Avinasa blog

Jordan govt bans supporters from Amman demos

Jordan will ban government supporters from demonstrating in the capital, a top official said Tuesday as King Abdullah II vowed to fight attempts to "sabotage" the country's reform drive.

The measures will be implemented after last week's clashes in which one protester died and 160 were injured, as demonstrators calling for reforms and government supporters plan to mobilise again on Friday.

"From now on protests by loyalists can only be held outside Amman to avoid clashes with the opposition," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The opposition can demonstrate in certain areas in Amman," he said without elaborating.

On Friday, a 55-year-old protester died and 160 people were injured when police broke up a pro-reform protest camp following a stone attack by loyalists against young demonstrators near the interior ministry.

The two sides have vowed to hold fresh protests at a roundabout near the ministry again on Friday, with government loyalists saying one million supporters will join the rally, sparking fears of renewed violence.

Prime Minister Maaruf Bakhit said on Monday the government will "allocate certain places for demonstrations, to protect protesters and avoid obstructing the lives of others".

"Carrying firearms, bats, stones and sharp tools as well as attempts to prevent peaceful demonstrations are condemned. They harm Jordan's image and reform drive," Bakhit told the state-run Petra news agency.

The king met on Tuesday with members of a committee formed by the government to enhance reforms.

"He stressed that Jordan will not allow anybody to 'sabotage' the reform drive," Mustafa Rawashdah told AFP.

"He told us that only two percent of Jordanians do not want reforms. He said that 'those who do not want reforms are not loyalist and loyalists must be reformist'."

Fifteen members of the commission for dialogue quit after Friday's clashes.

"The king called for opening a new chapter and working as one team," Rawashdah said.

The powerful Islamist opposition has rejected the commission and called for Bakhit's ouster after the violence.

CRITICS OF HEALTH CARE LAW ENGAGE IN FALSE CLAIMS

Obamacare" borrows heavily, are well known. And laughable.

Then there are detractors such as Atlanta-area businessman Herman Cain. As he considers a run for the GOP nomination for the presidency, Cain likes to tell audiences that he would not have survived Stage IV colon cancer if the Affordable Care Act had been in place. He repeated that contention when I interviewed him here in February.

"If Obamacare gets implemented, it will slow down the process of treatment from start to finish. Every socialized health care system has shown that. ...

"If we had had a system similar to the one they have in Canada or Britain, I wouldn't have been able to get the quality of care or the speed of care," Cain told me.

There's a problem with those comparisons, though. The Affordable Care Act bears no resemblance to the systems in place in Great Britain (where many doctors and nurses are government employees) or Canada (which has a single-payer system, much like Medicare for all citizens). The new health care law would require every American to purchase private health insurance.

Nothing in the law would force Cain, a wealthy businessman, to give up the private health insurance policy that helped pay for the care he received at Houston's M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, one of the nation's leading cancer treatment facilities. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act prohibits the center's cutting-edge treatments or rations them.

Since Cain would brook no disagreement, I left the interview confused about whether he genuinely believed his factually incorrect arguments. Perhaps he was merely repeating the false claims he's heard in right-wing circles.

However, I'm certain that Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., was intentionally disingenuous and misleading in an essay he wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, in which he suggested that his now-grown daughter, who was born with a heart defect, would not have survived under the current law.

He was careful with his rhetoric, engaging in innuendo, half-truths and speculation. "I am convinced that Obamacare was designed to lead to a government takeover of our entire health-care system," he wrote -- an assertion that merely cozies up to the lie that the new law IS a government takeover.

Like Cain, Johnson is a very wealthy man, and his daughter was covered by private health insurance. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act would take away his right to purchase that policy or circumvent his "freedom to seek out the most advanced surgical technique."

The Affordable Care Act merely seeks to give more Americans that same "freedom." It's hardly a perfect piece of legislation, but it's a pretty darn good one. If it were as bad as its critics claim, they'd be much more likely to tell the truth about it.

(Cynthia Tucker can be reached at http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker.)

Pricey jet engine tests budget cutters' resolve

WASHINGTON – A showdown looming, Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Congress to cancel a costly alternative engine for the Pentagon's next-generation fighter jet Wednesday and vowed to explore "all available legal options" to stop production if lawmakers won't.

"The president, the military services and I continue to oppose this extra engine," Gates said in testimony before the House Armed services Committee.

He spoke a few hours before a scheduled vote on the House floor to strip a spending bill of $450 million ticketed for production of the engine. The vote loomed as an early test for 87 GOP freshmen who confronted a choice between cutting spending and injecting competition into the F-35 program, the costliest weapons program in Defense Department history.

The money for the engine is included in a $1.2 trillion spending bill that would make deep cuts while wrapping up the unfinished business lawmakers inherited after last year's collapse of the budget process. That includes $1.03 trillion for agency operating budgets that need annual approval by Congress and $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like Obama, former President George W. Bush tried to kill the alternative engine, and their efforts have been supported by lawmakers from Connecticut, where the main F-35 fighter engine is built by Pratt & Whitney, as well members from Florida, Texas and other states.

Gates has said the engine would waste almost $3 billion over the next few years,

But the alternative engine has its own supporters, including Speaker John Boehner, R-0hio. The alternative engine would be built by the General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce in Ohio, Indiana and other states.

"We have to step forward, we have to cut back on areas, and this is an area that the secretary of defense said we need to cut back on," freshman Rep. Bob Dold, R-Ill., said Tuesday night in debate over the proposal.

The engine battle divides along regional rather than party lines, in contrast to the partisan warfare on the underlying bill, which sharply cuts domestic programs and foreign aid and earned a veto threat from the White House budget office and a warning from President Barack Obama against unwise cuts "that could endanger the recovery."

The House worked through the night into early Wednesday; debate on the bill is expected to take all week. A frosty reception awaits the bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which won't take up its version until next month. So it'll require passage of a separate short-term government funding bill by March 4 to prevent a government shutdown that neither side says it wants.

The GOP bill, separate from the 2012 budget Obama unveiled on Monday, covers spending for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

The GOP legislation would make sweeping cuts to domestic programs ranging from education and science to agriculture and the Peace Corps. It slashes the Environmental Protection Agency, a favorite target of Republicans, by 29 percent from last year's levels, and would eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, the AmeriCorps national service program, police hiring grants and family planning programs unpopular with conservatives.

The Food and Drug Administration budget would decline by 10 percent, and spending also would fall by 10 percent for a food program for pregnant women and mothers and their children.

The cuts are all the more dramatic because they would be shoehorned into the last half of the budget year that started Oct. 1.

The bill marks the first significant attack on federal deficits by Republicans elected last fall with the support of smaller-government tea party activists.

The measure came to the floor just a day after Obama unveiled his budget for next year and is merely a first round in what looms as a politically defining struggle that soon will expand to encompass Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the massive government programs that provide benefits directly to tens of millions of people.

"We know we can't balance this budget simply by reducing nonsecurity, nondefense spending," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, referring to the 359-page bill that would cut $61 billion from domestic programs.

The measure is sweeping in its scope, cutting spending from literally hundreds of domestic budget accounts and eliminating many others. At the same time, the Pentagon budget would be increased by almost 2 percent from current levels.

In a reflection of tea party priorities, the practice in which lawmakers direct money to their pet projects is banned in the bill. And in a fulfillment of a promise that Republicans made to the voters last fall, about $100 billion would be cut from funds that Obama requested for the current fiscal year.

At a White House news conference, Obama said he looked forward to working with lawmakers in both parties on the spending bill, but warned against "a series of symbolic cuts this year that could endanger the (economic) recovery."

A few hours after Obama spoke, the White House issued a formal statement expressing "strong opposition" to the legislation for "cuts that would sharply undermine core government functions and investments key to economic growth and job creation."

Republicans used their first major spending bill to reflect conservative priorities on a range of issues, from abortion to the environment.

The bill would prohibit federal funding for any private organization that uses its own funds to facilitate abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

At the same time, the EPA would be barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from factories and other stationary sites.

Conservatives said they would attempt to add other policy requirements to the legislation during floor debate, including one to prevent the implementation of the year-old health care law.

Others are backed by affected industries. One would stop the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing its proposed new "network neutrality" policy, which prohibits phone and cable companies from interfering with traffic on their broadband networks.

Officials said Senate Democrats agreed in a closed door meeting during the day to support one element of Obama's budget, a call for a five-year freeze across hundreds of domestic programs. Some accounts would face cuts to allow for growth in others. A formal announcement is expected Wednesday.

Regulation of Securities, Markets, and Transactions: A Guide to the New Environment

This book describes the government regulation of securities, securities markets, and securities transactions in the United States.

Hoboken, New Jersey (PRWEB) February 13, 2011

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - Before the Wall Street Crash of 1929, there was little regulation of securities in the United States at the Federal level. The crash spurred the Congress to hold hearings, and pass the Securities Act of 1933. Since then, there were seven more principal United States federal statutes in the area of securities regulation and countless amendments to these regulations.In fact, securities laws, securities regulations, and the rules of self-regulatory organizations are changed often. Some of these changes are driven by the normal course of competition and innovation between and within markets, by advances in the technologies that support the operations of markets, or by the global integration of markets. Other changes, such as those that followed the banking turmoil of 2007—2008, are a response to the sudden release of pressures accumulated over a period of years. For a clear explanation of these regulations, John Wiley & Sons is releasing REGULATION OF SECURITIES, MARKETS, AND TRANSACTIONS: A Guide to the New Environment (Available Now, 2011; $95.00), the ultimate guide to the current rules and regulations that govern the securities industry, including the most recent amendments in 2010.

Providing readers with expert coverage of domestic securities regulation, this book offers complete coverage of securities regulations, defining, describing, and explaining everything professionals need to know about domestic securities regulation.REGULATION OF SECURITIES, MARKETS, AND TRANSACTIONS is essential reading for professionals in the banking, insurance, or securities industries, as well as those employed by a government agency that regulates these industries. With in-depth discussion of the Financial Regulation Act of 2010, this timely resource provides critical guidance of the latest regulations for this industry at readers’ fingertips.Adding value beyond a reference, author Patrick Collins defines, describes, and explains domestic securities regulation, preparing professionals to understand the latest securities laws, with thorough coverage of:

•Securities and the public interest•Non-securities laws•Accounting capital and regulatory capital•Regulation and supervision•Regulation of registered entities and persons•Objectives-oriented rules for accounting and auditing

A useful introductory handbook for broker-dealers, compliance officers, accountants and attorneys who provide services to the securities industry, REGULATION OF SECURITIES, MARKETS, AND TRANSACTIONS is the guide for understanding the government regulation of securities, securities markets, and securities transactions in the United States.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:Patrick S. Collins (Santa Fe, NM) has over 30 years' experience in domestic and foreign financial markets.He has worked in the financial futures markets and was a senior officer of securities companies in London, New York, and Hong Kong.He was the managing director (chief executive officer) of a brokerage company in London, a senior vice president of a New York-based primary dealer in government securities, and the executive director (chief operating officer) of a broker in Hong Kong.In addition, he has been a financial-markets consultant where he advised banks, broker-dealers, exchanges, settlement facilities, and securities regulators in Argentina, Czech Republic, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

REGULATION OF SECURITIES, MARKETS, AND TRANSACTIONSA Guide to the New EnvironmentPublished by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Publication date: Available Now$95.00; Hardcover; 364 pages; ISBN: 978-0-470-60196-9

# # #

Evelyn MartinezJohn Wiley & Sons201.748.6358Email Information

Obama on Mideast: Power by coercion won't last

WASHINGTON – Warily watching protests ripple across the Middle East, President Barack Obama said Tuesday that governments in the vital, volatile region are figuring out that they "can't maintain power through coercion." He slammed Iran as an exception, accusing the U.S. foe of beating and shooting protesters.

The public uprisings that toppled the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia have ignited protests and violent clashes in Bahrain, Yemen and Iran. With strategic U.S. interests in each of those countries, Obama conceded he is concerned about the region's stability. And he prodded governments to get out ahead of the change.

In his most expansive comments yet about the unrest spilling across the Middle East and north Africa, Obama signaled that he would stick with his Egyptian model: Prod governments to allow peaceful protests and to respond to grievances, but stay silent about who should run the countries or what change should look like.

The Egyptian experience has cemented Obama's doctrine of dealing with countries grappling with upheaval: direction that falls short of dictates. He said the lesson for all the nations is that they will only see lasting change, and gain both international and internal support for it, when it comes through "moral force."

"These are sovereign countries that are going to have to make their own decisions," Obama said at his first full news conference of the year. "What we can do is lend moral support to those who are seeking a better life for themselves."

Whether moral support is enough is often the issue as the United States tries to help shape events in the Middle East that are out of its control. The unrest in the region, and its potential impact on leadership of friendly and rival nations, can in turn affect U.S. economic, military and security interests.

Obama singled out Iran, where hardline lawmakers are calling for the country's opposition leaders to face trial and be put to death. Tens of thousands of people turned out for an opposition rally Monday in solidarity with Egypt's revolt, the first such demonstration since a violent crackdown on protesters in 2009.

"I find it ironic that you've got the Iranian regime pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt when, in fact, they have acted in direct contrast to what happened in Egypt by gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully in Iran," Obama said.

What began with an uprising in Tunisia emboldened massive protests in Egypt, mobilized in part by the social media networks Facebook and Twitter. In less than three weeks, autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down under enormous pressure, and the makings of a democracy are under way.

Now the White House is trying to get ahead of events across the Arab world even as Obama encourages other leaders to do the same.

In Bahrain, thousands of protesters took over a main square in the capital city Tuesday, trying to force high-level changes. Bahrain is one Washington's key allies in the Gulf and home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, so the unrest there adds another worry for the White House.

In Yemen, police and government supporters battled nearly 3,000 marchers calling for the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in a fifth straight day of violence. That comes as ties between the U.S. and Saleh have been growing over alarm in Washington about the activities of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Obama said his message to friends and foes in the region is this: "The world is changing."

"You have a young, vibrant generation within the Middle East that is looking for greater opportunity," he said. "And if you are governing these countries, you've got to get out ahead of change. You can't be behind the curve."

The president suggested that authoritarian rule is giving way to fundamental desires by people to get good jobs, an education and a better life.

"You can't maintain power through coercion," Obama said. "At some level in any society, there has to be consent."

And then he added: "My belief is that, as a consequence of what's happening in Tunisia and Egypt, governments in that region are starting to understand this."

Throughout the Egyptian power crisis, the White House fended off questions about its position — whether it was consistent, whether it was forceful enough in support of people seeking freedoms, whether the administration was adequately anticipating events.

Once the outcome became clear, with Mubarak forced out of power and a peaceful, initial transition to democracy, the White House spoke with a vindicated tone. Obama did so directly when questioned Tuesday.

"I think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history," he said. "What we didn't do was pretend that we could dictate the outcome in Egypt, because we can't."

As for other protesters across the region, Obama said he supported their aspirations, but insisted that the outcomes will be up to them.

"We do want to make sure that transitions do not degenerate into chaos," he said. "That's not just good for us. That's good for those countries."