely that Monti himself has decided on what course to take.
The center-left Democratic Party is ahead in the polls with about 30 percent of the vote, and is eager to see Monti fade from the political scene for fear that he will take away votes. Berlusconi’s People of Liberty party trails in the polls and is even more openly hostile to Monti’s jockeying after the he spurned Berlusconi’s offer to lead a center-right ticket.
The Democratic Party got a boost Thursday with the decision by the country’s respected anti-mafia prosecutor, Pietro Grasso, to run for office under the party ticket. The ANSA news agency said Grasso would make the announcement official at a press conference Friday with the center-left’s candidate for premier, Pierluigi Bersani.
Berlusconi, meanwhile, has been on TV over the past few days, promising that if elected he would remove the property tax on primary residences that Monti re-imposed as part of his austerity measures. Berlusconi had cut the unpopular tax soon after taking office in 2008, at the start of his third stint as premier.
Monti has defended the tax as both necessary and reasonable, given that most industrialized countries impose such a tax on homeowners’ primary residence.
Source: Fox World News
Hawaii Gov. Picks Brian Schatz to Fill Inouye's Seat
By Neal Colgrass
Source: Newser – Home
Shinzo Abe elected as Japan's prime minister
The lower house of Parliament has named conservative Shinzo Abe (shin-zoh ah-bay) as Japan‘s new prime minister.
The rise of Abe, whose nationalist positions have in the past angered Japan‘s neighbors, ends more than three years at the helm for the left-leaning Democratic Party of Japan and brings back the conservative, pro-big business Liberal Democratic Party that governed for most of the post-World War II era.
Abe, who was also prime minister in 2006-2007, led the LDP to victory in parliamentary elections Dec. 16. He was to name his Cabinet later Wednesday after a vote in Parliament’s upper house, where his party is weaker. But the lower house has the final say.
Source: Fox World News
Japan elects conservative Shinzo Abe as new prime minister
Japan‘s parliament elected Shinzo Abe as the nation’s prime minister on Wednesday, ending three years of rule by liberal administrations and bringing back to power the conservative, pro-big business party that has run Japan for most of the post-World War II era.
Abe, whose nationalist positions have in the past angered Japan‘s neighbors, is the country’s seventh prime minister in just over six years. He has promised to restore growth to an economy that has been struggling for 20 years.
He led the Liberal Democratic Party to victory in nationwide elections Dec. 16 to cement his second term as Japan‘s leader. He was also prime minister in 2006-2007 before resigning for health reasons that he says are no longer an issue.
He won elections in both houses of Parliament, though in the less powerful upper house, where his party is weaker, he finished second in the first round and needed a runoff to win. He was to name his Cabinet later Wednesday.
Capitalizing on voter discontent with the left-leaning Democratic Party of Japan, Abe has vowed to shore up the economy, deal with a swelling national debt and come up with a recovery plan following last year’s devastating earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crises.
Abe has also stressed his desire to make Japan a bigger player on the world stage, a stance that has resonated with many voters who are concerned that their nation is taking a back seat economically and diplomatically to China. Abe has vowed to stand up to Beijing over an ongoing territorial dispute and strengthen Tokyo‘s security alliance with Washington.
“I feel as fresh as the clear sky today,” he told reporters before the vote, adding that he wanted to get right to work.
He has already named a roster of top party executives that includes two women — more than previous LDP administrations — and is younger than earlier ones, with three of the four in their 50s.
Abe was expected to give the finance portfolio to another former prime minister, Taro Aso. The new foreign minister likely will be Fumio Kishida, an expert on the southern island of Okinawa, where residents are calling for the removal of nearly 20,000 US troops based there. The defense minister was expected to be Itsunori Onodera, who was in Abe’s previous administration.
The LDP governed Japan for decades after it was founded in 1955. Before it was ousted in 2009, the LDP was hobbled by scandals and problems getting key legislation through a divided parliament.
This time around, Abe has promised to make the economy his top priority and is expected to push for a 2 percent inflation target designed to fight a problem that was until recently relatively unique in the world — deflation. Continually dropping prices deaden economic activity, and the Japanese economy has been stuck in deflation for two decades.
Besides generous promises to boost public works spending — by as much as 10 trillion yen ($119 billion), according to party officials — Abe is pressuring the central bank to work more closely with the government to reach the inflation target.
He has acknowledged, however, that the road ahead for Japan will be bumpy.
“Our party leadership will undoubtedly have to deal with many issues,” he said Tuesday.
Source: Fox World News
Monti weighs running as Italy sets stage for vote
Italy‘s president is meeting with political leaders to set the stage for general elections early next year as Premier Mario Monti weighs whether to run for office after having handed in his resignation.
Monti, appointed 13 months ago to steer Italy away from a Greek-style debt crisis, stepped down Friday after ex-Premier Silvio Berlusconi‘s party yanked its support for his technical government.
His resignation sets the stage for President Giorgio Napolitano to dissolve parliament and set a date for elections, expected in February, after consulting Saturday with leaders of Italy‘s political parties. More eagerly anticipated though is Monti’s decision, expected Sunday, as to whether he will run.
Small centrist parties have been courting Monti, but Italian newspapers said Saturday he was inclined to refuse. The center-left Democratic Party is expected to win.
Source: Fox World News
Berlusconi pushes for vote delay, saying party needs more time to prepare
Silvio Berlusconi and fellow leaders of his splintering conservative party on Tuesday pressed for a delay in Italy‘s national elections, now widely expected for mid-February, arguing they need more time to prepare for the campaign.
The scandal-scarred former three-time premier, who is considering running for the post again, said on a state TV talk show that the “rush toward elections” is “useless,” and that party leaders need more time to draw up lists of candidates for Parliament.
Italy‘s President Giorgio Napolitano is expected to dissolve the legislature as soon as it passes the government‘s proposed austerity budget law. Premier Mario Monti has pledged to resign as soon as the law passes. Then Napolitano will announce an election date, which officials have indicated would likely be Feb. 17.
Monti, an economist appointed to save Italy from financial disaster and who replaced Berlusconi, hasn’t said if he will run. Since late last year, he has headed a non-elected government of technocrats.
The final vote on the budget bill was expected on Friday. But on Tuesday, one of Berlusconi’s parliamentary whips, Fabrizio Cicchitto, abruptly announced that his Freedom Party is seeking more time to study the legislation, and added that Feb. 24 would be a “more reasonable date” for the election.
Italian news reports said Berlusconi’s forces even were pushing for even a later date, in early March.
Berlusconi agreed a delay was needed.
“Yes, this rush to elections causes total hurry in drawing up candidate lists and it’s a useless forcing” of the situation, said the media mogul, who has been flip-flopping on whether he himself will try to gain back the premiership. He has claimed he won’t run if Monti does.
Berlusconi’s opponents cried foul. Dario Franceschini, Chamber of Deputies whip for the center-left Democratic Party, the conservatives’ biggest challenger, accused Berlusconi’s party leaders of “delaying” tactics on the budget bill to try to gain “just a few days” more of time to prepare for the campaign.
Opinion polls show Berlusconi’s popularity with voters sagging.
But the ex-premier claimed on the talk show that with his frequent appearances of late, after a year much on the political sidelines, that he has gained in popularity and that in an election he could head a ticket snagging as much as 40 percent of the vote. Some polls have given the center-left Democratic Party as much as 30 percent.
When asked on TV if Italians aren’t tired of him, Berlusconi replied, with an air of confidence, that “Italians will show with their vote”‘ if they are.
Some prominent leaders in Berlusconi’s party broke with his decision to withdraw support for Monti’s government earlier this month and said they would push for Monti to be premier again.
Berlusconi is currently on trial in Milan on charges he paid for sex with an underage woman and used his office when premier to try to cover it up. He denies the charges. The Italian politician has faced a host of legal woes over the past two decades. In October he was convicted of tax fraud and is appealing his sentence.
He has depicted himself as the victim of prosecutors he contends sympathize with the left.
Berlusconi raised eyebrows during his last stretch as premier by hosting “bunga bunga” evenings — supposedly racy parties featuring many young women — at his private residences. In an apparent bid at a more respectable image, the 76-year-old Berlusconi recently revealed that he now has a fiancDee, an Italian woman 48 years his junior.
Berlusconi’s wife a few years ago announced she was seeking divorce, citing his weakness for young women. They are now separated.
Asked on the talk show Tuesday night how things were going with his new girlfriend, Berlusconi quipped: “Are you jealous?” Then he added that she is a “stimulus” for commitment to work for the country.
Source: Fox World News
Italian stocks open lower over political turmoil
Italy‘s stock market has opened sharply lower over uncertainty about Italy‘s political and fiscal future following Premier Mario Monti‘s surprise decision to resign because Silvio Berlusconi yanked his party’s support. The Milan stock exchange’s benchmark FTSE MIB was trading down 3.3 percent at 15,179.98 Monday morning. Monti’s decision to resign after the 2013 budget passes means elections are expected in February. Berlusconi is running, though his People of Freedom party lags far behind the Democratic Party in the polls. Monti was tapped to lead Italy a year ago after international markets lost confidence in Berlusconi’s ability to save the country from a Greek-style debt crisis. Monti won back a degree of international credibility through a series of unpopular tax hikes and fiscal reforms. The Democrats have backed Monti’s reforms.
Source: Fox World News
Ex-GOP Gov. Crist tweets he’s joining Democrats
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has announced on Twitter that he’s joining the Democratic Party.
Source: Fox News – Politics
Indonesian sports minister resigns over corruption
Indonesia‘s sports minister resigned Friday after becoming the country’s first active cabinet member to be named as a suspect in a multimillion dollar corruption case. Youth and Sports Minister Andi Alfian Mallarangeng told a news conference in the capital, Jakarta, that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono accepted his resignation earlier Friday, the second such high-profile corruption case this week. “I believe that the allegations against me as reported by the media are not true,” said Mallarangeng, adding he would be cleared in the courts. Corruption Eradication Commission chairman Abraham Samad told a news conference earlier Friday that Mallarangeng is suspected of mismanaging the construction of a $122 million sports complex in the West Java town of Bogor. Samad said Mallarangeng, also the secretary of the board of patrons of the ruling Democratic Party, will be charged with abusing power to enrich himself or others, which carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence. On Thursday, the commission asked immigration to ban Mallarangeng and two other suspects, including his younger brother Andi Zulkarnaen Mallarangeng, from going abroad. Mallarangeng has been questioned several times about the case. The party’s treasurer, Muhammad Nazaruddin, is now serving a four-year jail term for involvement, and the trial of his deputy, Angelina Sondakh, is under way. Nazaruddin has alleged that the Mallarangeng brothers received 20 billion rupiah ($21 million). A government audit found the project was full of irregularities, which potentially caused up to 243 billion rupiah ($25 million) in losses to the state. The agency also held Mallarangeng responsible for allowing his secretary to sign the project’s procurement contract, which violates a government regulation requiring ministers to sign contracts worth than 50 billion rupiah ($52 million). Mallarangeng’s resignation comes after the commission on Tuesday detained Maj. Gen. Djoko Susilo as the main suspect in a high-profile graft case involving the procurement of driving simulators. He became the first active police general to be detained in a corruption case by the commission. The cases — which underline Indonesia‘s challenge in changing its graft-ridden image — have threatened the credibility of the party’s founder, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, whose 2009 campaign for re-election presented him as the “Mr. Clean” of Indonesian politics. Hundreds of people have been arrested for alleged corruption since Yudhoyono took office, though critics note high-ranking officials have largely been left alone. According to advocacy group Transparency International‘s corruption index, Indonesia ranks 118th out of 176 countries polled, down from 100th out of 183 the year before.
Source: Fox World News