Bloomberg News, sent from my Android phone
The European Union's push to unify bank oversight moved to the euro area after two days of talks in Brussels, putting the European Central Bank at the center of Spain's efforts to extract its government from its banking- industry rescue.
Euro-area leaders asked for proposals this year to unify banking supervision and soup up the ECB's powers. They referred to a clause in the EU treaty that allows them to give the ECB prudential oversight of banks and other non-insurance financial companies.
The move paves the way for the European Commission, the EU's regulatory arm, to augment its proposals on deposit insurance, capital requirements and how to handle failing banks. It also acknowledges concerns from the U.K. and Sweden that countries outside the currency area be free from mandates to join the ECB umbrella.
Once Europe establishes a single banking supervisor, leaders said they may allow cash-strapped lenders to be recapitalized directly instead of through their home governments. This could break the link between banks and sovereigns that has plagued the euro area throughout the crisis and become a particular flash point for Spain's bank rescue.
'Held Hostage'
"The Spanish sovereign is effectively being held hostage to what is likely to be a tortuous political process in putting the ECB in charge of euro-zone banks," said Nicholas Spiro, managing director of Spiro Sovereign Strategy in London. He said direct recapitalization of Spanish banks is the summit's most important achievement and hinges on creation of an independent supervisory authority.
French President Francois Hollande predicted that ECB supervision over euro-area banks wouldn't be in place before year end. British Prime Minister David Cameron said "the euro- zone countries are well on the way to making the euro-zone bank, the ECB, the regulators of their banks. That will be a good outcome."
ECB President Mario Draghi welcomed the summit's overall conclusions and acknowledged the Brussels-based commission's mandate to assess the ECB's role as allowed in the treaty. Speaking to reporters today, he did not elaborate on how the commission's proposals should take shape other than to say "all these things should be, to be credible, accompanied by strict conditionality."
National Supervisors
The Frankfurt-based ECB might end up serving as an umbrella over national supervisors, rather than building a separate organization, EU officials said in the run-up to this week's summit. EU members would need to decide how many banks to include and how the ECB would work with the European Banking Authority, which was created to help supervisors coordinate across the 27-nation bloc.
EU Financial Services Commissioner Michel Barnier called on all the bloc's nations to broker deals on draft financial regulations in the coming weeks as a "cornerstone" of the banking union that EU leaders seek to secure the long-term future of the euro, in an interview in Brussels yesterday. He said decisions on whether the ECB or the London-based EBA gain enhanced powers depends on how all 27 nations agree to further pool their bank-oversight powers.
The EBA, which began work last year, was set up as part of the EU's response to the crisis that followed the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. It coordinates the work of national regulators and has some power to resolve disputes between them.
Banking Union
Where to place enhanced supervisory power becomes a trickier decision if individual countries opt out of a banking union, Barnier said, in part because the ECB decides monetary policy for the 17 countries of the euro area, and in part because of other aspects of the EBA's mandate. Should all 27 EU countries sign up for the banking union plans, then the enhanced power for the EU to supervise lenders should "probably" be handed to the EBA, Barnier said.
"If you are fewer than 27 then there is an issue to resolve with the EBA, if you are more than 17 then there is an issue to resolve with the ECB," he said. "This is why there are a range of possible models, and why we need some weeks or months to work on this."
The adoption of proposals that the commissioner has made on bank capital requirements, coordination of deposit guarantee programs and the winding-down of failing banks is a "precondition" for the creation of a banking union, Barnier said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg News in Brussels. The draft laws should be settled "in the weeks to come, or in the case of crisis resolution before the end of the year."
Depending on the outcome of the summit, the commission will present plans for extra EU supervision of banks, as well as for "the mutualization of deposit guarantee funds and resolution funds" by year end, Barnier said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jim Brunsden in Brussels at jbrunsden@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net
Find out more about Bloomberg for Android: http://m.bloomberg.com/android
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Mexican media scandal: Televisa condemns Guardian reports
Mexican media scandal: Televisa condemns Guardian reports
http://gu.com/p/38je9
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
http://gu.com/p/38je9
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
(BN) Obama’s Legacy at Risk After Winning 100-Year Health-Care Fight
Bloomberg News, sent from my Android phone
The outcome of a 100-year fight for U.S. national health care rests on the verdict tomorrow of nine justices, who will emerge from behind a red velvet curtain.
Just four months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's biggest legislative achievement, which would extend coverage to at least 30 million uninsured Americans in the biggest overhaul of the nation's health-care system since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965.
"When we talk about Obama 20 or 30 years from now, this is likely to be the bill we talk about," said Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. "If the Supreme Court takes away from Obama his biggest accomplishment, this is exactly what a president really fears. In some ways, it's worse than not getting re-elected."
The last time the court invalidated legislation so central to the presidency was when it struck down parts of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal program in 1935 and 1936, said Zelizer. Even those decisions only addressed pieces of a larger package of economic and social initiatives that Roosevelt adopted in response to the Great Depression, he said.
The political stakes for Obama are high: The presumptive Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, moved yesterday to frame a loss in the Supreme Court as a blow to his presidency. A ruling that invalidates the statute would make Obama's term in office "a waste," he said.
High Price
The court, which heard arguments in the case in March, meets at 10 a.m. Washington time and may keep the candidates and everyone else in suspense for a few more minutes.
Rulings on two other cases will probably come first. One is on a challenge to a law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal. The other is a dispute over homebuyers' lawsuits against title insurers.
Obama has paid a high political price for passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the culmination of efforts on behalf of a national health plan that stretch back to President Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 "Bull Moose" third- party candidacy. The cause has frustrated Democratic and Republican presidents, including Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, all of whom failed to win enactment of such legislation.
The perception of political weakness that enveloped Clinton after his universal health-care plan failed in Congress, costing Democrats' subsequent loss of control of the House and Senate, stalled efforts to pass a similar bill until Obama was elected.
It's the Economy
Obama rejected advice from aides, including then-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, to settle for a more modest version of the health care overhaul to reduce the political risk. He confronted Republicans and even some Democratic critics as he prevailed in a yearlong legislative battle.
The push for the bill detracted from his capacity to make a public case for his economic agenda -- at a time the recession was voters' highest priority, said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist.
The controversy also helped fuel the Tea Party movement and "was a factor, without a doubt" in Democrats' loss of the House in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, said Devine, who worked on the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns.
"Much, if not most, of the advertising Republicans did in 2010 focused on health care," he said. "People were frustrated by anything they saw that led them to believe the president and other leaders were not focusing almost exclusively on the economy."
Pre-Existing Conditions
The health law bars insurers from denying coverage to people or discriminating in price based on pre-existing medical conditions. To maintain the insurance system's financial viability, people must obtain coverage beginning in 2014 or face a fine, a provision that's at the center of the constitutional challenge by 26 Republican-controlled states.
An individual insurance mandate was proposed more than 20 years ago by the Republican-aligned Heritage Foundation, and before Obama embraced it as part of his health-care legislation the provision had the support of many Republicans.
Provisions that already have taken effect allow young adults under 26 to remain on their parents' insurance plans, ban lifetime payment limits on policies and require insurers to cover children under 19 regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Rebate Payments
Insurers also will have to make rebate payments beginning this year by Aug. 1 to policyholders for plans that didn't spend a minimum portion of premiums the previous year on patient care. The Department of Health and Human Services said on June 21 that insurers will pay $1.1 billion in rebates to 12.8 million policyholders this year.
Low- and moderate-income families will receive assistance obtaining insurance through subsidies and an expansion of eligibility for the Medicaid program for the poor, financed in part by an excise tax on medical device makers and higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000.
The Supreme Court has several options for dealing with the law.
The court may uphold the entire statute. It could strike down part of the law, including the insurance mandate and the related provisions, which require insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions and charge them the same rates as other policyholders. The justices also might invalidate the expansion of the Medicaid program, which is intended to provide coverage to about 16 million uninsured. Or they could strike down the law.
Based on the arguments in March, the pivotal votes belong to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two of the five Republican appointees on the nine-member court.
During the arguments on the insurance mandate, both aimed the bulk of their questions at the lawyer representing the Obama administration. At the same time, they left their likely votes in doubt by similarly directing questions toward the challengers to the law.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington D.C. at mdorning@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net.
Find out more about Bloomberg for Android: http://m.bloomberg.com/android
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
The outcome of a 100-year fight for U.S. national health care rests on the verdict tomorrow of nine justices, who will emerge from behind a red velvet curtain.
Just four months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's biggest legislative achievement, which would extend coverage to at least 30 million uninsured Americans in the biggest overhaul of the nation's health-care system since Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965.
"When we talk about Obama 20 or 30 years from now, this is likely to be the bill we talk about," said Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. "If the Supreme Court takes away from Obama his biggest accomplishment, this is exactly what a president really fears. In some ways, it's worse than not getting re-elected."
The last time the court invalidated legislation so central to the presidency was when it struck down parts of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal program in 1935 and 1936, said Zelizer. Even those decisions only addressed pieces of a larger package of economic and social initiatives that Roosevelt adopted in response to the Great Depression, he said.
The political stakes for Obama are high: The presumptive Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, moved yesterday to frame a loss in the Supreme Court as a blow to his presidency. A ruling that invalidates the statute would make Obama's term in office "a waste," he said.
High Price
The court, which heard arguments in the case in March, meets at 10 a.m. Washington time and may keep the candidates and everyone else in suspense for a few more minutes.
Rulings on two other cases will probably come first. One is on a challenge to a law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal. The other is a dispute over homebuyers' lawsuits against title insurers.
Obama has paid a high political price for passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the culmination of efforts on behalf of a national health plan that stretch back to President Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 "Bull Moose" third- party candidacy. The cause has frustrated Democratic and Republican presidents, including Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, all of whom failed to win enactment of such legislation.
The perception of political weakness that enveloped Clinton after his universal health-care plan failed in Congress, costing Democrats' subsequent loss of control of the House and Senate, stalled efforts to pass a similar bill until Obama was elected.
It's the Economy
Obama rejected advice from aides, including then-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, to settle for a more modest version of the health care overhaul to reduce the political risk. He confronted Republicans and even some Democratic critics as he prevailed in a yearlong legislative battle.
The push for the bill detracted from his capacity to make a public case for his economic agenda -- at a time the recession was voters' highest priority, said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist.
The controversy also helped fuel the Tea Party movement and "was a factor, without a doubt" in Democrats' loss of the House in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, said Devine, who worked on the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns.
"Much, if not most, of the advertising Republicans did in 2010 focused on health care," he said. "People were frustrated by anything they saw that led them to believe the president and other leaders were not focusing almost exclusively on the economy."
Pre-Existing Conditions
The health law bars insurers from denying coverage to people or discriminating in price based on pre-existing medical conditions. To maintain the insurance system's financial viability, people must obtain coverage beginning in 2014 or face a fine, a provision that's at the center of the constitutional challenge by 26 Republican-controlled states.
An individual insurance mandate was proposed more than 20 years ago by the Republican-aligned Heritage Foundation, and before Obama embraced it as part of his health-care legislation the provision had the support of many Republicans.
Provisions that already have taken effect allow young adults under 26 to remain on their parents' insurance plans, ban lifetime payment limits on policies and require insurers to cover children under 19 regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Rebate Payments
Insurers also will have to make rebate payments beginning this year by Aug. 1 to policyholders for plans that didn't spend a minimum portion of premiums the previous year on patient care. The Department of Health and Human Services said on June 21 that insurers will pay $1.1 billion in rebates to 12.8 million policyholders this year.
Low- and moderate-income families will receive assistance obtaining insurance through subsidies and an expansion of eligibility for the Medicaid program for the poor, financed in part by an excise tax on medical device makers and higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000.
The Supreme Court has several options for dealing with the law.
The court may uphold the entire statute. It could strike down part of the law, including the insurance mandate and the related provisions, which require insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions and charge them the same rates as other policyholders. The justices also might invalidate the expansion of the Medicaid program, which is intended to provide coverage to about 16 million uninsured. Or they could strike down the law.
Based on the arguments in March, the pivotal votes belong to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two of the five Republican appointees on the nine-member court.
During the arguments on the insurance mandate, both aimed the bulk of their questions at the lawyer representing the Obama administration. At the same time, they left their likely votes in doubt by similarly directing questions toward the challengers to the law.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington D.C. at mdorning@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net.
Find out more about Bloomberg for Android: http://m.bloomberg.com/android
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
AUSTRALIANS and New Zealanders are the biggest recreational drug users in the world
via news.com.au
AUSTRALIANS and New Zealanders are the biggest recreational drug users in the world, according to the 2012 United Nations World Drug Report.
The use of ecstasy is in decline in Australia, but cocaine use is on the rise and Australians and New Zealanders consume more marijuana per capita than any other country.
Altogether, annual use among Australians and New Zealand for all drugs except for heroin "remain much higher than the global average", said the report, published a short time ago in Vienna.
The major destinations for cocaine traffickers continue to be in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, suggesting the Mexican drug cartels are continuing to make strong inroads into the Oceanic market.
The report states that cannabis is the most widely used illicit substance across the globe, with the highest prevalence of use among Australians and New Zealanders. Between 9.1 and 14.6 per cent of the population use the drug, compared to the estimated annual worldwide usage of 2.6 to 5.0 per cent.
The report, which mostly relies from statistics gathered in 2010, says that while cocaine use has decreased in North America, its use is up a full percentage point in Australia with 1.5 to 1.9 per cent of the population using the drug.
Ecstasy use in Australian declined from 3.7 per cent to 3.0 percent between 2007 and 2010, but this might be explained by the fact Australia reported more ecstasy lab busts than any other country.
The report also noted strong growing trends in the black market for pills.
"There was also a statistically significant increase in the use of pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes in Australia, with annual prevalence for persons aged 14 and over rising from 3.7 per cent in 2007 to 4.2 per cent in 2010," said the report.
"Cannabis remains the most prevalent drug in Australia, as well as the main substance accounting for demand for treatment for substance abuse (50 per cent), with heroin and amphetamines accounting for almost 20 per cent of treatment demand.
"Of the 1,790 drug-related deaths reported in 2010, nearly 40 per cent were due to opioids and approximately a quarter attributed to benzodiazepines."
The report also indicated that Australia may be a victim of its own high reporting standards, especially in regards to cocaine, because countries such as China and India did not provide information for the report.
But the decrease in ecstasy use may not be because of its fading popularity but because of seizures.
"In Oceania, seizures also continued to increase in Australia, where 112kg of 'ecstasy'-group substances were seized in 2010, compared with 54kg in 2008 and 59kg in 2009," said the report.
Australia had the highest number of lab busts in 2010, with 17 shut down.
But the report said: "Despite a decline in reported 'ecstasy' manufacture, it is worth noting that some countries, such as Australia and Indonesia, reported an increase in the manufacturing capability or size of laboratories."
The report also found that most Australians who used more than one drug also used cannabis, but the majority of cannabis users – 61 per cent – did not use any other drug.
Most heroin seized moving into Australia was sourced from South-West Asia but Australian use overall remained low. This was attributed to the lasting effects of worldwide 2001 heroin drought, which caused many users to switch drugs.
Damage by disease to 2010 Afghan poppy crops has painted a picture of lower opiate use worldwide, but the report warns the recovery of the crops is likely to see an increase in heroin use once again.
Globally, cannabis remains the most widely used drug followed by amphetamine—type stimulants, including ecstasy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)