Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Romney extends lead with New Hampshire victory
From The Hindu
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and frontrunner in
the race for the Republican presidential nominee, has won the primary in New
Hampshire garnering close to 40 per cent of the vote and a second straight
victory after the Iowa caucus last week.
While New Hampshire was widely expected to be one of the easier
states for Mr. Romney to capture, all eyes are now on the next primary in South
Carolina on January 21, a far more conservative state where the Romney campaign
machine may have a harder time convincing voters. Success there may well give
him an unassailable lead, said observers.
Libertarian candidate Ron Paul also performed consistent with
expectations, and won close to 23 per cent of the vote. Mr. Paul is the only
other current candidate who has the national-level campaign infrastructure and
finance on a scale similar to Mr. Romney. His supporter base, comprising
numerous younger voters, has also acquired the reputation of being a loyal
voting bloc that returns consistent polling figures across elections.
In third place was Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and
President Barack Obama's former Ambassador to China. He cornered close to 17 per
cent of the vote on the back of more than six months of intense campaigning.
Mr. Huntsman, whose adoption of Chinese and Indian girls was
recently attacked by a Paul-linked campaign group, said the third-place result
gave him a “ticket to ride” to South Carolina and he would not be dropping out.
As Mr. Romney's lead in New Hampshire became evident, he told
supporters on Tuesday night, “Tonight we celebrate. Tomorrow we go back to
work.” While he admitted that winning South Carolina would be an “uphill
battle,” he also trained his guns on rival and former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich and also Mr. Obama.
Mr. Romney said, “We expected President Obama to put free
enterprise on trial. We were a little surprised to see it coming from Speaker
Gingrich.” He was referring to attacks by Mr. Gingrich and others on Mr.
Romney's record at private equity firm Bain Capital, where he allegedly laid off
numerous workers in companies that his firm bought over.
Governor of Texas Rick Perry, who performed poorly in New
Hampshire winning less than one per cent of the vote, similarly accused Mr.
Romney of “vulture capitalism” that led to job losses in economically distressed
South Carolina. Mr. Romney has also become the prime target of Rick Santorum,
former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, who is one of the most conservative
candidates and may be on track for a good showing in South Carolina.
Labels: Democrats, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire primary, President Barack Obama, Republicans, U.S. Presidential elections
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Panetta to be Defence Secretary, Petraeus to head CIA
There is to be a reshuffle at the highest levels of the Obama administration with CIA chief Leon Panetta flagged as the successor to Defence Secretary Robert Gates and commander of the coalition forces in Afghanistan General David Petraeus identified as the man to fill Mr. Panetta's shoes at the United States' spy agency.
Mr. Panetta will be taking over a challenging role at a time of unprecedented belt-tightening by the U.S. military. General Petraeus' departure is also striking in terms of its timing, as the Obama administration is poised to wind down military operations in Afghanistan starting this July.
Media quoting unnamed sources also said Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command Lieutenant-General John Allen would replace General Petraeus in Afghanistan and veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker was likely to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan.
Mr. Gates, who was an appointee of the former President, George W. Bush, has held the Pentagon's top job since late 2006. He helped lead two major military engagements of the U.S. — in Afghanistan and Iraq.
President Barack Obama appointed General Petraeus to lead International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan last year after Stanley McChrystal quit following controversial critical comments on civilian leadership of the war effort.
If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Panetta will take over from Mr. Gates on June 30.
Labels: Barack Obama administration, Gen Petraeus, Leon Panetta, President Barack Obama, reshuffle, U.S.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Willing to have dialogue on rights: Hu
From The Hindu
Technical problems with simultaneous translations plagued the post-state visit press conference with United States President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao on Wednesday.
Yet the fact that many of the technical snags occurred when Mr. Hu faced questions on China’s human rights record was a fact that left many observers wondering about their timing.
The first set of comments on the thorny bilateral issue of human rights in China, by President Obama, passed through the sound systems unscathed.
Clearly enunciating the U.S. support for human rights and expressing hope that China would do the same, Mr. Obama said that during the state visit, “I reaffirmed America’s fundamental commitment to the universal rights of all people. That includes basic human rights like freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association and demonstration, and of religion – rights that are recognized in the Chinese constitution.”
On the steps forward, he added the U.S. and China had agreed to move ahead with a formal dialogue on human rights and new exchanges to advance the rule of law “while acknowledging there are going to be areas where we disagree.”
He was quick, however, to add that the U.S. recognised that “Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, [and] the U.S. continues to support further dialogue between the government of China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve concerns and differences, including the preservation of the religious and cultural identity of the Tibetan people.”
Yet the reporter to whom Mr. Obama had responded had also asked Mr. Hu about how he would justify China’s record on human rights, and if Mr. Hu thought that was a legitimate concern of the American people – yet no answer was forthcoming from the Chinese President, who instead responded a question from another reporter.
But there was no avoiding the issue when a second reporter reiterated his colleagues question and specifically requested a response from President Hu, who then replied, “First, I would like to clarify, because of the technical translation and interpretation problem, I did not hear the question about the human rights... As you raise this question, and I heard the question properly, certainly I am in a position to answer that question.”
Mr. Hu then explained that in over eight meetings he had held thus far with Mr. Obama, China had not shied away from discussing human rights and its position was that “China recognises and also respects the universality of human rights. And at the same time, we do believe that we also need to take into account the different and national circumstances when it comes to the universal value of human rights.”
However while he stressed that China was a developing country that was currently in a “crucial stage of reform,” and still faced many challenges in economic and social development, he conceded, “And a lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human rights.”
China was willing to continue to have exchanges and dialogue with other countries in terms of human rights, and we are also willing to learn from each other in terms of the good practices, Mr. Hu said, specifically saying that although there were “disagreements between China and the U.S. on the issue of human rights, China is willing to engage in dialogue and exchanges with the U.S. on the basis of mutual respect and the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”
Labels: bilateral ties, China, China President Hu Jintao, human rights, joint press conference, President Barack Obama, U.S.
Slew of U.S.-China commercial deals inked
From The Hindu
This week the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao here witnessed a slew of bilateral trade and defence deals being inked across industries, with the White House noting that “China is a key market for U.S. exports. Those exports are generating jobs in every corner of the U.S. and across every major sector.”
The deals signed involved some of the U.S’ largest companies, but also an increasing number of small and medium-sized enterprises, according to officials, who underscored in particular an agreement for the sale of 200 Boeing airplanes valued at $19 billion.
Officials further said that Chinese companies had signed 70 contracts for $25 billion in U.S. exports from 12 states. “These included sectors ranging from auto parts to agriculture, machinery to chemicals,” according to a statement.
The White House also issued a statement noting that 11 investment contracts were signed worth $3.24 billion and additional transactions were announced or showcased, exceeding $12 billion in total value with approximately $986.8 million in U.S. export content.
Linking these deals to job creation in the U.S. economy, officials noted that the export-boosting transactions would in particular “help support an estimated 235,000 jobs” besides their overall impact of underpinning the “[expansion of] the U.S.-China commercial partnership, contributing to economic growth and development in both countries.”
Touching upon environmentally sustainable dimension of the deals Chinese and U.S. officials said that many of these transactions “highlight the increased collaboration in such areas as clean energy and green technologies.”
Notable among these in the transportation sector is a letter of intent, between the Chinese Ministry of Rail and General Electric, regarding expanding an existing strategic partnership to bring Chinese high-speed rail technology to the U.S.
GE and China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Corporation Limited plan to form a joint venture in the U.S. to manufacture high- and medium-speed electric multiple unit trains, officials confirmed, and this venture could support up to 3,500 U.S. jobs. Overall this plan would support efforts to capture new business opportunities valued at up to $1.4 billion with an estimated $360 million in U.S. export content, a White House statement said.
Other commercial agreements associated with President Hu’s visit to Washington include: General Electric-Shenhua Gasification joint venture; General Electric-Huadian Joint Collaboration Agreement on decentralized energy combined heat and power projects; General Electric-AVIC Avionics joint venture agreement; UPC Management Wind Power agreements; Honeywell—Haier Group Memorandum of Understanding for global strategic cooperation; LP Amina MOU with Beijing Energy; LanzaTech--Bao Steel joint venture to build an ethanol plant; MVP RV – Winston Battery Limited Recreational Vehicle MoU; Caterpillar Inc. – Caterpillar China Investment Co. Ltd. business agreement; LP Amina MOU with Yixing Union Congregation Co. Ltd.; Optimax Systems, Inc – Shanghai Micro-Electronics Equipment Co., Ltd. Precision Optics Sale; Westinghouse Electric Company -- China Baotou Nuclear Fuel (CBNF) Fuel Fabrication Agreement; Westinghouse Electric Company-- China State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) Nuclear Cooperation Agreement; Alcoa and the China Power Investment Corporation MoU; Emberclear and Clean Energy Research Institute Licensing Agreement; and American Electric Power Company – State Grid Corporation of China.
Labels: China, China President Hu Jintao, commercial deals, President Barack Obama, U.S.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tough negotiations ahead for Hu, Obama
From The Hindu
Since he arrived in Washington on Tuesday Chinese President Hu Jintao’s state visit has entirely dominated the attention of the White House’s protocol army. However if recent statements by senior administration officials are anything to go by, official bonhomie may give way to tense negotiations by Wednesday evening, when Mr. Hu will attend a press conference with United States President Barack Obama.
In their opening remarks at the South Lawn of the White House the Chinese President clearly emphasised his hope that his visit would “increase mutual trust, enhance friendship, deepen cooperation, and push forward the positive, cooperative, and comprehensive China-U.S. relationship for the 21st century.”
He added that “China and the U.S. should respect each other’s choice of development path and each other’s core interests,” possibly an oblique reference to China’s interest in Taiwan. Until recently China had suspended all military-to-military ties with the U.S. after the latter sold arms to Taiwan in 2009.
In turn Mr. Obama struck a positive but balanced tone in his remarks saying that, while “The previous 30 years had been a time of estrangement for our two countries... the 30 years since have been a time of growing exchanges and understanding.”
He also hinted at the U.S.’ concerns on human rights in China when he noted, “History shows that societies are more harmonious, nations are more successful, and the world is more just, when the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all people are upheld, including the universal rights of every human being.”
The tenor of Mr. Obama’s comments appeared to jibe with recent comments made by senior officials in his administration who have, in the past few weeks, underscored policy dissonance on thorny economic, social and military issues between the two countries.
Last week U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner reiterated the U.S. view that “a stronger yuan is in China's own best interests, because it would help tame rising inflation that has become a key risk to China's rapid growth,” according to reports. Official anxiety regarding trade imbalances has also grown, focussing in particular on U.S. companies’ lack of access to China’s markets.
Similarly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a speech on Friday that China’s human rights record needed to improve, in particular criticising in particular its imprisonment of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo.
In a similar critical message issued during a meeting with Chinese Minister of National Defence General Liang Guanglie, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates hinted that the China’s development of a stealth aircraft and its growing assertiveness in the South China Sea were matters of serious concern.
While trade, currency, human rights and military development issues are clearly of much concern in the Obama White House, it may find itself groping for levers to persuade Mr. Hu to make concessions where it matters.
A litmus test of how willing Mr. Hu is to consider please for policy reform will come later on Wednesday when, along with Mr. Obama, he will interact with a group of 18 American and Chinese CEOs and hear their requests for greater market access in China.
Labels: bilateral ties, China, China President, Hu Jintao, international relations, President Barack Obama, U.S., U.S.-China relations
Friday, October 22, 2010
Meddling on in Afghanistan: U.S.
From The Hindu
The United States finds itself doing a precarious tightrope act between India and Pakistan this week, with the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue kicking off in Washington exactly two weeks ahead of President Barack Obama boarding a flight to India.
Nowhere was the tension more evident than in Wednesday's State Department briefing and, more specifically, on the subject of Afghanistan. At the briefing, Department spokesman P.J. Crowley hinted that Pakistan had been “meddling” in Afghanistan's politics and emphasied that India would continue to play a constructive role in Afghanistan.
Mr. Crowley's first salvo came in response to a question on whether countries such as India and Iran — and not just Pakistan — had a role in the ongoing reconciliation talks between the Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan and the Taliban.
He responded, “We recognise Afghanistan's need to have a dialogue with its neighbours. We have had concerns about Iran's meddling in Afghanistan, just as we have had concerns about other countries meddling in Afghanistan,” a likely reference to Pakistan.
Suggesting that Pakistan's earlier support to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan might still rankle in the U.S.' memory, Mr. Crowley noted: “To the extent that the Taliban once ruled Afghanistan, there were a small number of countries that recognised that government. Pakistan was one of them.”
However, Mr. Crowley said that “to the extent that the solution to Afghanistan does involve a regional solution”, the U.S. recognised countries like India “had an interest in a stable Afghanistan and can play a constructive role”.
To reach that regional solution, dialogue was essential and hence, the U.S. was engaging Afghanistan's key neighbours to build effective, sustainable relationships across the region.
This was one of the reasons why Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke had talked about the importance of the transit trade agreement — an agreement that would improve trade between India and Afghanistan routed through Pakistan.
There was a clear message to the visiting Pakistani delegation in Washington as well. Mr. Crowley said: “We have made no secret of the fact that we've told Pakistan clearly that we believe that the existential threat to Pakistan is not India; the existential threat to Pakistan involves extremism within its own borders.”
And, equally, a hint to India: “Likewise, we're having a similar conversation with a country like India. We believe that there the potential for cooperation certainly outweighs what might be perceptions about competition in the region.”
The State Department had also clearly determined that peace and stability in Afghanistan would not be feasible without Iran's contributions to the process. Notwithstanding the differences on nuclear politics, Mr. Crowley said, “we have not ruled out that there are overlapping areas of interest that we have with Iran with respect to a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. We are not ruling out that as an area of potential dialogue…”
The United States finds itself doing a precarious tightrope act between India and Pakistan this week, with the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue kicking off in Washington exactly two weeks ahead of President Barack Obama boarding a flight to India.
Nowhere was the tension more evident than in Wednesday's State Department briefing and, more specifically, on the subject of Afghanistan. At the briefing, Department spokesman P.J. Crowley hinted that Pakistan had been “meddling” in Afghanistan's politics and emphasied that India would continue to play a constructive role in Afghanistan.
Mr. Crowley's first salvo came in response to a question on whether countries such as India and Iran — and not just Pakistan — had a role in the ongoing reconciliation talks between the Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan and the Taliban.
He responded, “We recognise Afghanistan's need to have a dialogue with its neighbours. We have had concerns about Iran's meddling in Afghanistan, just as we have had concerns about other countries meddling in Afghanistan,” a likely reference to Pakistan.
Suggesting that Pakistan's earlier support to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan might still rankle in the U.S.' memory, Mr. Crowley noted: “To the extent that the Taliban once ruled Afghanistan, there were a small number of countries that recognised that government. Pakistan was one of them.”
However, Mr. Crowley said that “to the extent that the solution to Afghanistan does involve a regional solution”, the U.S. recognised countries like India “had an interest in a stable Afghanistan and can play a constructive role”.
To reach that regional solution, dialogue was essential and hence, the U.S. was engaging Afghanistan's key neighbours to build effective, sustainable relationships across the region.
This was one of the reasons why Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke had talked about the importance of the transit trade agreement — an agreement that would improve trade between India and Afghanistan routed through Pakistan.
There was a clear message to the visiting Pakistani delegation in Washington as well. Mr. Crowley said: “We have made no secret of the fact that we've told Pakistan clearly that we believe that the existential threat to Pakistan is not India; the existential threat to Pakistan involves extremism within its own borders.”
And, equally, a hint to India: “Likewise, we're having a similar conversation with a country like India. We believe that there the potential for cooperation certainly outweighs what might be perceptions about competition in the region.”
The State Department had also clearly determined that peace and stability in Afghanistan would not be feasible without Iran's contributions to the process. Notwithstanding the differences on nuclear politics, Mr. Crowley said, “we have not ruled out that there are overlapping areas of interest that we have with Iran with respect to a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. We are not ruling out that as an area of potential dialogue…”
Labels: Afghanistan, Pakistan, President Barack Obama, State Department, U.S., US-Pak strategic dialogue
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
No tax breaks for companies "shipping jobs overseas": Obama
From The Hindu
At a rare media briefing United States President Barack Obama reiterated his intention to stop giving tax breaks for companies that created jobs overseas rather than on American soil.
Repeating his words from an economy-focused speech in Parma, Ohio, earlier this week, Mr. Obama said, “Instead of tax breaks that encourage corporations to create jobs overseas, we believe in tax breaks for companies that create jobs right here in the U.S. So we have begun to do that.”
Adding that his administration believed only in investments that would make America more competitive in the global economy, he said that such investments would focus on areas such as education, clean energy, research and technology.
Touching upon policy priorities in this regard Mr. Obama said that it was these principles that guided the government over the last 19 months, and were also the very same principles that formed the basis of the additional economic proposals that he offered during the past week.
Mr. Obama is pushing the U.S. Congress to pass a $50 billion infrastructure investment plan to boost employment and also seeks a permanent expansion of tax credits for companies investing in research and development.
In his Friday briefing he emphasised in particular the need to change the incentives faced by companies that deciding to send jobs overseas: “Let us stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas, let us stop incentivizing that,” he said.
Labels: outsourcing, President Barack Obama, protectionism, tax breaks
Thursday, September 09, 2010
No tax breaks for firms creating jobs outside U.S.
From The Hindu
Persisting with the theme of protecting American jobs, President Barack Obama in his latest speech on the economy said that he would press for tax breaks only for companies that created jobs on U.S. soil and not those that created jobs abroad.
In a series of speeches across the U.S. over the summer, Mr. Obama also specifically mentioned “jobs of the future” going to countries such as India and China, and repeatedly underscored his intention to pre-empt that trend.
Addressing a gathering at Cuyahoga Community College in Parma, Ohio, on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said, “For years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries. I want to change that.”
He said that instead of tax loopholes that incentivise investment in overseas jobs, he was proposing a more generous, permanent extension of the tax credit that went to companies for all the research and innovation they did in the U.S.
His comments also followed in the wake of steps taken by the U.S. Congress to hike the fees for H1-B and L visas, mostly requested by Indian companies with U.S. operations. Following the passage of this bill and comments by its sponsor, Senator Charles Schumer, criticising companies such as Infosys for being “body shops,” Indian companies and industry bodies such as National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom) had warned of negative fallout of protectionism.
In a reference to White House plans announced this week to help the economy grow and spur hiring by businesses, Mr. Obama noted that it was encouraging companies “to invest more in the U.S.” was the key to job creation.
As part of this plan, all American businesses would be allowed to write-off investments made in 2011, a tax break designed to aid small businesses in upgrading their plants and equipment. Mr. Obama said, “If we are going to give tax breaks to companies, they should go to companies that create jobs in America — not that create jobs overseas.”
He said that in fact making this distinction was one of the key differences between the Republican vision and the Democratic vision for the economy and the country. “That's what this election is all about,” Mr. Obama added.
Labels: Cuyahoga Community College, NASSCOM, Ohio, President Barack Obama, tax breaks, U.S. economy
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Nation awaits key Obama speech on Iraq drawdown
From The Hindu
United States President Barack Obama is scheduled to make a major policy speech today, to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq and underscore his administration’s fulfilled promise in that regard.
In a relatively rare televised speech from the Oval Office, Mr. Obama will argue that since he assumed office, the White House has brought nearly 100,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq, and “millions of pieces of equipment have been removed, and hundreds of bases have been closed or transferred to Iraqi Security Forces”.
However in a curtain-raiser to his speech he emphasised that although the U.S.’ combat mission in Iraq was ending, its “commitment to an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant continues”. Mr. Obama added that as the mission in Iraq changed from combat to “advise and assist”, 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq even as Iraqi Security Forces assumed full responsibility for the security of their country from September 1 onwards.
Seeking to dispel any fears that the U.S. would be washing its hands of the country, Mr. Obama said, “We will forge a strong partnership with an Iraq that still faces enduring challenges.”
“Nation at war”
Admitting that for nearly a decade, the U.S. had been a “nation at war” and that the war in Iraq had “at times divided us”, he however added that one thing all Americans could agree upon was that “our brave men and women in uniform... have put their lives on the line and endured long separations from their family and loved ones”.
With the November Congressional elections around the corner, Mr. Obama may seek to capture some of the political capital that the return of troops and the end of an expensive military campaign will afford. However, critics have pointed out that Iraq is still rocked by waves of political violence and insurgent networks have been “battered but not defeated”.
In this context, James Phillips and Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation argued that in order to prevent further deterioration in the situation the President “should signal that the U.S. remains firmly engaged as a dependable ally of Iraq and dispel the growing perception that Washington is intent on a quick exit regardless of the dangerous consequences of such a gamble”.
They further said that the President should make every effort to avoid squandering the hard-won security gains of the surge by withdrawing too many troops too fast. “Iraq still needs substantial U.S. military, diplomatic, and political support to defeat various insurgent groups, stave off a possible return to civil war, and contain Iran’s expanding influence,” they noted.
Labels: Iraq combat operations, Iraq war, President Barack Obama
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Prevent jobs of the future going to India, China: Obama
From The Hindu
Even as the November elections loom on the horizon and Democrats grow fearful of losing seats in both Congressional chambers, President Barack Obama is becoming increasingly strident in defending his top domestic priority — job creation.
Unfortunately for countries such as India, this has come to mean the controversy over outsourcing rearing its ugly head with heightened frequency. In particular, fears that the President's words are more than just rhetoric.
His most recent speech, made at a Democratic National Convention fundraiser, was a good example. While his audience comprised mainly party stalwarts and thus Mr. Obama's reversion to the conventional wisdom of economic protectionism was not surprising, it was the specific mention of India in the context of American jobs being lost that raised eyebrows.
The line that probably has Indian Ministry of External Affairs officials worried is this: “When I took office... we put forward a new economic plan — a plan that... is focussed on making our middle class more secure and our country more competitive in the long run — so that the jobs and industries of the future aren't all going to China and India, but are being created right here in the U.S…”
In particular, the MEA must despair that the very same rhetoric that led to calls to stop American jobs getting “Bangalored” has resurfaced at the highest level of this administration: specifically the President's war cry that the choice in the November election was between policies that had encouraged job creation in the U.S. versus those that encouraged jobs to go elsewhere.
In a reference to policies that could keep jobs on U.S. soil, he added, “That is why I have said instead of giving tax breaks to corporations that want to ship jobs overseas, we want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the U.S…”
And what could be worrying policymakers and the private sector in India even more is the fact that the White House appears to be considering blocking the so-called “jobs of the future” from fleeing overseas.
In the context of the U.S.' “home-grown, clean energy industry,” Mr. Obama said: “I do not want to see the solar panels and the wind turbines and the biodiesel created in other countries. I do not want China and Germany and Brazil to get the jump on us in the industries of the future. I want to see all that stuff right here in the U.S., with American workers.”
Yet those feeling the pinch of such policies in India may ultimately seek solace in the fact that it may be — ironically — their American private sector counterparts which would help prevent the U.S. from going into a protectionist tailspin.
Even President Obama could not help but recognise that his cherished dream of large-scale job creation depended on corporate America, which has been the most important force pushing for the offshoring of jobs, on the grounds of efficiency and labour cost variations.
Coming as close as he could to recognising this paradox at the heart of the outsourcing controversy, Mr. Obama was forced to concede to his fellow Democrats the importance of the U.S. private sector in rescuing the ailing economy: “Instead of losing millions of jobs... [the U.S. has] created jobs for six straight months in the private sector. Instead of an economy that is contracting, we have got an economy that is expanding.”
Labels: India, jobs, outsourcing, President Barack Obama, U.S.
Monday, March 22, 2010
U.S. Congress approves historic healthcare Bill
From The Hindu
The United States House of Representatives made history late Sunday night by passing the Senate version of the healthcare reform bill by a narrow but firm margin of 219-212. Further the House also passed the “fix it” bill of House amendments to the Senate bill, by a margin of 217-205. Every House Republican voted against the bill.
Speaking after the vote, Mr. Obama said, “This is what change looks like,” adding however that this was a victory for commonsense rather than for any political party. He conceded that it was not an easy vote for a lot of people, “But it was the right vote,” he said.
Mr. Obama reminded the caucus that the vote was for the common man: “To every unsung American, who took the time to sit down and write a letter… hoping your voice would be heard, it has been heard tonight.”
In due course it is expected that the bill passed on Sunday would lead to additional insurance coverage for almost 32 million more Americans, bringing the healthcare system closer than ever to the goal of universal coverage. It will also weaken the grip of health insurance companies over the market by preventing them from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and restrict their ability to raise premiums or drop coverage.
Further, children may remain on their parents' insurance policies until the age of 26 and insurance companies would no longer be able to impose lifetime limits on policies. The costs of obtaining insurance cover would also fall for older people and those with pre-existing conditions through their participation in “high-risk pools.” Small business would also derive such benefits by participating in state-level exchanges and some businesses would face penalties for not providing their employees with insurance.
The bill, which will soon be signed into law by President Obama as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will also bring down the deficit of the country by $143 billion over 10 years and by over a trillion dollars within the following 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan scorekeeper on such debates. It will cost the American taxpayer $940 billion, according to the CBO.
High drama on the abortion issue accompanied the passage of the bill. Pro-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak – who dropped his opposition to the bill based on the promise of a Presidential Executive Order banning the use of federal funds for abortions – was called “baby-killer” by an unknown member of Congress from the Republican side. Mr. Stupak has been one of the most staunch pro-lifers in the House in years.
Labels: Democrats, healthcare Bill, President Barack Obama, Republicans, U.S. Congress
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
