06.01.2013

The Israeli Elections: The Left in Search of Identity

 

All the polls taken in Israel ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections indicate a static situation, so far as the division between right and left is concerned. The only significant changes are inside the two main blocks, that of the current coalition and that of the opposition. So far as the coalition is concerned, this blog already relayed the meteoric rise of Naftali Bnnett and his Jewish Home party at the expense of Likud. Altogether, the parties comprising the current Netanyahu coalition maintain their 65-68 seats, as opposed to the 52-55 seats held by the current opposition parties. A dramatic, and as yet unforeseen, change should take place for this electoral map to turn around, dethrone Netanyahu and bring in a new leader for Israel. Never say never, particularly in reference to Israeli politics, and to what happens in a country which prides itself with having never a dull moment, yet this is a dull campaign, henceforth the expectation for a last-minute upheaval may most likely remain an expectation, not a reality. Right and left in Israel are terms which do not correspond with the accepted European and to a large extent also American definitions of right and left, nor in regard to the class divisions, nor concerning attitudes towards socioeconomic issues. Every American reader equates support for Obamacare with the left, but in Israel, it was a Likud, a right-wing government, which instituted a state-run health insurance legislation. American readers also automatically put unions and their membership in the left-wing column, but in Israel it is different. One of the main power brokers of the Likud party, MK Haim Katz, is also the chairman of the union of the Israel Aircraft Industries, the largest public industrial employer in Israel; and this is just one, though prominent, example. Grover Norquist would be terrified to find out that in Likud, whose leader PM Netanyahu likes to compare himself to conservative Republicans, there are many who openly call for more taxation, particularly on the rich, as a way of paying for the welfare state that they want Israel to be.So, in order to have a better sense of the otherwise confusing world of Israeli politics, we can go by one definition of left versus right, and this is the attitude towards the conflict with the Palestinians, the notion of a two-state solution and the attitude towards settlements. Here, too, the picture is somewhat murky and unclear. There are five parties competing for about 40 seats, as about 10-12 go to the three Arab parties. The fact that the Arab-Israeli vote goes mainly to Arab parties, and less and less to center and center-left Jewish parties, is one of the ringing failures of parties in Israel which claim to present an inclusive political platform, one that could provide a political home for many Israeli Arabs. Those who want to combine support for Palestinian national aspirations with a drive to better their lot in the State of Israel, with its built-in Jewish majority and character. There are Arab candidates in the parties of the center and left, but these people seem to have no troops behind them. This is just one of the failures of the center and left, in terms of broadening their electoral base. Three other big blocks of voters continue to be firmly in the right-wing column, and out of reach for the center and left; Sepharadic voters, Jews from the former Soviet Union, and religious voters. These three blocks constitute the backbone of the right-wing coalition, and they continue to be impregnable to the Israeli left. This is not good news to the five parties of the center and left, better news to Netanyahu, but still potentially troubling for him, because the current polls show him losing ground to the right-wing religious parties, something which will greatly curtail his freedom of action after the elections. Here there is a potential opportunity for the center left, but one which is being sadly wasted. The Labor leader, Shelly Yechimovitz, who competes with Bennett for the no. two slot after Likud is committed not to join a coalition led by Netanyahu, and so is the marginal Meretz party. The movement of former FM Livni, Yesh Atid we have a future of Yair Lapid and what is left of the Kadima party under Shaul Mofaz are ready to join Netanyahu, but without the religious right wing. Confused? You ought to be, and so are many Israeli voters who otherwise would have liked to vote against Netanyahu, but feel that under current circumstances their vote will be to no avail. One of them is Yuval Diskin, a former head of the General Security Service and a fierce critic of Netanyahu from the left, who called for likeminded people to abstain from voting altogether. Clearly, sweet music to the ears of Netanyahu and Lieberman. With the center and left so fragmented over their priorities, unable to find the minimal workable common denominator, Netanyahu cruises ever more easily towards another term. So, on January 23rd the all too familiar ritual of soul-searching and self-blame, so familiar to the Israeli center and left, is expected to commence in full force.

Israel's Election (and Settlements) Are Killing the Two-State Solution

 

Israel's upcoming Jan. 22 parliamentary election had been expected to be a status quo affair leading to an easy victory for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, it's turned into a race to the extreme right that is threatening to kill the two-state solution. And Washington seems oblivious. The latest polls still show Netanyahu emerging as the next prime minister, but in a weakened position atop a coalition filled with politicians adamantly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. This new configuration will narrow Netanyahu's freedom of action and ability to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, moderates President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have both lost popular support to Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence. How much longer can the moderates hang on, absent some progress toward a Palestinian state, before the Islamic winds blowing through the Arab world sweep them away?It's a major headache for President Obama, who no longer has the luxury of non-engagement in the Middle East. Without swift, firm and decisive action to reignite a meaningful peace process and to push for a swift deal, the two-state option may disappear forever, leaving Israelis and Palestinians alike facing a future of endless conflict in a region already racked with instability. Obama has been hanging back during the Israeli election campaign and until he can put together his national security team for his second term. But the need is now urgent. He needs to rally his Quartet partners -- the EU, the UN and Russia -- and put together a concrete plan and timetable for a solution. Obama should consider an early trip to the Middle East to get things back on track. Whatever tactics he adopts, the president urgently needs to use political capital and diplomatic muscle to get the parties back to the table and then make the no doubt difficult concessions necessary for a deal because the alternatives are truly frightening.The parameters of such a plan remain clear: an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines with some small land swaps; secure borders for Israel; an equitable deal on Jerusalem and, of course, statehood for the Palestinians.We're now past the point of apportioning blame for a diplomatic deadlock that is almost two-and-a-half years long. Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around but the overriding fact is that Israeli settlements are fast eating away at possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state and Israel's lurch to the political right is accelerating that process. New Israeli plans to build in the East Jerusalem settlement of Givat Hamatos would cut Bethlehem off from Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, while proposed new settlements in an area known as EI east of Jerusalem would drive a massive wedge between the north and south of the West Bank.Israeli politicians have been indulging in what can only be described as a settlement frenzy. As Netanyahu's Likud-Beitenu block has slipped back in the polls, the story of the election has been the meteoric rise of the extreme right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) Party whose leader, Naftali Bennett, advocates the immediate annexation of 60 percent of the West Bank. Bennett looks like he is emerging as the leader of the third and possibly even the second largest party in the new Knesset with up to 18 seats, the same as is projected for the opposition Labor Party which once dominated Israeli politics. Netanyahu's own ranks now include figures like Moshe Feiglin, a firebrand who wants to rebuild a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount where the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques now stand the third holiest site in Islam. He was arrested there this week trying to pray, a deliberately inflammatory act. Past attempts to encroach on what Muslims call the "Noble Sanctuary" have been met by outrage and violent resistance. In September 2000, a visit to the site by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon surrounded by hundreds of riot police was the spark that ignited what became known as the Second Intifada which, in the next five years, took the lives of an estimated 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis. Feiglin also found time to address a "one-state solution" conference in Jerusalem where he outlined a plan to pay Palestinian families $500,000 each to emigrate. Because of the low birth rates in Western nations, they will welcome immigrants who "know how to build," he said. This is the same man who told The Atlantic Monthly's Jeffrey Goldberg nine years ago: "You can't teach a monkey to speak and you can't teach an Arab to be democratic. You're dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches. "Several other Likud parliamentarians attending the conference, including Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, who said Israel should move toward the gradual or total annexation of the West Bank while scrapping the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993, which still provide the framework for an eventual peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.Last week, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who is No. 3 on Netanyahu's election slate, said "two states for two peoples was never part of Likud's election platform." Knesset Member Tzipi Hotovely, No. 15 on the list, said Netanyahu had only adopted the policy to "placate the world." Without vigorous U.S. leadership at the highest level, we may soon be looking at a Middle East in which both sides are governed by extremists who reject the other's right to exist on the land. That's not a future anyone should want to see.

Ten New Year's Resolutions for U.S. Policy Towards Latin America

 

U.S. policy towards our Latin American neighbors is, as usual, in need of a few New Year's resolutions. Here goes:Ban assault weapons. Three months before the murders of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, 110 victims of violence and advocates from Mexico traveled across the United States calling on us to take action to stop the violence that has claimed over 100,000 lives in Mexico during the last six years. They asked us to ban the assault weapons that arm Mexico's brutal cartels. Some 70 percent of assault weapons and other firearms used by criminal gangs in Mexico come from the United States. The United States should reinstate and tighten the assault weapon ban and enforce the ban on the import of assault weapons into our country, which are then smuggled into Mexico. Do it for Newtown. Do it for Aurora. Do it for Mexico's mothers and fathers who have lost their children to senseless violence. Deliver comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats and Republicans alike should heed the message delivered by the Latino vote in 2012 and provide a path to citizenship for the eleven million people living in the shadows in the United States and build a flexible, sensible legal immigration system for the future. This historic step would help families and the economy in the United States and Latin America, and would do more to improve U.S.-Latin American relations than any other single action. And right now, the Obama administration should protect the rights of migrants and border communities by stopping deportation practices that send migrants back to dangerous areas to be preyed upon by cartels, and by ensuring U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents are held accountable for abuses. Support peace in Colombia, with justice. In 2013, there's a real chance to end the longest-running conflict in the Americas. The Obama administration sensibly backs Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos' negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. But we should also be listening to the voices of families of the disappeared and kidnapped, and the mothers of children murdered by Colombia's army, who are calling for justice along with peace. There must be accountability and truth for the murder, torture, forced displacement and rape perpetrated by all actors: the paramilitaries, the guerrillas and the country's own armed forces. The sad truth is that the Santos administration is moving backwards in accountability for army abuses. Without full truth and a strong measure of justice, there cannot be a lasting peace.Try this on for size: a rational policy towards Cuba. The United States should launch a serious dialogue that aims at lifting the failed, 50-year embargo. We know this won't happen overnight. For starters, we should end the travel ban that divides us from our neighbors just off the Florida coast. The Obama administration should also take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism; there is no earthly reason it belongs there in 2013. The accusation of giving shelter to Colombia's guerrillas was one of the few rationales for Cuba's inclusion; now Cuba is lauded by Colombia's government for hosting peace negotiations. If we support peace in Colombia, how can we not recognize Cuba's contribution?End the militarized approach to drugs. Latin American presidents of all political persuasions are telling us: we must rethink the "War on Drugs," which has brought suffering without results. For starters, we should stop the tactics that cause the most harm while doing the least good: counternarcotics campaigns that bring Latin American armies into the streets; aerial spraying, which destroys food as well as drug crops. And we should focus on the public health approaches here and abroad that do the most good and the least harm: providing treatment when and where addicts need it; evidence-based prevention campaigns; youth employment and building resilient communities.Focus on aid that helps people, not guns and military aid. As we face another battle on budget cuts, why not put military aid to Latin America on the chopping block. There's no war anywhere in the region, if Colombia's peace talks succeed. Focus on aid that actually helps people: disaster assistance, including reconstruction aid for Haiti; aid for health care, education, micro-loans, improving justice systems, and community development. Ensure that aid programs are consulted with the people they intend to benefit.Speak up for human rights. While the United States isn't perfect, as our Latin American friends readily tell us, our government should speak up for human rights in this hemisphere. But do it fairly. When a left-wing government restricts freedom of the press, the United States should speak against this. When governments the U.S. favors  like Colombia and Mexico fail to prosecute human rights abuses committed by their militaries, the United States should press for justice, including by suspending military aid when needed. Decisively support human rights in Honduras. Honduras is in crisis. Since the June 2009 coup in Honduras, human rights protections, never strong, have been severely weakened. Human rights defenders, LGBT community members, leaders in poor farming communities, and opposition activists have been threatened and killed, in crimes for which there is no justice. Military, police and private security guards are unaccountable. The United States should suspend military and police aid to Honduras while using aid and tough diplomacy to help Honduras strengthen the failing justice system. Support the Inter-American human rights system. To its credit, the Obama administration has actively supported the Inter-American human rights system, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which many Latin American governments of left, right and center have recently sought to weaken. 2013 will be an important year to join with civil society groups across the Americas to ensure reforms strengthen, not weaken, this system's role as the last recourse for victims who fail to attain justice in their countries. Finally, clean up our own act. The United States' voice on human rights will be stronger, of course, if our government sticks to human rights principles in its own actions. Drone strikes that kill civilians, rendition, indefinite detention and complete lack of due process for terror suspects weaken U.S. credibility in Latin America as well as in other regions of the world. Now, if we could keep these resolutions, 2013 would be a banner year for U.S.-Latin American relations.

Bigger fights loom after fiscal deal

President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans looked ahead on Wednesday toward the next round of even bigger budget fights after reaching a hard-fought fiscal cliff deal that narrowly averted potentially devastating tax hikes and spending cuts.The agreement, approved late on Tuesday by the Republican-led House of Representatives after a bitter political struggle, was a victory for Obama, who had won re-election on a promise to address budget woes in part by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.But it set up political showdowns over the next two months on spending cuts and on raising the nation's limit on borrowing. Republicans, angry the deal did little to curb the federal deficit, promised to use the debt ceiling debate to win deep spending cuts next time."Our opportunity here is on the debt ceiling," Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said on MSNBC, adding Republicans would have the political leverage against Obama in that debate. "We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary, partial government shutdown, which is what that could mean."Republicans, who acknowledged they had lost the fiscal cliff fight by agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy without gaining much in return, vowed the next deal would have to include significant cuts in government benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid health care for retirees and the poor that were the biggest drivers of federal debt."This is going to be much uglier to me than the tax issue ... this is going to be about entitlement reform," Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said on CNBC."This is the debate that's going to be far more serious. Hopefully, now that we have this other piece behind us hopefully we'll deal in a real way with the kinds of things our nation needs to face," he said.Obama urged "a little less drama" when the Congress and White House next address thorny fiscal issues like the government's rapidly mounting $16 trillion debt load.The fiscal cliff showdown had worried businesses and financial markets, and US stocks soared at the opening after lawmakers agreed to the deal.The Dow Jones industrial average surged 262.45 points, or 2.00%, at 13 366.59. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up 29.79 points, or 2.09%, at 1 455.98. The Nasdaq Composite Index was up 77.45 points, or 2.57%, at 3 096.97. The crisis ended when dozens of Republicans in the House of Representatives buckled and backed a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate that hiked taxes on households earning more than $450 000 annually. Spending cuts of $109bn in military and domestic programs were delayed only for two months.Economists had warned the fiscal cliff of across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts would have punched a $600bn hole in the economy this year and threatened to send the country back into recession. House Republicans had mounted a late effort to add hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts to the package and spark a confrontation with the Senate, but it failed.In the end, they reluctantly approved the Senate bill by a bipartisan vote of 257 to 167 and sent it on to Obama to sign into law. "We are ensuring that taxes aren't increased on 99% of our fellow Americans," said Republican Representative David Dreier of California.The vote underlined the precarious position of House Speaker John Boehner, who will ask his Republicans to re-elect him as speaker on Thursday when a new Congress is sworn in. Boehner backed the bill but most House Republicans, including his top lieutenants, voted against it.The speaker had sought to negotiate a "grand bargain" with Obama to overhaul the US tax code and rein in health and retirement programs that will balloon in coming decades as the population ages. But Boehner could not unite his members behind an alternative to Obama's tax measures.Income tax rates will now rise on individuals earning more than $400 000 and families earning more than $450 000 per year, and the amount of deductions they can take to lower their tax bill will be limited. Low temporary rates that have been in place for the past decade will be made permanent for less-affluent taxpayers, along with a range of targeted tax breaks put in place to fight the 2009 economic downturn. However, workers will see up to $2 000 more taken out of their paychecks annually with the expiration of a temporary payroll tax cut.The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill will increase budget deficits by nearly $4 trillion over the coming 10 years, compared to the budget savings that would occur if the extreme measures of the cliff were to kick in. But the measure will actually save $650bn during that time period when measured against the tax and spending policies that were in effect on Monday, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that has pushed for more aggressive deficit savings.

US averts fiscal cliff

A weary Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation to avoid the economy-threatening fiscal cliff of middle class tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts late on Tuesday night, hours before financial markets reopen after the New Year's holiday.The bill's passage on a 257-167 vote in the House of Representatives sealed a hard-won political triumph for the president less than two months after he secured re-election while calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.The economic as well as political stakes were considerable. Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the turn of the new year at midnight could cause unemployment to spike and send the economy into recession.The extraordinary late-night House vote took place less than 24 hours after the Senate passed the measure in the pre-dawn hours on New Year's Day. The legislation cleared the Senate hours after Vice-President Joe Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, veteran negotiators, sealed a deal.In addition to neutralising middle class tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect on Monday at midnight, the legislation raises tax rates on incomes over $400 000 for individuals and $450 000 for couples. Remarkably, in a party that swore off tax increases two decades ago, dozens of Republicans supported the bill in both houses of Congress.Supporters of the bill in both parties expressed regret that the bill was narrowly drawn, and fell far short of a sweeping plan that combined tax changes and spending cuts to reduce federal deficits. That proved to be a step too far in the two months since Obama called congressional leaders to the White House for a post-election stab at compromise.Majority Republicans did their best to minimise the bill's tax increases, just as they abandoned their demand from earlier in the day to add spending cuts to the package "By making Republican tax cuts permanent, we are one step closer to comprehensive tax reform that will help strengthen our economy and create more and higher pay cheques for American workers," said Rep Dave Camp of Michigan, chairperson of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.He urged a vote for passage to "get us one step closer to tax reform in 2013" as well as attempts to control spending.House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also said the legislation included "permanent tax relief for the middle class", and she summoned lawmakers to provide bipartisan support as the Senate did.The bill would prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated two million jobless, renew tax breaks for businesses and renewable energy purposes, block a 27% cut in fees for doctors who treat elderly Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices.The bill would also raise the top tax rate on large estates to 40% from 35%, and taxes on capital gains and dividends over $400 000 for individuals and $450 000 for couples would be taxed at 20%, up from 15%.It would stop $24bn in spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with spending reductions elsewhere in the budget.Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions.A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans made a significant effort to extend it.The fiscal cliff measure had cleared the Senate on a lopsided pre-dawn New Year's vote of 89-8, and House Republicans spent much of the day struggling to escape a political corner they found themselves in."I personally hate it," Rep John Campbell of California said of the measure, giving voice to the concern of many Republicans that it did little or nothing to cut spending.Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the No 2 House Republican, told reporters at one point: "I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward."Within hours, Republicans abandoned demands to add spending cuts to the bill and agreed to a simple yes-or-no vote on the Senate-passed bill.They feared that otherwise the Senate would refuse to consider any alterations, sending the bill into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase. One Senate Democratic leadership aide said majority leader Harry Reid would "absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.If the House failed to pass the Senate bill it would mean that any fiscal deal would have to start all over when a new Congress, with dozens of new members, is seated Thursday. And any change in the legislation would require the Senate to re-pass the measure before it could go to Obama for his signature.Despite Cantor's remarks, Speaker John Boehner took no public position on the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.House Democrats met privately with Biden for their review of the measure and the party's leader, Pelosi, said afterward that Boehner should permit a vote.The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise.The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30bn, and is not offset by savings elsewhere.For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage would merely clear the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes.With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from the Medicare health care programme for the elderly and other government benefit programmes.McConnell said as much moments before the 02:00 Tuesday vote in the Senate - two hours after the advertised "cliff" deadline."We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it's time to get serious about reducing Washington's out-of-control spending," he said. "That's a debate the American people want. It's the debate we'll have next. And it's a debate Republicans are ready for."Obama, who had campaigned for re-election on the promise of protecting households making under $250 000 a year from a tax increase, praised the agreement after the Senate's vote. Some liberal Democrats were disappointed that the White House did not stick to a harder line in negotiations, considering that Obama nlonger faces re-election."While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay," Obama said in a statement. "This agreement will also grow the economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced way - by investing in our middle class, and by asking the wealthy to pay a little more."The fiscal cliff came about because tax rate cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 during president George W Bush's administration were set to expire at the end of the year.The threatened across-the-board reductions in government spending, which would slice money out of everything from social programmes to the military, were put in place last year as an incentive to both parties to find ways to cut spending. That solution grew out of the two parties' inability in 2011 to agree to a grand bargain that would have taken a big bite out of the deficit which has averaged about $1 trillion a year.If Obama and Congress failed to act, about $536bn in tax increases touching nearly all American workers and about $110bn in spending cuts, about 8% of the annual budgets for most federal departments, were scheduled to start going into effect beginning in January. 

Digital sales break £1bn barrier

Greek manufacturing activity shrank for the 40th month running in December, hurt by weak domestic demand and slumping export orders, leading firms to shed yet more jobs, a survey showed on Wednesday.Markit's purchasing managers' index (PMI) for Greek manufacturing, which accounts for roughly 15% of the economy, fell to 41.4 points in December from 41.8 in November. The index has now held below the 50 mark dividing growth from contraction ever since September 2009, just before the country's massive debt problems came to light, triggering the crisis that has plagued Greece.December's decline in manufacturing output was the steepest in four months, bringing the average for the fourth quarter to 41.4, down from an average reading of 42.0 in the third quarter.In November, Greece adopted a new round of austerity measures to qualify for its next batch of EU/IMF bailout payments, expected to keep its economy in recession for the sixth straight year in 2013.The government expects gross domestic product (GDP) to contract by 4.5% next year from 6.5% in 2012."December data showed no sign of the downturn in Greece's manufacturing sector easing," said Markit senior economist Phil Smith."Of particular concern was a faster contraction in new export orders, a trend which has deteriorated considerably since the start of the year," he said.Greek manufacturers saw a near-record drop in new orders from abroad in December, exceeded only by heavier falls in November 2008 and January 2009.Weak sales led manufacturers to shed staff again in December, weighing on the country's record-high unemployment rate of 26%. Almost 24% of surveyed firms reported a reduction in payroll numbers since November. Despite falling demand, input price inflation continued to rise in December on the back of higher raw material prices. Competitive pressures led firms to cut output prices to secure new business.

Singapore growth quells recession fears

Singapore's economy grew in the fourth quarter, avoiding a technical recession despite disappointing growth figures for 2012, government data showed on Wednesday. Gross domestic product (GDP) rose 1.1% year-on-year in the three months to December from zero growth in the previous quarter, the Ministry of Trade and Industry said .On a quarter-on-quarter basis, the trade-dependent economy expanded by a seasonally adjusted annualised 1.8%, reversing a revised 6.3% contraction in the third quarter. The figures are based on estimates. Analysts feared the economy had likely slipped into a technical recession after two successive quarters of contraction. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in a speech on 1 January 2013 that GDP rose 1.2% for the full year. This was below the government's target for the economy to expand 1.5-2.5%"Overall growth of just over 1.0% is low by historical standards but it's still growth," said CIMB Research economist Song Seng Wun.The manufacturing sector shrank by an annualised 10.8% quarter-on-quarter as the European debt crisis and the sluggish US economy weakened global demand. Manufacturing contracted by 0.2% in 2012.Construction also contracted 8.9% quarter-on-quarter but grew 8.8% on year. The services sector expanded 1.2% overall in 2012.Premier Lee said GDP was expected to grow 1.0-3.0% in 2013 due to expected continued weakness in global demand.

India aims to stop welfare fraud

India will pay billions of dollars in social welfare money directly to its poor, under a new program that aims to cut out the middlemen blamed for the massive fraud that plagues the system.Previously officials only handed out cash to the poor after taking a cut - if they didn't keep all of it for themselves and were known to enrol fake recipients or register unqualified people. The program inaugurated on Tuesday would see welfare money directly deposited into recipients' bank accounts and require them to prove their identity with biometric data, such as fingerprints or retina scans.Finance Minister P. Chidambaram has described the venture as "nothing less than magical," but critics accuse the government of hastily pushing through a complex program in a country where millions don't have access to electricity or paved roads, let alone neighbourhood banks.The program is loosely based on Brazil's widely praised Bolsa Familia program, which has helped lift more than 19m people out of poverty since 2003. It will begin in 20 of the country's 640 districts on Tuesday, affecting more than 200 000 recipients, and will be progressively rolled out in other areas in the coming months, Chidambaram said Monday. The country has 440m people living below the poverty line.  "In a huge new experiment like this you should expect some glitches. There may be a problem here and there, but these will be overcome by our people," Chidambaram said.He appealed for patience with the program, which he called "a game changer for governance."The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party has accused the ruling Congress party of using the program to gain political mileage ahead of elections expected in 2014.As a first step, the government has said it plans to begin directly transferring money it would spend on programs such as scholarships and pensions.Eventually the transfers are expected to help fix much of the rest of India's welfare spending, though Chidambaram said the government's massive food, kerosene and fertilizer distribution networks - which are blamed for much of the corruption and lost money would be exempt.The program will eliminate middlemen and transfer cash directly into bank accounts using data from Aadhar, a government project working to give every Indian identification numbers linked to fingerprints and retina scans. Currently hundreds of millions of Indians have no identity documents.On Monday, 208 activists and scholars published an open letter expressing concern that the government was forcing the poor to enroll in Aadhar to get welfare benefits without putting safeguards in place to protect their privacy. They also expressed fears that the government planned to eventually replace the food distribution system for the poor, the largest program of its kind in the world."Essential services are not a suitable field of experimentation for a highly centralized and uncertain technology," they wrote. Others said the government was trying to do too much too soon."A very important concern is if we are ready for this sort of thing. The banking infrastructure is very poor, people are far from these banks, when they exist they are overcrowded. Sometimes people have to walk for a day to get to the bank," says Reetika Khera, a development economist with the New Delhi-based Institute for Economic Growth.Mihir Shah, a member of India's Planning Commission accepts that the government's timeline is "unrealistic," but said many critics had confused the lack of readiness with flaws in the plan itself."My question to them is, is it better than what is there today? That is the only way we can judge policy. I don't think there's a perfect solution to any of mankind's problems," he said.Shah said a lot more work needed to be done before cash transfers could become a reality across the country. The identification drive needed to reach the vast majority of India's poor, and villages needed banking infrastructure and Internet connectivity.

NEWS,06.11.2012

What to watch for on US election night

As Americans troop to the polls to decide between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, here's a guide to what to watch for on election night:

Polls close:

The continental United States covers four times zones from east to west. The first polling stations close at 19:00 Eastern Time (00:00 GMT) in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia. Polls close in California and several other western states at 23:00 Eastern Time (04:00 GMT). Everyone will be watching for early results in the battleground state of Virginia as a potential bellwether of the night ahead.At 19:30 pm Eastern Time (00:30 GMT) polls close in North Carolina and all-important Ohio. A win for Romney in North Carolina, one of the more conservative swing states, would keep his hopes alive. But no Republican has won the White House without taking Ohio, and a loss there would put Romney in a massive hole.Others will start to fall into place after 20:00 Eastern Time (01:00 GMT), when the most populous swing state, Florida, closes along with most eastern states. An Obama win in Florida would be monumental for his re-election hopes, as polls have shown the Sunshine State leaning to Romney in recent weeks.West Coast states generally close three hours later.

Results:

This year, the nation's broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC, plus cable giants CNN and FOX, are conducting exit polls of some 25 000 voters, mainly in key states. Those figures, together with telephone polls and vote counts from precincts, will be used in formulating state predictions, which are made only after polls close.Partial results will be posted by some states, and networks will show such results ahead of predicting the state's winner.

Key states:

A candidate must win 270 of 538 electoral votes to clinch the White House. Eleven states, collectively representing a jackpot of 146 electoral votes, are up for grabs, according to RealClearPolitics. As a measure of how tight the race is this year, Obama won every one of these states in 2008. Of the 11, Obama's campaign says traditional Democrat states Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are in his column. But Republicans have made late campaign moves there.

The Obama scenario:

Based on recent poll averages, Obama is a lock in 18 states totalling 201 electoral votes. He has notable leads in Michigan (16 electoral votes) Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10). If Obama holds those states, he needs just Ohio (18) and Iowa (6) to win re-election. Or just Florida (29).Look for Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15) as key early tests; if Obama wins one of them, it'll be a long night for Romney.

The Romney scenario:

The challenger's path to victory is narrower. He is assured 24 states representing 191 electoral votes, leaving him 79 short. If Obama holds Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Romney must win two of the three biggest toss-ups - Florida, Ohio and Virginia - as well as most of the other battlegrounds.Look for New Hampshire (4) as a key early test; it's small, but potentially indicative of how the night may turn for Romney.

Congress:

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are 33 seats in the Senate. Republicans are expected to hold the House. The Democrats' 53-47 majority in the Senate is more tenuous. A race to watch is the Massachusetts battle between Republican incumbent Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren. Other key Senate contests are in Indiana, Missouri and Virginia.

Early voting:

More than 30% of Americans are expected to vote before Tuesday - either absentee or in person.

Recount?

Each state has its own recount rules. In the 2000 election between George W Bush and Al Gore, some Florida counties launched recounts while others did not. With the prospect of very close results in some states, phalanxes of lawyers on each side are prepared to bring legal action, raising the potential for final result delays.

The Ohio question:

A nightmare scenario may be brewing in crucial Ohio, where authorities sent absentee ballot applications to every voter. People who applied for such ballots but then decide to vote in person will be required to cast provisional ballots that are sealed until it can be proven that they haven't already voted.Some 200 000 provisional ballots may be cast, and state law does not allow them to be opened until 17 November.Complicating the count are mail-in ballots, which can arrive as late as November 16 so long as they are post-marked by 5 November.And if the results are within 0.5 percentage points, an automatic recount of all ballots is triggered.

US: Voters now have centre stage

 

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have closed out their hard-fought and deeply negative battle for the White House, yielding centre stage to voters who face a stark choice on Election Day between fundamentally different visions for the country's future.After months of campaigning and billions of dollars spent in the battle for leadership of the world's most powerful country, Obama and Romney were in a virtual nationwide tie ahead of Tuesday's election, an overt symptom of the vast partisan divide separating Americans in the early years of the 21st century.Obama appeared to have a slight edge, however, in some of the key swing states such as Ohio that do not vote reliably Democratic or Republican. That gives him an easier path to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
"I feel optimistic but only cautiously optimistic," Obama said on "The Steve Harvey Morning Show." ''Because until people actually show up at the polls and cast their ballot, the rest of this stuff is all just speculation."

Different American versions

Romney also reached out on Ohio drive-time radio, where he said told voters to remember as they go to the polls that the country is hurting financially under Obama's policies. "If it comes down to economics and jobs, this is an election I should win," Romney told Cleveland station WTAM.Under the US system, the winner of the presidential election is not determined by the nationwide popular vote but in state-by-state contests. The candidate who wins a state - with Maine and Nebraska the exceptions - is awarded all of that state's electoral votes, which are apportioned based on representation in Congress.Both sides cast the Election Day choice as one with far-reaching repercussions for a nation still recovering from the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression and at odds over how big a role government should play in solving the country's problems."It's a choice between two different visions for America," Obama declared Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, asking voters to let him complete work on the economic turnaround that began in his first term. "It's a choice between returning to the top-down policies that crashed our economy, or a future that's built on providing opportunity to everybody and growing a strong middle class."Romney argued that Obama had his chance and blew it."The president thinks more government is the answer," he said in Sanford, Florida. "No, Mr. President, more jobs, that's the answer for America."

Jobs on the line

It wasn't just the presidency at stake Tuesday: All 435 seats in the House of Representatives, a third of the 100 Senate seats, and 11 governorships were on the line, along with state ballot proposals on topics ranging from gay marriage to legalising marijuana. Democrats were expected to maintain their majority in the Senate, with Republicans doing likewise in the House, raising the prospect of continued partisan wrangling no matter who might be president.Obama's final campaign rally, Monday night in Des Moines, Iowa, was filled with nostalgia as he returned to the state which launched him on the road to the White House in 2008 with a victory in its lead-off caucuses over Hillary Rodham Clinton, now his secretaryof state. A single tear streamed down Obama's face during his remarks, though it was hard to tell whether it was from emotion or the bitter cold.

Changing times

There has been little of the euphoria that propelled Obama to the White House four years ago, America's first black president promising hope and renovation to a nation weighed down by war and a near financial meltdown.The economy has proven a huge drag on Obama's candidacy as he fought to turn it around after the deepest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, a downturn that was well under way when he replaced George W Bush in the White House on 20 January 2009.Unable to bridge America's fierce partisan divide, especially on taxes and debt, Obama was thwarted in his efforts to pass aggressive plans for jobs creation and deficit reduction.He ended the war in Iraq and the US intelligence and military tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden, but a new host of Middle East crises - especially the war in Syria and the deadly attack on the US Consulate in Libya - shadowed the last months of the campaign.Obama, making his last run for office at the still-young age of 51, urged voters in Iowa to help him finish what they started four years ago. The president credits his auto-industry bailout, stimulus plan and other policies for ending the recession. He points to recent positive economic reports and a slow but steady drop in the unemployment rate.
"I've come back to Iowa one more time to ask for your vote," Obama told 20 000 supporters at the outdoor rally."This is where our movement for change began."

Romney presidency

Romney, 65, assailed Obama's economic policies amid the recession, and promised to bring change that he asserted Obama had only talked about."Talk is cheap, but a record is real," Romney said before a crowd of about 10,000 in New Hampshire on Monday.If elected, Romney would be the first Mormon US president. At times, the former Massachusetts governor has struggled to connect with the protestant evangelicals who are a core constituency of the Republican Party, especially because of his shifting positions on some social issues such as abortion.Romney, the ultra-wealthy founder of a private equity firm, worked doggedly to keep the race instead focused on the economy, and polls suggest that he succeeded in persuading many Americans he has the right credentials to steer America to better times. His selection of the young Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate put Romney squarely on the side of the conservative Tea Party movement that has been a driving force of the Republican Party in recent years.

Debt, taxes

Obama and Romney have spent months highlighting their sharp divisions over the role of government in Americans' lives, in bringing down the stubbornly high unemployment rate, reducing the $1 trillion-plus federal budget deficit and reducing a national debt that has crept above $16 trillion.Obama insists there is no way reduce the staggering debt and safeguard crucial social programmes without asking the wealthy to pay their "fair share" in taxes. Romney, who claims his successful business background gives him the expertise to manage the economy, favours lowering taxes and easing regulations on businesses, saying this would spur job growth.The final Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, released on Monday, showed Obama with support from 50% of likely voters to 47% for Romney. The poll had a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.More than 30 million absentee or early ballots have already been cast, including in excess of 3 million in Florida.

Battleground states

In surveys of the battleground states, Obama held small advantages in Nevada, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin - enough to deliver a second term if they held up, but not so significant that they could withstand an Election Day surge by Romney supporters. Romney appears to be performing slightly better than Obama or has pulled even in North Carolina, Virginia and Florida.The biggest focus has been on Ohio, an industrial state that has gone with the winner of the last 12 presidential elections, which both candidates visited on Monday. No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio.Both campaigns say the winner will be determined by which campaign is better at getting its supporters to the polls. The president needs the overwhelming support of blacks and Hispanics to counter Romney's big lead among white males."I encourage you to stand in line as long as you have to," Vice President Joe Biden told television cameras at a polling place in his home state of Delaware, where he and his wife were among the first voters.Election Day turnout was heavy in several storm-ravaged areas in New York and New Jersey, with many voters expressing relief and even elation at being able to vote at all, considering the devastation from Superstorm Sandy.

Obama, Tearful, Finishes Campaign In Iowa, Where It Started

 

As sentimentality goes, President Barack Obama hosting the last campaign event of his political career in Des Moines, Iowa, is hard to top. The Hawkeye State launched the then-junior senator from Illinois to national prominence. And there is a movie script-like quality to having such a historic political trajectory emerge out of the frosty cornfields. Speaking just steps from his 2008 caucus headquarters on Monday evening, it seemed at times as if the magic hadn't faded. "I came back to ask you to help us finish what we started because this is where our movement for change began," Obama declared. "To all of you who’ve lived and breathed the hard work of change: I want to thank you. You took this campaign and made it your own ... starting a movement that spread across the country."When the cynics said we couldn't, you said yes we can. You said yes we can and we did. Against all odds, we did," he said.Wiping the occasional tear from his eye, and looking over a crowd of 20,000, Obama concluded with the same story that he told on the last day of his '08 campaign: about the origins of his signature "fired-up-ready-to-go" chant. The arc of his first term in office was seemingly complete. But if anything, the late night rally in Des Moines underscored how different Obama's first and second White House runs have been. For all its poignant undertones, Monday night marked the end of a campaign that had little of the emotional appeal of four years ago. There was no sweeping "hope" narrative, no history-making proposition, no shadows of the Bush years to escape. Instead there was a business-like approach to a daunting task: how to re-elect a president with a slate of accomplishments, but with reduced popularity, a poor economy and no novelty. "The biggest difference between 2008 and 2012 is that the sense of the mission changed," said one Obama campaign adviser who, like nearly everyone, would discuss the campaign's inner workings only on condition of anonymity. "In 2008, there was the sense of optimism and hope around the mission of changing the world. In 2012, the mission is as much the clear-eyed recognition of how important stopping the other side is. It is a grimmer, more realistic sense of mission."How Obama's aides traversed this path is a story that will be told in greater detail in the election post-mortems. But months of conversations and notes kept in documents and notepads tells part of the story. And it shows a team that, while lacking the heartstrings of 2008, stayed true to other guiding principles: data-driven decision-making and solid execution. "There has always been a laser-like focus on the part of the campaign on how to get where they need to be," explained Hari Sevugan, who served as a spokesman for the 2008 campaign. "It was about delegates in 2008 and pathways to 270 Electoral College votes in 2012. "The formula, then and now, was always inspiration and energy at 30,000 feet and a no-nonsense attitude toward numbers and mechanics on the ground."It started in the spring of 2011, when top advisers to the president conducted a series of focus groups to get a clear sense of what was in store. What they found was sobering. Voters were gloomy about their current situation. Worse, they assumed their kids would inherit poorer lots than their own. They didn't all blame the president. In fact, they still liked him. But they had to be convinced of two things: That their lives could get better and that Obama was the person who could affect that. To accomplish those two tasks, the president's aides made a series of decisions. The first was to chart specific maps to 270 electoral votes. The second was to figure how best to operate within the boundaries of that map. The third was to unearth ways to make their campaign cash go further than their opponent's. In December 2011, campaign manager Jim Messina unveiled five pathways to victory during a briefing with a group of reporters. Virtually every state he identified as critical has maintained that distinction, with the exception of Arizona (which, even then, was labeled a longshot). There were some miscalculations. Messina assumed that New Hampshire and Wisconsin would both remain solidly in Obama's camp. He also gave equal weight to paths involving North Carolina (now, a reach) as those involving Ohio (less so). But the paths have largely endured. Meanwhile, aides plotted a comprehensive messaging shift and a media campaign to complement it. In December 2011, the president delivered a speech in Kansas designed to break the conversation away from deficit reduction and the debt ceiling debacle and on to job creation and economic security. The campaign booked $25 million worth of ads for May 2012 alone to build off that message. Again, not everything was pitch-perfect. The first two ads focused on clean energy, which would diminish as an issue outside of a few critical states (Iowa and Colorado). But the groundwork was laid. "It's been a very disciplined campaign, incredibly focused," said former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, one of the campaign's top surrogates. "And they have followed their plan as far as I can tell, without any significant deviation." The campaign began to pinch pennies. Aides booked ad purchases in bulk, instead of week by week. They gave a public okay to super PACs, despite the president's previous opposition. And they decided, like in 2008, to hoard resources, rather than share with other Democratic campaign committees. There was one place they splurged. Aides bet big on a ground game, hoping that direct "persuasion" person-to-person contacts could move the dial a few, critical, notches. "We never set out to run the same campaign and the organizational stuff which the president has always strongly believed in -was born out of a necessity of knowing that these states were going to be one- to three-point races if we were lucky," said one top Obama campaign official. And like 2008, staff members had conviction in their strategy. In the early summer, when a lagging jobs market had top Democrats fretting that Romney could win an election focused on the economy, aides scoffed at the proposition. "They are operating under the Woody Allen theory that 90 percent of life is just showing up," one top campaign official said at the time. "But there is such intense scrutiny in candidates for president. If people don't feel comfortable with who you are, it is very tough. In a race that is all about economics, this guy's profile is not a great profile." The official was right. And yet, when the campaign did put a microscope to the Romney profile launching attacks on his private sector record there were howls again. Once more, the campaign didn't budge. "Predictable for our party," another aide said of the criticism over the Bain attacks, "but stupid and wrong." It was easy, of course, to ignore the second-guessing when the plan was proving fruitful. But after the first debate, the campaign's internal resolve was tested. Publicly, aides projected calm. Privately, some were stoked with anxiety over the president's performance. Internal discussions took place over whether to alter the map or message. They tinkered with the latter "they changed their emphasis," said one top consultant to the campaign, "not giving up on the Romney-extremism but focusing more on the shifting positions." But they struck with the former. "Same map, tighter race," is how the aforementioned Obama campaign adviser put the post-debate mindset. The next month was a dizzying scramble that saw the president restore some of what he gave up that night in Denver. But even after Obama gave one final slap of the lectern and wave to the Iowa crowd on Monday, the final verdict is out on whether the decisions he and his staff made were correct. The campaign is projecting confidence. Part of it is common pre-election preening. A lot of it is faith in numbers. But a good deal of it is because, while it may not have the same feel as 2008, they've been here before. "There is no doubt about it," top adviser David Axelrod told The Huffington Post, when asked whether he felt the campaign had a leg up because of experience. "The experience of having done it helps. The people who are running our operations are the people who have been with us for five years."