Saturday, 25 August 2012

So, Mitt Romney, What Do You Really Believe?

So, Mitt Romney, What Do You Really Believe?:
national review mitt romney
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans.
All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it (see "Mitt Romney’s chances: The changing man"). And that is a pity, because this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?

Details, details

But competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. Would that Candidate Romney had indeed presented himself as a solid chief executive who got things done. Instead he has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. In some areas, notably social policy and foreign affairs, the result is that he is now committed to needlessly extreme or dangerous courses that he may not actually believe in but will find hard to drop; in others, especially to do with the economy, the lack of details means that some attractive-sounding headline policies prove meaningless (and possibly dangerous) on closer inspection. Behind all this sits the worrying idea of a man who does not really know his own mind. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper. The convention offers Mr Romney his best chance to say what he really believes.
There are some areas where Mr Romney has shuffled to the right unnecessarily. In America’s culture wars he has followed the Republican trend of adopting ever more socially conservative positions. He says he will appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court and back the existing federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). This goes down well with southern evangelicals, less so with independent voters: witness the furore over one (rapidly disowned) Republican’s ludicrous remarks about abortion and "legitimate rape" (see "The Todd Akin affair: Grenades and stilettos"). But the powers of the federal government are limited in this area; DOMA has not stopped a few states introducing gay marriage and many more recognising gay civil partnerships.
The damage done to a Romney presidency by his courting of the isolationist right in the primaries could prove more substantial. He has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency. Even if it is unclear what would follow from that, risking a trade war with one of America’s largest trading partners when the recovery is so sickly seems especially mindless. Some of his anti-immigration policies won’t help, either. And his attempts to lure American Jews with near-racist talk about Arabs and belligerence against Iran could ill serve the interests of his country (and, for that matter, Israel’s).
Mitt RomneyOnce again, it may be argued that this will not matter: previous presidents pandered to interest groups and embraced realpolitik in office. Besides, this election will be fought on the economy. This is where Manager Romney should be at his strongest. But he has yet to convince: sometimes, again, being needlessly extremist, more often evasive and vague.
In theory, Mr Romney has a detailed 59-point economic plan. In practice, it ignores virtually all the difficult or interesting questions (indeed, "The Romney Programme for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs" is like "Fifty Shades of Grey" without the sex). Mr Romney began by saying that he wanted to bring down the deficit; now he stresses lower tax rates. Both are admirable aims, but they could well be contradictory: so which is his primary objective? His running-mate, Paul Ryan, thinks the Republicans can lower tax rates without losing tax revenues, by closing loopholes. Again, a simpler tax system is a good idea, but no politician has yet dared to tackle the main exemptions. Unless Mr Romney specifies which boondoggles to axe, this looks meaningless and risky.
On the spending side, Mr Romney is promising both to slim Leviathan and to boost defence spending dramatically. So what is he going to cut? How is he going to trim the huge entitlement programmes? Which bits of Mr Ryan’s scheme does he agree with? It is a little odd that the number two has a plan and his boss doesn’t. And it is all very well promising to repeal Barack Obama’s health-care plan and the equally gargantuan Dodd-Frank act on financial regulation, but what exactly will Mr Romney replace them with--unless, of course, he thinks Wall Street was well-regulated before Lehman went bust?

Playing dumb is not an option

Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?
It is not too late for Mr Romney to show America’s voters that he is a man who can lead his party rather than be led by it. But he has a lot of questions to answer in Tampa.


Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.
Join the conversation about this story »




All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider. Tweet your views at #AceFinanceNews or email your news and views on the article and we will post it?  

Bailed-out banks, Freddie Mac, AIG gave $6 million to 2008 conventions

Bailed-out banks, Freddie Mac, AIG gave $6 million to 2008 conventions:
The Republican nominating convention that kicks off Monday in Tampa (weather permitting), has been funded by tens of millions of dollars in corporate contributions, the exact source of which won’t be known until after the party is over.
But it’s a sure bet that there are at least two big donors from the 2008 event that won’t be giving this time around — American International Group and Freddie Mac.
The two institutions together gave $1 million to the Republican convention host committee. A few months after the conclusion of the convention they were in danger of collapse, and would ultimately receive a combined $139 billion taxpayer bailout.
The donations are possible thanks to a loophole in campaign finance rules that allow corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to give unlimited sums to support the conventions.
It is “absolutely ridiculous” that corporations are able to make such donations, says Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. He calls it “nothing but throwing money at the feet of congressional and White House leaders, presumably with the assumption of getting something in return.”
The two groups were bipartisan in their giving.
AIG gave $750,000 to both the Republican and Democratic host committees. The government would eventually sink $71 billion into the insurance giant. Mortgage buyer Freddie Mac gave $250,000 to both committees. Three days after the close of the Republican event, the government took it over along with Fannie Mae. Taxpayers ultimately sunk $70 billion into the floundering institution.
In all, $6 million was donated by financial institutions that received bailout money to both party conventions, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of Federal Election Commission filings — $3.4 million to Republicans and $2.6 million to Democrats
The total raised for the previous conventions is likely much higher than what we will see this year.
Through the end of 2008, the Republican host committee collected more than $65 million for the event, conducted in Minneapolis, while the Democratic convention in Denver drew about $63 million.
Republicans, meeting in Tampa, barring the arrival of a possible hurricane, aim for $50 million while Democrats, meeting in Charlotte, N.C., a week later, set a relatively modest goal of $37 million, having refused to accept direct contributions from corporations.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Reforms in the 1970s were meant to keep corporate money out of conventions. In 1972, as Republicans were trying to decide where to host their national convention, International Telephone & Telegraph offered $400,000 if the GOP would bring it to San Diego. Eight days later, the administration of President Richard Nixon dropped antitrust litigation against IT&T and offered a settlement that was favorable to the corporate giant.
After details of the apparent deal appeared in the press, Republicans tried to save face and moved the convention from San Diego to Miami Beach.
The scandal prompted Congress to enact a new law that would provide taxpayer funding for the parties' conventions, thus removing the need for private contributions — in theory, anyway. For 2012, each party has received $18.2 million from the U.S. Treasury to help defray costs.
But both parties are permitted to operate nonprofit corporations known as “host committees” set up as charitable organizations to offset the financial burden on local governments associated with hosting the conventions.
Democrats have struck a populist note this year, prohibiting direct corporate, political action committee and lobbyist donations. The party has also restricted individual donations to $100,000.
Campaign finance reformers still see loopholes — corporations are allowed, for instance, to make "in-kind" contributions.
During the Democrats’ 2008 convention in Denver, companies provided the host committee with about $5.8 million in in-kind contributions, including $1.7 million in “network equipment” from the tech giant Cisco System, which, records show, was the No. 1 corporate donor to the host committee.
Yet still, “it’s a very significant departure from the past,” Holman said.
The No. 1 corporate supporter of the Republican’s host committee was Qwest, now CenturyLink, which provided nearly $5 million. About half of that was donated directly to the committee and about half was from in-kind contributions. The telecommunications firm also gave roughly $840,000 to the Democratic host committee.
The top individual donor to the Republican committee was Raymond T. Dalio, founder of Bridgewater investments, the world’s largest hedge fund. He gave $2 million.
Overall, companies contributed more than $40 million to the Democratic host committee in Denver and unions donated about $9 million, according to federal records. And companies contributed roughly $52 million to the Republicans’ host committee in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
The Republicans’ Tampa host committee website lists more than two dozen companies and trade associations as “our sponsors.”
This year, companies ranging from Coca-Cola and Wells Fargo to Xerox and UPS are working to ensure that they have a presence at both conventions.
“There’s a lot of cost around the convention,” said Wells Fargo spokesman Kathy Harrison. “It is important as a good corporate citizen to support the host city.”
Wells Fargo was one of the banks that benefited from the government’s bank bailout, though it has paid the $25 billion equity investment back, plus a $2.3 billion profit.
In 2008, the Republican host committee received $3.4 million in donations from banks that received investments from the U.S. Treasury. Donations came from U.S. Bancorp ($1 million); Goldman Sachs & Co. ($255,000); Wells Fargo ($250,000); J.P. Morgan Chase ($100,000) and Morgan Stanley ($100,000) and others.
The Democratic host convention collected $2.6 million, including nearly $330,000 from Wells Fargo and its foundation; nearly $317,000 from U.S. Bancorp; $250,000 from both Goldman Sachs and Citigroup; $150,000 from Morgan Stanley and $100,000 from Bank of America.
Most of the banks and other institutions that made contributions to the conventions have recovered nicely from the recession, once again posting healthy profits — with at least one major exception. Lehman Brothers, whose bankruptcy filing in 2008 spun the global financial markets into a panic, gave $100,000 to the Democratic convention.

All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.Tweet this story #AceNewsServices

Thursday, 16 August 2012

OFT issues Statement of Objections against Booking.com, Expedia and Intercontinental Hotels Group

OFT issues Statement of Objections against Booking.com, Expedia and Intercontinental Hotels Group: The OFT has issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Booking.com, Expedia Inc and InterContinental Hotels Group plc have infringed competition law in relation to the online supply of room only hotel accommodation by online travel agents.

All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.Email us your news and views to Ace News Desk or tweet your views at #AceNewsServices 

OFT secures refunds for consumers following Olympic ticket investigation

OFT secures refunds for consumers following Olympic ticket investigation: Following an OFT investigation, Euroteam AS, Uncus AS, Ticket and Travel AS and the controlling director of these companies, Andreas Gyrre, have given undertakings to the High Court in relation to the unauthorised sale of tickets to the London Olympics.

" The Roving Giraffe News Report " tweet your views at #AceNewsServices or email your News and Views to our AceNewsDesk  

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Airbus Could Reduce Plane Fuel Consumption 15% with Hydrogen Fuel Cell

Airbus Could Reduce Plane Fuel Consumption 15% with Hydrogen Fuel Cell:
The idea is to take a load off the plane's engines by powering non-propulsion systems - basically everything that run on electricity in the plane, light the entertainment electronics avionics, lights, etc - with a fuel cell rather than with the engines.

Ed says! The word " could " in this post, when we talk of reducing fuel consumption! Will depend on lobbying by fuel companies and how powerful and if they can get their own way! Many times ideas like this have been shelved in favour of profit before the environment! What is your news and views email me at Ace News and Views    
or tweet your question at #AceFinanceNews

All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.

World's First Deep Sea Gold & Copper Mine Coming to Papua New Guinea

World's First Deep Sea Gold & Copper Mine Coming to Papua New Guinea:
A Canadian company will soon begin an unprecedented mining in the deep sea off the coast of Papua New Guinea

Another disaster waiting to happen when they start mining for gold and copper? What is your news and views?    
#AceNewsServices  

Key Republicans Rally Behind Wind Power in Congress

Key Republicans Rally Behind Wind Power in Congress:
With an important tax credit set to expire, Republicans and Democrats alike are defending wind power's importance to the economy.


This is our opinion and feelings about the the posts added to this blog by ourselves and writers who have asked to write on our blog network and does not necessarily represent our agreement or disagreement with the writers concerned.