Politics | Politics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: LindyBill10/8/2011 2:42:20 PM
   of 536246
 
If U.S. Leaves Vacuum in Iraq, Iran’s Deep Influence May Not Fill It

Joseph Sywenkyj for The New York Times
The Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf, one of the holiest sites for the Shiite diaspora. Some say Iran has worn out its welcome in this region that is a center of Shiite Islam.


By TIM ARANGO
NAJAF, Iraq — As the United States draws down its forces in Iraq, fears abound that Iran will simply move into the vacuum and extend its already substantial political influence more deeply through the soft powers of culture and commerce. But here, in this region that is a center of Shiite Islam, some officials say that Iran wore out its welcome long ago.


Surely, Iran has emerged empowered in Iraq over the last eight years, and it has a sympathetic Shiite-dominated government to show for it, as well as close ties to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr. But for what so far are rather obscure reasons — perhaps the struggling Iranian economy and mistrust toward Iranians that has been nurtured for centuries — it has been unable to extend its reach.

In fact, a host of countries led by Turkey — but not including the United States — have made the biggest inroads, much to the chagrin of people here in Najaf like the governor.

“Before 2003, 90 percent of Najaf people liked Iranians,” said the governor, Adnan al-Zurufi, who has lived in Chicago and Michigan and holds American citizenship. “Now, 90 percent hate them. Iran likes to take, not give.”

Near midnight, Mr. Zurufi held court at a cafe, his team of bodyguards standing sentry at the door, frisking patrons. Outside, a convoy of white sport utility vehicles waited, and nearby, down a crooked alleyway, thousands of visitors took in the nighttime serenity of the Imam Ali Shrine, one of the holiest sites for the Shiite diaspora, where millions of Iranians flock every year.

Mr. Zurufi’s comments cut against the grain of what is commonly understood about the influence of Iran in southern Iraq, where the two countries have a common religious bond — both are majority Shiite — but where nationality competes with sect.

A standard narrative has it that the Iraq war opened up a chessboard for the United States and Iran to tussle for power. One of the enduring outcomes has been an emboldened Iran that is politically close to Iraq’s leaders, many of whom escaped to Iran during Saddam Hussein’s government, and that is a large trading partner.

Yet the story is more nuanced, particularly in the Shiite-dominated south that became politically empowered after the American invasion upended Sunni rule. It has been other countries — most powerfully Turkey, but also China, Lebanon and Kuwait — that have cemented influence through economic ties.

The patterns were established soon after the American invasion. Shoddy Iranian goods — particularly low-quality cheese, fruit and yogurt — flooded markets in the south, often at exorbitant prices, said Mahdi Najat Nei, a diplomat who heads the Trade Promotion Organization of Iran office in Baghdad. This sullied Iran’s reputation, even though prices have since plummeted, creating an aversion to Iranian goods that lasts to this day, Mr. Nei said.

This has made it difficult for Iranian businesspeople to make investments in southern Iraq, said Ali Rhida, who is from Iran and is building an iron factory on the outskirts of Najaf. “The real problem is with the mangers of the economy in Iran,” he said. “After the fall of the regime, many Iranian companies came here but they screwed it all up.”

In Najaf, officials still complain of low-quality Iranian goods, as well as little real investment from their eastern neighbor and violence perpetrated by militias with links to Iran. Their main complaint about the Americans is their lack of influence.

One aim of the American invasion here was to establish a moderate center of Shiite Islam, democratically inclined and oriented to the West, that would be a counterbalance to Iran’s system of clerical rule. However, something like the reverse seems to have happened. As Iran has used its political connections to hold great sway over Iraq’s leadership class, and has backed militias responsible for assassinations and attacks on American bases, it has been less successful wielding other mechanisms of power at a grass-roots level.

“Investment from Iran has almost stopped,” said Zuheir Sharba, the chairman of Najaf’s provincial council, referring to a phenomenon that has more to do with Iran’s anemic state-run economy than it does to Iranian ambitions. Speaking about Americans, he said, “They were coming, but they’ve stopped.”

Mr. Sharba continued: “We wish that American companies would come here. I wish the American relationship was that, instead of troops, it would be companies.” Mr. Sharba is a cleric, and he spent 14 years in Iran in exile during Mr. Hussein’s government.

With the United States military leaving, it will be left to diplomats, business executives and nongovernmental organizations to maintain American influence in Iraq. And while the State Department is embarking on a vast expansion of its operations, critics say it is missing an opportunity to secure influence here in the seat of Iraq’s Shiite clerical establishment, which is an important power center in the new Iraq.

But winning over the clerics will not be easy. Certainly, some officials, including Mr. Zurufi — who was appointed governor of Najaf in 2004 by L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American administrator in Iraq, and later elected to the post in 2009 — are pro-American, but the clerical establishment, which is less receptive to American influence, wields more power over the people.

Not only did the Americans refuse a request by Mr. Zurufi and other officials to open a consulate in Najaf, the State Department’s Provincial Reconstruction Team in Najaf actually shut down earlier than scheduled this summer after local clerical pressure, particularly from officials loyal to Mr. Sadr, who spends most of his time in Iran.

While Iran may be flagging in the battle for hearts and minds, it is still able to create trouble. A rise this summer in American troop deaths in southern Iraq at the hands of Iranian-backed militias raised alarms in diplomatic circles and became the core of the argument put forth by those who want a longer-lasting American military presence to counter Iran’s clout.

But the troublemaking does not extend to the more important arena of commerce, officials say. “Because of the political sensitivities of Iran, many people say Iran is controlling the economy of Iraq,” said Sami al-Askari, a member of Parliament and a close confidant to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “No, the Turks are.”

Mr. Maliki once lived in Iran, and he surrounds himself with aides who have close ties to Tehran. Yet even these relationships have not translated into economic or cultural influence that could endear Iran to the Iraqi public at large. “I’ve yet to meet an Iraqi who trusts the Iranians,” said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Group’s deputy program director for the Middle East.

Mr. Hiltermann recalled a recent visit to Mr. Maliki’s compound in Baghdad that illustrated for him the inability of Iran to transfer its political connections to durable economic power here. “Maliki’s aide was clearly resentful that the guesthouse was built by Turkey, but the Iranians couldn’t do it,” he said.

Iran has also been trying to make inroads culturally, but it is bumping up against the same uneasiness that Iraqis have toward Iran’s business efforts. This year Iran negotiated a deal to refurbish several movie theaters in Baghdad that have been dark for years. Yet the renovations have yet to get under way, and officials say they wish it were the Americans — and their technology — involved in the project. “If a person asks me, who do I want to come help me? I wish that the Americans, by occupying Iraq, would support the culture and theater,” said Fuad Thanon, the head of Iraq’s national theater.

Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, said that because of numerous small projects — particularly related to religious tourism in Najaf, including a large underground toilet facility, and some construction projects in Basra — “a lot of these myths get perpetrated” about Iran’s influence in the south. “In the aggregate, it doesn’t add up to much,” he said.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill10/8/2011 2:47:35 PM
   of 536246
 
Checking Account Wars, Behind the Scenes By RON LIEBER Published: October 7, 2011

This week, Senator Dick Durbin took to the Senate floor and called for a run on Bank of America.




Kristen L. Armstrong/Neighborhood Credit Union Some banks and credit unions offer an account called Kasasa, which rewards debit card use.



The Illinois Democrat had pushed legislation, which went into effect a week ago, that limits the fees big banks collect from merchants, and he now finds himself the fall guy for Bank of America’s new $5 monthly debit card fee. His response? He ranted and raved and suggested that consumers “get the heck out of that bank.”

But even as Bank of America and other institutions are adding fees and other restrictions, a company called PerkStreet, which you may have read about in this column before, is hoping that those Bank of America customers will run to its Web site. PerkStreet gives checking account customers as much as 2 percent back on their purchases when they use its debit cards.

Meanwhile, a company called BancVue works with community banks and credit unions to offer checking accounts that can yield more than 3 percent in interest on deposits for people who use their debit cards a lot. Soon, the company asserts, the total number of branches among all of the institutions that offer its rewards checking accounts will equal that of the 10th-largest bank in America.

So the big banks make you pay, and the most aggressive of the little institutions want to pay you. What on earth is going on here, and can this possibly continue?

First, let’s be clear about what we talk about when we talk about free checking. As Ron Shevlin, an analyst at Aite Group, explains it, you can just as easily make a case that free checking will always exist as you can that it never existed in the first place.

“If I bring enough money and accounts, they are not going to charge me,” he said. “They would be crazy to.” Indeed, that is still the case with Bank of America. If you have a mortgage with the bank or $20,000 on deposit, the $5 fee will not apply.

Even when nearly everyone had free checking several years ago, however, there were all sorts of questionable activities going on behind the scenes to pay for it. Overdraft fees were a big one. A.T.M. fees for using the wrong machine were also lucrative.

And then there are the merchants who have generally paid far more to the banks for the privilege of accepting their debit cards than the service actually costs. Those fees helped pay for free checking, but they probably contributed to slightly higher prices in the store.

The outrage over those merchant fees is what led Senator Durbin and his colleagues to limit what financial institutions with over $10 billion in assets can collect from merchants when customers use debit cards. Any checking account provider smaller than that, including PerkStreet and BancVue’s partners, can continue collecting higher fees. Because they get more fees, it helps them offer better checking account terms.

Indeed, both companies are built in no small part on the backs of those merchants and the fees that they pay. PerkStreet offers a free checking account and 2 percent back on all debit card purchases (with no monthly or annual limits) to people who keep an average of $5,000 in a checking account. On days when you fall below that figure, you get 1 percent back, which is still a good deal for a debit card program.

Dan O’Malley, PerkStreet’s co-founder, would not say what percentage of customers regularly earned 2 percent, though he said that the number was “meaningful.” I’d guess it’s less than half. He achieves further savings by handing out the refunds only via gift cards, most of which he obtains at a discount to face value.

The catch for PerkStreet customers is that they have to sign for their purchases to get the rewards. (Recurring charges on the debit card from monthly billers earn rewards, too.) If customers punch in a PIN instead, PerkStreet usually gets less in fees from the merchants, so it generally doesn’t give customers rewards when they do that.

Mr. O’Malley also would not say how many accounts the company had at the moment. As big banks have made changes in recent months, however, PerkStreet has tripled its account acquisition rate, he said. Last Friday, the day after Bank of America announced the $5 fee, the acquisition rate doubled again. On Saturday, it doubled yet again.

BancVue’s checking accounts, which it encourages bank and credit union customers to call “ Kasasa,” can offer high interest or rewards, depending on which platforms the partner institution wants to adopt.

The banks and credit unions decide how much interest to pay, and it can top 3 percent these days. The catch is that they generally limit how much money you can deposit to earn that rate, and you have to use your debit card at least 10 or 15 times a month.

Most don’t require customers to sign for purchases, though. The theory here is that once you make people use the debit card 10 or 15 times a month, they’ll put it at the top of their wallet and use it 20 or 30 times a month. So whether they sign or use a PIN, enough money rolls in from the merchants to pay for the high interest. (Some people may overdraw their accounts more often with heavy use, which also helps on the profitability front.)

In reality, according to Carolyn Jordan, a senior vice president at Neighborhood Credit Union, which has branches in and around Dallas, only half of people who sign up for its Kasasa accounts will make the required number of debit transactions in any given month. If they don’t, they earn less, so that helps sustain the program.

Oddly enough, the Independent Community Bankers Association lobbied against the Durbin rule, even though it gave its members a pricing advantage. Bankers don’t like it when the government sets rates, and the association doesn’t believe a two-tier pricing system is sustainable.

Is the association right? We’ll know only once the cat-and-mouse game that started with the new Durbin rule plays out.

Big banks could try to bully Visa and MasterCard into lowering the fees that small banks earn from debit cards. Noah Hanft, MasterCard’s general counsel, says he doesn’t worry about that happening. “Sure, we have big customers, and they have different perspectives on what we should be doing,” he said. “But at the end of the day, we make those decisions independently, and I have no problem saying that in a very adamant way.”

Merchants may try to game the system, too, steering customers to use a PIN instead of signing if that remains cheaper. But card issuers choose their own networks, and if they see merchants trying to take advantage, they could potentially find networks that charge merchants more — or ones that charge the same for PIN and signature.

David Evans, an economist who has done work for institutions that opposed the Durbin fee cap, sees another possibility. If big banks ratchet up the fees, that gives small banks cover to reduce their perks and raise their own fees some — though not so much that they won’t still be undercutting the big guys. That isn’t great for consumers.

Mr. O’Malley sees a more self-serving possibility at work. The best way to make money as a small banker is to sell out to a big banker. But if the big banker earns less money after buying the small banker thanks to the debit fee cap, that means that small bankers can’t sell for the same multiples as they used to.

“That’s quite a conspiracy theory,” said Viveca Ware, senior vice president for regulatory policy at the community bankers association.

And if the fees that the smaller institutions earn from debit transactions do fall? Ms. Jordan and other bank and credit union executives could just move all of their willing customers who qualify over to credit cards and get BancVue’s help with rewarding them that way. After all, there are no limits on credit card merchant fees (at least not yet).

Mr. O’Malley, who has hired a gang of fellow former Capital One employees and student loan industry refugees, says they aren’t interested in adding to people’s debt with a credit card. My guess is that if his company were truly threatened by a big decline in debit fees, he’d offer a rewards card that customers would have to pay off each month.

If you’re trying to figure out your own next move amid all of this uncertainty, well, good luck. As Adam Levitin, a Georgetown law professor, noted in a blog post on creditslips.org this week, it’s hard to make apples to apples comparisons between one checking account and another, and harder still to move your money once you do decide to switch banks. This might be a good place for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to set standards.

So none of this is easy. Then again, if it were, there wouldn’t be a national conversation going on now about checking accounts, of all things.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill10/8/2011 2:57:05 PM
3 Recommendations   of 536246
 
Undrained Swamp Update: Things You Can’t Believe are Legal Inside the Beltway, Part XXVII
by Doug Powers

2 people liked this


**Written by Doug Powers

It isn’t difficult to see why so many in Washington can’t or won’t recognize the inherent problem with things like the Solyndra debacle — or crony capitalism in general. So many of them live with it on a daily basis and display a high degree of tolerance within their own ranks for the very things they outlaw for everybody else.

Enter Rep. Rosa DeLauro:

Federal campaign records reveal a self-dealing relationship between a senior Democratic Connecticut congresswoman and her husband’s political consulting firm.

In the last four congressional election cycles, the campaign committee for Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, Friends of Rosa DeLauro?, transferred $1.2 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which in the same period paid $1.9 million to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for polling and other services, according to Federal Election Commission? (FEC) filings. Stanley B. Greenberg, founding partner of GQRR, is DeLauro’s husband of 33 years.

One comment DeLauro surely gets from the public — aside from “love your movies, Mr. Nimoy” — is, “hey, is that even legal?”

Apparently it is:

Kenneth F. Boehm, a campaign finance expert and chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, said DeLauro’s situation is perfectly legal, even though the funds DeLauro donates to help the DCCC may be re-entering her household through her husband’s business.

Boehm said that legality and propriety do not always coincide: Under current FEC regulations a self-dealing candidate can even pay a spouse for campaign services.
[...]
Capital University Law Prof. Bradley A. Smith, who was chairman of the FEC in 2004, said that self-dealing relationships are not necessarily corrupt, punishable by law or even uncommon.

Smith said, “it’s not just a conflict of interest, it just looks bad. It looks like she’s raising money and giving it to herself.”

Yeah, it sure looks that way:

DeLauro is of course a big proponent of campaign finance reform — initiatives that often merely lock all the doors and open all the windows. Politicians who do the kinds of things outlined above and then call for campaign finance and government reforms are the source of constant amusement: “I support this CFR law because we shouldn’t have people like me running around here!”

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill10/8/2011 2:58:59 PM
1 Recommendation   of 536246
 
NY-08's (D+22) #OWS NIMBYism.
by Moe Lane (Profile)


(Via Hot Air Headlines) It would seem that the people who actually live and work in NY-08's Eighth District (epicenter of the “Occupy Wall Street,” or “OWS,” protests, at least according to this map) are getting sick and tired of the dirty filthy hippie freeloaders:

Panini and Company Cafe normally sells sandwiches to tourists in Lower Manhattan and the residents nearby, but in recent days its owner, Stacey Tzortzatos, has also become something of a restroom monitor. Protesters from Occupy Wall Street, who are encamped in a nearby park, have been tromping in by the scores, and not because they are hungry.

Ms. Tzortzatos’s tolerance for the newcomers finally vanished when the sink was broken and fell to the floor. She installed a $200 lock on the bathroom to thwart nonpaying customers, angering the protesters.

The article goes on to point out that this sentiment, while not universal, is widely shared among local businesses and residents; particularly the ones that have to directly deal with Occupy Wall Street’s lack of porta-potties and love for drum circles. I suggest, however, that if anybody living or trying to do business in this district has a problem with the aforementioned dirty filthy hippie freeloaders then they should take it up with their Congressman Jerry Nadler, who is reportedly encouraging the continuing degradation of local property values. His local contact information is below: I’m sure that Nadler’s staff would love to hear from those of his constituents who are enjoying the tip of his rhetorical spear right now*…

Congressman Jerald Nadler
Manhattan
201 Varick Street,
Suite 669
New York, NY 10014
Tel. 212-367-7350

Moe Lane ( crosspost)

*One interesting side effect of that Anthony Weiner business: everything involving NYC politicians sounds vaguely dirty now.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Stevefoder who wrote (449809)10/8/2011 3:01:50 PM
From: ponokee1 Recommendation   of 536246
 
It has to be pointed out to new immigrants that the US is a secular country. If they don't like it they can be redirected to a third world destination they can try and rule over. They've done it before and they will do it again and they're doing right now.

“Christendom might quite reasonably have been alarmed if it had not been attacked. But as a matter of history it had been attacked. The Crusader would have been quite justified in suspecting the Moslem even if the Moslem had merely been a new stranger; but as a matter of history he was already an old enemy. The critic of the Crusade talks as if it had sought out some inoffensive tribe or temple in the interior of Tibet, which was never discovered until it was invaded. They seem entirely to forget that long before the Crusaders had dreamed of riding to Jerusalem, the Moslems had almost ridden into Paris.” GK Chesterton

Compare this to what the President of the United States stated:

“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” Obama said. “The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical … in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”

As an enemy combatant it must be very good news for Islam to know their Officer in Chief has a soft spot for you.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill10/8/2011 3:01:56 PM
1 Recommendation   of 536246
 
Christians fear Islamist pressure in Egypt

By MAGGIE MICHAEL
Associated Press





CAIRO (AP) -- On her first day to school, 15-year-old Christian student Ferial Habib was stopped at the doorstep of her new high school with clear instructions: either put on a headscarf or no school this year.

Habib refused. While most Muslim women in Egypt wear the headscarf, Christians do not, and the move by administrators to force a Christian student to don it was unprecedented. For the next two weeks, Habib reported to school in the southern Egyptian village of Sheik Fadl every day in her uniform, without the head covering, only to be turned back by teachers.

One day, Habib heard the school loudspeakers echoing her name and teachers with megaphones leading a number of students in chants of "We don't want Ferial here," the teenager told The Associated Press.

Habib's was allowed last week to attend without the scarf, and civil rights advocates say her case is a rare one. But it stokes the fears of Egypt's significant Christian minority that they will become the victims as Islamists grow more assertive after the Feb. 11 toppling of President Hosni Mubarak. It also illustrates how amid the country's political turmoil, with little sense of who is in charge and government control weakened, Islamic conservatives in low-level posts can step in and try to unilaterally enforce their own decisions.

Wagdi Halfa, one of Habib's lawyers, said the root problem is a lack of the rule of law.

"We don't want more laws but we want to activate the laws already in place," he said. "We are in a dark tunnel in terms of sectarian tension. Even if you have the majority who are moderate Muslims, a minority of extremists can make big impact on them and poison their minds."

In the past weeks, riots have broken out at two churches in southern Egypt, prompted by Muslim crowds angered by church construction. One riot broke out, near the city of Aswan, even after church officials agreed to a demand by local ultraconservative Muslims, called Salafis, that a cross and bells be removed from the building.

The violence is particularly frustrating for Christians because soon after Mubarak's fall the new government promised to review and lift heavy Mubarak-era restrictions on building or renovating churches. The promise raised hopes among Christians that the government would establish a clear legal right to build, resolving an issue that in recent years has increasingly sparked riots. But the review never came, and Salafi clerics have increased their rhetoric against Christians, including accusing them of seeking to spread their faith with new churches.

Habib's experience was startling because in general, Egypt's Christians, who make up at least 10 percent of the population of 80 million, have enjoyed relative freedom in terms of dress and worship. The vast majority of Muslim women in Egypt put on the headscarf, known as the higab, either for religious or social reasons, but there's little expectation that Christians wear it.

The demand that all students wear the higab was a decision by administrators and teachers at the high school in Sheik Fadl, 110 miles (180 kilometers) south of Cairo in Minya province. They said the headscarf was part of the school uniform, necessary to protect girls from sexual harassment.

A top provincial Education Ministry official, Abdel-Gawad Abdullah, said in an interview with CTV, a private Egyptian Christian television network, that the ministry gives schools the right to decide on school uniforms, and that parents during screening and application can either accept or refuse.

"And if the father wants to move his daughter to another school, it is OK," he said. "All the girls, including the Christians, put on the head cover and they have no problem," he added.

Habib's father Sorial complained to officials, demanding his daughter be allowed to attend without a scarf.

"After the revolution, there are no administration and no officials to go to. The system is lax and there is no supervision from the ministry," he told AP. "If things were under control, extremists would not have a free hand to act as they wish."

Habib was finally allowed to attend last Tuesday.

"I am happy I did what I want and that no one can force something on me. But I am afraid of the students and the teachers," she told AP. "The teachers are not normal with me and I am sure they will give me low grades at the end of the year."

Hossam Bahgat, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which tracks religious discrimination and other civil rights issues, said he had not seen a case like Habib's before. "We know that there is pressure on Muslim girls to put on the higab, especially in secondary school, not from the administration but from the girls."

He said some Muslim girls in general put on the veil to distinguish themselves from Christians.

Recent attacks on churches in southern Egypt also illustrate the heat Christians are under. Under Mubarak-era rules, the building of a church or repairs for an existing one required permission from local authorities and the state security agency - a rule not applied to mosques. The rules sought to avoid outbursts of violence from Muslim hard-liners. Since permission was rarely given, Christians at times resorted to building churches in secret, often in parish guesthouses.

On Sept. 30, a Muslim mob attacked a church in southern village of Marynab in Aswan province because they believed the Christians were illegally constructing a new church. Church officials had documents showing they had permission to build a new church to replace a previous, run-down one at the same site.

Even before the attack, Muslim protests prompted priests to turn to security officials, who arranged a meeting with local elders and Salafis. In the face of their demands, the priests agreed to take down a cross and bells on the church, according to church officials. Still, after the Christians erected a dome, the mob attacked, setting the church and nearby homes and shops on fire.

Aswan's governor, Gen. Mustafa Kamel al-Sayyed, further hiked tensions by telling the media that the church was being built on the site of a guesthouse, suggesting it was illegal.

In response, hundreds of Christians marched in front of the governor's office last week, demanding those behind the attack be prosecuted and families who lost homes be compensated. Christians also protested in Cairo, cutting off a main avenue in the heart of the capital, demanding the governor's ouster, until soldiers dispersed them by force.

Days after the Aswan attack, Muslim villagers in the southern province of Sohag tried to storm Saint Girgis church, shouting "No to church construction," as Christians on rooftops rained stones down on them. The assault was prompted by construction of a church in a guesthouse.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: ponokee who wrote (449802)10/8/2011 3:03:21 PM
From: DMaA1 Recommendation   of 536246
 
That does it. Now I'm not going to vote for Barack. <ggg>

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: LindyBill10/8/2011 3:07:17 PM
1 Recommendation   of 536246
 
Obama’s War On America’s Domestic Aircraft Industry
from Big Peace by Stephen DeMaura



Two companies, one a Kansas-based airplane manufacturer and the other its Brazilian competitor, are competing for an Air Force contract to build a new aircraft to perform light air support (LAS) and light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) roles. I’ve covered the competition between America’s Hawker Beechcraft and Brazil’s Embraer before.

Hawker Beechcraft’s T-6 military trainer

There are several reasons why the Obama administration ought to reward the contract to Hawker Beechcraft, in my view. As former-Rep. Todd Tiahrt has pointed out, awarding the contract to Hawker Beechcraft would create and sustain over 1,400 jobs here at home, while Embraer would build virtually its entire plane in Brazil and then import pieces to the U.S. for final assembly, creating only about 50 jobs here. Elsewhere, I have also pointed out the potential pitfalls of awarding a U.S. defense contract to Brazil, a country with a “golden share” rule that essentially grants the government full authority over the means of production with regard to military programs.

Now we must consider a new wrinkle in the contest over the contract. It appears as though the Obama administration is targeting the U.S. airplane manufacturing industry with a highly negative rhetorical assault at around the same time the Federative Republic of Brazil is providing deep tax cuts for its defense-related industries. In fact, Brazil’s President Dilma Rouseff just signed a bill exempting Brazilian defense contracts from paying taxes for five years. “We don’t want to produce only for Brazil. We know our competitiveness resides in our ability to export,” Rousseff said.

I’m a free trader. And tax cuts are good. But how is an American company supposed to compete for an American defense contact while at the same time the Obama administration is floating tax increases on the exact same industry here at home? “Corporate jet owners” have become synonymous with “millionaires and billionaires” and “fat cats” in the president’s speeches in recent months. “You’ll still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You’re just going to have to pay a little more,” Obama mocked U.S. businessmen and women last June.

Hawker Beechcraft doesn’t just manufacture warplanes. A substantial portion of its business is in manufacturing those same corporate jets President Obama wants to hike taxes on. So the Obama administration is asking a U.S. company to compete with a foreign company for a U.S. defense contract while he is raising prices through tax increases on the U.S. company’s products and the foreign country is exempting their companies from paying any taxes at all.



We are becoming less competitive in large part because our tax, regulatory and procurement policies stack the decks against American companies and American workers.

It is no wonder every one of Obama’s economic advisers is scratching his head trying to figure out how to get the economy moving again and create jobs.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Brumar8910/8/2011 3:15:29 PM
3 Recommendations   of 536246
 
The (Illegal) Private Bus System That Works


By Lisa Margonelli

Oct 5 2011, 11:00 AM ET 15

Brooklyn's dollar van fleet is a tantalizing demonstration of how we might supplement mass transit with privately-owned mini-transit entrepreneurs

Winston Williams owns and operates this advertising-wrapped dollar van / Lisa Margonelli

America's 20th largest bus service -- hauling 120,000 riders a day -- is profitable and also illegal. It's not really a bus service at all, but a willy-nilly aggregation of 350 licensed and 500 unlicensed privately-owned "dollar vans" that roam the streets of Brooklyn and Queens, picking up passengers from street corners where city buses are either missing or inconvenient. The dollar van fleet is a tantalizing demonstration of how we might supplement mass transit to include privately-owned mini-transit entrepreneurs, giving people alternative ways to get around, and creating jobs.

To see how the dollar van universe works (I'll get to why it's illegal in a minute), I spent a morning riding around with one of Brooklyn's dollar van entrepreneurs, Winston Williams of Blackstreet Van Lines. I caught up with Winston's pink, advertising-covered van on Livingston Street in downtown Brooklyn and hopped in the front seat, and off we went up Flatbush Avenue. Almost all of the dollar vans are Ford E350's, with a high body and side doors and enough seats in the back to hold 14 people. Once you notice them in the parts of Brooklyn and Queens where they work, they're ubiquitous. Winston looks in the rear-view mirror and explains that the trick is to keep a distance between the vans in front and the vans behind to maximize the chance of getting passengers. At $2 a ride, he needs to get 14 people in the van on the 5.6 mile trip from downtown Brooklyn to King's Highway to turn a profit. The cost of licensing, insuring, staffing, and fueling the eight vans in his fleet is considerable.

Some people worry that dollar vans pick up passengers who would otherwise ride the bus, but Columbia Assistant Professor of Urban Planning David King and doctoral student Eric Goldwyn say that's not likely. Dollar vans seem to complement the bus service, and they have real advantages. Goldwyn has ridden in the vans and conducted tallies where he's found that on some corners there are four city buses an hour and 45 to 60 vans, meaning that passengers literally don't have to wait more than a minute for a ride. Also, the vans can be a lot faster than public transit. A service that runs between Chinatowns can get from Flushing to Sunset Park in 20 minutes while the subway will take an hour and 13 minutes at minimum. And for regular riders, there are other perks. "I've heard they offer more services -- for example, they'll wait while a parent walks a child up to the door of daycare or a school." That is service that you can't get from a bus.

With its pink advertising wrapping, Winston's van gives the impression that the inside will have a party atmosphere. But it doesn't. The passengers, most of whom are from Jamaica (like Winston) or Trinidad, sit quietly. One Trinidadian woman dressed in business clothes overhears me interviewing Winston and volunteers that vans are a common way to get around the islands. The interior of the van is clean, gray, and institutional -- very much of a piece with Winston's overall business plan to brand his vans and make them mainstream.

He'd like to eventually move beyond the Flatbush route and pick up, say, hipsters in Williamsburg and bring them to Manhattan. If this sounds improbable, it's really not: Think of the incredible popularity of food trucks, which were known as "roach coaches" only 10 years ago. A hip fleet of dollar vans, providing proximity and cheap transit to 20-somethings, could easily catch on. If the vans ran on cleaner engines -- hybrids or natural gas -- they could be part of a greener city. (In another move to raise the profile of his vans beyond Flatbush, Winston allows a music promoter called Dollar Van Demos to film rappers in his vans for broadcast on the Internet.) But no broader growth can happen until the vans can be branded and made attractive to people who don't already know them, says Winston.

Ah, and that's where the illegality comes in. Winston used to have his vans all painted with a green stripe, so they became easily recognized in the neighborhood. While this "uniform" was good for business, his vans also caught the attention of police of various kinds who ticketed him for stopping to pick up passengers, and he accrued fines that ate into profits. This is the paradox of Winston's work: While he is fully licensed, insured, and inspected, his vans are prohibited from doing the one thing they really do -- picking up passengers off the street.

David King, from Columbia, quips that all dollar vans are 100 percent illegal (because they work the curbs), but some are 200 percent illegal (because they don't bother to get licensed in the first place). Winston says police don't cite the unlicensed vans, which eat into his business, but do go after the licensed ones for the curb infractions. "The law gets made up as you go along," Winston says, adding that the pink cellphone ad on the van is both an attempt to make a little money as he cruises up and down Flatbush, and a trial balloon to see whether there's a specific law prohibiting advertising on the vans. Later, one of the 500 or so completely illegal vans pulls up beside him, and in friendly Jamaican patois, Winston accuses the driver of being a terrorist. "It's not like I hate against them. But I'm running a business and they're running a hustle," he says.

The existence of laws and the lack of enforcement put the legal drivers in a bind that Winston describes as a Catch 22. In 1993, New York outlawed dollar vans entirely. It took the intervention of some activist van owners with the help of the Libertarian Institute For Justice to get them legalized. Deliberate or not, the city's perverse policy of half-legalizing legal vans and failing to enforce laws against the unlicensed ones limits the growth of what could be a useful transit resource. Winston describes a decade and half of Coyote and Roadrunner exploits with the law, concluding with, "Let there be a train strike, a blackout, a storm, or 9/11, and people are practically tearing the doors off." Last year, when the city was trying to cut bus routes, they even tried to substitute official dollar van routes, but that program was canceled when van drivers were uninterested in the routes, and riders were uninterested in the vans.

You might want to know why, exactly, jitneys or dollar vans are illegal in most states. The answer lies in the history of public transit. Until the early 1950s, most transit systems in the U.S. were privately owned companies that operated as regulated monopolies (like electric utilities today) and expected to provide transit service to an entire city. In exchange, they got the right to be the city's only transit service. Transit ridership peaked during World War II, but the transit companies slid into bankruptcy afterwards, as they were expected to serve greater suburban areas, service declined, and more and more federal money went into highways -- all of which tempted people to buy cars and abandon the trolleys and buses. Most of the country's 200 private transit franchises died in the 1950s. (Roger Rabbit had nothing to do with it. I swear.) In the late 1950s, cities took over the bankrupt transit lines and tried to make a go of them, retaining for themselves the monopoly on the right to provide service. In the early 60s the feds became involved in propping those systems up, but without much enthusiasm. Meanwhile, private transit were prevented from driving the streets even when they offered serviced different from the public transit agencies.

What's interesting about dollar vans, if they're properly licensed and insured -- and reasonably legal -- is that they could gravitate to where the riders are and where they want to go faster than public transit, which requires more infrastructure and meetings. In some cities, bus routes have histories going back decades, and they don't change to reflect how people's lives and work habits have changed. (They certainly don't stop at daycare centers.) Dollar vans are out there to make a buck, and that's not bad for passengers. Here's a video of a valiant dollar van on the prowl for customers during Hurricane Irene, when New York subways were shut down. You can see Winston's pink van at the curb.

theatlantic.com 


.....

John Alexander Thacker 1 day ago

Back in 1997, one dollar van operator tried to go legit. The City Council voted against him. Rudy Giuliani went to bat for the dollar vans, vetoing a moratorium on legal dollar van permits, but the City Council overruled him.
In that case, Rudy had the best interest of the poorest and most vulnerable in the city, but the Democrats were too beholden to the unions:

The Transport Workers Union opposes additional commuter vans, saying they take business from the city's bus and subway lines.

yamazakikun 1 day ago in reply to John Alexander Thacker



Got it in one. The primary purpose of public transit services in the US is almost always to provide jobs (and campaign contributions via the unions) to government employees and frakloads of cash (which get recycled into campaign contributions) to construction companies. Hence we have transit agencies installing rail systems not because they need more capacity than dedicated bus lanes can provide, but because buses just aren't expensive enough; and systems that truncate hours and slash frequency on Sundays for no particular reason.

And if transit agencies care whether their buses run empty or full, why the heck do they not make change on the bus, not allow riders to purchase fare media anywhere they can recharge it, and insist on every system in the country using incompatible media?
Step #1 of any sane plan to increase transit ridership has to be to provide service when and where people want to travel, whether the government is providing the service directly or just getting out of the way so that private operators can do so.
.....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ManyMoose who wrote (449808)10/8/2011 3:19:30 PM
From: D. Long1 Recommendation   of 536246
 
Sounds like you and your wife were great parents, MM.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.