Nevermind! States accept jobless help

Nevermind! States accept jobless help

Governors such as Nevada's Jim Gibbons were blasted for even considering rejecting federal funds. Now he and others have agreed to take the money.
By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer

Last Updated: March 27, 2009: 6:33 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's not that easy to turn down federal funds.
Several governors who initially voiced concerns about expanding state unemployment benefits to qualify for federal stimulus funds have decided to accept the money. Some were feeling the heat from jobless constituents, while others took comfort in learning recently from the federal Department of Labor that they could curtail eligibility later on.

The benefits expansion is among the most controversial components of the stimulus package, and it comes at a time when millions of people across the nation are losing their jobs. The nation's unemployment rate stood at 8.1% in February and is expected to climb to 8.5% when the March figures are released next Friday.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires state legislatures to broaden the unemployment guidelines to allow more women, part-timers and low-wage workers to qualify.
In return, the states will get to partake in a $7 billion federal grant aimed at helping the unemployed. At least 19 states automatically qualify for the funds since they already had widened eligibility.

Some state officials, however, are concerned they will have to fund the expanded program by hiking taxes on employers once the federal money runs out. But they were soon hit by a backlash of anger from state lawmakers, unions and jobless residents.
"All the states need the money," said Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group. "There's public pressure and sympathy for the unemployed."

Governors change course
In Nevada, for instance, Gov. Jim Gibbons found himself confronted by state legislators who introduced bills to accept the funds after Gibbons indicated he wouldn't. They chastised him for even considering turning down the $77 million in funds at a time when one in 10 state residents are out of work.

This week, Gibbons became one of the latest governors to sign up for the extended benefits funding as unemployment soars nationwide.
"As our economic crisis deepens, Nevadans are suffering because of layoffs, business closings and other cutbacks," said Gibbons, a Republican. "We have the responsibility to do everything we can to help our unemployed workers get through these difficult times, even if that means passing legislation that we would not necessarily approve during prosperous times."

In Tennessee, Gov. Phil Bredesen made headlines last month when he became one of the few Democratic state executives to question the wisdom of broadening unemployment benefits. His stance prompted local legislators and union leaders to hold press conferences and readers to write letters to state newspapers.
"Absolutely appalling," wrote one Germantown resident to the Commercial Appeal. "I hope the unemployed of Tennessee will write or call the governor to voice their displeasure with his possible refusal of these extended benefits."

The governor ultimately decided to accept the $141 million in stimulus funds.Tennessee's unemployment rate was 8.4% in February. He said it should cover the expanded unemployment benefits for up to six years.

"I took a few days to look at this, to determine just what the long term costs of these benefit improvements would be," Bredesen said in his budget address earlier this week. "You may recall the criticism I took, some of it national, for taking the time to read the fine print. This seems like a good trade off at a time like this, and I recommend that we accept these funds."
Not budging

Certain governors, however, haven't shifted from their position, despite the public outcry. The Republican governors of Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana are taking a hard line and saying they will not accept the funds because of the potential impact it will have on employers once the federal money runs out.

And in Florida, lawmakers are the ones balking at expanding the rolls, though Republican Gov. Charlie Crist supports accepting the federal funds.
The Florida House leadership this week sent an email to members advising them how to respond if constituents complain about the state's not accepting $444 million in federal funds. Representatives should tell residents that the federal money will only last two months and then businesses will have to cover the costs, potentially prompting them to lay off more workers, the email said.

"This isn't about not being compassionate," said Adam Hasner, House Majority Leader in Florida, where unemployment is at 9.4%. "It's about not making a problem worse."
First Published: March 27, 2009: 5:19 PM ET

Poll shows Democrat has edge in NY 20

Poll shows Democrat has edge in NY 20

Posted: 01:40 PM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

The special election is set for next Tuesday.

(CNN) – Four days before a crucial special election for a House seat, a new poll suggests the Democrat in the race is gaining momentum.

A Siena College Research Institute poll of likely voters in New York's 20th congressional district indicates that Democrat Scott Murphy leads Republican Jim Tedisco by a 47 percent to 43 percent margin. That's a switch from two weeks ago, when Tedisco had a four point lead in a Siena poll and from one month ago, when Tedisco led by 12 points.

But the poll also indicates that by a ten point margin, 45 percent to 35 percent, voters think Tedisco will win.

"Taking the poll's sampling error into account, this race is neck-and-neck," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The tricky task for any pollster is trying to figure out who will actually vote in a special election for a local seat in an odd-numbered year. Likely voter models are generally based on historical voting patterns, but there is no history to fall back on in a race like this."

Murphy is a venture capitalist and Tedisco is a New York State lawmaker and ranking Republican in the State Assembly.

Both are running to replace Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who gave up her House seat after New York Gov. David Paterson appointed her to the U.S. Senate in January, to replace Hillary Clinton, who stepped down to serve as Secretary of State.

Gillibrand first won election to the seat in 2006 and was re-elected last November, in a moderate to conservative district that Republicans used to dominate.

The special election is scheduled for Tuesday.

Both the Democratic and Republican national party organizations and congressional campaign committees in the House of Representatives have pumped resources into the race.

The Democratic National Committee on Friday began running a television commercial in the district that uses visuals of Barack Obama and Murphy together on the screen and touts the president's support of the candidate. Earlier this week, the DNC went up with a radio spot in which Vice President Joe Biden voices his support for Murphy.

Republican have also flooded the airwaves in upstate New York with ads supporting Tedisco. President Obama's stimulus plan and even the controversy over AIG bonuses have become issues in the contest. Many political analysts see the race as an early referendum on how the Obama presidency has performed so far when it comes to the economy.

"Obama has endorsed the Democrat, so he can't run away from the results if the Republican wins," Holland says. "But local races often turn on local issues and the public perception of the two people on the ballot."

The Siena College Research Institute poll was conducted March 25-26, with 917 likely voters questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Is BAE Systems British Aerospace?

I was told BAE Systems is not British Aerospace. Here are the facts.

BAE Systems plc (BAE) is a British defence and aerospace company headquartered in Farnborough, Hampshire, England, that has global interests, particularly in North America through its subsidiary BAE Systems Inc. BAE is the world's third largest defence contractor and the largest in Europe.^[3] It was formed on 30 November 1999 by the £7.7 billion merger of two British companies, Marconi Electronic Systems (MES), the defence electronics and naval shipbuilding subsidiary of the General Electric Company plc (GEC), and aircraft, munitions and naval systems manufacturer British Aerospace (BAe).

BAE is the successor to various aircraft and defence electronics companies, including The Marconi Company, the first commercial company devoted to the development and use of radio; A.V. Roe and Company, one of the world's first aircraft companies; de Havilland, manufacturer of the world'sfirst commercial jet airliner; British Aircraft Corporation, co-manufacturer of the Concordesupersonic transport; and Supermarine, manufacturer of the Spitfire. It has increasingly disengaged from its businesses in continental Europe in favour of investing in the United States. Since its formation it has sold its shares of Airbus, EADS Astrium, AMS and Atlas Elektronik.

BAE Systems is involved in several major defence projects, including the F-35 Lightning II, theEurofighter Typhoon and the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The company has been the subject of criticism, both general opposition to the arms trade and also specific allegations of unethical and corrupt practices, including the Al Yamamah contracts with Saudi Arabia that have earned BAE and its predecessor £43 billion in twenty years.

BAE Systems was formed on 30 November 1999 by the £7.7 billion merger of British Aerospace (BAe) and Marconi Electronic Systems (MES). As a result, BAE Systems is the successor to many of the most famous British aircraft, defence electronics and warship manufacturers. Predecessor companies built the Comet, the world's first commercial jet airliner; the Harrier "jump jet", the world's first operationalVertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft; the "groundbreaking" Blue Vixen radar carried by Sea Harrier FA2s and which formed the basis of the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar; and co-produced the iconic Concorde supersonic airliner with Aérospatiale.

British Aerospace was a civil and military aircraft manufacturer, as well as a provider of military land systems. The company had emerged from the massive consolidation of UK aircraft manufacturers since World War II. British Aerospace was formed on 29 April 1977 by the nationalisation and merger of The British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), theHawker Siddeley Group and Scottish Aviation.^[7] Both BAC and Hawker Siddeley were themselves the result of various mergers and acquisitions.^[8]

Marconi Electronic Systems was the defence subsidiary of British engineering firm The General Electric Company (GEC), dealing largely in military systems integration, as well as naval and land systems. Marconi's heritage dates back to Guglielmo Marconi's Wireless Telegraph & Signal Company, founded in 1897. GEC purchased English Electric (which included Marconi) in 1968 and thereafter used the Marconi brand for its defence businesses (as GEC-Marconi and later Marconi Electronic Systems). GEC's own defence heritage dates back to World War I, when its contribution to the war effort included radios and bulbs. World War II consolidated this position, as the company was involved in important technological advances, notably the cavity magnetron for radar.^[10] Between 1945 and 1999, GEC-Marconi/Marconi Electronic Systems became one of the world's most important defence contractors. GEC's major defence related acquisitions included Associated Electrical Industries in 1967,Yarrow Shipbuilders in 1985,^[11] Plessey companies in 1989, parts of Ferranti's defence business in 1990, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering in 1995^[13] and Kværner Govan in 1999. In June 1998, MES acquired Tracor, a major American defence contractor, for £830 million (approx. US$1.4 billion c. 1998).

Criticisms

HMS Coventry was one of two frigates sold to Romania. The terms of the sale have been controversial.

Like many arms manufacturers, BAE has received criticism from various human rights and anti-arms trade organisations due to the human rights records of governments to which it has sold equipment. These include Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. BAE's US subsidiary makes several subsystems forF-16s, 236 of which have been supplied to the Israel Defense Forces.^[100]

In September 2003 The Sunday Times reported that BAE had hired a private security contractor to collate information about individuals working at the Campaign Against Arms Trade and their activities.^[101][102] In February 2007, it again obtained private confidential information from CAAT.^[103]

BAE has been subject to allegations of corruption.^[104] On 7 February 2007 the Solicitor General Mike O'Brien announced that BAE contracts in six countries were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office(SFO) for "suspected international corruption"; Chile, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Romania, South Africa and Tanzania. In September 2005 The Guardian reported that banking records showed that BAE paid £1 million to Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator.^[105] The Guardian has also reported that "clandestine arms deals" have been under investigation in Chile and the UK since 2003 and that British Aerospace and BAE made a number of payments to Pinochet advisers.^[106]

The SFO's Czech Republic investigation relates to alleged bribery as part of the deal to lease BAE/Saab Gripen fighters to that country.^[107]BAE has been criticised for its role in disposing of surplus Royal Navy warships. HMS Sheffield was sold to the Chilean Navy in 2003 for £27 million, however the government's profit from the sale was £3 million after contracts worth £24 million were placed with BAE for upgrade and refurbishment of the ship. BAE is alleged to have paid "secret offshore commissions" of over £7 million to secure the sale of HMS London and HMS Coventry to the Romanian Navy. BAE received a £116 million contract for the refurbishment of the ships.^[108]

In January 2007 BBC News highlighted concerns of arms campaigners regarding arms sales to South Africa, primarily in relation to the £2.3 billion deal which saw BAE supply Hawk trainers and Gripen fighters.^[109] The Tanzania inquiry relates to the sale of a radar system to that country in 2002.^[110] The sale was criticised by then Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short, opposition MPs and theWorld Bank.^[111]

Responding to allegations of bribery and corruption, BAE Systems' 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report states "We continue to reject these allegations...We take our obligations under the law extremely seriously and will continue to comply with all legal requirements around the world."^[112]

[edit]

Nuclear weapons

BAE is indirectly engaged in production of nuclear weapons. Through its 37.5% share of MBDA it is involved with the production and support of the ASMP missile, an air launched nuclear missile which forms part of the French nuclear deterrent. BAE is also the UK's only nuclear submarine manufacturer and thus produces a key element of the UK's nuclear weapons capability. Due to these involvements, BAE was excluded from the portfolio of the government pension fund of Norway in 2006.^[113]

Saudi Arabian contracts

One of 24 Panavia Tornado ADVs delivered to the Royal Saudi Air Force as part of the Al Yamamah arms sales.

Main article: Al Yamamah

BAE (and British Aerospace previously) has long been the subject of allegations of bribery in relation to its business in Saudi Arabia. The UK National Audit Office (NAO) investigated the Al Yamamah contracts and has so far not published its conclusions, the only NAO report ever to be withheld.^[114] The MOD has stated "The report remains sensitive. Disclosure would harm both international relations and the UK's commercial interests."^[115] The company has been accused of maintaining a £60 million Saudi slush fund and was the subject of an investigation by the SFO. However, on 14 December 2006 it was announced that the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into BAE. It stated that representations to its Director and the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had led to the conclusion that the wider public interest "to safeguard national and international security" outweighed any potential benefits of further investigation.^[116] The termination of the investigation has been controversial.^[117] In June 2007, the BBC's Panorama alleged BAE "paid hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan" in return for his role in the Al Yamamah deals.^[118] In late June 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) began a formal investigation into BAE's compliance with anti-corruption laws.^[119] On 19 May 2008 BAE confirmed that its CEO Mike Turner and non-executive director Nigel Rudd had been detained "for about 20 minutes" at two US airports the previous week and that the DOJ had issued "a number of additional subpoenas in the US to employees of BAE Systems plc and BAE Systems Inc as part of its ongoing investigation".^[120] The Times suggested that such "humiliating behaviour by the DOJ" is unusual toward a company that is co-operating fully.^[120]

A judicial review of the decision by the SFO to drop the investigation was granted on 9 November 2007.^[121] On 10 April 2008 the High Court ruled that the SFO "acted unlawfully" by dropping its investigation.^[122] The Times described the ruling as "one of the most strongly worded judicial attacks on government action" which condemned how "ministers 'buckled' to 'blatant threats' that Saudi cooperation in the fight against terror would end unless the ...investigation was dropped."^[123] On 24 April the SFO was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the ruling.^[124] There was a two-day hearing before the Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008.^[125] On 30 July the House of Lords unanimously overturned the High Court ruling, stating that the decision to discontinue the investigation was lawful.^[126]

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems

Tim Geithner has gone from toxic asset to asset for Obama

12:01 AM ET 3/26/09 | Marketwatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Timothy Geithner just may get it after all. You can be forgiven if you didn't see it coming.

When it was disclosed that he had failed to pay thousands in income taxes, he was belittled as a tax dodger and financial simpleton who needed TurboTax to navigate the tax code.

When he announced the Treasury Department's plan for cleaning up the banking crisis, he was lambasted for being too downbeat in his outlook and for not giving us enough details.

The spectrum of opinions on Geithner ranged from clueless numbskull to Wall Street patsy.

As the weeks dragged on after that initial bailout bombshell, Geithner appeared defeated. He was stressed and fumbling in public. He didn't address the big questions head-on. He looked dazed and confused. His own boss, the president, waited a long time to come to his defense.

Then came the disclosures that the biggest bad guys of the financial crisis, the employees of American International Group Inc.'s (AIG) WMD lab -- its financial-products division -- would get $165 million in bonuses in a deal that Geithner either signed off on or missed. For many Americans, this was the last straw.

Can you say "dead Treasury secretary walking"? Tim Geithner was a corpse being dragged down Wall Street.

The revival

Then he came to life.

For all the anguish and steady defeat the financial crisis has given us, it's had plenty of unexpected plot twists. The fall and rise of Tim Geithner may be the biggest of them all.

Faster than Geithner seemed to be going down with the financial ship, he now appears to be confidently leading us to shore. 

Geithner is the face of this week's market rally. He looks more self-assured. There's Tim Geithner writing an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. There's Tim Geithner assertively announcing the "bad bank" plan. He's poised testifying before Congress. He's self-possessed when answering withering questions from journalists. 

And the president? 

"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team," Obama told reporters March 18. "Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."

On "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," Obama said the gloomy Geithner was in fact handling the pressure with "grace and good humor." Suddenly, the Harry Potter of the U.S. Treasury wasn't an overmatched kid against a financial crisis that's not been named; he was, in the words of the president, "a smart guy ... calm and steady."

Pushing the advantage

Geithner clearly has had some help. Bullish comments from Vikram Pandit, chief executive of Citigroup (C), and counterpart Ken Lewis at Bank of America Corp. (BAC), about their respective institutions' profitability this year clearly boosted confidence.

Ultimately, it's the details of the "bad bank" plan that gave the market hope that we may have turned the corner in containing the financial debacle.

It's not that the Treasury plan is perfect. Far from it. There are too many interests it attempts to satisfy: the government, banks, taxpayers and private investors. Someone is going to get the short end. 

But now that there's a clear approach to unloading -- and, more importantly, attaching a price to -- all the bad stuff, investors are betting that any action is better than standing still and waiting for the first-quarter bank financial reports to deliver more write-downs.

Geithner has gone from the geek with egg on his face to the cool egghead.

Now with the support of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Geithner is pressing the advantage. He unveiled promised legislation Wednesday that would give him broader powers to seize financial institutions whose failure would threaten the economic system. See full story on Geithner's plan for 'too big to fail' companies.

Political animal

The power grab is likely to stick in the craw of anti-government, free-market types who rightfully worry that Uncle Sam is overstaying his visit to Wall Street. 

What they need to remember is that the government is not only an unwelcome guest; it's a reluctant traveler. Wall Street's despair is of its own making. Had it not threatened to bring down the rest of us with it, the government might have been justified in watching Citigroup and AIG burn in the same way it's keeping General Motors Corp. (GM) and Ford Motor Co. (F) a contained blaze.

Geithner finally seems to understand the delicate political tightrope he must navigate to push through his rescue plans. He must be tough on bonuses. He needs to protect the taxpayer. He has to be positive. That's why he sold the plan's details through multiple media outlets this week -- and sold them well.

His transformation has been so stunning that it almost makes you wonder why, if Geithner can turn it around, we can't turn around this financial mess. 

It's going to take a lot of magic, Mr. Potter. 

IBM to lay off 5,000 US-based workers

AP Source: IBM to lay off 5,000 US-based workers (AP)
Posted on Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:14PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO - IBM Corp. plans to lay off about 5,000 U.S. employees in a new round of job cuts, the Associated Press has learned. The move reflects IBM's aggressiveness in shifting labor to lower-cost regions like India and keeping its profits aloft at a time when other technology companies' earnings are tumbling.

An IBM manager knowledgeable about the plans said the cuts will come from the services division and workers will be informed Thursday. The person spoke on condition of anonymity Wednesday because he was not authorized to discuss the plan publicly.
The layoffs were reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

The cuts will affect about 4 percent of IBM's U.S.-based work force, which totaled 115,000 at the end of 2008. In a sign of how quickly IBM is staffing up in emerging markets, last year IBM had nearly as many workers in Brazil, China, India and Russia — 113,000 — as it did in the U.S.
IBM now has about 400,000 employees worldwide.

Unlike many other tech companies that have recently announced layoffs, IBM has managed to become more profitable despite the recession. IBM's cost-cutting, global footprint, and focus on services and software, which are often more lucrative than hardware, are key reasons why. IBM's net income was up 18 percent last year to $12.3 billion.

In January, Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM cut thousands of U.S. jobs in sales, software and hardware. IBM didn't give the precise number, saying it fell below an amount that would require disclosure.

Other tech companies are also doing big layoffs.
Hewlett-Packard Co. is slashing 24,600 positions, 8 percent of its 320,000-employee work force, in a three-year restructuring as part of its acquisition of Electronic Data Systems Corp. HP paid $13.9 billion for EDS in a bid to compete better against IBM for technology-services contracts.

Microsoft Corp. said in January it was cutting 5,000 jobs, the first mass layoffs in the company's history, after profit in the latest quarter fell 11 percent to $4.17 billion.

IBM's shares ended Wednesday down 35 cents at $97.95.