Iran agreed on "a few things" with the IAEA investigation into nuclear program problem

A uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan, Iran. The processing facility is suspected in urania became part of secret nuclear weapons development program. (wikipedia.org)

Dubai (Reuters)-Iran has agreed "some things" with the UN Atomic Energy Agency on Wednesday and said that the two sides will meet again to negotiate the remaining differences on the future, such reports from Iran media.

Reuters report indicates failure of interpreting Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to reach an agreement that has long been anticipated by the international world.

Earlier, the IAEA hopes to persuade Iran to allow UN agencies based in Vienna to return to the examination of the suspected nuclear program Tehran, Iran United States in an effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's Ambassador to IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh indicated to the media that progress in the Iran negotiations has been reached in a meeting in Tehran. Soltanieh did not reveal further progress he means.

So far the IAEA has not commented on the statements of Soltanieh.

"In addition to successfully bridge several differences and agree on a few things, the two sides have decided to consider and discuss the matter of the proposed new plan in a meeting in Tehran," said Soltanieh, as quoted from the Fars news agency.

Meanwhile television station Press, which is a State-owned media and broadcast news in the United Kingdom, citing that Soltanieh said that the remaining differences will be discussed in the next meeting of the Iran-IAEA. Press TV did not reveal the specific timing for the second meeting of the plan.

A diplomat from a Western country was not mentioned by name by Reuters earlier said, he is not berhatap meeting between IAEA and Iran can produce something real.

On the other side of the Islamic Republic of Iran rejects the Western accusations that suspect the program is aimed at producing nuclear energy, the atom bomb. Iran says that uranium enrichment is done only to supply energy for the aim of civil society. (G005/C003)

News; Finance; Insurance; Health; Cancer

News; Finance; Insurance; Health; Cancer; Car Insurance; Health Insurance

Read More

11 Things Wrong With Congress

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

America needs to rally.

Jobs are pitifully scarce. Incomes are falling. The U.S. government, like many American families, has taken on too much debt. The hangover from a brutal recession now looks like it could last for years, with the once-dominant U.S. economy sliding into a chronic state of disrepair.

[See how to escape the middle-class squeeze.]

During pivotal moments in the past, Congress has helped steer the nation back toward prosperity with bipartisan action like the tax reforms of 1986 and the welfare reform that passed a decade later. In 2008, Congress passed emergency bank-bailout legislation that turned out to be unpopular, but probably saved the nation from a financial meltdown and the first depression since the 1930s.

These days, however, Congress has lost its mojo. Recent negotiations over extending the government's credit limit turned into a fiasco, with needless fighting and a weak last-minute deal that left the biggest issues to be decided later. The dysfunctional squabbling over such a vital element of the global economy led, of course, to a downgrade of the nation's credit rating and a plunge in consumer confidence—just as economists began to worry that a double-dip recession might occur.

Now, Americans expect Congress to cause more problems than it solves. Nobody on Capitol Hill is in a hurry to enact President Obama's $447 billion plan to create jobs and provide tax relief, or provide a workable alternative. More big battles over the debt are on the horizon. Even routine spending bills bog down over political disputes, as if it's a fine time for government to go on holiday. No wonder 82 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the job Congress is doing, a far worse rating than they give President Obama, or practically anybody.

What's wrong? The founding fathers knew that the legislature they created would be rancorous and petty at times. We seem to be at an especially low ebb, however, with members of Congress acting as if they're the last to know about vexing problems facing the nation. Here are 11 reasons why Congress seems so out-of-touch.

[See a slide show of 11 things wrong with Congress.]

Too many rich people. About 1 percent of all Americans are millionaires, but roughly 46 percent of those serving in Congress have a net worth of $1 million or more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. There's nothing wrong with being rich. But there is a problem when the people creating tax and economic policy for the whole nation are unfamiliar with the kind of financial stress faced by a typical family with a median income of less than $50,000 per year.

[See why baby boomers are bummed out.]

The 2010 elections brought more than 100 new faces and a zeal for reform to Capitol Hill. But Congress remained a rather elite group. More than 40 percent of newly elected representatives, and 60 percent of new senators, are millionaires, according to CRP. Congress may even have gotten richer, overall, thanks to the influx of new money—at a time when America as a whole is getting poorer.

Automatic pay raises. Every year, members of Congress get an automatic cost-of-living increase in their pay, which is now $174,000 per year—about 3.4 times as much as the average worker earns. For the last two years, Congress has voted to forego its annual raise. One bill introduced this year would cut members' pay by 5 percent, while another would dock pay for every day the government fails to operate. But such token bills come up every now and then, and never garner meaningful support. Meanwhile, many Americans would be delighted to earn the same amount of money they did a couple of years ago, instead of getting by on reduced pay or part-time work that doesn't nearly cover all the bills.

Gold-plated benefits. Few Americans get a full pension anymore, while health benefits dwindle every year and many companies evade the cost of benefits by hiring part-timers and independent contractors instead of full-time staffers. But in Congress, the good times roll on and on. Members of Congress are eligible for two types of retirement plans and a retirement healthcare plan that in nearly every way are more generous than benefits typically offered to private-sector workers. In Congress's version of a 401(k) plan, for example, Uncle Sam (funded by taxpayers) matches contributions up to 5 percent of pay, while in private-sector plans the company match is usually 3 percent--and some companies don't even offer matching funds anymore.

A recent study by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a nonprofit research group, found that fringe benefits for members of Congress are worth about $82,000 per year—which raises total compensation to well over $250,000. There may be a retirement crisis in many parts of America—but not on Capitol Hill.

[See who would win under Obama's jobs plan.]

Free parking. In addition to generous pay and gilded benefits, members of Congress enjoy a long list of conveniences and other perks, including free parking at their workplace on Capitol Hill and at priority lots at Washington, D.C.'s two airports. Small rules, it seems, don't apply to them either.

Lobbyists. For every member of Congress, there are about 22 registered lobbyists plying the halls of the Capitol, throwing fundraisers, donating money, and manipulating legislation to the benefit of their clients. A recent tally by website TPMMuckraker found that at least 172 federal lobbyists are former members of Congress. Some critics think this "shadow Congress"—funded by corporations and various interest groups--is nearly as powerful as the real one. Whatever the case, lobbyists certainly have more sway over Congress than voters writing plaintive letters or placing earnest calls to their elected officials.

Earmarks. Congress has temporarily banned these pet spending projects, which evade ordinary budgeting procedures and often amount to home-district favors for donors or supporters. But some lawmakers want them back, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, who insists that Congress knows how to spend money better than bureaucrats in the executive branch. Many reform groups oppose earmarks, with the National Taxpayers Union arguing that the horse-trading involved is often a way of rounding up votes and getting lawmakers to support (or oppose) measures they might treat differently on the merits alone. A test will come in 2013, when the next Congress will either extend the ban, or revoke it and start delivering overdue favors.

[See how faltering governments are sinking the markets.]

Speeches to nobody. Back in the 1980s, when C-Span began broadcasting congressional business, some members started giving speeches to an empty chamber just to get on TV—with viewers at home unaware of the charade. Posturing for the cameras is now routine in Congress, where many legislators cultivate an on-screen avatar that's often more partisan and sensational than the lawmaker tends to be in person. Expanded TV coverage of Congress is a welcome bit of sunshine, but TV creates a false sense of dialogue with voters: While it transports members of Congress into living rooms across America, it does not offer viewers a louder voice in Washington.

A lack of competition. Setting up an alternate legislative branch would probably be unworkable, but it might spur Congress to eliminate a multitude of outdated practices that make it one of America's most inefficient and opaque institutions. In the vaunted private sector—extolled by politicians of every party—competition forces companies and workers to stay sharp and productive, or bear the consequences of obsolescence. Congress, by contrast, still operates by ancient procedures and dallies indefinitely on business that seems urgent to most people, like addressing the weak economy or the mushrooming national debt. There's no measure of effectiveness for Congress as a whole, and some members even insist that gridlock—a euphemism for accomplishing nothing—is in the nation's interest. Try that one on your boss some day, and see how long you last.

No penalty for ignorance. It was kind of quaint back in 2006 when now-deceased Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a Republican, explained that the Internet is a "series of tubes." Yet members of Congress sometimes reveal a dangerous degree of ignorance on vitally important issues they have considerable power to regulate. Earlier this year, the science journal Nature argued that the House Energy and Commerce Committee had "entered the intellectual wilderness" by expressing "willful ignorance" on climate science. Over the summer, The Economist called Republican debt-ceiling negotiators "economically illiterate," as Michele Bachmann and others dismissed the idea that a default on the nation's debt would be economically damaging.

Just recently, Republican leaders sent Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a letter that left economists scratching their heads over claims that a weaker dollar and more borrowing by consumers would harm the economy. You'd never know that Congress has its own library—one of the best in the world—plus a sizable staff of experts able to prepare detailed research reports on almost any issue.

[See what Bernanke might say to his GOP critics.]

The media. If an argumentative word is uttered in Washington, some news organization will be sure to report it, with a full reaction and counterargument from whoever was targeted by the offending jab. The press in all its forms—mainstream media, bloggers, and unvarnished opinionators--does a workmanlike job keeping up with the grind of activity in Washington. But it also focuses obsessively on spats, personalities, and the inside baseball of politics, while underreporting issues that matter more to real people. The press is more likely to cover what politicians say about poverty or jobs, for example, than what's really happening—especially if the politicos jazz up the story by criticizing each other's positions. This inflates the natural narcissism of politicians and encourages bickering, since lawmakers know they need only say something controversial to generate coverage.

Voters. Sorry, people, but regular citizens bear some of the blame for the sorry state of affairs in Washington. Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths—or outright lies—about taxes, spending, retirement, healthcare, immigration, and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity. Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians—and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights. If voters want something better, they need to start by knowing what it might look like.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

5 Things Roiling the Markets

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Volatility is the new normal. OK, got that. But are we truly unable to mitigate the nauseating ups and downs in the stock market?

Policymakers in the United States and Europe have spent much of the last three years intervening in the economy, to halt a financial crisis and prevent a bad recession from becoming worse. By now, you'd think all that firepower would have solved the problem. But it hasn't. So far this year, the S&P 500 stock index is down about 8 percent, with investors worried that a traditional autumn hex could bring more losses. In Europe, which is arguably in worse shape than the United States, stocks are down nearly 20 percent for the year. What's perhaps most unnerving is that policymakers seem flummoxed about what to do--and their floundering might make things worse, instead of better.

[See 7 ways Obama can gain credibility on jobs.]

Manic swings in the market over the last month or two reflect deep uncertainty about whether another financial crisis is brewing, or an anemic recovery will eventually pick up steam. While nobody knows, the causes of all that uncertainty aren't mysterious. Here's a cheat sheet laying out the five biggest worries, along with steps that might make things better:

European debt. It's been 16 months since the first Greek bailout, yet there still aren't enough funds in place to guarantee that Greece, Ireland, and Portugal will remain solvent and return to normal borrowing any time soon. Greece's problems continue to worsen, requiring more and more money and making an eventual default seem likely. If Greece defaults, Ireland and Portugal could follow. And debt fears are now driving up borrowing costs for Italy and Spain, which could create self-fulfilling debt crises there if those countries don't enact sharp spending cuts, tax hikes, and other politically unpalatable austerity measures. If defaults ensue, the biggest unknown is whether the European banks that hold much of the debt are strong enough to absorb the losses, or whether there would be a Lehman-style financial panic requiring all-hands intervention in global capitals. Markets tend to plan for the worst.

What might make it better: A bold and convincing plan. The European Central Bank has been far less aggressive in dealing with European debt problems than its counterpart in the United States, the Federal Reserve, was in dealing with the subprime crisis of 2008, which was similar in magnitude. "The ECB needs to be more aggressive with asset purchases, as other central banks have been," writes Tomas Holinka of Moody's Analytics. That would require more financial backing from eurozone countries for Fed-style "quantitative easing," or bond-buying. Holinka also argues that the ECB should spell out its plans for buying troubled debt—similar to the way the Fed has telegraphed its monetary policy—instead of keeping markets constantly guessing.

[See what to expect from the stagnant economy.]

European political dysfunction. Related to Europe's debt problem is the inherent difficulty of having a coordinated policy in a loose confederation of 17 nations, some rich, some middling, and some poor. There are constant squabbles over the terms of the Greek bailouts, for instance, with some nations now demanding collateral in order to participate. In Germany and France, where banks would suffer sizable losses from defaults, political leaders must convince skeptical voters that sending taxpayer money to bankrupt nations is in their interest. "No doubt, the politics are highly complicated," says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "There's no treasury secretary in Europe, and no central fiscal authority." That leaves politicians continually deferring to the European Central Bank, which itself has been reluctant to intervene.

What might make it better: Decisive political action. Greece could reform its bloated patronage economy faster than expected. Italy could surprise the markets with a convincing austerity program. Spain could provide fresh evidence that its regional banks are healthy. But none of that seems likely.

[See what Bernanke wants Congress to do.]

Besieged American banks. Three years after the controversial TARP bailouts went into effect, there are fresh concerns about the U.S. financial system. Investors aren't worried about widespread insolvency this time, but about some banks' ability to withstand losses and remain profitable. Bank of America's stock, for instance, is down nearly 50 percent for the year, due mainly to worries about billions in bad mortgages and legal liabilities stemming from the bank's disastrous purchase of Countrywide Financial in 2008. Some analysts believe B of A has still failed to account for billions in potential losses tied to subprime mortgages. Another problem is that B of A and many other banks still face a potentially huge settlement with state attorneys general over fishy foreclosure proceedings.

And now, the federal government is suing many of same banks it bailed out in 2008, seeking nearly $200 billion in damages for flawed mortgage-backed securities backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered housing agencies now propped up by $150 billion in taxpayer funds. "It is ironic," says David Zervos of investing firm Jefferies, "that we have spent so much time and effort to shore up the core financial system over the last three years, only to rip it apart with additional regulatory burdens and non-stop litigation." It's also deeply unnerving to investors, since litigation and politically charged policymaking are far more unpredictable than ordinary economic developments.

What might make it better: A lot of settlements. Almost any resolution of the statewide probes into improper foreclosure proceedings will relieve bank investors. It's also possible that the federal government will settle its big lawsuits against the banks, as long as it can recoup enough money to offset some of the taxpayer losses on Fannie and Freddie, and declare victory.

[See who will benefit from the slowing economy.]

American political dysfunction. The political showdown over the debt ceiling this summer turned into an economic disaster, since politicians essentially proved that they're willing to harm the economy while pursuing their own parochial goals. While it produced a modest agreement on paring the national debt, the summer deal also fell far short of targets set by both sides. That led to the first-ever downgrade of America's credit rating, along with a plunge in consumer and business confidence and a 9-percent stock-market nosedive in the month following the deal. Forecasters now warn that further political brinksmanship is possible and that additional "policy mistakes" may be the biggest threat to the U.S. economy.

What might make it better: Genuine leadership in Washington. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is orchestrating a campaign among business leaders meant to pressure politicians into prioritizing the nation's economic needs above their own careers or ideological concerns. There's a chance it could work. Since expectations for Congress are so low, it would boost confidence if the "supercommittee" recently appointed to come up with another $1.5 trillion in debt reduction actually did it, without another drawn-out showdown that puts the economy on tenterhooks. In fact, investors would welcome just about any bipartisan effort to stimulate hiring, fix the housing meltdown or improve the government's finances.

[See how the debt fiasco damaged the economy.]

The risk of another recession. The combined effect of those four preceding problems is that another recession seems a lot more likely than it did a few months ago. Moody's Analytics, for instance, puts the odds of a recession at about 40 percent, about double the risk from earlier this year. The pernicious effects of festering European debt problems and political gamesmanship in Washington leave the entire economy far more vulnerable to shocks.

What might make it better: Fewer political roadblocks. In many ways, the economy is far healthier than during the dark days of 2008. Except for banks, most big companies are in good shape, with lean payrolls and strong balance sheets. Though they still have a long way to go, consumers have been consistenly paying down debt. The worst is probably behind in the housing bust, and Washington has at least begun to address the mushrooming national debt. If political leaders could do no harm and some good, global investors would breathe a sigh of relief.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

8 Things Missing From Obama's Debt-Cutting Plan

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

President Obama has finally rolled out his plan to slash the national debt. One thing it's not is timely: At least half-a-dozen other groups have published their own debt-reduction plans since Obama took office in 2009.

One of those efforts was a commission set up by Obama himself. The "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, issued a detailed report  last year on how to cut the debt by $3.9 trillion by 2020. It proposed about $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, a proportion that generated bipartisan support. Many economists now consider that plan a baseline against which to measure others.

[See who would lose most under Obama's deb-cutting plan.]

Obama's own plan borrows some ideas from the Bowles-Simpson effort, such as cuts in agricultural subsidies and a call for tax reform that would lower rates and eliminate loopholes. But Obama also left out some prominent suggestions made by his own panel. Those omissions indicate what Obama is willing to fight for—or not—and also reveal how he's positioning himself for the 2012 presidential election. Here are eight ideas Obama left out of his own debt-cutting plan, even though they were included among the Bowles-Simpson recommendations:

A Congressional pay freeze. The fiscal commission pointed out that "unlike most Americans, members of Congress benefit from an automatic salary increase every single year--deserved or not." So it suggested that a three-year Congressional pay freeze—which only Congress itself can authorize--would set an example of austerity. Obama isn't seconding the suggestion, however, perhaps because he doesn't want to pick a personal fight with Congress. Or maybe he doesn't want to provoke demands for a similar pay freeze at the White House.

Cuts in the White House and Congressional budgets. The commission also felt it would be a fitting gesture for Congressional and White House policymakers to cut their own budgets by 15 percent before asking for cuts in other parts of the budget. That shouldn't be too tough, since spending on the legislative branch, for instance, rose by 50 percent between 2000 and 2010, even though Congress itself is the same size it has been for years. But austerity, apparently, doesn't start at home, so Obama kept his hands off the Congressional and White House budgets.

[See who would win under Obama's jobs plan.]

Middle-class tax increases. Obama wants tax increases on households earning more than $250,000, while also endorsing broader tax reform that would include lower rates. His commission went one big step further, by outlining specific elements of a tax-reform plan that would lower income-tax rates for everybody but slightly raise the tax burden on most taxpayers, because it would shrink or end deductions taken by many families. On average, the commission's plan would raise the tax bill for the typical filer by about $1,700 per year, with the middle 20 percent of filers paying about $700 more. Many economists feel the national debt is so large that middle-class tax hikes are inevitable to help bring it down. But Obama surely knows that proposing middle-class tax hikes would be a suicidal election move. So either he plans to pretend they'll never happen, or wait until a second term, if he gets one, to break the bad news to voters.

Eliminating all earmarks. These pet spending projects for favored members of Congress cost taxpayers about $16 billion per year, while usually evading accountability procedures that would surely find that most of them fail to serve the national interest. Obama's fiscal commission said they should be banned completely, but Obama didn't even mention earmarks in his own debt-cutting plan. Yet he still itemized more than three dozen other measures that would save less than the fiscal commission says ending earmarks would save. Those Congressional spending perks must be awfully touchy.

[See how to escape the middle-class squeeze.]

Medical malpractice reform. According to the fiscal commission, "most experts agree that the current tort system in the United States leads to an increase in health care costs." That's why it suggested reforms that would rein in jury awards and costs for malpractice insurance, at a projected savings of $17 billion. Obama has staked his entire presidency on improving the healthcare system for most Americans, yet his debt plan makes no mention of malpractice reform. Trial lawyers are traditional Democratic backers, and Obama, a lawyer himself, may not be willing to risk the loss of a well-heeled constituency.

An increase in the retirement age. The fiscal commission recommended a gradual increase in the age at which people would qualify for Social Security and Medicare, beyond the increases that are already scheduled to happen. Under that proposal, the retirement age would rise to 68 by 2050 and to 69 by 2075. Such a change would slightly reduce the outflows from these two programs and help keep them solvent. Obama proposed a few minor cuts in Medicare benefits but favors holding the retirement age where it is. He proposed virtually no changes to Social Security.

[See how the debt fiasco damaged the economy.]

Higher payroll taxes. One of the tax increases the commission suggested was raising the cutoff point for the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Right now, the payroll tax applies to about 86 percent of all taxable wages; the commission recommended raising the cap so it applies to about 90 percent of all wages. But that would amount to a middle-class tax hike, since it would apply to many taxpayers who earn less than $250,000. So Obama wants nothing to do with it (for now).

A different cost-of-living formula for Social Security. Another way to raise a few bucks is to change the formula used to determine the cost-of-living increases that Social Security recipients get every year. The commission argued that switching to something called the "chained consumer price index" would provide a more accurate measure of inflation. But it would also cut benefits slightly, which is why it would save the government money. The months before an election are probably the wrong time to nickel-and-dime seniors, so Obama took a pass on the chained CPI. Like many other debt-cutting ideas, however, it may surface another day.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More