Credit Card, Bank Fee Hikes Spark Outrage
Banks Hike Fees Despite Bailout Billions; Consumers and Congressional Panel Ask Why
By ALICE GOMSTYN ABC NEWS April 13, 2009
The billions of dollars that banks have received in taxpayer funds since last year have been a growing source of outrage for American consumers. And in recent months, some banks have added serious insult to injury, leaving Americans like Tony Cesnik fuming about hikes they're seeing to their credit card rates and other bank-related fees.
"The banks have been given billions of dollars of tax money and only lend it out if customers are willing to pay extortion rights," said Cesnik, a Concord, Calif., resident, in a message to ABCNews.com. "The banks need a legal spanking. They are acting like spoiled brats!!"
Myriad banks have steadily been increasing credit card interest rates for some card holders in recent months. Bank customers are also seeing spikes in other fees: charges for bounced checks and ATM surcharges are climbing, according to Bankrate.com, a Web site that surveys financial institutions.
Scores of Americans sent angry messages to ABCNews.com about bank rate hikes. But everyday consumers aren't the only ones who believe something is awry -- the congressional panel that oversees the government's bank rescue plan, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is taking an interest in the issue.
The Wall Street Journal reported today that complaints about bank fee spikes have prompted the Congressional Oversight Panel to launch a probe into the issue.
A panel official told ABC News, however, that there is no investigation under way but rather the issue may be covered in a future report.
"The people who subsidizing the activities of the banks through their tax dollars are the same people who are furnishing the high profits through consumer lending," Elizabeth Warren, the chairwoman of the panel, told the The Wall Street Journal. "In a sense, we're asking taxpayers to pay twice."
Banks Profits Reported This Week
Outrage over the higher fees has grown even as banks, which are due to release first-quarter earnings reports in coming days, have said they've seen a profitable start to 2009.
Last week, Wells Fargo said it expected record first-quarter earnings of $3 billion. Earlier this year, executives at Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase also said they are seeing profitable quarters.
But despite those positive results, the banks have also raised fees and credit card interest rates. Most recently, Bank of America -- which has received $45 billion TARP funding -- announced that it was raising interest rates on credit card customers who carry a balance.
One reason for such increases, some say, is that banks are trying to compensate for rising credit card defaults. But that reasoning just isn't enough for consumers like Gary Gates, of Marcellus, N.Y.
"You might be able to justify a small increase," Gates said in a message to ABCNews.com, but the banks "go overboard."
Why Rate Hikes? Banks Cite Tough Economy, High Borrowing Costs
A Bank of America spokeswoman told ABCNews.com that credit card customers who saw increases had their rates rise from below 10 percent to "the low- to mid-teens."
Betty Reiss said that the increase in loan defaults by Bank of America customers and other factors, including relatively high borrowing costs between banks, contributed to the bank's decision to raise rates.
"This is about properly pricing our portfolio either based on risk or realigning a portion of the portfolio that is priced below what is prudent in the current market," Reiss said.
Citigroup, which has received $50 billion TARP funds -- the most of any bank -- declined a request for comment.
The American Banking Association defended the banking industry today.
"I think the key thing to recognize is that what banks are doing is reacting to broader economic forces, the fact that we are in a recession," said ABA spokesman Peter Garuccio. "Whether we like it or not we're all less credit worthy today than we were just a few months ago."
Garuccio said that it's become harder for banks to fund credit card lines because it's more difficult to package credit card loans and sell them as securities.
"Roughly 50 percent of all credit card loans are funded through securitization," he said. "Because of the freeze up that has occurred in the capital markets that source of funding is relatively dry now."
Help for Credit Card Customers?
There is some relief on the way for credit card holders. Late last year, the Federal Reserve created new rules to protect cardholders from some interest rate hikes.
The rules include a restriction that will allow credit card companies to raise rates on existing credit card balances only when card holders are more than 30 days late, when they are receiving a promotional interest rate with a defined expiration date, or if the interest rate is tied to a specific market index, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate. Under the restriction, card companies would still be able to raise interest rates on new charges.
Bank Customers Close Accounts
The rules, however, don't go into effect until next year. For now, Congress is considering legislation that would impose similar rules sooner.
Some aren't waiting for government help to address their credit card troubles: They're closing their accounts.
"I believe the banks are not considering that the consumer can change banks, and I can assure you that I will," wrote Mary Wiles of Topeka, Kan. "It is like a slap in the face and I take it very personally."
For more on what you can do about high credit card interest rates, check out the latest column from ABC News consumer correspondent Elisabeth Leamy.
With reports from ABC News' Charles Herman and Justin Rood.
Monday, April 13, 2009
CNN IS THE BEST STILL!
CNN IS THE BEST STILL!
This past Sunday morning, 12 April 2009 had another example why
CNN is truly the best News Channel in the world!
When the news broke about CAPTAIN RICHARD PHILLPS
rescue from pirates at sea by our military.
CNN broke the news story while MSNBC had prefab programming
and actually was running a Video Professor commercial when
CNN broke the story.
Meanwhile FOX News Channel was running a pre record talk
by PASTOR RICK WARREN!
So much for covering the news!
I know CNN has its faults but it really does cover real news story best without too
Much of opinionated adjunct introductions.
Hart Kirch
This past Sunday morning, 12 April 2009 had another example why
CNN is truly the best News Channel in the world!
When the news broke about CAPTAIN RICHARD PHILLPS
rescue from pirates at sea by our military.
CNN broke the news story while MSNBC had prefab programming
and actually was running a Video Professor commercial when
CNN broke the story.
Meanwhile FOX News Channel was running a pre record talk
by PASTOR RICK WARREN!
So much for covering the news!
I know CNN has its faults but it really does cover real news story best without too
Much of opinionated adjunct introductions.
Hart Kirch
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Obama beats first national security test
Analysis: By JENNIFER LOVEN
AP White House Correspondent
The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama's "no drama" handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.
Obama's quiet backstage decision to authorize the Defense Department to take necessary action if Capt. Richard Phillips' life was in imminent danger gave a Navy commander the go-ahead to order snipers to fire on the pirates holding the cargo ship captain at gunpoint.
For Obama, the benefits were instantly clear: an American life saved and a major victory notched against an increasingly worrisome scourge of the seas off the Horn of Africa.
Obama's handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did.
But it also showed a new commander in chief who was willing to use all the tools at his disposal, bringing in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis.
The rescue appeared to vindicate Obama's muted but determined handling of the incident. What won't be known for some time is whether Obama will benefit politically.
When Obama campaigns for re-election, he may take Bush's approach of turning any such incident into evidence of his leadership acumen. On the other hand, Obama didn't go before the cameras Sunday to trumpet the success, instead releasing a written statement that saluted the bravery of the military and Phillips but claimed no credit for himself.
Also, this crisis, while topping the news now, may fade into distant memory by the time voters get a chance to take any new measure of Obama and his party.
Still, it goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war — Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion — doesn't have the chops to call on U.S. military power.
The sniper operation Sunday, with pirate guns aimed at Phillips, was a daring, high-stakes gambit, and it could have easily gone awry. If it had, the fallout would have probably landed hardest on Obama.
Indeed, the last Democratic president to unleash American military might against Somalis suffered miserably from the failure of that operation. Portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," a U.S. peacekeeping mission ordered by President Bill Clinton ended with a humiliating withdrawal of troops after a deadly clash in the Somali capital of Mogadishu.
The outcome this time was vastly different.
Since the standoff began last Tuesday, Obama made no public, in-person remarks on the topic, even declining to answer when questions were shouted at him during a press availability.
He didn't call in his Cabinet for a high-profile command meeting. He let military and top administration officials do the talking, but even they kept saber-rattling out of the equation.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Obama's silence should not be interpreted to mean that he wasn't deeply involved. The president's public posture was calculated to not raise the temperature on the situation or give the hostage-takers anything to exploit.
"Let's not confuse a public role with being on top of the situation," Emanuel said. "If you'd interjected yourself, you would make the discussions that were happening more difficult."
So what Obama did was receive regular briefings, sometimes as often as half a dozen times a day. He weighed in with two critical decisions allowing the military to take action to save Phillips' life. And he laid the groundwork for a federal criminal law enforcement response.
White House officials said the Justice Department is already reviewing evidence to determine whether to file criminal charges against the captured Somali pirate. The U.S. is treating the matter as a criminal case because officials have found no direct ties between East African pirates and terror groups.
Obama doesn't like labels for himself or catch phrases for policy. So it's notable that in an administration that has for all intents and purposes banned the phrase "war on terror," no one called the pirates "terrorists."
AP White House Correspondent
The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama's "no drama" handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.
Obama's quiet backstage decision to authorize the Defense Department to take necessary action if Capt. Richard Phillips' life was in imminent danger gave a Navy commander the go-ahead to order snipers to fire on the pirates holding the cargo ship captain at gunpoint.
For Obama, the benefits were instantly clear: an American life saved and a major victory notched against an increasingly worrisome scourge of the seas off the Horn of Africa.
Obama's handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did.
But it also showed a new commander in chief who was willing to use all the tools at his disposal, bringing in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis.
The rescue appeared to vindicate Obama's muted but determined handling of the incident. What won't be known for some time is whether Obama will benefit politically.
When Obama campaigns for re-election, he may take Bush's approach of turning any such incident into evidence of his leadership acumen. On the other hand, Obama didn't go before the cameras Sunday to trumpet the success, instead releasing a written statement that saluted the bravery of the military and Phillips but claimed no credit for himself.
Also, this crisis, while topping the news now, may fade into distant memory by the time voters get a chance to take any new measure of Obama and his party.
Still, it goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war — Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion — doesn't have the chops to call on U.S. military power.
The sniper operation Sunday, with pirate guns aimed at Phillips, was a daring, high-stakes gambit, and it could have easily gone awry. If it had, the fallout would have probably landed hardest on Obama.
Indeed, the last Democratic president to unleash American military might against Somalis suffered miserably from the failure of that operation. Portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," a U.S. peacekeeping mission ordered by President Bill Clinton ended with a humiliating withdrawal of troops after a deadly clash in the Somali capital of Mogadishu.
The outcome this time was vastly different.
Since the standoff began last Tuesday, Obama made no public, in-person remarks on the topic, even declining to answer when questions were shouted at him during a press availability.
He didn't call in his Cabinet for a high-profile command meeting. He let military and top administration officials do the talking, but even they kept saber-rattling out of the equation.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Obama's silence should not be interpreted to mean that he wasn't deeply involved. The president's public posture was calculated to not raise the temperature on the situation or give the hostage-takers anything to exploit.
"Let's not confuse a public role with being on top of the situation," Emanuel said. "If you'd interjected yourself, you would make the discussions that were happening more difficult."
So what Obama did was receive regular briefings, sometimes as often as half a dozen times a day. He weighed in with two critical decisions allowing the military to take action to save Phillips' life. And he laid the groundwork for a federal criminal law enforcement response.
White House officials said the Justice Department is already reviewing evidence to determine whether to file criminal charges against the captured Somali pirate. The U.S. is treating the matter as a criminal case because officials have found no direct ties between East African pirates and terror groups.
Obama doesn't like labels for himself or catch phrases for policy. So it's notable that in an administration that has for all intents and purposes banned the phrase "war on terror," no one called the pirates "terrorists."
RESCUE AT SEA 'Obama does it right again!'
In Rescue of Captain, Navy Kills 3 Pirates
By ROBERT D. MCFADDEN and SCOTT SHANE
Navy Seal snipers rescued an American cargo ship captain unharmed and killed three Somali pirates in a daring operation in the Indian Ocean on Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between United States naval forces and a small band of brigands in a covered orange lifeboat off the Horn of Africa.
Acting with President Obama’s authorization and in the belief that the hostage, Capt. Richard Phillips, was in imminent danger of being killed by captors armed with pistols and AK-47s, snipers on the fantail of the destroyer Bainbridge, which was towing the lifeboat on a 100-foot line, opened fire and picked off the three captors.
Two of the captors had poked their heads out of a rear hatch of the lifeboat, exposing themselves to clear shots, and the third could be seen through a window in the bow, pointing an automatic rifle at the captain, who was tied up inside the 18-foot lifeboat, senior Navy officials said.
It took only three remarkable shots — one each by snipers firing from a distance at dusk, using night-vision scopes, the officials said. Within minutes, rescuers slid down ropes from the Bainbridge, climbed aboard the lifeboat and found the three pirates dead. They then untied Captain Phillips, ending the contretemps at sea that had riveted much of the world’s attention. A fourth pirate had surrendered earlier.
Shortly after his rescue, Captain Phillips was taken aboard the Bainbridge, underwent a medical exam and was found to be in relatively good condition for a 53-year-old seafarer who had been held since Wednesday by pirates who had demanded $2 million for his life. He called home and was flown to the Boxer, an amphibious assault ship also off the Somali coast. Arrangements were being made Sunday night for his return home to Vermont.
“I share the country’s admiration for the bravery of Captain Phillips and his selfless concern for his crew,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “His courage is a model for all Americans.”
Jubilation over the dramatic rescue reached from the White House to Underhill, Vt., Captain Phillips’s hometown, and from personnel aboard the Bainbridge to the cheering, fist-pumping 19-member crew of the captain’s cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama, docked in Mombasa, Kenya.
Captain Phillips, who was said to be resting comfortably, spoke to officials of the Maersk Line, who quoted him as saying: “The real heroes are the Navy, the Seals, those who have brought me home.” He also spoke to his wife, Andrea, and two college-aged children in Underhill, where dozens of yellow ribbons fluttered on the white picket fence of his home and two small American flags jutted up from the lawn.
“This is truly a very happy Easter for the Phillips family,” said Alison McColl, a Maersk representative assigned to speak for the family. “They are all just so happy and relieved,” she said. “I think you can all imagine their joy and what a happy moment it was for them.”
On the family’s behalf, Ms. McColl thanked the nation and the people of Vermont for their prayers and support. . “Obviously, this has been a long journey for the family,” she said. John Reinhart, president and chief executive of Maersk Line Ltd., praised the Navy and federal officials for their performance. “Everyone’s worked around the clock,” he said. “It’s magnificent to see the outcome.”
While the outcome was a triumph for America, officials in many countries plagued by pirates said it was not likely to discourage them. Pirates are holding a dozen ships with more than 200 crew members, according to the Malaysia-based International Maritime Bureau.
In Somalia itself, other pirates reacted angrily to the news that Captain Phillips had been rescued, and some said they would avenge the deaths of their colleagues by killing Americans in sea hijackings to come.
“Every country will be treated the way it treats us,” Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the pirate den of Gaan, a central Somali town, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying in a telephone interview. “In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.”
Aboard the Maersk Alabama, a 17,000-ton cargo ship, Captain Phillips’s crew erupted in cheers, waved American flags and fired off flares. When four pirates attacked the ship on Wednesday, the crew escaped harm after the captain offered himself as a hostage. He told his crewmen to lock themselves in cabins, and allowed himself to be taken at gunpoint into the lifeboat in which the pirates fled.
Over the ensuing days, according to official accounts of the episode, the pirates made repeated threats to kill the captain as their motorized lifeboat moved about 30 miles off the Somali coast. It was closely watched by United States warships and helicopters in an increasingly tense standoff.
Talks to free the captain began Thursday, with the commander of the Bainbridge communicating with the pirates under instructions from F.B.I. hostage negotiators flown to the scene. The pirates threatened to kill Captain Phillips if attacked, and the result was tragicomic: the world’s most powerful navy vs. a lifeboat.
Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of the United States naval forces in the region, said in a briefing in Bahrain that despite ransom demands from the pirates the United States had not discussed any ransom and had talked to the pirates only about the release of Captain Phillips and the pirates’ surrender.
The Defense Department twice sought Mr. Obama’s permission to use force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed, they said, if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.
By Friday, with several warships within easy reach of the lifeboat, the negotiations had gone nowhere. Captain Phillips jumped into the sea, but was quickly recaptured. On Saturday, the pirates fired several shots at a small boat that had approached from the Bainbridge.
By the weekend, however, the pirates had begun to run out of food, water and fuel. That apparently provided the opening officials were hoping for. In briefings, senior officers who spoke anonymously because they had not been authorized to disclose information said that the pirates agreed to accept food and water. A small craft was used to deliver them and it apparently made several trips between the Bainbridge and the lifeboat.
On one trip, one of the four pirates — whose hand had been gashed during the capture of Captain Phillips — asked for medical treatment and, in effect surrendering, was taken in the small boat to the Bainbridge. Justice Department officials were studying options for his case, including criminal charges in the United States or turning him over to Kenya, where dozens of pirates have faced prosecution. Three pirates were left on board with Captain Phillips.
Meanwhile, members of the Navy Seals were flown in by fixed-wing aircraft. They parachuted into the sea with inflatable boats and were picked up by the Bainbridge. On Sunday, the pirates, their fuel gone, were drifting toward the Somali coast. They agreed to accept a tow from the Bainbridge, the senior officials said. At first, the towline was 200 feet long, but as darkness gathered and seas became rough, the towline was shortened to 100 feet, the officials said. It was unclear if this was done with the pirates’ knowledge.
At dusk, a single tracer bullet was seen fired from the lifeboat. The intent was unclear, but it ratcheted up the tension and Seal snipers at the stern rail of the Bainbridge fixed night-vision scopes to their high-powered rifles, getting ready for action.
What they saw was the head and shoulders of two of the pirates emerging from the rear hatch of the lifeboat. Through the window of the front hatch they saw the third pirate, pointing his AK-47 at the back of Captain Phillips, who was seen to be tied up.
That was it: the provocation that fulfilled the president’s order to act only if the captain’s life was in imminent danger, and the opportunity of having clear shots at each captor. The order was given. Senior defense officials, themselves marveling at the skill of the snipers, said each took a target and fired one shot.
“This was an incredible team effort,” Admiral Gortney said when it was over. “And I am extremely proud of the tireless efforts of all the men and women who made this rescue possible.”
By ROBERT D. MCFADDEN and SCOTT SHANE
Navy Seal snipers rescued an American cargo ship captain unharmed and killed three Somali pirates in a daring operation in the Indian Ocean on Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between United States naval forces and a small band of brigands in a covered orange lifeboat off the Horn of Africa.
Acting with President Obama’s authorization and in the belief that the hostage, Capt. Richard Phillips, was in imminent danger of being killed by captors armed with pistols and AK-47s, snipers on the fantail of the destroyer Bainbridge, which was towing the lifeboat on a 100-foot line, opened fire and picked off the three captors.
Two of the captors had poked their heads out of a rear hatch of the lifeboat, exposing themselves to clear shots, and the third could be seen through a window in the bow, pointing an automatic rifle at the captain, who was tied up inside the 18-foot lifeboat, senior Navy officials said.
It took only three remarkable shots — one each by snipers firing from a distance at dusk, using night-vision scopes, the officials said. Within minutes, rescuers slid down ropes from the Bainbridge, climbed aboard the lifeboat and found the three pirates dead. They then untied Captain Phillips, ending the contretemps at sea that had riveted much of the world’s attention. A fourth pirate had surrendered earlier.
Shortly after his rescue, Captain Phillips was taken aboard the Bainbridge, underwent a medical exam and was found to be in relatively good condition for a 53-year-old seafarer who had been held since Wednesday by pirates who had demanded $2 million for his life. He called home and was flown to the Boxer, an amphibious assault ship also off the Somali coast. Arrangements were being made Sunday night for his return home to Vermont.
“I share the country’s admiration for the bravery of Captain Phillips and his selfless concern for his crew,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “His courage is a model for all Americans.”
Jubilation over the dramatic rescue reached from the White House to Underhill, Vt., Captain Phillips’s hometown, and from personnel aboard the Bainbridge to the cheering, fist-pumping 19-member crew of the captain’s cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama, docked in Mombasa, Kenya.
Captain Phillips, who was said to be resting comfortably, spoke to officials of the Maersk Line, who quoted him as saying: “The real heroes are the Navy, the Seals, those who have brought me home.” He also spoke to his wife, Andrea, and two college-aged children in Underhill, where dozens of yellow ribbons fluttered on the white picket fence of his home and two small American flags jutted up from the lawn.
“This is truly a very happy Easter for the Phillips family,” said Alison McColl, a Maersk representative assigned to speak for the family. “They are all just so happy and relieved,” she said. “I think you can all imagine their joy and what a happy moment it was for them.”
On the family’s behalf, Ms. McColl thanked the nation and the people of Vermont for their prayers and support. . “Obviously, this has been a long journey for the family,” she said. John Reinhart, president and chief executive of Maersk Line Ltd., praised the Navy and federal officials for their performance. “Everyone’s worked around the clock,” he said. “It’s magnificent to see the outcome.”
While the outcome was a triumph for America, officials in many countries plagued by pirates said it was not likely to discourage them. Pirates are holding a dozen ships with more than 200 crew members, according to the Malaysia-based International Maritime Bureau.
In Somalia itself, other pirates reacted angrily to the news that Captain Phillips had been rescued, and some said they would avenge the deaths of their colleagues by killing Americans in sea hijackings to come.
“Every country will be treated the way it treats us,” Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the pirate den of Gaan, a central Somali town, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying in a telephone interview. “In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.”
Aboard the Maersk Alabama, a 17,000-ton cargo ship, Captain Phillips’s crew erupted in cheers, waved American flags and fired off flares. When four pirates attacked the ship on Wednesday, the crew escaped harm after the captain offered himself as a hostage. He told his crewmen to lock themselves in cabins, and allowed himself to be taken at gunpoint into the lifeboat in which the pirates fled.
Over the ensuing days, according to official accounts of the episode, the pirates made repeated threats to kill the captain as their motorized lifeboat moved about 30 miles off the Somali coast. It was closely watched by United States warships and helicopters in an increasingly tense standoff.
Talks to free the captain began Thursday, with the commander of the Bainbridge communicating with the pirates under instructions from F.B.I. hostage negotiators flown to the scene. The pirates threatened to kill Captain Phillips if attacked, and the result was tragicomic: the world’s most powerful navy vs. a lifeboat.
Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of the United States naval forces in the region, said in a briefing in Bahrain that despite ransom demands from the pirates the United States had not discussed any ransom and had talked to the pirates only about the release of Captain Phillips and the pirates’ surrender.
The Defense Department twice sought Mr. Obama’s permission to use force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed, they said, if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.
By Friday, with several warships within easy reach of the lifeboat, the negotiations had gone nowhere. Captain Phillips jumped into the sea, but was quickly recaptured. On Saturday, the pirates fired several shots at a small boat that had approached from the Bainbridge.
By the weekend, however, the pirates had begun to run out of food, water and fuel. That apparently provided the opening officials were hoping for. In briefings, senior officers who spoke anonymously because they had not been authorized to disclose information said that the pirates agreed to accept food and water. A small craft was used to deliver them and it apparently made several trips between the Bainbridge and the lifeboat.
On one trip, one of the four pirates — whose hand had been gashed during the capture of Captain Phillips — asked for medical treatment and, in effect surrendering, was taken in the small boat to the Bainbridge. Justice Department officials were studying options for his case, including criminal charges in the United States or turning him over to Kenya, where dozens of pirates have faced prosecution. Three pirates were left on board with Captain Phillips.
Meanwhile, members of the Navy Seals were flown in by fixed-wing aircraft. They parachuted into the sea with inflatable boats and were picked up by the Bainbridge. On Sunday, the pirates, their fuel gone, were drifting toward the Somali coast. They agreed to accept a tow from the Bainbridge, the senior officials said. At first, the towline was 200 feet long, but as darkness gathered and seas became rough, the towline was shortened to 100 feet, the officials said. It was unclear if this was done with the pirates’ knowledge.
At dusk, a single tracer bullet was seen fired from the lifeboat. The intent was unclear, but it ratcheted up the tension and Seal snipers at the stern rail of the Bainbridge fixed night-vision scopes to their high-powered rifles, getting ready for action.
What they saw was the head and shoulders of two of the pirates emerging from the rear hatch of the lifeboat. Through the window of the front hatch they saw the third pirate, pointing his AK-47 at the back of Captain Phillips, who was seen to be tied up.
That was it: the provocation that fulfilled the president’s order to act only if the captain’s life was in imminent danger, and the opportunity of having clear shots at each captor. The order was given. Senior defense officials, themselves marveling at the skill of the snipers, said each took a target and fired one shot.
“This was an incredible team effort,” Admiral Gortney said when it was over. “And I am extremely proud of the tireless efforts of all the men and women who made this rescue possible.”
Friday, April 10, 2009
Fox News is throwing a party!
Report from MEDIA MATTERS:
4-10/09
This week, Media Matters for America released a damning new report that documents in startling detail how Fox News has been promoting anti-Obama "tea party" protests across the country scheduled for April 15. That's right, despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with tea-party protests, which the "news" network has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies.
Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations, and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several protests that they are attending and covering. Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on TaxDayTeaParty.com.
For his part, Glenn Beck, Fox's conspiracy theorist in chief, isn't just helping with turnout. Discussing his participation in the upcoming protest at the Alamo in San Antonio on his syndicated radio program, Beck announced, "I'm going to do a fundraiser for them" to help defray costs. "So you can come and you can have lunch with me. ... I don't know any of the details, but I've heard it's like $500 a plate or something like that."
Of course, the gang over at Fox hasn't taken kindly to Media Matters' pointing out its shameless promotion of these blatantly, unabashedly political events. On April 9, one day after the release of Media Matters' report, Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Beck discussed how "left-wing organizations like Media Matters" are "angry ... at us for covering these protests." Jeez, why would anyone be angry that a "news" outlet is promoting, fundraising for, and taking part in political protests?
Perhaps sensing that people might be catching on to the major role Fox is playing in the events, Cavuto pre-emptively critiqued news coverage of the tea-party protests, essentially panning the evil liberal media for their coverage of the events before they've even taken place.
4-10/09
This week, Media Matters for America released a damning new report that documents in startling detail how Fox News has been promoting anti-Obama "tea party" protests across the country scheduled for April 15. That's right, despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with tea-party protests, which the "news" network has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies.
Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations, and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several protests that they are attending and covering. Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on TaxDayTeaParty.com.
For his part, Glenn Beck, Fox's conspiracy theorist in chief, isn't just helping with turnout. Discussing his participation in the upcoming protest at the Alamo in San Antonio on his syndicated radio program, Beck announced, "I'm going to do a fundraiser for them" to help defray costs. "So you can come and you can have lunch with me. ... I don't know any of the details, but I've heard it's like $500 a plate or something like that."
Of course, the gang over at Fox hasn't taken kindly to Media Matters' pointing out its shameless promotion of these blatantly, unabashedly political events. On April 9, one day after the release of Media Matters' report, Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Beck discussed how "left-wing organizations like Media Matters" are "angry ... at us for covering these protests." Jeez, why would anyone be angry that a "news" outlet is promoting, fundraising for, and taking part in political protests?
Perhaps sensing that people might be catching on to the major role Fox is playing in the events, Cavuto pre-emptively critiqued news coverage of the tea-party protests, essentially panning the evil liberal media for their coverage of the events before they've even taken place.
IRAQ - it ain't over! Thanks GWB!!
Military: Iraqi Truck Bombing Kills 5 US Soldiers
4-10/09 ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD (AP) -- A suicide bomber rammed his explosives-laden truck into a sandbagged wall Friday in northern Iraq, killing five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen in the single deadliest attack against U.S. forces in more than a year.
A sixth American soldier and 17 Iraqi policemen were wounded in the blast that took place near the national police headquarters in southwestern Mosul -- Iraq's third-largest city and al-Qaida's last urban stronghold.
Suicide bombings -- a hallmark of al-Qaida's attack style -- continue to threaten the city, which U.S. troops must leave by June 30 under an agreement with the Iraqis. The approaching deadline has raised fears about what will happen after American soldiers depart.
Lt. Col. Michael Stuart, chief of U.S. operations in Tikrit, an Iraqi city north of Baghdad, said the target was the Iraqi national police complex in Mosul and not the U.S. patrol. He said the American patrol just happened to be on the same street when the attack occurred.
''It was just bad timing,'' Stuart told The Associated Press.
Friday's blast was the deadliest single bombing attack in more than a year. The U.S. military said that the last time five U.S. soldiers were killed in an attack was when a suicide bomber targeted an American patrol in Baghdad on March 10, 2008.
A suicide car bomb struck a U.S. patrol in Mosul on Feb. 9, killing four American soldiers and their Iraqi interpreter. Four U.S. soldiers were also killed Jan. 26 when two helicopters collided over the northern city of Kirkuk.
Friday's suicide bomber, who was driving a truck filled with grain, made a sharp turn as he approached the police complex, then rammed his truck through an iron barrier, hitting a sandbagged wall beyond it and detonating his vehicle near the station's main building, Iraqi police said.
The blast shook the entire complex and badly damaged nearby buildings, witnesses and police said.
A policeman, who identified himself as Abu Mohammed, said he saw the truck driving behind two U.S. Humvees on the street leading to the police headquarters. The Humvees entered the complex, came to a stop, and within seconds, the truck turned and rammed the iron barrier, he said.
Iraqi police opened fire, but the truck kept moving until it reached the sandbagged wall where it detonated -- just a few feet away from the Humvees, he said.
''The blast was very powerful and the situation was chaotic,'' he said.
The U.S. military said two people were detained in connection with the attack, which is under investigation. The names of those killed were being withheld pending notification of families.
Although U.S. combat troops have to leave of Iraqi cities by the end of June under the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that went into effect this year, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, told The Times of London this week that the American troops may have to stay in Mosul and another northern city, Baqouba, after the deadline because insurgents remain active there.
Mosul, about 225 miles (360 kilometers) north of Baghdad, had been relatively quiet in recent weeks compared to the Iraqi capital, where attacks killed at least 53 people this week.
American casualties have fallen to their lowest levels of the war since thousands of Sunnis abandoned the insurgency and U.S. and Iraqi forces routed Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra last spring.
However, fighting continues in Mosul and elsewhere in northern Iraq -- a conflict that U.S. officials say is driven in part by ethnic rivalries between Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Many Sunni extremists are believed to have fled north after being driven from longtime strongholds in Baghdad and central Iraq.
Also Friday in Mosul, gunmen opened fire from a speeding car and shot dead Dahir Hashim, a Sunni politician and cousin of Mosul's governor-elect Athil al-Nujeifi, police said.
In a separate attack, a U.S. patrol of Striker vehicles was targeted by a roadside bomb, but no one was hurt in the Friday blast near Taji, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) north of Baghdad, said spokesman Maj. Dave Shoupe. Taji police said eight Iraqi laborers paving a road by the site of the blast were detained for questioning.
Meanwhile, Iraqi police in the southern city of Basra said Friday they arrested 65 people in overnight raids after an attack on a U.S. convoy in the area and the kidnapping of two guards working for a local Iraqi security firm the previous day.
The arrested included 20 people who were already on a wanted list and 45 others, mostly militiamen, said the city's police spokesman Col. Karim al-Zeidi.
The U.S. military said the American convoy was hit by a roadside bomb near Basra on Thursday, but there were no casualties. Separately, al-Zeidi said two guards working for an Iraqi security firm were abducted late Thursday from their car, which was left by on the side of the road near Basra along with the guards' weapons.
4-10/09 ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD (AP) -- A suicide bomber rammed his explosives-laden truck into a sandbagged wall Friday in northern Iraq, killing five American soldiers and two Iraqi policemen in the single deadliest attack against U.S. forces in more than a year.
A sixth American soldier and 17 Iraqi policemen were wounded in the blast that took place near the national police headquarters in southwestern Mosul -- Iraq's third-largest city and al-Qaida's last urban stronghold.
Suicide bombings -- a hallmark of al-Qaida's attack style -- continue to threaten the city, which U.S. troops must leave by June 30 under an agreement with the Iraqis. The approaching deadline has raised fears about what will happen after American soldiers depart.
Lt. Col. Michael Stuart, chief of U.S. operations in Tikrit, an Iraqi city north of Baghdad, said the target was the Iraqi national police complex in Mosul and not the U.S. patrol. He said the American patrol just happened to be on the same street when the attack occurred.
''It was just bad timing,'' Stuart told The Associated Press.
Friday's blast was the deadliest single bombing attack in more than a year. The U.S. military said that the last time five U.S. soldiers were killed in an attack was when a suicide bomber targeted an American patrol in Baghdad on March 10, 2008.
A suicide car bomb struck a U.S. patrol in Mosul on Feb. 9, killing four American soldiers and their Iraqi interpreter. Four U.S. soldiers were also killed Jan. 26 when two helicopters collided over the northern city of Kirkuk.
Friday's suicide bomber, who was driving a truck filled with grain, made a sharp turn as he approached the police complex, then rammed his truck through an iron barrier, hitting a sandbagged wall beyond it and detonating his vehicle near the station's main building, Iraqi police said.
The blast shook the entire complex and badly damaged nearby buildings, witnesses and police said.
A policeman, who identified himself as Abu Mohammed, said he saw the truck driving behind two U.S. Humvees on the street leading to the police headquarters. The Humvees entered the complex, came to a stop, and within seconds, the truck turned and rammed the iron barrier, he said.
Iraqi police opened fire, but the truck kept moving until it reached the sandbagged wall where it detonated -- just a few feet away from the Humvees, he said.
''The blast was very powerful and the situation was chaotic,'' he said.
The U.S. military said two people were detained in connection with the attack, which is under investigation. The names of those killed were being withheld pending notification of families.
Although U.S. combat troops have to leave of Iraqi cities by the end of June under the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that went into effect this year, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, told The Times of London this week that the American troops may have to stay in Mosul and another northern city, Baqouba, after the deadline because insurgents remain active there.
Mosul, about 225 miles (360 kilometers) north of Baghdad, had been relatively quiet in recent weeks compared to the Iraqi capital, where attacks killed at least 53 people this week.
American casualties have fallen to their lowest levels of the war since thousands of Sunnis abandoned the insurgency and U.S. and Iraqi forces routed Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra last spring.
However, fighting continues in Mosul and elsewhere in northern Iraq -- a conflict that U.S. officials say is driven in part by ethnic rivalries between Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Many Sunni extremists are believed to have fled north after being driven from longtime strongholds in Baghdad and central Iraq.
Also Friday in Mosul, gunmen opened fire from a speeding car and shot dead Dahir Hashim, a Sunni politician and cousin of Mosul's governor-elect Athil al-Nujeifi, police said.
In a separate attack, a U.S. patrol of Striker vehicles was targeted by a roadside bomb, but no one was hurt in the Friday blast near Taji, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) north of Baghdad, said spokesman Maj. Dave Shoupe. Taji police said eight Iraqi laborers paving a road by the site of the blast were detained for questioning.
Meanwhile, Iraqi police in the southern city of Basra said Friday they arrested 65 people in overnight raids after an attack on a U.S. convoy in the area and the kidnapping of two guards working for a local Iraqi security firm the previous day.
The arrested included 20 people who were already on a wanted list and 45 others, mostly militiamen, said the city's police spokesman Col. Karim al-Zeidi.
The U.S. military said the American convoy was hit by a roadside bomb near Basra on Thursday, but there were no casualties. Separately, al-Zeidi said two guards working for an Iraqi security firm were abducted late Thursday from their car, which was left by on the side of the road near Basra along with the guards' weapons.
C.I.A. to Close Secret Prisons, Harsh Interrogations
NYTIMES By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency said Thursday that it would decommission the secret overseas prisons where it subjected Al Qaeda prisoners to brutal interrogation methods, bringing to a symbolic close the most controversial counterterrorism program of the Bush administration.
But in a statement to employees, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, said agency officers who worked in the program “should not be investigated, let alone punished” because the Justice Department under President George W. Bush had declared their actions legal.
Mr. Panetta and other top Obama administration officials have said they believe that waterboarding, the near-drowning method used in 2002 and 2003 on three prisoners, is torture, which is illegal under American and international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which interviewed 14 prisoners, said in a report made public this week that prisoners were also repeatedly slammed into walls, forced to stand for days with their arms handcuffed to the ceiling, confined in small boxes and held in frigid cells.
Mr. Panetta said the secret detention facilities were no longer in operation, but he suggested that security and maintenance had been continuing at the sites at the taxpayers’ expense since they were emptied under Mr. Bush in 2006. Terminating security contracts at the sites would save “at least $4 million,” Mr. Panetta said.
The C.I.A. has never revealed the location of its so-called black sites overseas, but intelligence officials, aviation records and news reports have placed them in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, Romania and Jordan, among other countries. Agency officials have said that fewer than 100 prisoners have been held since the program was created in 2002, and about 30 were subjected to what the C.I.A. called “enhanced” interrogation techniques.
Mr. Bush transferred the remaining 14 prisoners to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba in 2006 but ordered some sites maintained for future use; only two Qaeda prisoners are known to have been held for several months since then.
In his first week in office, President Obama banned coercive interrogations and ordered the C.I.A. program closed. Mr. Panetta said that the C.I.A. had not detained any terrorism suspects since he took office in February and added that any suspects captured in the future would be quickly turned over to the American military or to a suspect’s home country.
Joanne Mariner, the director of the terrorism and counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch, said the closing of the C.I.A. prisons was “incredibly heartening and important.” But she said that a criminal investigation of the C.I.A. interrogation program was nonetheless necessary, and she expressed concern that Mr. Panetta had not made clear what evidence the C.I.A. would need to detain a suspect.
Mr. Panetta’s statement, along with a classified letter about interrogation policy that he sent Thursday to the Senate and House intelligence oversight committees, underscored the new administration’s sharp break with policies that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney often credited with preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
By contrast, President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. insist that the use of techniques they describe as torture betrayed American values, alienated allies and became a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. A task force is now studying what interrogation methods should be permitted and how to ensure that prisoners turned over to other countries will not be mistreated.
In his statement, Mr. Panetta vowed to continue the “global pursuit” of Al Qaeda and its allies but said interrogators would use traditional methods and not physical force.
“C.I.A. officers, whose knowledge of terrorist organizations is second to none, will continue to conduct debriefings using a dialogue style of questioning,” Mr. Panetta wrote. He said C.I.A. officers were required to report abuse, even if it were carried out by a cooperating foreign intelligence service.
Mr. Panetta also said the agency would no longer use contractors to conduct interrogations. Former military psychologists working under contract for the C.I.A. helped devise and conduct the previous harsh interrogations, according to former agency officials. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had proposed legislation barring contractors from conducting interrogations, saying the job was too important to outsource.
The Senate committee recently began an investigation of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program, and senior Senate and House members have called for a broader and more public “truth commission” to investigate past counterterrorism programs.
Mr. Panetta said that the agency would cooperate with Congressional reviews but said that “fairness and wisdom” should dictate against a criminal investigation or other sanctions.
The C.I.A. statement comes at a time of continuing debate inside the Obama administration over which classified documents related to the agency’s interrogation program should be made public. After several delays, the Justice Department now has until April 16 to decide whether to make public legal opinions justifying the C.I.A.’s harsh methods.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has argued for the release of the opinions and related documents, but some current and former C.I.A. officials say they believe that wholesale disclosures could harm counterterrorism efforts and hurt morale at the agency.
WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency said Thursday that it would decommission the secret overseas prisons where it subjected Al Qaeda prisoners to brutal interrogation methods, bringing to a symbolic close the most controversial counterterrorism program of the Bush administration.
But in a statement to employees, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, said agency officers who worked in the program “should not be investigated, let alone punished” because the Justice Department under President George W. Bush had declared their actions legal.
Mr. Panetta and other top Obama administration officials have said they believe that waterboarding, the near-drowning method used in 2002 and 2003 on three prisoners, is torture, which is illegal under American and international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which interviewed 14 prisoners, said in a report made public this week that prisoners were also repeatedly slammed into walls, forced to stand for days with their arms handcuffed to the ceiling, confined in small boxes and held in frigid cells.
Mr. Panetta said the secret detention facilities were no longer in operation, but he suggested that security and maintenance had been continuing at the sites at the taxpayers’ expense since they were emptied under Mr. Bush in 2006. Terminating security contracts at the sites would save “at least $4 million,” Mr. Panetta said.
The C.I.A. has never revealed the location of its so-called black sites overseas, but intelligence officials, aviation records and news reports have placed them in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, Romania and Jordan, among other countries. Agency officials have said that fewer than 100 prisoners have been held since the program was created in 2002, and about 30 were subjected to what the C.I.A. called “enhanced” interrogation techniques.
Mr. Bush transferred the remaining 14 prisoners to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba in 2006 but ordered some sites maintained for future use; only two Qaeda prisoners are known to have been held for several months since then.
In his first week in office, President Obama banned coercive interrogations and ordered the C.I.A. program closed. Mr. Panetta said that the C.I.A. had not detained any terrorism suspects since he took office in February and added that any suspects captured in the future would be quickly turned over to the American military or to a suspect’s home country.
Joanne Mariner, the director of the terrorism and counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch, said the closing of the C.I.A. prisons was “incredibly heartening and important.” But she said that a criminal investigation of the C.I.A. interrogation program was nonetheless necessary, and she expressed concern that Mr. Panetta had not made clear what evidence the C.I.A. would need to detain a suspect.
Mr. Panetta’s statement, along with a classified letter about interrogation policy that he sent Thursday to the Senate and House intelligence oversight committees, underscored the new administration’s sharp break with policies that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney often credited with preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
By contrast, President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. insist that the use of techniques they describe as torture betrayed American values, alienated allies and became a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. A task force is now studying what interrogation methods should be permitted and how to ensure that prisoners turned over to other countries will not be mistreated.
In his statement, Mr. Panetta vowed to continue the “global pursuit” of Al Qaeda and its allies but said interrogators would use traditional methods and not physical force.
“C.I.A. officers, whose knowledge of terrorist organizations is second to none, will continue to conduct debriefings using a dialogue style of questioning,” Mr. Panetta wrote. He said C.I.A. officers were required to report abuse, even if it were carried out by a cooperating foreign intelligence service.
Mr. Panetta also said the agency would no longer use contractors to conduct interrogations. Former military psychologists working under contract for the C.I.A. helped devise and conduct the previous harsh interrogations, according to former agency officials. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had proposed legislation barring contractors from conducting interrogations, saying the job was too important to outsource.
The Senate committee recently began an investigation of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program, and senior Senate and House members have called for a broader and more public “truth commission” to investigate past counterterrorism programs.
Mr. Panetta said that the agency would cooperate with Congressional reviews but said that “fairness and wisdom” should dictate against a criminal investigation or other sanctions.
The C.I.A. statement comes at a time of continuing debate inside the Obama administration over which classified documents related to the agency’s interrogation program should be made public. After several delays, the Justice Department now has until April 16 to decide whether to make public legal opinions justifying the C.I.A.’s harsh methods.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has argued for the release of the opinions and related documents, but some current and former C.I.A. officials say they believe that wholesale disclosures could harm counterterrorism efforts and hurt morale at the agency.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
ETHANOL costs too much for FOOD!
Report: Ethanol raises cost of nutrition programs
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
The increased use of ethanol could cost the government up to $900 million for food stamps and child nutrition programs, a congressional report says.
Higher use of the corn-based fuel additive accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That translates into higher costs for food programs for the needy.
The CBO said other factors, such as skyrocketing energy costs, had an even greater impact than ethanol on food prices during that period. Economists there estimate that increased costs for food programs overall due to higher food prices will be about $5.3 billion in the current budget year.
Ethanol's impact on future food prices is uncertain, the report says, because an increased supply of corn has the potential to eventually lower food prices.
Roughly one quarter of corn grown in the United States is now used to produce ethanol, and overall consumption of ethanol in the country hit a record high last year, exceeding 9 billion gallons, according to the CBO. Nearly 3 billion bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol in the United States last year — an increase of almost a billion bushels over 2007.
The demand for ethanol was one factor that increased corn prices, leading to higher animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers, ranchers and food manufacturers. Some of that cost is eventually passed on to consumers, since corn is used in so many food products.
Several of those affected groups have banded together to oppose tax breaks and federal mandates for the fuel. They said Thursday that the report shows the unintended consequences of ethanol.
"As startling as these figures are, they do not even tell the story of the toll higher food prices have taken on working families, nor the impact higher feed prices have had on farmers in animal agriculture who have seen staggering losses and job cuts and liquidation of livestock herds," the Grocery Manufacturers Association, American Meat Institute, National Turkey Federation and National Council of Chain Restaurants said in a statement.
Supporters of ethanol disagreed, saying the report was good news.
"The report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms what we've known for some time: The impact of ethanol production on food prices is minimal and that energy was the main driver in the rise of food prices," said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, an ethanol industry group.
Ethanol producers asked the Environmental Protection Agency last month to increase the amount of ethanol that refiners can blend with gasoline from a maximum of 10 percent to 15 percent, which could boost the demand for ethanol by as much as 6 billion gallons a year. They said raising that cap would create thousands of new jobs.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said he believes the administration could move quickly to raise the cap to at least 12 or 13 percent, but the EPA has not yet made a final decision.
The report also looked at ethanol's effects on greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledging that over time ethanol's benefits over gasoline could diminish. The report says the use of ethanol reduced gasoline consumption by about 4 percent last year and reduced the gases blamed for global warming from the burning of gasoline by less than 1 percent. But the clearing of cropland and forests to produce more ethanol could more than offset those reductions.
By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
The increased use of ethanol could cost the government up to $900 million for food stamps and child nutrition programs, a congressional report says.
Higher use of the corn-based fuel additive accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That translates into higher costs for food programs for the needy.
The CBO said other factors, such as skyrocketing energy costs, had an even greater impact than ethanol on food prices during that period. Economists there estimate that increased costs for food programs overall due to higher food prices will be about $5.3 billion in the current budget year.
Ethanol's impact on future food prices is uncertain, the report says, because an increased supply of corn has the potential to eventually lower food prices.
Roughly one quarter of corn grown in the United States is now used to produce ethanol, and overall consumption of ethanol in the country hit a record high last year, exceeding 9 billion gallons, according to the CBO. Nearly 3 billion bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol in the United States last year — an increase of almost a billion bushels over 2007.
The demand for ethanol was one factor that increased corn prices, leading to higher animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers, ranchers and food manufacturers. Some of that cost is eventually passed on to consumers, since corn is used in so many food products.
Several of those affected groups have banded together to oppose tax breaks and federal mandates for the fuel. They said Thursday that the report shows the unintended consequences of ethanol.
"As startling as these figures are, they do not even tell the story of the toll higher food prices have taken on working families, nor the impact higher feed prices have had on farmers in animal agriculture who have seen staggering losses and job cuts and liquidation of livestock herds," the Grocery Manufacturers Association, American Meat Institute, National Turkey Federation and National Council of Chain Restaurants said in a statement.
Supporters of ethanol disagreed, saying the report was good news.
"The report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms what we've known for some time: The impact of ethanol production on food prices is minimal and that energy was the main driver in the rise of food prices," said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, an ethanol industry group.
Ethanol producers asked the Environmental Protection Agency last month to increase the amount of ethanol that refiners can blend with gasoline from a maximum of 10 percent to 15 percent, which could boost the demand for ethanol by as much as 6 billion gallons a year. They said raising that cap would create thousands of new jobs.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said he believes the administration could move quickly to raise the cap to at least 12 or 13 percent, but the EPA has not yet made a final decision.
The report also looked at ethanol's effects on greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledging that over time ethanol's benefits over gasoline could diminish. The report says the use of ethanol reduced gasoline consumption by about 4 percent last year and reduced the gases blamed for global warming from the burning of gasoline by less than 1 percent. But the clearing of cropland and forests to produce more ethanol could more than offset those reductions.
GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS R FUN!! from NRA?
Columbine Plus 10
It is impossible to view last week’s killing of 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., in isolation. It will soon be the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School and the second anniversary of the mass shootings at Virginia Tech. In the last month, multiple shootings have claimed the lives of more than 50 Americans.
In this historical context, Binghamton is yet another reminder of America’s terrible gun problem and a summons to lawmakers to insist on common-sense gun laws. Yet Congress responds with a collective shrug.
There was a moment, after Columbine, when the nation engaged in a promising conversation about gun violence, and it briefly seemed as though Congress might rise above the extremists at the National Rifle Association. In May 1999, the N.R.A. lost a showdown in the Senate over closing the loophole that allows unqualified buyers to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check.
That victory was illusory; the gun show measure died in conference in the House, and the post-Columbine urge to do something meaningful evaporated. The Virginia Tech massacre eight years later reawakened some Congressional interest. Even the N.R.A. had to support a measure making it harder for someone with a record of serious mental illness to obtain a gun.
Still, Congress merely nibbled at the problem, and today the idea of closing the gun-show loophole and taking other steps that would help save lives without violating the Second Amendment is not even seriously on the table. Inside Washington’s bubble, it is as if the shootings in Binghamton and elsewhere never took place. The N.R.A.’s ability to intimidate grown men and women in the House and Senate remains undiminished, despite its poor record in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.
So far, the Obama White House has not been a profile in courage either. Witness the chilly reception to recent calls by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to reimpose an assault weapons ban to make it harder for American gun traffickers to arm the Mexican drug cartels.
Congress actually seems to be moving backward. Last month, the N.R.A. persuaded the Senate to attach an amendment that would repeal the District of Columbia’s gun laws to a bill giving the district a voting member in Congress. This amendment would permit sniper rifles that can pierce armor up to a mile away to be possessed in unlimited quantity in the nation’s capital.
The district’s current representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is fighting to get the House to pass a clean version of the bill, without the amendment, but her prospects are cloudy. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer cannot muster the votes, President Obama should intervene. He should also rescind a dangerous regulation from the Bush years allowing concealed loaded guns in national parks.
More broadly, he should place the immense persuasive powers of his office behind an across-the-board, badly overdue push for sensible gun control.
It is impossible to view last week’s killing of 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., in isolation. It will soon be the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School and the second anniversary of the mass shootings at Virginia Tech. In the last month, multiple shootings have claimed the lives of more than 50 Americans.
In this historical context, Binghamton is yet another reminder of America’s terrible gun problem and a summons to lawmakers to insist on common-sense gun laws. Yet Congress responds with a collective shrug.
There was a moment, after Columbine, when the nation engaged in a promising conversation about gun violence, and it briefly seemed as though Congress might rise above the extremists at the National Rifle Association. In May 1999, the N.R.A. lost a showdown in the Senate over closing the loophole that allows unqualified buyers to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check.
That victory was illusory; the gun show measure died in conference in the House, and the post-Columbine urge to do something meaningful evaporated. The Virginia Tech massacre eight years later reawakened some Congressional interest. Even the N.R.A. had to support a measure making it harder for someone with a record of serious mental illness to obtain a gun.
Still, Congress merely nibbled at the problem, and today the idea of closing the gun-show loophole and taking other steps that would help save lives without violating the Second Amendment is not even seriously on the table. Inside Washington’s bubble, it is as if the shootings in Binghamton and elsewhere never took place. The N.R.A.’s ability to intimidate grown men and women in the House and Senate remains undiminished, despite its poor record in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.
So far, the Obama White House has not been a profile in courage either. Witness the chilly reception to recent calls by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to reimpose an assault weapons ban to make it harder for American gun traffickers to arm the Mexican drug cartels.
Congress actually seems to be moving backward. Last month, the N.R.A. persuaded the Senate to attach an amendment that would repeal the District of Columbia’s gun laws to a bill giving the district a voting member in Congress. This amendment would permit sniper rifles that can pierce armor up to a mile away to be possessed in unlimited quantity in the nation’s capital.
The district’s current representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is fighting to get the House to pass a clean version of the bill, without the amendment, but her prospects are cloudy. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer cannot muster the votes, President Obama should intervene. He should also rescind a dangerous regulation from the Bush years allowing concealed loaded guns in national parks.
More broadly, he should place the immense persuasive powers of his office behind an across-the-board, badly overdue push for sensible gun control.
Grumpy Old People Paty just doesn't GET IT!
The President Has Become a Divisive Figure
OPINION APRIL 8, 2009
Compare his start with George W. Bush's.
By KARL ROVE
The Pew Research Center reported last week that President Barack Obama "has the most polarized early job approval of any president" since surveys began tracking this 40 years ago. The gap between Mr. Obama's approval rating among Democrats (88%) and Republicans (27%) is 61 points. This "approval gap" is 10 points bigger than George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency, despite Mr. Bush winning a bitterly contested election.
Part of Mr. Obama's polarized standing can be attributed to a long-term trend. University of Missouri political scientist John Petrocik points out that since 1980, each successive first term president has had more polarized support than his predecessor with the exception of 1989, when George H.W. Bush enjoyed a modest improvement over Ronald Reagan's 1981 standing.
But rather than end or ameliorate that trend, Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric have accelerated it. His campaign promised post-partisanship, but since taking office Mr. Obama has frozen Republicans out of the deliberative process, and his response to their suggestions has been a brusque dismissal that "I won."
Compare this with Mr. Bush's actions in the aftermath of his election. Among his first appointments were Democratic judicial nominees who had been blocked by Republicans under President Bill Clinton. The Bush White House joined with Democratic and Republican leaders to draft education reform legislation. And Mr. Bush worked with Republican Chuck Grassley to cut a deal with Democrat Max Baucus to win bipartisan passage of a big tax cut in a Senate split 50-50 after the 2000 election.
Mr. Obama has hastened the decline of Republican support with petty attacks on his critics and predecessor. For a person who promised hope and civility in politics, Mr. Obama has shown a borderline obsessiveness in blaming Mr. Bush. Starting with his inaugural address and continuing through this week's overseas trip, the new president's jabs at Mr. Bush have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful. They have also diminished Mr. Obama by showing him to be another conventional politician. Rather than ending "the blame game," he is personifying it.
The question that will worry the Obama West Wing is whether the views of independents come to look more like Democrats or Republicans. Recent opinion surveys show that support for his policies among independents is slipping.
On both Mr. Obama's performance and policies, independents are starting to look more like Republicans. For example, the most recent Fox News poll (taken March 31 to April 1) found that Mr. Obama's job approval among independents has fallen to 52%, down nine points from the start of March and down 12 points from late January. Over the same period, the number of independents who disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance has doubled to 32% from 16%.
The same poll also found that 76% of independents worry that government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. Independents oppose Mr. Obama's proposed budget by a 55%-37% margin.
If independents continue looking more like Republicans, especially on deficits, spending and the economy, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats could be in for a rough ride.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.
It was the concern of independents and "soft partisans" about national debt and spending that gave rise to Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. More significantly, independents angry about deficits and spending were the key swing bloc in the 1994 congressional races, where Republicans picked up eight Senate seats and 54 House seats, winning their first House majority since 1955.
Declining support for the Obama agenda among independents may further unnerve congressional Democrats, especially in the House. Sixty-nine Democratic congressmen represent districts carried by Mr. Bush or John McCain in two of the last three presidential contests. Forty-eight of these districts were carried by Mr. McCain last election. If independent support continues slipping, many of these Democrats will be fingering worry beads as the mid-term election approaches.
Perhaps that's why 20 House Democrats voted no or abstained on the president's budget resolution, joining all 198 Republicans in not supporting Mr. Obama's budget framework. Nineteen represent GOP-leaning districts -- and at least 16 are vulnerable to Republican challengers, including 14 freshmen or sophomore congressmen.
We don't yet know the price Democrats will pay for Mr. Obama's fiscal radicalism. But we do know that no presidential hopeful in our lifetime has made bipartisanship more central to his candidacy and few presidents have devoted as many eloquent words to its importance. Yet no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America so much, so quickly. Mr. Obama has not come close to living up to his own standards. It took him less than 11 weeks to achieve the very opposite of what he promised. That, in its own regrettable way, is quite an achievement.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
OPINION APRIL 8, 2009
Compare his start with George W. Bush's.
By KARL ROVE
The Pew Research Center reported last week that President Barack Obama "has the most polarized early job approval of any president" since surveys began tracking this 40 years ago. The gap between Mr. Obama's approval rating among Democrats (88%) and Republicans (27%) is 61 points. This "approval gap" is 10 points bigger than George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency, despite Mr. Bush winning a bitterly contested election.
Part of Mr. Obama's polarized standing can be attributed to a long-term trend. University of Missouri political scientist John Petrocik points out that since 1980, each successive first term president has had more polarized support than his predecessor with the exception of 1989, when George H.W. Bush enjoyed a modest improvement over Ronald Reagan's 1981 standing.
But rather than end or ameliorate that trend, Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric have accelerated it. His campaign promised post-partisanship, but since taking office Mr. Obama has frozen Republicans out of the deliberative process, and his response to their suggestions has been a brusque dismissal that "I won."
Compare this with Mr. Bush's actions in the aftermath of his election. Among his first appointments were Democratic judicial nominees who had been blocked by Republicans under President Bill Clinton. The Bush White House joined with Democratic and Republican leaders to draft education reform legislation. And Mr. Bush worked with Republican Chuck Grassley to cut a deal with Democrat Max Baucus to win bipartisan passage of a big tax cut in a Senate split 50-50 after the 2000 election.
Mr. Obama has hastened the decline of Republican support with petty attacks on his critics and predecessor. For a person who promised hope and civility in politics, Mr. Obama has shown a borderline obsessiveness in blaming Mr. Bush. Starting with his inaugural address and continuing through this week's overseas trip, the new president's jabs at Mr. Bush have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful. They have also diminished Mr. Obama by showing him to be another conventional politician. Rather than ending "the blame game," he is personifying it.
The question that will worry the Obama West Wing is whether the views of independents come to look more like Democrats or Republicans. Recent opinion surveys show that support for his policies among independents is slipping.
On both Mr. Obama's performance and policies, independents are starting to look more like Republicans. For example, the most recent Fox News poll (taken March 31 to April 1) found that Mr. Obama's job approval among independents has fallen to 52%, down nine points from the start of March and down 12 points from late January. Over the same period, the number of independents who disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance has doubled to 32% from 16%.
The same poll also found that 76% of independents worry that government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. Independents oppose Mr. Obama's proposed budget by a 55%-37% margin.
If independents continue looking more like Republicans, especially on deficits, spending and the economy, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats could be in for a rough ride.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.
It was the concern of independents and "soft partisans" about national debt and spending that gave rise to Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. More significantly, independents angry about deficits and spending were the key swing bloc in the 1994 congressional races, where Republicans picked up eight Senate seats and 54 House seats, winning their first House majority since 1955.
Declining support for the Obama agenda among independents may further unnerve congressional Democrats, especially in the House. Sixty-nine Democratic congressmen represent districts carried by Mr. Bush or John McCain in two of the last three presidential contests. Forty-eight of these districts were carried by Mr. McCain last election. If independent support continues slipping, many of these Democrats will be fingering worry beads as the mid-term election approaches.
Perhaps that's why 20 House Democrats voted no or abstained on the president's budget resolution, joining all 198 Republicans in not supporting Mr. Obama's budget framework. Nineteen represent GOP-leaning districts -- and at least 16 are vulnerable to Republican challengers, including 14 freshmen or sophomore congressmen.
We don't yet know the price Democrats will pay for Mr. Obama's fiscal radicalism. But we do know that no presidential hopeful in our lifetime has made bipartisanship more central to his candidacy and few presidents have devoted as many eloquent words to its importance. Yet no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America so much, so quickly. Mr. Obama has not come close to living up to his own standards. It took him less than 11 weeks to achieve the very opposite of what he promised. That, in its own regrettable way, is quite an achievement.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)