| |  | | | | | SHUTTING DOWN Feed My Inbox will be shutting down on January 10, 2013. To find an alternative service for email updates, visit this page. | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | | | | | The Guardian World News | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Leaders agree on tentative compromise to avert some but not all austerity measures pending a formal vote in the Senate The White House and Congressional leaders reached a deal on Monday night to resolve the fiscal cliff crisis that threatens the fragile US economic recovery. With only hours left until a midnight deadline for automatic tax rises and spending cuts, Senate leaders reached a bipartisan compromise to avert some but not all of the austerity measures due to take effect on Tuesday. The deal hung in the balance however pending a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate and a possibly much tighter vote expected later on Tuesday in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Members from each side complained the deal conceded too much. Strong bipartisan support in the Senate would help the deal pass in the House. Without a deal every taxpayer in America faced imminent steep rises. These would be accompanied by deep cuts in federal spending programmes, ranging from defence to welfare, in particular unemployment benefits. Technically the US has just gone over the cliff but if the House approves the agreement the economic damage could be fleeting and relatively minor. The goal will be to have full Congressional approval before Wall Street reopens on Wednesday. The Senate minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, and vice president Joe Biden, hammered out the accord after two months of talks between president Barack Obama and other Congressional leaders failed. The deal would allow tax rates to rise on income over $450,000 and delay automatic federal spending cuts for two months. Tax deductions and credits would start phasing out on incomes as low as $250,000, a defeat for the GOP which had resisted higher taxes for the wealthy. "Just last month Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans," Obama said at a hastily arranged news briefing. "Obviously, the agreement that's currently being discussed would raise those rates and raise them permanently." Going over the "cliff" makes a deal more palatable to Republicans. With taxes automatically going up at midnight, Republicans, ideologically opposed to tax rises, would in fact be voting to bring them down, at least for all but the top 2% of wealthiest taxpayers. Earlier on Monday, surrounded by what the White House described as ordinary Americans, Obama said such people could not afford the tax rises – an average of about $2,000 for every US taxpayer – that would result if a deal was not reached. "The economy can't afford it," he added. Obama said the framework of the deal was that tax would not go up for most Americans. Unemployment benefits, help with university tuition and tax credits for clean energy companies would all be protected. Tax rises would be imposed only on those earning $450,000 a year or more. The Democrats had been pushing for $250,000 while the Republicans had wanted the limit set at those earning $1m or more. The Democrats appear to have secured protection for continued payments of unemployment benefits, which the Republicans had wanted cut. Democrats were pushing for the automatic cuts on spending across the board be postponed for at least a few months. Obama said his preference would have for a "grand bargain" that would have dealt more broadly with America's economic problems, especially its huge deficit. But, showing his exasperation with Republicans who control the House, he said this was not possible with this Congress. It is the first time Congress has met on New Year's Eve since 1995 when Washington was confronted by another Democratic-Republican economic showdown. Obama, in spite of having won a second term, desperately needs this victory over the Republicans to prevent that second term being destroyed by repeated stand-offs with Republicans in Congress. The danger for the Obama administration in the present showdown is that a combination of sudden tax rises and government spending cuts would have a negative impact on the country's sluggish rise out of recession. Countries that rely on trade with America could also potentially suffer. The Democrats should have little problem getting a bill through the Senate where they have a majority but the House is much more difficult, given the size of the Republican majority. The Obama administration hopes that a combination of Democrats and moderate Republicans will see it pass. The Republicans and Democrats have been struggling since Obama's re-election in early November to find a compromise. The Democrats want to see tax rises only for the wealthiest and for the Defense Department to take the brunt of the spending cuts. Republicans have pressed for the onus to be shifted to welfare spending. Obama and the Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, came close to reaching a "grand bargain" in the run-up to Christmas but the talks collapsed. The Democrats blamed Boehner for being unable to secure the support of Tea Party-backed Republicans in the House, while Boehner blamed Obama for failing to give him enough concessions on tax and spending. The baton after Christmas was passed to Harry Reid in the Senate, and his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell. But talks between them broke down over the weekend. Next up were talks between McConnell and vice-president Joe Biden, old friends, who negotiated throughout Sunday and into the early hours of Monday morning, resuming again at dawn. Without a deal, a single person earning $100,000 a year will face a $5,314 rise in taxes, and draconian spending cuts will be imposed across the board, in particular military spending and welfare benefits. With the war in Iraq over and US combat involvement in Afghanistan winding down, the Pentagon is vulnerable to spending cuts, in particular expensive equipment programmes. If no deal is in place on 1 January, the Pentagon, as a first step, will have to inform its 800,000 civilian employees to prepare to take mandatory leave to save money.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With the fiscal cliff deadline just hours away, talks continue in Congress after failure to produce a deal over the weekend
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • President says deal is close but 'grand bargain' failed
• Tax deal agreed but talks on spending cuts will go on The White House and Congress were close to reaching a deal Monday to resolve the fiscal cliff crisis that threatens the fragile US economic recovery. With only hours left until a midnight deadline for automatic tax rises and spending cuts, Barack Obama said agreement was within sight but discussions were continuing. If no deal was concluded, every taxpayer in America would be hit with steep rises from Tuesday. These would be accompanied by deep cuts in federal spending programmes, ranging from defence to welfare, in particular unemployment benefits. Obama, who flew back from holiday in Hawaii to deal with the crisis, told a press conference at the White House: "Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's Eve hike is within sight, but it is not done. There are still issues left to resolve but we are hopeful that Congress can get it done. But it is not done." The House broke up Monday night without a vote, meaning that the US would go over the fiscal cliff on Tuesday, even if only temporarily. A Republican aide said the expectation was that the House would vote on a deal Tuesday until after the Senate produced a bill. Going over the "cliff" makes a deal more palatable to Republicans. With taxes automatically going up at midnight, Republicans, ideologically opposed to tax rises, would in fact be voting to bring them down, at least for all but the top 2% of wealthiest taxpayers. Earlier on Monday, surrounded by what the White House described as ordinary Americans, Obama said such people could not afford the tax rises – an average of about $2,000 for every US taxpayer – that would result if a deal was not reached. "The economy can't afford it," he added. Obama said the framework of the deal was that tax would not go up for most Americans. Unemployment benefits, help with university tuition and tax credits for clean energy companies would all be protected. Tax rises would be imposed only on those earning $450,000 a year or more. The Democrats had been pushing for $250,000 while the Republicans had wanted the limit set at those earning $1m or more. The Democrats appear to have secured protection for continued payments of unemployment benefits, which the Republicans had wanted cut. Democrats were pushing for the automatic cuts on spending across the board be postponed for at least a few months. John McCain, Republican senator from Arizona, said a possible deal, negotiated between Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and vice president Joe Biden, would include a two-month delay in automatic federal spending cuts that were due to begin this week. According to Reuters, McCain said the deal would include $24bn in other spending cuts to cover the cost of the delay, and would also include a one-year extension of unemployment benefits. Obama said his preference would have for a "grand bargain" that would have dealt more broadly with America's economic problems, especially its huge deficit. But, showing his exasperation with Republicans who control the House, he said this was not possible with this Congress. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said negotiations were continuing to protect working-class families from tax increases. Addressing the Senate when it opened on Monday morning, he said: "There are a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart but negotiations are continuing as I speak. We really are running out of time. Americans are still threatened with tax hike in just a few hours," Reid said. It is the first time Congress has met on New Year's Eve since 1995 when Washington was confronted by another Democratic-Republican economic showdown. Obama, in spite of having won a second term, desperately needs this victory over the Republicans to prevent that second term being destroyed by repeated stand-offs with Republicans in Congress. The danger for the Obama administration in the present showdown is that a combination of sudden tax rises and government spending cuts would have a negative impact on the country's sluggish rise out of recession. Countries that rely on trade with America could also potentially suffer. If a deal is reached, there will be a push to have legislation rushed through the House and the Senate before Wall Street reopens on Wednesday. The Democrats should have little problem getting a bill through the Senate where they have a majority but the House is much more difficult, given the size of the Republican majority. The Obama administration hopes that a combination of Democrats and moderate Republicans will see it pass. The Republicans and Democrats have been struggling since Obama's re-election in early November to find a compromise. The Democrats want to see tax rises only for the wealthiest, which the Republicans have resisted. The Democrats want to see the Defense Department take the brunt of the spending cuts while the Republicans have pressed for the onus to be shifted to welfare spending. Obama and the Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, came close to reaching a "grand bargain" in the run-up to Christmas but the talks collapsed. The Democrats blamed Boehner for being unable to secure the support of Tea Party-backed Republicans in the House, while Boehner blamed Obama for failing to give him enough concessions on tax and spending. The baton after Christmas was passed to Reid in the Senate, and his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell. But talks between them broke down over the weekend. Next up were talks between McConnell and vice-president Joe Biden who negotiated throughout Sunday and into the early hours of Monday morning, resuming again at dawn. Reid, speaking in the Senate, said: "Whether or not we reach an agreement in the short time we have left will need co-operation on both sides to protect taxes going up tomorrow for every family in America. I repeat there are still some issues that need to be resolve before we can bring legislation to the floor." If no deal is in place on January 1, a single person earning $100,000 a year will face a $5,314 rise in taxes, and draconian spending cuts will be imposed across the board, in particular military spending and welfare benefits. With the war in Iraq over and US combat involvement in Afghanistan winding down, the Pentagon is vulnerable to spending cuts, in particular expensive equipment programmes. If no deal is in place on January 1, the Pentagon, as a first step, will have to inform its 800,000 civilian employees to prepare to take mandatory leave to save money.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | State Department accused in Senate committee's report into deadly attack in Libya The State Department made a "grievous mistake" in keeping the US mission in Benghazi open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before a deadly attack by militants, a Senate committee said on Monday. A report from the Senate homeland security committee on the 11 September attacks on the US consulate and a nearby CIA annex, in which Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans died, said intelligence agencies were at fault for not focusing tightly enough on Libyan extremists. It also slated the State Department for waiting for specific warnings instead of improving security. The committee's assessment, Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi, follows a scathing report by an independent State Department accountability review board that resulted in a top security official resigning and three others at the department being relieved of their duties. Joseph Lieberman, the independent senator who chairs the committee, said that in thousands of documents it reviewed, there was no indication that secretary of state Hillary Clinton had personally denied a request for extra funding or security for the Benghazi mission. He said key decisions were made by "mid-level managers" who have since been held accountable. The attacks and the death of Stevens put diplomatic security practices at posts in risky areas under scrutiny and raised questions about whether intelligence about militant activity in Libya was adequate. President Barack Obama said on Sunday that the US had "very good leads" about who carried out the attacks, but did not provide details. The FBI is investigating who was behind the assaults. The Senate report said the lack of specific intelligence of an imminent threat in Benghazi "may reflect a failure" by intelligence agencies to focus closely enough on militant groups with weak or no operational ties to al-Qaida and its affiliates. "With Osama bin Laden dead and core al-Qaida weakened, a new collection of violent Islamist extremist organisations and cells have emerged in the last two to three years," the report said. That trend has been seen in the Arab spring countries undergoing political transition or military conflict, it said. The report recommended that US intelligence agencies "broaden and deepen their focus in Libya and beyond, on nascent violent Islamist extremist groups in the region that lack strong operational ties to core al-Qaida or its main affiliate groups." The Senate committee said the State Department should not have waited for specific warnings before improving security in Benghazi. It also said it was widely known that the post-revolution Libyan government was "incapable of performing its duty to protect US diplomatic facilities and personnel," but the State Department failed to fill the security gap. "That was a grievous mistake." The Senate panel reviewed the changing comments made by the Obama administration after the attack, which led to a political firestorm in the runup to the November presidential election and resulted in Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, withdrawing her name from consideration to replace Clinton, who is stepping down. Rice had said her initial comments that the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam film were based on information provided by intelligence agencies.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Secretary of state's medical team say she is making 'excellent progress' as blood thinners are dissolving the clot in her head Doctors treating the blood clot suffered by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, revealed on Monday that it is located in a vein between her brain and skull. In a statement, clinicians said Clinton, 65, was being treated with blood thinners to help dissolve the clot. They said Clinton was making "excellent progress" and had not suffered any neurological damage. Clinton was admitted to New York-Presbyterian hospital on Sunday after doctors discovered the clot during a follow-up exam to a concussion she suffered in mid-December. Initially, few details were released about her condition. But late on Monday, Dr Lisa Bardack of the Mt Kisco Medical Group and Dr Gigi El-Bayoumi of George Washington University released a statement that gave the location of the clot. "In the course of a routine follow-up MRI on Sunday, the scan revealed that a right transverse sinus venous thrombosis had formed. This is a clot in the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear," they said. "To help dissolve this clot, her medical team began treating the secretary with blood thinners. She will be released once the medication dose has been established. In all other aspects of her recovery, the secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery." Clinton fell and suffered a concussion in mid-December while at home recuperating from a stomach virus that had left her severely dehydrated. Her condition prevented her from attending a congressional hearing into the deadly assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She also cancelled a trip to North Africa and the Middle East. Doctors discovered the clot on Sunday and admitted her to hospital for treatment. Dr Larry Goldstein, a neurologist and director of Duke University's stroke center, said her condition was "not the most common thing" to happen after a concussion. He told the Associated Press that the area where Clinton's clot developed is "a drainage channel, the equivalent of a big vein inside the skull it's how the blood gets back to the heart". Clinton's condition has led to speculation in private, if not in public, from Democrats keen to see her run for the presidency in 2016. Bill Galston, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, told the Guardian that health considerations could form part of her decision on whether to run. "She has run herself ragged for four years and she knows how much physical stamina it requires to campaign," said Galston, now a political analyst at Washington-based thinktank the Brookings Institution. "Having said that, she is tough as nails and it is important not to make too much of what, in all probability, is a short-term illness," he added. Clinton is due to step down as secretary of state in early 2013. The White House has named senator John Kerry, a former presidential nominee and current chair of the Senate's foreign relations committee, as Barack Obama's choice to replace her. It has been widely expected that Clinton would start preparing for a White House run. She has strong support among Democrats, and some senior Republican figures have openly pondered if she would present an unbeatable candidate. Clinton has alluded to the effects of her heavy travel burden as secretary of state. Asked early last year of her intentions after the 2012 presidential election, she replied: "I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would probably be a good idea to just find out how tired I am." Clinton has not been seen in public since the first week of December. She was unable to attend congressional hearings into scathing report into the Benghazi attack, which killed the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stephens. The report highlighted serious failures in two State Department bureaus that led to insufficient security at the consulate. The inability of Clinton to attend evidence-giving sessions about the issue in Congress led some rightwing commentators to question the seriousness of her condition.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With the fiscal cliff deadline just hours away, talks continue in Congress after failure to produce a deal over the weekend
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With the fiscal cliff deadline just hours away, talks continue in Congress after failure to produce a deal over the weekend
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With the fiscal cliff deadline just hours away, talks continue in Congress after failure to produce a deal over the weekend
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Planned Parenthood plans further challenges to state's attempts to cut its funding for women's healthcare provision Texas can cut off funding to the family planning organization Planned Parenthood's programs for poor women, a judge ruled on Monday. Judge Gary Harger said that the state can exclude otherwise qualified doctors and clinics from receiving state funding if they advocate for abortion rights, attorney general spokeswoman Lauren Bean said. The state has long banned the use of state funds for abortion, but it had continued to reimburse Planned Parenthood clinics for providing basic healthcare to poor women through the state's Women's Health Program. The program provides check-ups and birth control to 110,000 poor women a year; Planned Parenthood clinics were treating 48,000 of them. A Planned Parenthood lawsuit to stop the cut will still go forward, but the judge decided on Monday that the ban can go into effect for now. "We are pleased the court rejected Planned Parenthood's latest attempt to skirt state law," Bean said. "The Texas attorney general's office will continue to defend the Texas legislature's decision to prohibit abortion providers and their affiliates from receiving taxpayer dollars through the Women's Health Program." Ken Lambrecht, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, said he had brought the lawsuit on behalf of poor women who depend on its clinics. "It is shocking that once again Texas officials are letting politics jeopardize health care access for women," Lambrecht said. "Our doors remain open today and always to Texas women in need. We only wish Texas politicians shared this commitment to Texas women, their health, and their well-being." Planned Parenthood has brought three lawsuits over Texas' so-called "affiliate rule", arguing that it violates the constitutional rights of doctors and patients while also contradicting existing state law. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) has spent the last nine months preparing to implement the affiliate rule. But federal officials warned that it violated the Social Security Act and cut off federal funds for the Women's Health Program, prompting the commission to start a new program using only state money. State officials have also scrambled to sign up new doctors and clinics to replace Planned Parenthood. Women who previously went to Planned Parenthood clinics will now have to use the agency's web site to find a new state-approved doctor. On Friday, HHSC officials acknowledged that they are unsure whether the thousands of new doctors can pick up Planned Parenthood's caseload in all parts of the state. "I vehemently disagree with the state's efforts to blacklist a qualified provider and, thereby, interfere with a woman's right to choose her own provider," said state representative Donna Howard. "I will be submitting a letter to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, requesting a list of approved providers to gauge the outreach of the new program, and ensure that all qualified women throughout the state have access to its services." Another hearing is scheduled with a different judge for 11 January, at which Planned Parenthood will again ask for an injunction to receive state funding.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | • President says deal is close but 'grand bargain' failed
• Senate likely to vote late on Monday
• Tax deal agreed but talks on spending cuts will go on The White House and Congress were close to reaching a deal Monday to resolve the fiscal cliff crisis that threatens the fragile US economic recovery. With only hours left until a midnight deadline for automatic tax rises and spending cuts, Barack Obama said agreement was within sight but discussions were continuing. If no deal was concluded, every taxpayer in America would be hit with steep rises from Tuesday. These would be accompanied by deep cuts in federal spending programmes, ranging from defence to welfare, in particular unemployment benefits. Obama, who flew back from holiday in Hawaii to deal with the crisis, told a press conference at the White House: "Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's Eve hike is within sight, but it is not done. There are still issues left to resolve but we are hopeful that Congress can get it done. But it is not done." It appeared that the midnight deadline would pass without full ratification of any deal from Congress: even if the Senate passes a bill, the House of Representatives would not consider it until Tuesday. Earlier on Monday, surrounded by what the White House described as ordinary Americans, Obama said such people could not afford the tax rises – an average of about $2,000 for every US taxpayer – that would result if a deal was not reached. "The economy can't afford it," he added. Obama said the framework of the deal was that tax would not go up for most Americans. Unemployment benefits, help with university tuition and tax credits for clean energy companies would all be protected. Tax rises would be imposed only on those earning $450,000 a year or more. The Democrats had been pushing for $250,000 while the Republicans had wanted the limit set at those earning $1m or more. The Democrats appear to have secured protection for continued payments of unemployment benefits, which the Republicans had wanted cut. Democrats were pushing for the automatic cuts on spending across the board be postponed for at least a few months. John McCain, Republican senator from Arizona, said a possible deal, negotiated between Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and vice president Joe Biden, would include a two-month delay in automatic federal spending cuts that were due to begin this week. According to Reuters, McCain said the deal would include $24bn in other spending cuts to cover the cost of the delay, and would also include a one-year extension of unemployment benefits. Senators were preparing for a lat-night vote on Monday. Obama said his preference would have been for a bigger deal, what he termed a "grand bargain" that would have dealt more broadly with America's economic problems, especially its huge deficit. But, showing his exasperation with Republicans who control the House, he said this was not possible with this Congress. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said negotiations were continuing to protect working-class families from tax increases. Addressing the Senate when it opened on Monday morning, he said: "There are a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart but negotiations are continuing as I speak. We really are running out of time. Americans are still threatened with tax hike in just a few hours," Reid said. It is the first time Congress has met on New Year's Eve since 1995 when Washington was confronted by another Democratic-Republican economic showdown. Obama, in spite of having won a second term, desperately needs this victory over the Republicans to prevent that second term being destroyed by repeated stand-offs with Republicans in Congress. The danger for the Obama administration in the present showdown is that a combination of sudden tax rises and government spending cuts would have a negative impact on the country's sluggish rise out of recession. Countries that rely on trade with America could also potentially suffer. If a deal is reached, there will be a push to have legislation rushed through the House and the Senate before Wall Street reopens on Wednesday. The Democrats should have little problem getting a bill through the Senate where they have a majority but the House is much more difficult, given the size of the Republican majority. The Obama administration hopes that a combination of Democrats and moderate Republicans will see it pass. The Republicans and Democrats have been struggling since Obama's re-election in early November to find a compromise. The Democrats want to see tax rises only for the wealthiest, which the Republicans have resisted. The Democrats want to see the Defense Department take the brunt of the spending cuts while the Republicans have pressed for the onus to be shifted to welfare spending. Obama and the Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, came close to reaching a "grand bargain" in the run-up to Christmas but the talks collapsed. The Democrats blamed Boehner for being unable to secure the support of Tea Party-backed Republicans in the House, while Boehner blamed Obama for failing to give him enough concessions on tax and spending. The baton after Christmas was passed to Reid in the Senate, and his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell. But talks between them broke down over the weekend. Next up were talks between McConnell and vice-president Joe Biden who negotiated throughout Sunday and into the early hours of Monday morning, resuming again at dawn. Reid, speaking in the Senate, said: "Whether or not we reach an agreement in the short time we have left will need co-operation on both sides to protect taxes going up tomorrow for every family in America. I repeat there are still some issues that need to be resolve before we can bring legislation to the floor." If no deal is in place on January 1, a single person earning $100,000 a year will face a $5,314 rise in taxes, and draconian spending cuts will be imposed across the board, in particular military spending and welfare benefits. With the war in Iraq over and US combat involvement in Afghanistan winding down, the Pentagon is vulnerable to spending cuts, in particular expensive equipment programmes. If no deal is in place on January 1, the Pentagon, as a first step, will have to inform its 800,000 civilian employees to prepare to take mandatory leave to save money.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Negotiators focus on preventing tax increases on middle-class families but president says 'grand bargain' won't happen The White House and Congress were close to reaching a deal Monday to resolve the fiscal cliff crisis that threatens the fragile US economic recovery. With only hours left until a midnight deadline for automatic tax rises and spending cuts, Barack Obama said agreement was within sight but discussions were continuing. If no deal was concluded, every taxpayer in America would be hit with steep rises from Tuesday. These would be accompanied by deep cuts in federal spending programmes, ranging from defence to welfare, in particular unemployment benefits. Obama, who flew back from holiday in Hawaii to deal with the crisis, told a press conference at the White House: "Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's Eve hike is within sight, but it is not done. There are still issues left to resolve but we are hopeful that Congress can get it done. But it is not done." Surrounded by what the White House described as ordinary Americans, Obama said such people could not afford the tax rises – an average of about $2,000 for every US taxpayer – that would result if a deal was not reached. "The economy can't afford it," he added. Obama said the framework of the deal was that tax would not go up for most Americans. Unemployment benefits, help with university tuition and tax credits for clean energy companies would all be protected. Tax rises would be imposed only on those earning $450,000 a year or more. The Democrats had been pushing for $250,000 while the Republicans had wanted the limit set at those earning $1m or more. The Democrats appear to have secured protection for continued payments of unemployment benefits, which the Republicans had wanted cut. Democrats were pushing for the automatic cuts on spending across the board be postponed for at least a few months. Obama said his preference would have been for a bigger deal, what he termed a "grand bargain" that would have dealt more broadly with America's economic problems, especially its huge deficit. But, showing his exasperation with Republicans who control the House, he said this was not possible with this Congress. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said negotiations were continuing to protect working-class families from tax increases. Addressing the Senate when it opened on Monday morning, he said: "There are a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart but negotiations are continuing as I speak. We really are running out of time. Americans are still threatened with tax hike in just a few hours," Reid said. It is the first time Congress has met on New Year's Eve since 1995 when Washington was confronted by another Democratic-Republican economic showdown. Obama, in spite of having won a second term, desperately needs this victory over the Republicans to prevent that second term being destroyed by repeated stand-offs with Republicans in Congress. The danger for the Obama administration in the present showdown is that a combination of sudden tax rises and government spending cuts would have a negative impact on the country's sluggish rise out of recession. Countries that rely on trade with America could also potentially suffer. If a deal is reached, there will be a push to have legislation rushed through the House and the Senate before Wall Street reopens on Wednesday. The Democrats should have little problem getting a bill through the Senate where they have a majority but the House is much more difficult, given the size of the Republican majority. The Obama administration hopes that a combination of Democrats and moderate Republicans will see it pass. The Republicans and Democrats have been struggling since Obama's re-election in early November to find a compromise. The Democrats want to see tax rises only for the wealthiest, which the Republicans have resisted. The Democrats want to see the Defense Department take the brunt of the spending cuts while the Republicans have pressed for the onus to be shifted to welfare spending. Obama and the Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, came close to reaching a "grand bargain" in the run-up to Christmas but the talks collapsed. The Democrats blamed Boehner for being unable to secure the support of Tea Party-backed Republicans in the House, while Boehner blamed Obama for failing to give him enough concessions on tax and spending. The baton after Christmas was passed to Reid in the Senate, and his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell. But talks between them broke down over the weekend. Next up were talks between McConnell and vice-president Joe Biden who negotiated throughout Sunday and into the early hours of Monday morning, resuming again at dawn. Reid, speaking in the Senate, said: "Whether or not we reach an agreement in the short time we have left will need co-operation on both sides to protect taxes going up tomorrow for every family in America. I repeat there are still some issues that need to be resolve before we can bring legislation to the floor." If no deal is in place on January 1, a single person earning $100,000 a year will face a $5,314 rise in taxes, and draconian spending cuts will be imposed across the board, in particular military spending and welfare benefits. With the war in Iraq over and US combat involvement in Afghanistan winding down, the Pentagon is vulnerable to spending cuts, in particular expensive equipment programmes. If no deal is in place on January 1, the Pentagon, as a first step, will have to inform its 800,000 civilian employees to prepare to take mandatory leave to save money.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | President says deal is close but House of Representatives to let midnight fiscal cliff deadline pass without a vote The White House and Congress were close to reaching a deal Monday to resolve the fiscal cliff crisis that threatens the fragile US economic recovery. With only hours left until a midnight deadline for automatic tax rises and spending cuts, Barack Obama said agreement was within sight but discussions were continuing. If no deal was concluded, every taxpayer in America would be hit with steep rises from Tuesday. These would be accompanied by deep cuts in federal spending programmes, ranging from defence to welfare, in particular unemployment benefits. Obama, who flew back from holiday in Hawaii to deal with the crisis, told a press conference at the White House: "Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's Eve hike is within sight, but it is not done. There are still issues left to resolve but we are hopeful that Congress can get it done. But it is not done." It appeared that the midnight deadline would pass without full ratification of any deal from Congress: even if the Senate passes a bill, the House of Representatives would not consider it until Tuesday. Earlier on Monday, surrounded by what the White House described as ordinary Americans, Obama said such people could not afford the tax rises – an average of about $2,000 for every US taxpayer – that would result if a deal was not reached. "The economy can't afford it," he added. Obama said the framework of the deal was that tax would not go up for most Americans. Unemployment benefits, help with university tuition and tax credits for clean energy companies would all be protected. Tax rises would be imposed only on those earning $450,000 a year or more. The Democrats had been pushing for $250,000 while the Republicans had wanted the limit set at those earning $1m or more. The Democrats appear to have secured protection for continued payments of unemployment benefits, which the Republicans had wanted cut. Democrats were pushing for the automatic cuts on spending across the board be postponed for at least a few months. John McCain, Republican senator from Arizona, said a possible deal, negotiated between Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and vice president Joe Biden, would include a two-month delay in automatic federal spending cuts that were due to begin this week. According to Reuters, McCain said the deal would include $24bn in other spending cuts to cover the cost of the delay, and would also include a one-year extension of unemployment benefits. Obama said his preference would have been for a bigger deal, what he termed a "grand bargain" that would have dealt more broadly with America's economic problems, especially its huge deficit. But, showing his exasperation with Republicans who control the House, he said this was not possible with this Congress. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said negotiations were continuing to protect working-class families from tax increases. Addressing the Senate when it opened on Monday morning, he said: "There are a number of issues on which the two sides are still apart but negotiations are continuing as I speak. We really are running out of time. Americans are still threatened with tax hike in just a few hours," Reid said. It is the first time Congress has met on New Year's Eve since 1995 when Washington was confronted by another Democratic-Republican economic showdown. Obama, in spite of having won a second term, desperately needs this victory over the Republicans to prevent that second term being destroyed by repeated stand-offs with Republicans in Congress. The danger for the Obama administration in the present showdown is that a combination of sudden tax rises and government spending cuts would have a negative impact on the country's sluggish rise out of recession. Countries that rely on trade with America could also potentially suffer. If a deal is reached, there will be a push to have legislation rushed through the House and the Senate before Wall Street reopens on Wednesday. The Democrats should have little problem getting a bill through the Senate where they have a majority but the House is much more difficult, given the size of the Republican majority. The Obama administration hopes that a combination of Democrats and moderate Republicans will see it pass. The Republicans and Democrats have been struggling since Obama's re-election in early November to find a compromise. The Democrats want to see tax rises only for the wealthiest, which the Republicans have resisted. The Democrats want to see the Defense Department take the brunt of the spending cuts while the Republicans have pressed for the onus to be shifted to welfare spending. Obama and the Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, came close to reaching a "grand bargain" in the run-up to Christmas but the talks collapsed. The Democrats blamed Boehner for being unable to secure the support of Tea Party-backed Republicans in the House, while Boehner blamed Obama for failing to give him enough concessions on tax and spending. The baton after Christmas was passed to Reid in the Senate, and his Republican counterpart Mitch McConnell. But talks between them broke down over the weekend. Next up were talks between McConnell and vice-president Joe Biden who negotiated throughout Sunday and into the early hours of Monday morning, resuming again at dawn. Reid, speaking in the Senate, said: "Whether or not we reach an agreement in the short time we have left will need co-operation on both sides to protect taxes going up tomorrow for every family in America. I repeat there are still some issues that need to be resolve before we can bring legislation to the floor." If no deal is in place on January 1, a single person earning $100,000 a year will face a $5,314 rise in taxes, and draconian spending cuts will be imposed across the board, in particular military spending and welfare benefits. With the war in Iraq over and US combat involvement in Afghanistan winding down, the Pentagon is vulnerable to spending cuts, in particular expensive equipment programmes. If no deal is in place on January 1, the Pentagon, as a first step, will have to inform its 800,000 civilian employees to prepare to take mandatory leave to save money.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | At least two children have already died from cold in camps crammed with tens of thousands of internally displaced Afghans The deadly struggle with Afghanistan's bitter winter is only likely to get worse in the coming years, a top UN official warned, as he called for more aid money to be dedicated to emergency relief. At least two children are already reported to have died from the cold this year in Kabul's makeshift refugee camps, crammed with tens of thousands of Afghans who have fled violence or desperate poverty, despite a drive by aid groups to prepare for sub-zero temperatures. "Each family already has two or three people who are sick," said 77-year-old Shah Ghasi, who has squatted in the Bagh Dawood camp on the outskirts of Kabul for nearly a decade. "We only have hot water to try and keep warm – no stoves, no fuel." Last year the bitterest winter in decades caught the country by surprise, and more than 100 children died in the cramped and squalid camps around Kabul. This year there has been a more organised effort to get food, blankets, fuel and medicine to people who sometimes have little more than a sheet of plastic to shelter them from snow and ice. "A couple of days ago an organisation came to the camp and gave each family plastic sheeting for the roofs, three blankets, a dish for cooking food and two packages of coal," said Abdul Malek, a 45-year-old community leader in the Dewani Bigi camp, home to more than 1,000 people. The scale of the problem is growing as violence worsens across Afghanistan. Nearly half a million people have now left their homes but remain inside Afghan borders, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council, one of the main organisations working with the "internally displaced people" as the settlers are known. About a third of them – some 166,000 – have fled in the last year alone, and the problem of sprawling settlements is only likely to grow in a country that is struggling simultaneously with war, urbanisation, harsh weather exacerbated by climate change, and a population boom. Mark Bowden, the UN's deputy envoy and humanitarian co-ordinator in Afghanistan, said: "The real message is that displacement isn't going away, but we haven't yet found the right ways of addressing it because of the complexity of the problem." Land ownership is one of the most complicated and explosive issues in Afghanistan, and the government is wary of giving the camp inhabitants land rights that might encourage them to improve their homes, for fear it could encourage others to flood into the capital or other cities. But without better homes it will always be hard to protect families from the winter. Forecasts for milder weather than 2011 could help blunt the impact of the cold in camps this year, but Afghanistan is already plagued by some of the world's worst child-mortality rates, rampant malnutrition and other health problems that make winter particularly challenging. "It is, I think, going to get worse. We do need to have stronger support," said Bowden, of the grim toll winter takes on the country's poorest. "Essentially, what you are dealing with is a very vulnerable population. When you add on that it's also at greater risk of natural hazards such as cold and floods and drought, it does require a far stronger humanitarian response capacity than we have at the moment." Bowden estimates that only a tiny percentage of aid money coming into Afghanistan, perhaps just single figures, goes to supporting urgent humanitarian needs. Donors stumped up less than half the cash the UN sought for Afghanistan's emergency response fund this year, and at one point it was completely empty. Efforts to build up the Afghan government have not focused on its ability to provide emergency relief. "All the money that has gone here has not prioritised the safety nets and social services that are required, and the institutions associated with that," Bowden said. Nor are the challenges of surviving the winter confined to Kabul; many in remote villages or travelling on exposed roads are also vulnerable but struggle to get attention or support without the government and media at hand. Up to 10 people froze to death waiting to cross into Pakistan last week, local officials said, when the border closed temporarily over a haulage dispute. Mokhtar Amiri contributed reporting
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | About 25 people at Strategy 31 gathering detained for holding unauthorised demonstration About 25 people were reported to have been arrested in Moscow on Monday for trying to hold an unsanctioned protest. The gathering at Triumfalnaya Square in central Moscow on New Year's Eve attracted 50 to 100 people. Among those arrested was Eduard Limonov, a prominent radical writer and opposition leader of the Other Russia movement. The Interfax news agency cited activists as saying about 25 people were taken into custody. For about two years, the Strategy 31 movement has held unauthorised protests on the last day of every month with 31 days – a reference to article 31 of the Russian constitution, which guarantees free assembly. Authorities routinely deny permission for the demonstrations. Limonov's faction has fallen out with other elements of the wave of opposition to President Vladimir Putin that arose last year. In his New Year's Eve address, Putin made no reference to the protests of the past year, saying only of 2012 that "it was very important to us," according to the Itar-Tass news agency. "We believe that we can change the life around us and become better ourselves, that we can become more heedful, compassionate, gracious," he was quoted as saying. Putin added that Russia's fate "depends on our enthusiasm and labour".
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Brother says fight for justice for medical student has just begun, as father describes how family is still in shock after brutal attack The family of the Indian gang-rape victim has spoken for the first time, calling for the men accused of the attack to be executed. "The fight has just begun. We want all the accused hanged and we will fight for that, till the end," the brother of the 23-year-old medical student, who has not yet been named, told the Indian Express newspaper. Hundreds of well-wishers, politicians and neighbours have crowded the family's modest home in south-west Delhi since the cremation of the victim's remains on Sunday morning. The girl's mother was admitted to hospital after she collapsed following the funeral, local media reported. "We are all in shock. Nobody can accept this news. My wife took it the hardest. It is too painful. I have not gone inside her room," her father said. "She was born in this house. Her books, clothes they are all here. It is hard to believe I will never hear her voice again, she will never read books to me in English again." The family has been held up as an example for the effort they made to fund the education of their daughter in a country where the schooling of male children is prioritised. "While other kids cry before going to school, she would cry if we stopped her," the father , reported to be in his 50s, told the local DNA newspaper. "She was always keen on a career in medicine. She was most happy when she got a chance to heal somebody's wounds."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Nation rebuffs attempts to renew journalist's visa months after newspaper's critical reports on premier Wen Jiabao's family China has forced a New York Times journalist to leave the country, two months after the newspaper reported on the family wealth of premier Wen Jiabao. Jill Abramson, the Times' executive editor, said reporter Chris Buckley had been "forced to relocate" outside China despite the newspaper's repeated attempts to renew his visa. In October the newspaper published a report by David Barboza which alleged relatives of Wen had controlled some $2.7bn in assets. China blocked access to the Chinese and English-language versions of the newspaper after the report was published. In her statement on Monday, Abramson confirmed that Buckley, who has reported from China for 12 years, had left the country. She added that Times journalist Phil Pan, who similarly has worked in China for several years, is also waiting to have his visa renewed. "I regret that Chris Buckley has been forced to relocate outside of China despite our repeated requests to renew his journalist visa," Abramson said. "I hope the Chinese authorities will issue him a new visa as soon as possible and allow Chris and his family to return to Beijing. I also hope that Phil Pan, whose application for journalist credentials has been pending for many months, will also be issued a visa to serve as our bureau chief in Beijing." Buckley, who is Australian, has lived in China for 15 years, spending 12 of those as a reporter, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. He flew out of Beijing at 6.30pm on Monday, the Herald said, accompanied by his wife and 12-year-old daughter. Pan is the Times's Beijing bureau chief and previously reported for the Washington Post. China expressed its displeasure with the Times the day after Barboza's report was published in October. Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said the piece "smears China's name and has ulterior motives", later insisting that the China's critics were attempting to destabilise the country and were "doomed to failure". Lawyers for Wen Jiabao's family denied reports of their riches as untrue in October. "Some of Wen Jiabao's family members have not engaged in business activities. Some were engaged in business activities, but they did not carry out any illegal business activity. They do not hold shares of any companies," the statement said. In China it is unusual for the family of a senior leader to comment publicly on media reports, perhaps an indication of the depth of feeling over the accusations. The Times report analysed corporate and regulatory records and found that members of the Wen family, including the premier's mother, had valuable investments in companies in China and in some cases ran companies that were awarded government contracts.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Parents fear that Caitlin Coleman, who is due in January, and her husband, Josh, were kidnapped during tour of central Asia The family of an ailing, pregnant American woman missing in Afghanistan with her Canadian husband has broken months of silence over the case t0 make public appeals for the couple's safe return. James Coleman, the father of Caitlan Coleman, 27, said she was due to deliver in January and needed urgent medical attention for a liver ailment that required regular checkups. He said he and his wife, Lyn, last heard from their son-in-law Josh on 8 October from an internet cafe in what Josh described as an "unsafe" part of Afghanistan. The Colemans asked that Josh be identified by his first name only to protect his privacy. The couple had embarked on a journey last July that took them to Russia, the central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and then finally to Afghanistan. Neither the Taliban nor any other militant group has said it is holding the couple, leading some to believe they were kidnapped. But no ransom demand has been made. "Our goal is to get them back safely and healthy," the father said by phone. "I don't know what kind of care they're getting or not getting," he added. "We're just an average family and we don't have connections with anybody and we don't have a lot of money. "We appeal to whoever is caring for her to show compassion and allow Caity, Josh and our unborn grandbaby to come home." Coleman, of York County, Pennsylvania, said he was not sure what the couple were doing in Afghanistan. But he surmised they may have been seeking to help Afghans by joining an aid group after touring the region. He described his daughter as "naive" and "adventuresome", with a humanitarian bent. He said the last withdrawals from the couple's account were made on 8 and 9 October in Kabul. "He [Josh] just said they were heading into the mountains – wherever that was, I don't know," the father said. "They're both kind of naive, always have been in my view. Why they actually went to Afghanistan, I'm not sure … I assume it was more of the same, getting to know the local people, if they could find an NGO or someone they could work with in a little way." Both the US state department and Canadian foreign affairs ministry say they are looking into the disappearance. "Canada is pursuing all appropriate channels and officials are in close contact with local authorities," Canadian foreign affairs ministry spokeswoman Chrystiane Roy said on Friday, calling the incident a "possible kidnap". It was not known whether the silence over the case by US and Canadian officials and, until now, by the Coleman family was because of ongoing negotiations to seek their release. But information blackouts have kept some similar cases quiet in the past in an attempt to not further endanger those missing. According to Hazrat Janan, head of the provincial council in Afghanistan's Wardak province, the two were abducted in Wardak in an area about 25 miles (40km) west of the capital, Kabul. They were passing through Wardak while travelling from Ghazni province south of Kabul to the capital. Wardak province, despite its proximity to Kabul, is a rugged, mountainous haven for the Taliban and travel along its roads is dangerous. Foreigners who do not travel with military escorts take a substantial risk. Janan said they were believed to have been taken from one district in Wardak to a second and then into Ghazni. "After that, the trail went dead," Janan said. He said it was suspected the kidnappers were Taliban because criminal gangs would have been likely to ask for a ransom. When the AP contacted Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid about the missing couple two months ago, he said the group had carried out an investigation and found no Taliban members were involved. "We do not know about these two foreigners," he said. Nato officials said they had no current information on the case, which was turned over to the US state department after it was determined the couple were not affiliated with foreign military forces.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Seriousness of secretary of state's condition not disclosed after doctors admitted her to hospital Sunday afternoon The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was spending New Year's Eve in under observation in hospital after being admitted for a blood clot. Clinton, 65, was admitted to New York-Presbyterian hospital on Sunday after doctors discovered the clot during a follow-up exam to a concussion she suffered in mid-December. The nature of the clot and the seriousness of Clinton's condition have not been disclosed. Her spokesman, Phillippe Reines, said doctors were treating her with anti-coagulants. Clinton fell and suffered a concussion in mid-December while at home recuperating from a stomach virus that had left her severely dehydrated. Her condition prevented her from attending a congressional hearing into the deadly assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She also cancelled a trip to North Africa and the Middle East. Doctors discovered the clot on Sunday and admitted her to hospital for treatment. "Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion," Reines said in a statement. "They will determine if any further action is required." The seriousness of a blood clot depends on where it is. Dr Gholam Motamedi, a neurologist at Georgetown University Medical Center – who is not involved in Clinton's care – told the Associated Press that clots in the legs are a common risk after someone has been bedridden, as Clinton may have been for a time after her concussion. Those are "no big deal" and are treated with six months of blood thinners to allow them to dissolve on their own and to prevent further clots from forming, he said. A clot in a lung or the brain is more serious. Lung clots, called pulmonary embolisms, can be deadly, and a clot in the brain can cause a stroke, Motamedi said. Bill Galston, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, told the Guardian that health considerations could form part of her decision on whether to run for the presidency in 2016. But he warned against writing off her chances. "My guess is, if you asked her right now if she intends to run, she'd probably deny it. She has run herself ragged for four years and she knows how much physical stamina it requires to campaign," said Galston, now a political analyst at Washington-based thinktank the Brookings Institution. "Having said that, she is tough as nails and it is important not to make too much of what, in all probability, is a short-term illness," he added. Clinton is due to step down as secretary of state in early 2013. The White House has named senator John Kerry, a former presidential nominee and current chair of the Senate's foreign relations committee, as Barack Obama's choice to replace her. It has been widely expected that Clinton would start preparing for a White House run. She has strong support among Democrats, and some senior Republican figures have openly pondered if she would present an unbeatable candidate. Clinton has alluded to the effects of her heavy travel burden as secretary of state. Asked early last year of her intentions after the 2012 presidential election, she replied: "I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would probably be a good idea to just find out how tired I am." Clinton has not been seen in public since the first week of December. She was unable to attend congressional hearings into scathing report into the Benghazi attack, which killed the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stephens. The report highlighted serious failures in two State Department bureaus that led to insufficient security at the consulate. The inability of Clinton to attend evidence-giving sessions about the issue in Congress led some rightwing commentators to question the seriousness of her condition.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Russian says he was kidnapped on street, taken across border and tortured into making a false confession Ukraine has been accused of allowing other states to abduct and repatriate their own nationals who have sought refugee status in the former Soviet republic, in contravention of international rights governing refugees. Three prominent cases in as many years involving people from Russia, Palestine and Uzbekistan, which share many disturbing similarities, prompted strong criticism of Ukraine from human rights groups. The latest case involved an anti-Putin activist, Leonid Razvozzhayev, who said he was seized by masked men on the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, and whisked across the border to Russia. He initially admitted plotting an uprising across Russia but later denied it, saying he had made the statement under pressure. "They were torturing me for two days, [they] kidnapped me from Ukraine," Razvozzhayev yelled to his friends, who filmed him leaving a court in Moscow in October. It was suspected that Russian FSB (security service) officers had masterminded the snatch. A Ukrainian police spokesman, Volodymyr Polishchuk, appeared to confirm this, saying: "It is most likely that security or law enforcement officials of foreign countries acted there. You can come to this conclusion if you watch the video that was on Russian television the next day, in which [Razvozzhayev] is escorted by Russian FSB officials," he said. However, Russian and Ukrainian law enforcement bodies have refused to open a criminal investigation into the alleged kidnapping, saying that Razvozzhayev deliberately crossed the border. His lawyers deny this. Razvozzhayev remains in detention in Russia. "The situation is clearly unsatisfying, with many questions unanswered," said Oldrich Andrysek, the UN high commissioner for refugees regional representative, adding that the UNHCR had asked the Russian authorities to let it meet Razvozzhayev to clarify the situation. "With the two dramatically different accounts of what happened, it stands to reason that there is a need to ascertain what really happened," he added. The case is reminiscent of that of Dirar Abu Sisi, a Palestinian engineer who was seeking a residency permit in Ukraine in 2011. In February Abu Sisi was travelling by train from Kharkiv to Kiev when two men entered his compartment, took his passport and asked him to go with them, according to Andriy Makarenko, another passenger. Days later, Abu Sisi turned up in an Israeli prison, charged with belonging to Hamas. He is still in jail. His family and lawyer claim the operation was conducted by the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, with Ukrainian assistance. "Ukraine and its secret services were definitely involved in arrest of Dirar Abu Sisi and his transportation to Israel," his lawyer, Tal Linoy, said. Like Razvozzhayev, Abu Sisi admitted guilt, but later retracted it, claiming that his confession had been made under pressure. Both Ukrainian and Israeli officials refused to comment on how the Palestinian had arrived in Israel. Maksym Bukkevych, a human rights campaigner for Ukraine with the No Borders initiative, recalled a similar story about an event in late 2009 relating to an Uzbek citizen, Hamidullo Turgunov, who had sought refugee status in Ukraine. Turgunov disappeared from the country and reportedly resurfaced two weeks later in jail in Uzbekistan. The UN refugee agency requested information from Ukraine about him but "has not received a satisfactory explanation", according to Andrysek. In a statement on Razvozzhayev's abduction, Amnesty International accused Ukraine of ignoring human rights law. "Amnesty International has repeatedly raised concerns that Ukraine does not respect the rights of refugees and asylum seekers," said Heather McGill, an Amnesty researcher on Europe and central Asia. "We have also raised concerns about the seeming willingness of the Ukrainian authorities to allow abductions by other states, such as in the cases of Dirar Abu Sisi and Hamidullo Turgunov," she added. So concerned is Amnesty about Ukraine's record on asylum that earlier this year it prevented a Syrian asylum seeker from being returned from Britain to Ukraine because of the risk he would end up in Syria.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Number of migrants crossing border drops to zero as vast steel fence from Eilat to Gaza border nears completion The number of migrants crossing the border between Egypt and Israel dropped to zero last week for the first time since 2006, as construction of the last small sections of a 150-mile fence is due to be completed in the coming weeks. A total of 36 migrants crossed into Israel from Egypt in December, all of whom were detained, compared with 2,295 in January. The numbers have steadily declined throughout 2012 as construction of the vast steel fence through the desert from Eilat to the border with Gaza has progressed. "We have succeeded in blocking the phenomenon of illegal infiltrators," said the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. "It has been several months now that no infiltrator has reached [the Israeli cities of] Eilat, Be'er Sheva, Tel Aviv or any Israeli community." Israel was repatriating migrants to their countries of origin, he said. "For several months now, hundreds of infiltrators have been leaving here … and thousands will soon do so every month until the tens of thousands of people who are here illegally return to their countries of origin." More than 9,000 migrants were deported in 2012, including almost 4,000 from African countries. Critics of the deportation policy say many migrants face extreme danger in their home countries. "There is no doubt the fence is working as a deterrent," said Sigal Rosen, of the Hotline for Migrant Workers. But, she added, Israel's policy of preventing refugees crossing the fence, which is constructed on Israeli territory, was illegal under international law. "If a person is asking for asylum, a country has a duty to check their request." The fence along Israel's southern border is estimated to have cost around 1.4bn shekels (£240m). Israel now has physical barriers along all its land borders apart from one section abutting Jordan, from Eilat to the Dead Sea. Plans to erect a fence along that border are under discussion. Israel accelerated construction of the southern border fence after an attack by militants in August 2011 in which eight Israelis were killed, with the aim of completing it by the end of 2012. The remaining gaps, which total eight miles, are on mountainous terrain near the Red Sea resort of Eilat. The purpose of the fence is to deter illegal immigration, cross-border militant activity and the smuggling of drugs and weapons. More than 65,000 migrants‚ mainly from Eritrea and Sudan, have entered Israel illegally from Egypt since 2006, according to government figures. A US state department report on human rights noted that Israel approved one out of 4,603 applications for asylum in 2011. The latest immigration figures came as an Eritrean man appeared in court in Tel Aviv on Monday, accused of raping an 83-year-old woman on 21 December. The interior minister, Eli Yishai, said: "The shocking rape is a symptom of a loss of sense of security among Israeli citizens in areas where there are high concentrations of infiltrators." Leaders of a far-right party called for a mass protest in Tel Aviv on Monday evening. Rosen said she was afraid it could turn into a pogrom. Anti-migrant sentiment was growing "because of incitement by politicians against Africans", she said. Earlier this year, Yishai suggested migrants were committing rapes and were "Aids carriers". MP Miri Regev said Sudanese refugees were a "cancer in our body".
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Residents of Gardendale, a suburb near the hub of the west Texas oil industry, face having up to 300 wells in their backyards The corner of Goldenrod and Western streets, with its grid of modest homes, could be almost any suburb that went up in a hurry – except of course for the giant screeching oil rig tearing up the earth and making the pavement shudder underfoot. Fracking, the technology that opened up America's vast deposits of unconventional oil and gas, has moved beyond remote locations and landed at the front door, with oil operations now planned or under way in suburbs, mid-sized towns and large metropolitan areas. Some cities have moved to limit fracking or ban it outright – even in the heart of oil and gas country. Tulsa, Oklahoma, which once billed itself as the oil capital of the world, banned fracking inside city limits. The authorities in Dallas last week blocked what would have been the first natural gas well in town. The town of Longmont, just outside Denver, meanwhile, is fighting off attempts by industry groups to overturn a fracking ban. But Gardendale, a suburb of 1,500 people near the hub of the west Texas oil industry, exists in a legal and political environment in which there are seemingly few restrictions on fracking, even inside city limits. For residents here, fracking is part of daily life. "You can hear it, you can smell it, and you are always breathing it. It's just like being behind a car exhaust," said Debbie Leverett, during a tour of the area last October organised by the Society of Environmental Journalists. "All of your senses change." Over the last few years oil companies have drilled 51 wells in Gardendale, an area that covers about 11 square miles – and that's just the start. Berry Petroleum, the main oil developer, plans to drill as many as 300 wells in Gardendale. "Berry's current plan is to drill approximately 140 wells on 40-acre spacing in and around the Gardendale area," Jeff Coyle, a company spokesman, wrote in an email. "Additionally, we are preparing to conduct a pilot study on 20-acre spacing and, if those test results are encouraging and economic conditions warrant, we may drill up to 160 additional wells." Some of those wells will be drilled within 150ft of residents' front doors – far closer than in other towns in Texas. In the nearby city of Midland, the oil industry hub and childhood home of George W Bush, the city council capped the number of wells inside city limits at 30. The town requires oil companies to stay 500ft away from buildings and homes. In some circumstances oil companies may be required to landscape around a well. "People are still not really happy when an oil well turns up in the backyard," said Wes Perry, Midland's mayor and an oil man himself. But he added: "We are an oil town. We can't be hypocrites." However, Gardendale lacks the legal authority to keep fracking at a distance. The suburb, just outside Midland and Odessa, is unincorporated, so it does not have the legal authority to impose zoning restrictions. Residents voted down an attempt to incorporate last year, fearing it would lead to higher taxes. Berry argues the close proximity serves to encourage industry and residents to co-exist. "What we have here is a situation where we have to find the best way to work together, where mineral rights owners and surface rights owners can co-exist," Coyle said. But co-existence does not work for Shane Leverett, Debbie's husband. Leverett has worked in the oil industry, but he said the drilling plan for Gardendale was excessive. "This is a fantastic opportunity for oil and gas development, but it is coming at the expense of all of us," he said. The couple are suing the oil company to try to block drilling on their 130 acres on the edge of town. The land is staked with bright plastic strips marking potential oil wells. Current plans call for seven wells on the property. "They're talking about a well every 600 feet and a pad every 300 feet," Shane Leverett said. "Do the math. There's not much room left over for us." The suit seeks to challenge a pillar of Texas law: that property owners have no control over the extraction of the oil that lies beneath their land, unless they also own mineral rights. The Leveretts only own the surface rights to their land. The mineral rights were sold off decades ago – a fact the Leveretts were aware of when they bought their property, but they did not think there was a real prospect of drilling at the time. Fracking changed that, however, making it profitable to drill on the Leveretts' land. "This case is of historic importance," said Steve Hershberger, the Leveretts' lawyer. "Now that the oil companies have found oil and gas through fracking and horizontal drilling they are going into residential areas and urban areas. This case is going to define the relationship between mineral owners and surface owners in a big way." The oil company argues the Leveretts got what they paid for. "Essentially, each Gardendale surface owner bought his or her surface property (at a discounted price without the minerals) betting, wrongfully as it turned out, on the proposition that oil and gas development would not occur in the area," Coyle said. Other residents complain the oil company dictates what property owners can do above ground, even without definitive drilling plans. Hector Rodriguez said he was barred from expanding his trailer home or putting in a bigger dog house on his six acres because the oil company insisted on protecting access. "They told me they might not ever drill there, but they put the stake there just in case," he said. "They told me I could not do anything there. I have no rights." Coyle said the company believes the Rodriguez property sits atop a potential oil well – although it is not currently scheduled for drilling. Rodriguez, back at home, is unimpressed. "We're just talking about a dog house," he said. "I should be able to decide about that."
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Weeks after mass shooting, Peter Lanza takes his son's body for private burial as Obama steps up pressure on gun control The body of a gunman who killed 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school has been claimed by his father, a spokesman for the family said Monday. The remains of Adam Lanza – who took his own life after going on an armed rampage at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown on December 14 – were reportedly removed from a funeral home some days ago to be transported to an undisclosed burial site. Earlier this month, a private funeral took place for Nancy Lanza, the gunman's mother and the first of his 27 victims. She was killed in bed at the home she shared with her son. The 20-year-old gunman, armed with weapons legally purchased by his mother, including an assault rifle, then travelled to the nearby Sandy Hook school. Peter Lanza, who was divorced from Nancy Lanza and lived at a separate location in Connecticut, claimed his son's body at some point over the past few days. A family spokesman did not say what plans the family might have for a funeral service. Authorities have yet to offer a motive for the killings. State police say they have been exploring all aspects of Adam Lanza's life including his education, family history and medical treatment for clues. It could be months before investigators produce a final report into the school massacre. Meanwhile the incident – which followed on from a number of mass shootings to scar the US during 2012 – has reignited debate over America's lax gun controls. On Sunday, President Barack Obama said he hoped to get new legislation on gun controls through Congress by the end of 2013. Having previously been reluctant to enter debate on what is seen in America as a politically sensitive topic, Obama vowed to put his "full weight" behind a package of measures to tackle gun violence. Shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre he assigned vice president Joe Biden to lead a task force looking at new legislation. "I'd like to get it done in the first year. I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden's task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off," he told NBC's Meet the Press. He also made guarded remarks aimed at the influential lobbying group National Rifle Association. The pro-gun group has called for armed guards to be stationed in every school across America – a proposal that has been roundly condemned as unworkable, costly and ineffective by advocates of greater gun controls. Obama fell well short of such criticism, but did say that he viewed the NRA's plan with "scepticism".
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With the fiscal cliff deadline just hours away, talks continue in Congress after failure to produce a deal over the weekend
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | For every hit like Girls, American television produced a dud like Anger Management. Did your favourite make our list this year? Each year it seems to become increasingly difficult to narrow the best television shows of the year down to just 10. Among those that could have made my top ten this year were the clever The Good Wife (let down by the horrid Kalinda/Nick subplot this season), the enjoyable Justified and Treme, a show I adore for its insistence on marching to its own beat. Boardwalk Empire turned in a heart-stopping finale for the second year in a row, The Walking Dead recovered from an iffy second season to deliver a blood-pumping third, and Sons of Anarchy finally convinced me that Charlie Hunnam can act. Scandal was flawed but great fun to wile away an hour in front of, and Luck, David Milch's return to HBO, was, for me, nine hours of wonderful television about the greatest sport of all, and for others nine hours of unwatchable tedium about an obscure and impenetrable world. Among the comedies New Girl was thankfully not as winsome as initially presumed, Veep moved out of The Thick of It's shadow after a wobbly start, the acerbic Apt 23 was the most under-rated comedy of the year, and Happy Endings gave us one of the best ensemble casts on television. Any list like this always has one "how could you do that?" omission however. Mine is Homeland. I've always had a problem with the show's somewhat shaky plotting – mainly because almost all of Brody's plotline from running for Congress to walking out alive at the end of the first season is great to watch but doesn't really add up – and rather than addressing the issue season two chose instead to double down allowing Brody apparently unfettered access to the vice-president despite his blown cover, giving an entire episode over to a ludicrous kidnapping and essentially losing any pretense at coherence. Worst of all, however, it asked the audience to believe that the central point of the show is the one true pairing of Brody and Carrie, a banal plotline that reduced a clever, nuanced thriller to a soapy folie à deux. Talking about shows that were once great but are now terrible, I can't let this round-up pass without an honourable mention to a formerly great guilty pleasure now bowing out in hard times. I had hoped Gossip Girl's sixth and final season would see it return to the "non-judging breakfast club" glory days, but alas this season has been a disaster. Sometimes pulling the plug really is the best thing to do. And so on to an entirely subjective list of the 10 Best Shows of 2012. As ever feel free to tell me what I got right and what was horribly wrong in the comments. 1. Game of ThronesYou might think it was hard to top the unexpected death of Sean Bean in season one (wait … oh no … they killed Ned) but from Tyrion's grappling with the nature of power to Theon's inevitable but still tragic fall from grace Game of Thrones' season two delivered a masterclass in combining the epic (the beautifully staged Battle of Blackwater) with the intimate (Cersei's powerful monologue as she waited for death with the city under siege). Even the odd misstep – Robb Stark's out-of-canon romance with a mysterious doctor – failed to lessen the pleasure of watching a show at the top of its game. 2. ParenthoodIs Jason Katims the most underrated writer working in television? The co-creator of first Friday Night Lights and now this near-perfect family drama is a master at telling the sort of ordinary yet emotionally involving stories that others too often ignore. Perhaps he doesn't get enough credit because his style is so understated and his interest lies in characters and relationships rather than ludicrous plot twists and endless action but whatever the reason Parenthood, a beautifully written and acted show in which every action has a believable pay-off, is worth a thousand thrilling but silly Homelands. 3. LouieAnd lo, the comedy gods looked down and they declared that an awkward ginger comic with a knack for finding humour in the most painful parts of life would be decreed the saviour of US comedy. Louie's third season headed into even darker territory tackling everything from our hero's relationship with his ex-wife to the aftermath of a sudden bereavement. Along the way it cemented Louis CK's reputation as one of the most innovative writers on television. 4. Breaking BadAh Walt, Walt, Walt. If Mad Men occasionally idolises its leading man too much, Breaking Bad is only too keen to show us how low its anti-hero can go. With only eight episodes to go Walter White's transformation from all-too-human chemistry teacher to unrepentant, inhuman killer seems complete. Yet while there's almost certainly no way back for Walt, Breaking Bad's skill has always come as much from the surrounding cast as its leading man and this season was as much about Walt's damaged, despairing wife Skyler and his increasingly conflicted partner Jesse as it was about Walt's decent into hell. Anna Gunn and Aaron Paul duly rose to the occasion. 5. Parks and RecreationThere are probably sharper comedies and definitely quirkier ones but no sitcom has as much heart as Parks & Rec. From Leslie's run for elected office to the return of Andy's alter ego FBI agent Bert Macklin, the show's fourth season was a delight. Throw in a fabulous cameo from none other than Joe Biden at the beginning of season five and it's clear that despite the odd wobble, this remains one of television's most rewarding sitcoms and certainly its most sincere. 6. NashvilleWritten by Callie Khouri, best known as the writer behind Thelma & Louise, this is the class act among this year's new dramas. Essentially the story of two country singers, one a rising starlet, the other in decline, on paper Nashville sounds like little more than a TV version of the dreadful Gwyneth Paltrow film Country Strong. The reality, however, is something altogether more interesting. In part that's down to two strong performances from the ever-reliable Connie Britton and, more surprisingly, Hayden Panettiere who makes you care for the ambitious Juliette even as she schemes her way to the top. Best of all is the innovative way in which the show uses music from The Civil Wars to Lucinda Williams. If you haven't checked it out because you hate country music, give it a shot: like the show it most resembles, Friday Night Lights, Nashville transcends its subject matter to tell a complicated, compelling tale. (Although, yes, they should have thought twice about the political subplot.) 7. Mad MenWas season five Mad Men's weakest? Plenty of people think so citing the prominence of Jessica Pare's idolised (and arguably idealised) Megan as the weak link. And yet … this was also a season featuring Roger's acid conversion, Joan's deal with the devil, poor Lane's final reckoning and Peggy's transcendent goodbye to Sterling Cooper. Most of all it was a season in which Pete's headlong fall into John Cheever-esque tragedy became inescapable. I've long held that Vincent Karthusier is the best actor on the show, and his ability to make us feel for Pete despite his contemptible behaviour only strengthened that belief. As to Megan and Don, how you responded to the story tended to come down to whether you think Matthew Weiner sees Don as hero or anti-hero. I incline to the latter and if Mad Men is viewed as one man's journey from relevance to oblivion then the off-his-game Don of season five was both believable and surprisingly touching. 8. CommunityDan Harmon probably isn't the easiest person to work for or with but his stubbornly eccentric vision propelled Community and it's hard to imagine that the fourth and final season will be the same without his presence. That said in Digital Estate Planning, The First Chang Dynasty and Introduction to Finality, Harmon's triple episode send-off featuring a pixelated cast, a homage to Ocean's 11 and Abed finally dismantling his Dreamatorium following the Jeff Winger speech to end all Jeff Winger speeches, Community fans got some of the closure we crave. 9. GirlsCreated by and starring 26-year-old Lena Dunham this look at the lives and lusts of a bunch of feckless 20-somethings in New York is equally loathed and loved. I have to confess I'm in the latter camp (yes, I know typical Guardian writer, sorry) not least because it's a pleasure to watch a comedy where the heroines live in messy squalor, have awkward, ungainly sex and aren't always, if ever, particularly likeable. Dunham has an eye for life's awkward humiliations and imperfections. It's that which lifts Girls out of the pack. 10. American Horror StoryThe least subtle show on the list is also my guiltiest pleasure. Ryan Murphy will never be able to tell a coherent story but somehow it doesn't matter when the tale in question features creepy asylums, Zachary Quinto glowering in dimly lit corridors, Chloe Sevigny being driven slowly insane and Jessica Lange as the iciest mother superior of them all. Best of all Murphy seemed to find a way to combine his love of a knowing horror reference with actual character development, giving us a woozy study in guilt and isolation and in the process, and surprisingly, making us care about Briarcliff's inmates and doctors, even those who indulge in amputation and murder in their spare time. AND THE WORSTFor every great show out there, there is also a truly awful one. This year produced some stiff competition with a number of horrible new sitcoms from Animal Practice to Neighbors. Partners was a mediocre Will & Grace re-tread, written by that show's authors and apparently determined to drag us all back to the sitcom stylings of the mid-1990s. Charlie Sheen's return to television in Anger Management was exactly as you'd expect it to be, ie filled with tired jokes about its tired star's tired lifestyle meanwhile his previous sitcom Two and a Half Men continued to limp on despite most of its cast no longer wanting to be in it. The much-hyped Last Resort and the muddled Revolution both disappointed, although neither as badly as Smash, which was hailed as the year's best new show after the pilot but which turned out to be a crazily plotted mess. The joint worst two shows of the year, however, were both comedies. Whitney and Are You There, Chelsea? both written by Whitney Cummings, were billed as ground-breaking looks at outrageous women. Instead both were mean-spirited, poorly written and filled with abrasive, unpleasant and clichéd characters pratfalling to the most fake-sounding laugh-tracks ever recorded. Thankfully Are You There, Chelsea? was cancelled. Sadly Whitney continues to exist.
 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | With the fiscal cliff deadline just hours away, talks continue in Congress after failure to produce a deal over the weekend
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Tour bus falls 100ft from downhill stretch of I-84 in Blue Mountains after skidding and crashing through guardrail A tour bus crashed through a guardrail along an icy highway and fell 100ft down a steep embankment, killing nine people and injuring more than 20 others, authorities said. The charter bus, which was carrying about 40 people, lost control on Sunday around 10:30am on snow- and ice-covered lanes of Interstate 84 in a rural area of eastern Oregon, according to the Oregon State Police. The bus crashed near the start of a seven-mile section of road that winds down a hill. The bus came to rest at the bottom of a snowy slope and landed upright, with little or no debris visible around the crash site. More than a dozen rescue workers descended the hill and used ropes to help retrieve people from the wreckage in freezing weather. The bus driver was among the survivors, but had not yet spoken to police because of the severity of the injuries the driver had suffered. Lieutenant Gregg Hastings said the bus crashed along the west end of the Blue Mountains, and west of an area called Deadman Pass. The area is so dangerous that the state transportation department published specific warnings for truck drivers, advising it had "some of the most changeable and severe weather conditions in the Northwest" and can lead to slick conditions and poor visibility. St Anthony Hospital in Pendleton treated 26 people from the accident, said a hospital spokesman, Larry Blanc. Five of those treated at St Anthony were transported to other facilities. The East Oregonian newspaper said it had spoken to two South Korean passengers, aged 16 and 17. Both said through a translator that they were seated near the rear of the bus when it swerved a few times, hit the guardrail and flipped. They described breaking glass and seeing passengers pinned by their seats as the bus slid down the hill. Both said that they feared for their lives. The paper said that the teens, one of whom injured a knee and the other suffered a broken collarbone, were staying at a hotel arranged by the Red Cross. I-84 is a major east-west highway through Oregon that follows the Columbia River Gorge. Umatilla County Emergency Manager Jack Remillard said the bus was owned by Mi Joo travel in Vancouver, British Columbia; state police said the bus was en route from Las Vegas to Vancouver. A woman who answered the phone at a listing for the company confirmed that it owned the bus and said it was on a tour of the Western US. She declined to give her name. A bus safety website run by the department of transportation said Mi Joo Tour & Travel has six buses, none of which had been involved in any accidents in at least the past two years. The bus crash was the second fatal accident on the same highway on Sunday. A 69-year-old man died in a rollover accident about 30 miles west of the area where the bus crashed. A spokesman for the American Bus Association said buses carry more than 700 million passengers a year in the United States. "The industry as a whole is a very safe industry," said Dan Ronan of the Washington, DC-based group. "There are only a handful of accidents every year. Comparatively speaking, we're the safest form of surface transportation." The crash comes more than two months after another chartered tour bus veered off a highway in northern Arizona, killing the driver and injuring dozens of passengers who were mostly tourists from Asia and Europe. Authorities say the driver likely had a medical episode.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rapper tells crowd at show in New Jersey about his impending fatherhood and serenades his girlfriend Reading on mobile? Watch here Kanye West is to become a father, he announced in typically understated style on Sunday night – from the stage, in front of 5,000 fans in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The hip-hop superstar stopped his set and asked the crowd to "make some noise for my baby mama right there", before serenading his girlfriend Kim Kardashian with the words "now you having my baby". Kardashian's family – made famous by the reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians – responded to the news with a barrage of tweets. Kim's sister Kortney tweeted: "Been wanting to shout from the rooftops with joy and now I can! Another angel to welcome to our family. Overwhelmed with excitement!" Khloe, another sister, told the world: "I'm excited for Kanye and my sister! There's nothing like bringing life into this world! Let's keep Gods blessings coming!" Kendall and Kyle Jenner – also sisters of Kim's – tweeted: "Whos excited about the KIMYE babbyyy?!", and "Congrats to this beautiful couple. I love you guys." West's announcement came on the final night of a three-show run at the Ovation Hall at the Revel Resort in the seaside gambling town. The previous night West had embarked on a rant about a variety of subjects in which he said he would not attend next year's Grammy awards, following his failure to win the best album award this year. He also spoke of cancelling a world tour with Lady Gaga.
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Obama says earlier that he intends to strong-arm Congress into scaled-back measures if no deal can be reached America is entering its final day to avert the fiscal cliff, after talks between Senate leaders in Washington broke up with no deal in sight. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader, and Mitch McConnell, who heads the chamber's Republican minority, ended more than a day of on-off talks on Capitol Hill on Sunday without an agreement and with nothing for lawmakers to vote on. It brings closer the prospect that America could plunge off the so-called fiscal cliff at midnight on Monday, triggering swingeing spending cuts and across-the-board tax increases. Talks are expected to resume but with the clock ticking inexorably towards the new year deadline, few in Washington were optimistic about a deal. McConnell said no single issue remained an "impossible sticking point" and blamed Democrats for not responding to a Republican offer made on Saturday evening. He called vice-president Joe Biden, with whom he has worked before, to try to "jump start" negotiations. "I'm still willing to get this done but I need a dance partner." Reid said the Republicans had a made a good-faith proposal but that the two sides remained apart on some "pretty big issues" and the Democrats could not respond. "We've been negotiating now for 36 hours or thereabouts. We've been trying … but at this stage we're not able to make a counter-offer." Republican senators withdrew a demand over a new way of calculating inflation that would have cut social security and other social programmes, but the concession failed to bridge the gap between the two sides. The deadlock cast gloom over the US just hours after Barack Obama tried to inject hope with a final pitch to Congress to act on the fiscal cliff. In a rare foray on to the weekly round of political talk shows, the president sought to put the blame for the looming economic crisis firmly at the door of the Republican party, accusing his opponents of having "trouble saying yes" to any proposal put before them. "They say that their biggest priority is making sure that we deal with the deficit in a serious way, but the way they're behaving is that their only priority is making sure that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are protected. That seems to be their only overriding, unifying theme," Obama said. The pointed remarks came as lawmakers in Washington prepared for a rare Sunday session, which convened only to break up hours later with no vote. Congress has until midnight on Monday to find a solution to the current fiasco. That deadline will automatically trigger a series of fiscal measures that experts have said could plunge the US back into a recession If no deal is done, 88% of Americans will see their taxes rise on 1 January, a wave of deep spending cuts will start to take effect, and 2 million long-term unemployed people will lose their benefits. The task of reaching a compromise had fallen on Reid and McConnell. Both men were summoned to the White House on Friday, alongside House speaker John Boehner and minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner was also in attendance. After that meeting, Obama said he remained "modestly optimistic" that a deal could be achieved. But since then there has been no firm indication that a grand compromise was indeed obtainable. "I was modestly optimistic yesterday, but we don't yet see an agreement. And now the pressure's on Congress to produce," Obama told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, ahead of news that the talks had indeed broken down. Boehner responded saying Americans elected the president to lead, not cast blame. "The president's comments today are ironic, as a recurring theme of our negotiations was his unwillingness to agree to anything that would require him to stand up to his own party," Boehner said. "We've been reasonable and responsible. The president is the one who has never been able to get to 'yes'." Reid and McConnell had been tasked with coming up with a solution by 3pm Sunday. But little more than an hour until that deadline, both men took to the Senate floor to announce that both side's position remained far apart. The main sticking point has been the threshold for raising income taxes on households with upper-level earnings. Obama wants all earners of $250,000 a year and above to shoulder a greater tax burden. Analysts believe that any deal could be anchored on raising taxes for households earning more than $400,000 or $500,000 a year. But many Republicans in the House have indicated that they will vote against any increase in tax. Not only could this scupper the chances of a grand deal, it could also see the blocking of the White House's back-up plan to avert the fiscal cliff. Obama has indicated that if Reid and McConnell fail to produce an agreement by the end of Sunday, he will strong-arm Congress into a vote on scaled-back measures that would avert the immediate cost of America heading over the fiscal cliff. That simple "up-or-down vote on a basic package" would stop tax hikes for middle-income Americans, while "laying the groundwork for future progress on more economic growth and deficit reduction", Obama said on Saturday. But even that may have difficulty passing through the House, given the entrenched position of some Tea Party-backed Republicans. Obama appeared to prepare for that eventuality on Sunday. "If all else fails, if Republicans do in fact decide to block it, so that taxes on middle-class families do in fact go up on 1 January, then we'll come back with a new Congress on 4 January and the first bill that will be introduced on the floor will be to cut taxes on middle-class families," he said. But he warned that missing the deadline would still result in "adverse reaction in the markets" and would "hurt our economy badly".
  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Woman accused of shoving immigrant under train says she 'thought it would be cool', according to prosecutors A 31-year-old woman accused of shoving an immigrant from India to his death in front of a subway train because she believed he was Muslim laughed and smiled during a court hearing where she was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. On Saturday night Erika Menendez was charged with murder as a hate crime after she told police she spontaneously pushed Sunando Sen, according to prosecutors. "There is no reason. I just pushed him in front of the train because I thought it would be cool," she said, according to the Queens district attorney's office. She laughed so hard during her arraignment in Queens criminal court that Judge Gia Morris told her lawyer: "You're going to have to have your client stop laughing." Her attorney, Dietrich Epperson, said her behaviour in court was no different from how she had been acting, and said his client did not really think the proceedings were funny, according to Newsday. He represented her for the arraignment only and had no further comment. Menendez was held without bail and ordered to have a mental health exam. Queens prosecutors said she pushed the 46-year-old Sen to his death because she blamed "Muslims, Hindus and Egyptians" for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "I pushed a Muslim off the train tracks because I hate Hindus and Muslims – ever since 2001 when they put down the twin towers I've been beating them up," Menendez told police, according to the district attorney's office. Friends and co-workers said Sen, a native of Calcutta, was Hindu. He had lived in Queens for decades and was a graphic designer and copy shop owner. Sen was standing on an elevated platform of the No 7 train that travels between Manhattan and Queens when he was shoved from behind as the train entered the station. Witnesses told police a woman had been mumbling to herself and was sitting on a bench behind Sen until the train pulled in, then shoved him from behind. She then fled. Police released a sketch and surveillance footage of a woman running from the subway station. Menendez was arrested after a passerby saw her on the street and thought she looked like the suspect. Witnesses identified her in a lineup and she was questioned by police, when she implicated herself, according to police and prosecutors. Angel Luis Santiago, who used to work at the Queens building where Menendez's mother and stepfather live, said he was shocked by her arrest. "It surprised me what she did," he said. "She never acted that way." Menendez's next court appearance is scheduled for 14 January. Sen was the second man to die after being pushed in front of a New York City subway train this month. Ki-Suck Han, a Korean immigrant, was killed in a midtown Manhattan subway station on 3 December. A homeless man was arrested and charged with murder in that case and is awaiting trial. He claimed he acted in self-defence.
  | | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire