Research Request #5 (U.S. Prison Population Sets Record)

Associated Press
Friday, December 1, 2006; Page A03

A record 7 million people -- one in every 32 U.S. adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, a Justice Department report released yesterday shows.

Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to the report.

More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.

Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent and the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.

"Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails," Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that supports criminal justice reform, said in a statement....

(http://www.washingtonpost.com)

Is India Bad for Jaguar?

Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 By SIMON ROBINSON/NEW DELHI

The Orient Express Hotel Chain's Hotel Cipriani in Venice; a Jaguar XF

Orient Express Hotels; Jaguar

India likes to trumpet its corporate successes, and this week the emerging global power had plenty to shout about with the appointment of Indian-born Vikram Pandit to head troubled financial giant Citigroup. But even as it celebrated, India Inc. was also up in arms over perceived slights to its ability to run two of the world's most prestigious brands.

India's currency comes of age, spurring complaints among exporters and bringing cheer to wealthy globetrotters

First, a group of U.S. Jaguar dealers said they opposed the possibility that Ford, Jaguar's owner, might sell the British luxury car brand to an Indian firm. Two of the three firms that Ford has shortlisted as potential purchasers are Indian: Mahindra & Mahindra and Tata Motors. The dealers said that the sale to an Indian company would hurt Jaguar's image. "I don't believe the U.S. public is ready for ownership out of India of a luxury car make," Ken Gorin, chairman of the Jaguar Business Operations Council, told the Wall Street Journal. "And I believe it would severely throw a tremendous cast of doubt over the viability of the brand."

A few days later Indian Hotels, which owns the luxury Taj hotel chain and is itself a branch of the Tata empire, was told its overtures to New York Stock Exchange-listed luxury hotel and cruise firm Orient-Express were unwelcome — and potentially damaging. Indian Hotels recently upped its stake in Orient-Express to 11.5%. But Orient-Express CEO Paul White, in a letter to Indian Hotels Vice-Chairman R. K. Krishna Kumar, wrote that "any association of our luxury brands and properties with your brands and properties would result in a reduction of our brands and of our business and would likely lead to erosion."

Indian Hotels' Kumar told TIME that his first reaction upon receiving the letter "was that Paul White could not possibly have drafted [it]... I came to the conclusion that the person who drafted this letter needs counseling." Indian Hotels, he said, had proposed a friendly partnership in which each company would take an equity stake in the other, share expertise but remain independent. "At no time did we moot the the idea of a merger," Kumar says. White's letter, he says, "will go down as one of the most uncivilized exchanges of views between two companies in the 21st century." Its sentiments, Kumar says, reflect "an era that is now prehistoric."

Many Indians shared Kumar's sense of outrage. Commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath warned that, "There cannot be any discrimination against outward investment from India." In an era of globalization, he said, "trade and investment [is] a two-way street." Industrialist Venugopal Dhoot, who heads the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India, told the Press Trust of India that Orient-Express had shown "arrogance toward one of India's most respected business houses." The discriminatory tone of Orient-Express's letter was "close to racism, barely camouflaged in the language of branding," opined an angry editorial (entitled "Racism Can't Halt Indian Takeovers") in India's Economic Times. The days of "white supremacy are disappearing rapidly, and white brand value with it," the piece went on. "When Arab financiers are needed to rescue Citigroup, notions of white cachet seem ludicrous."

Both Orient-Express and Jaguar's Gorin emphasize that their judgments were based on business strategy alone. Gorin told the Wall Street Journal that his sentiments also applied to a Chinese company buying Jaguar and should not be read as a judgment on Mahindra or Tata's management abilities. "My concern is perception," he said. "And perception is reality." Pippa Isbell, an Orient-Express spokesperson, says that "our letter was purely based on business rationale." Orient-Express, she says, owns properties around the world, and the company's decision to decline a closer relationship with Indian Hotels "is not related to the fact that the company is Indian but is based entirely on the rationale that their dominant business in India is not a strategic fit with our business."

To be sure, the image of a luxury brand requires delicate and careful grooming. And while Tata and other Indian manufacturers could soon be world beaters in producing ultra cheap cars, their track record in running a luxury auto brand is untested. At the same time, however, America's Ford has not exactly made a great success of Jaguar over the past few years: that's one reason the company is selling it. And when it comes to hotels, the Taj chain owns, among its wide range of properties, some of the most luxurious hotels in the world. It is also expanding: in the past few years it has snapped up properties in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco. "It would be very easy for us to make an open offer [for Orient-Express]," says Kumar. "Except for our own restraint."

Indeed, if history is any guide, Indian companies take rebuttal as a challenge. When British-based Indian-born businessman Lakshmi Mittal first bid for French steel maker Arcelor last year, the company's French CEO said he was horrified by the idea of an Indian taking over, likening Mittal Steel to eau de Cologne and Arcelor to perfume. Within months, Mittal had won out. A century earlier, when Tata founder Jamsetji Tata suggested making steel for the colonial railway system, a British administrator dismissed the idea with barely concealed contempt. Earlier this year, Tata paid almost $14 billion to buy Corus, British Steel's successor. The moral of that story is not lost on India's corporate captains. They say that Western companies had better get used to the idea of Indians taking over.

(http://www.time.com)

Russia delivers first nuclear fuel to Iran

By Reuters, December 17

Iran will not halt uranium enrichment even with delivery of fuel from Russia for its first nuclear power plant, a senior Iranian official said on Monday, adding he could not yet confirm Iran had received the fuel.

The Russian state agency building the station said in a statement on Monday it had delivered the first fuel shipment for the Bushehr plant. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the move would create the conditions for Iran to suspend enrichment....

(http://ft.com)

A Health-Insurance Solution

By Merrill Mathews, The Wall Street Journal
December 12, 2007; Page A18

Why can't people living in New Jersey buy health insurance available to residents of, say, Pennsylvania?

Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican, thinks they should -- and today will reintroduce legislation to make that possible.

The Health Care Choice Act would allow residents in one state to buy health insurance that is available in and regulated by another state. If enacted, the law would create a competitive, 50-state market for health insurance, likely making it cheaper. It would do this without imposing a large cost on taxpayers and without creating a new government bureaucracy.

This should be a no-brainer for Congress. But a few years ago, Mr. Shadegg went looking for a Democratic cosponsor for his bill. He found one who initially signed on, then withdrew under pressure from Democratic House leaders who wanted to dismiss the Shadegg bill with the excuse that it lacked bipartisan support.

The health-insurance market can be divided into three segments. The first consists of mostly large employers, with self-funded plans, and are regulated by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and thus not subject to state regulation. The two remaining segments of the health-insurance market are heavily regulated by states: those that serve small-group plans (typically covering two to 50 people), and individuals who pay for their own insurance. Mr. Shadegg's bill only applies to the individual market.

Because regulations vary from state to state, the cost of health insurance for these last two segments of the insurance market vary widely. Some states ensure that residents have access to a wide range of affordable policies. Others -- New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, for instance -- have all but destroyed their individual health-insurance markets with over-regulation.

One of the most expensive state-level regulations is "guaranteed issue," which requires insurers to sell insurance to anyone willing to buy it, regardless of their health, or other factors that may make it much more expensive to cover them. New Jersey, for example, enacted guaranteed issue in 1994. At the time, a family policy could be purchased in the state for as little as $463 a month or as much as $1,076, depending on which of the 14 participating insurers a family chose. Now there are just 10 insurance companies offering plans in the state and the cost has soared to $1,726 per month on the low end and $14,062 on the high end.

In New Jersey then, residents who buy their own insurance have to pay at least $20,000 a year for the cheapest family policy. Meanwhile, in neighboring Pennsylvania similar health-insurance policies cost a third of what they cost in New Jersey. What Mr. Shadegg wants to do is to let New Jersey residents buy what's now for sale in Pennsylvania.

Mandates are another reason the cost of health insurance varies from state to state. States impose those mandates on what an insurance plan must cover -- such as chiropractic care or mental-health services. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, which tracks mandates, estimates that there are more than 1,900 state mandates nationwide. These mandates can increase the cost of health insurance by as much as 50%, which can then force residents in many states to decide between "Cadillac coverage" -- insurance that covers nearly everything and costs a mini fortune -- or no coverage at all.

Typically, state mandates are justified by the belief that they make health insurance more comprehensive. But consider this: Idaho has just 14 state mandates, the fewest in the nation, while Minnesota, with 63, has the most. Yet, the people of Idaho aren't dying in the streets for lack of mandates.

Critics of the Health Care Choice Act claim that it would limit the ability of states to protect their residents. The assertion is that cross-state health-insurance purchases are a risky experiment. In truth, millions of people already have access to health insurance across state lines. Employees of large companies with plans covered by ERISA are one example.

But there are others. Some small businesses cover employees working across state lines. And, because people are mobile, some people buy individual insurance in one state and then end up moving to another. In many cases, they can take their health-insurance policies with them. A person living in Pennsylvania with an individual policy now could retain that policy even if he moved to New Jersey. Premiums would likely increase, but they would be cheaper than if he had started out with a New Jersey policy.

If states are worried about losing regulatory control over health insurance, they might try making their regulations competitive with other states. Health insurers would likely respond by returning and offering a wide range of affordable policies. As it stands, many states are "protecting" their residents right into the uninsured camp.

The Health Care Choice Act won't solve every problem. But it would increase competition and consumer choices currently denied to residents in many states.

Mr. Matthews is executive director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance and a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.

URL for this article:
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119742880091722751.html)

First major increase by Congress in required automobile fuel efficiency in 32 years

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate passed a trimmed-back energy bill Thursday that would bring higher-gas mileage cars and SUVs into showrooms in the coming decade and fill their tanks with ethanol.

The measure was approved with strong bipartisan support 86-8 after Democrats abandoned efforts to impose billions of dollars in new taxes on the biggest oil companies, unable by one vote to overcome a Republican filibuster against the new taxes.

The bill now goes to the House, where a vote is expected next week. The White House issued a statement saying President Bush will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk, as is expected. Bush had promised a veto if the oil industry taxes were not removed.

The bill calls for the first major increase by Congress in required automobile fuel efficiency in 32 years, something the auto companies have fought for two decades.

The car companies will have to achieve an industrywide average 35 mile per gallon for cars, small trucks and SUVs over the next 13 years, an increase of 10 mpg over what the entire fleet averages today.

And it would boost use of ethanol to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a nearly sixfold increase, and impose an array of new requirements to promote efficiency in appliances, lighting and buildings.

This bill "will begin to reverse our addiction to oil. It's a step to fight global warming," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The increased auto efficiency by 2020 will save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, equal to half the oil now imported from the Persian Gulf, save consumers $22 billion at the pump, and reduce annual greenhouse gases emissions by 200 million tons, said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii., whose committee crafted the measure.

"It demonstrates to the world that America is a leader in fighting global warming," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry that is so important to his state, called the fuel economy measure "ambitious but achievable."

For consumers, the legislation will mean that over the next dozen years auto companies will likely build more diesel-powered SUVs and gas-electric hybrid cars as well as vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol. They will push engineers to develop new technologies to save fuel.

"Automakers can meet the new standards with today's technology," said David Friedman, research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicle Program. "Cars and trucks will be the same size and perform the same way they do today."

But they may be using a different fuel.

The energy legislation would require that ethanol use as a motor fuel be ramped up at an unprecedented pace to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. And at least 21 billion gallons will have to be ethanol from feedstock other than corn such as prairie grasses, switchgrass and wood chips.

About 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol were expected to be used as a gasoline additive this year, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers.

The legislation also would increase energy efficiency requirements for appliances and federal and commercial buildings and require faster approval of federal energy efficiency standards.

These measures, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., "will eventually save more energy than all our previous energy efficiency measures combined."

Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries, including wind, solar, biomass and carbon capture from coal plants, were part of the tax package that was dropped. Senate Democrats earlier also abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.

While many environmentalists viewed almost certain approval of the automobile fuel economy increase as a major victory, some were critical Thursday of the Democrats' inability to push through taxes on major oil companies, which have been making huge profits in recent years.

"The Senate Democrats should show some backbone," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. "If Republicans want to block progress on clean energy and global warming, they should be forced to mount a real filibuster — for weeks if necessary."

Republicans had made it clear they would require the Democrats to find 60 votes on the oil taxes and the White House had said repeatedly the $13.5 billion in taxes on the five largest oil companies over 10 years would assure a veto.

On the 59-40 vote that failed to overcome a GOP filibuster, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., whose state's economy is dominated by oil and energy activities, was the only Democrat to break ranks. Nine Republicans supported the tax measures.

The White House has said the taxes would lead to higher energy costs and unfairly single out the oil industry for punishment. A Democratic analysis showed that the $13.5 billion over 10 years amounted to 1.1 percent of the net profits that five largest oil companies would be expected to earn given today's oil prices.

(http://news.yahoo.com)

China's ship building poses big challenge: Top US admiral

14 Dec 2007, 0545 hrs IST,AFP

WASHINGTON: The chief of the US naval operations expressed concern on Thursday about competition from China's flourishing ship building sector, while a lawmaker said that it could soon be building more warships that the United States.

"The fact that our shipbuilding capacity and industry is not as competitive as other builders around the world is cause for concern," Admiral Gary Roughead told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.

Singling out China, he said: "They are very competitive on the world market. There is no question that their ship building capability is increasing rapidly."

Republican lawmaker Duncan Hunter told the hearing that China was turning out 5,000 commercial ships a year, against 300 by the United States, and an average of three submarines a year, to the United States' one.

China is also producing nearly five times as much steel as the United States, he said - some 480 million tons a year.

"All that is giving them the industrial base that could allow the Chinese naval capability to outstrip the United States if they turn that commercial ship building capability into warship-building capability," Hunter said.

Roughead added: "I believe that not in a distant future they will likely surpass Korea as the prominent ship builder in the world."

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com)

AMT: House passes fix, Senate likely to kill.

AMT: House passes fix, Senate likely to kill.

The move is a protest of the recently passed Senate bill, which doesn't offer provisions to pay for the protection of 21 million from the 'wealth' tax.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer

December 12 2007: 7:05 PM EST

... Bottom Line ...

Since 2001, Congress has temporarily increased income exemption levels. The last "patch" - for 2006 - put the exemption levels at $62,550 for joint filers and $42,250 for single filers. The bill passed by the House calls for an increase in those levels to $66,250 and $44,350, respectively.

Without a patch, the 2007 exemption amounts will fall to $45,000 for joint filers and $33,750 for single filers.

Research Request #4 - Oil Prices Jump on Inventories, Fed

AP
Oil Prices Jump on Inventories, Fed
Wednesday December 12, 3:37 pm ET

By John Wilen, AP Business Writer

Crude Futures Spike After Energy Department Reports Supplies Fell, Fed Announces Credit Plan

NEW YORK (AP) -- Energy futures rose sharply Wednesday after the government reported unexpected declines in supplies of crude and heating oil last week and the Federal Reserve announced a plan to help banks weather the credit crisis.

Crude supplies fell 700,000 barrels during the week ended Dec. 7, according to a weekly inventory report from the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. Analysts had expected a 100,000 barrel increase.

And supplies of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, fell 800,000 barrels; analysts had expected inventories to rise by 300,000 barrels.

"Traders are concerned about that drop in distillate supplies," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp., in Chicago.

Earlier, the Fed said it was working with other central banks to try to counter the credit crisis. That alleviated some of investors' disappointment that the Fed on Tuesday cut interest rates by just a quarter percentage point. Many investors had hoped for a larger half-point cut.

"Anything the Fed is doing to help out is going to support oil prices," said Brad Samples, commodities analyst at Summit Energy Services Inc. in Louisville, Ky.

Light, sweet crude for January delivery rose $4.37 to settle at $94.39 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and January heating oil futures jumped 12.02 cents to settle at $2.6432 a gallon.

It was crude's highest close since Nov. 27....

(http://biz.yahoo.com/ap)

Wall Street Bonus for Year 2007 (to be updated daily)

		Wall Street Bonus for Year 2007
		(Pay, Restricted Stocks etc)
12/12/2007		Goldman Sachs	Lloyd Blankfein	$70	(http://ft.com)
12/12/2007		Lehman Brothers	Dick Fuld	$41	(http://ft.com)

Beijing lectures US on weak dollar

Beijing lectures US on weak dollar

By Richard McGregor in Xianghe

Published: December 12 2007 07:23 | Last updated: December 12 2007 20:20

Beijing turned the tables on the US on Wednesday after years of criticism from Washington of its handling of the Chinese economy, warning of the serious global implications of the weak dollar, recent US interest rate cuts and the subprime crisis.

Beijing highlighted US economic problems at the opening of a twice-yearly meeting between ministers from both countries ...

(http://ft.com)