Monday, May 2, 2016

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history

Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history

Pool/Getty Images
On Saturday night, President Obama attended his eighth and final White House Correspondents' Dinner, walking to the podium to Anna Kendrick's cover of "Cups" (chorus: "you're gonna miss me when I'm gone"). "You can’t say it, but you know it is true," he told the crowd, grinning.
He had a point. Over the past two terms, the press corps has been spoiled with a presidency whose accomplishments are of a number and a magnitude unlikely to be equaled anytime soon.
Love him or hate him, Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in American history — and that he will be a particularly towering figure in the history of American progressivism.
He signed into law a comprehensive national health insurance bill, a goal that had eluded progressive presidents for a century. He got surprisingly tough reforms to Wall Street passed as well, not to mention a stimulus package that both blunted the recession and transformed education and energy policy.
He's put in place the toughest climate rules in American history and signed a major international climate accord. He opened the US to Cuba for the first time in more than half a century, and reached a peaceful settlement to the nuclear standoff with Iran.
You can celebrate or bemoan these accomplishments. Liberals hail them as moves toward a social democratic welfare state and a foreign policy more skeptical of military intervention; conservatives critique Obama's efforts to expand regulation and the government's reach, and accuse him of abdicating America's role as world hegemon.
But no one can deny that the changes Obama has wrought are enormous in scale.

Obamacare: a big ****** deal

teddy roosevelt 1912
Teddy Roosevelt, one of the first American politicians to call for national health insurance. (Social Security Administration)
National health insurance has been the single defining goal of American progressivism for more than a century. There have been other struggles, of course: for equality for women, African Americans, and LGBTQ people; for environmental protection; and, of course, against militarism. But ever since its inclusion in Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Bull Moose platform, a federally guaranteed right to health coverage has been the one economic and social policy demand that loomed over all others. It was the big gap between our welfare state and those of our peers in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.
And for more than a century, efforts to achieve national health insurance failed. Roosevelt's third-party run came up short. His Progressive allies, despite support from the American Medical Association, failed to pass a bill in the 1910s. FDR declined toinclude health insurance in the Social Security Act, fearing it would sink the whole program, and the Wagner Act, his second attempt, ended in failure too. Harry Truman included a single-payer plan open to all Americans in his Fair Deal set of proposals, but it went nowhere. LBJ got Medicare and Medicaid done after JFK utterly failed, but both programs targeted limited groups.
Richard Nixon proposed a universal health care plan remarkably similar to Obamacare that was killed when then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) walked away from a deal to pass it, in what Kennedy would later call his greatest regret as a senator. Jimmy Carter endorsed single-payer on the campaign trail but despite having a Democratic supermajority in Congress did nothing to pass it. And the failure of Bill Clinton's health care plan is the stuff of legend.
obamacare sign
Obama signs Obamacare into law. (Pete Souza)
Then on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. It wasn't perfect by any means. Liberals bemoan that it wasn't single-payer; it lacked a public option, or even all-payer rate setting. And it still left many uninsured.
But it established, for the first time in history, that it was the responsibility of the United States government to provide health insurance to nearly all Americans, and it expanded Medicaid and offered hundreds of billions of dollars in insurance subsidies to fulfill that responsibility.
In an email, UC Berkeley's Paul Pierson likened the law to a "starter home" to be expanded later on, much as Social Security — which initially had no disability benefits, left out surviving dependents and widows, and excluded (largely black) agricultural and home workers — was.
Brian Steensland, a sociologist who studies American social policy at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, agrees. "The main thing it does, I think, is establish the expectation in the public’s mind that access to basic health care is a right," he says. "It’s going to be hard to go back to a time when access to health insurance, and the subsidies to help pay for it, wasn’t near universal."
To pay for it all, the Affordable Care Act cut back on Medicare spending and hiked taxes on rich people's investment income and health plans. It effected a massive downward redistribution of income. It's one of the most startlingly progressive laws this country has ever enacted.
And it was passed with more opposition than the social insurance programs it followed. "FDR and LBJ had lots of fellow Democrats in Congress when they pushed for the New Deal and Great Society," College of William and Mary political scientist Chris Howard says. "Their opponents, in and out of government, were not nearly as ideological or hostile as the ones facing Obama. The fact that the ACA exists at all is pretty remarkable."
A lot of these facts are familiar to people who've been following Obamacare, but it's worth dwelling on them for a second. When you consider the law in the context of 100 years of progressive activism, and in the grand scheme of American history, it starts to look less like a moderate reform and more like an epochal achievement, on the order of FDR's passage of Social Security or LBJ's Great Society programs.
It is, to quote Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol, "a century-defining accomplishment in the last industrial democracy to resist using national government to ensure access to health coverage for most citizens." FDR failed, Truman failed, Nixon failed, Carter failed, Clinton failed — and Obama succeeded. He filled in the one big remaining gap in the American welfare state when all his forerunners couldn't.
But Obama's domestic achievements were not just limited to health care.

"On domestic issues Obama is the most consequential and successful Democratic president since LBJ. It isn't close."

An Obama, a Dodd, a Frank
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Dodd, Frank. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Affordable Care Act was hardly Obama's only accomplishment. He passed a stimulus bill that included major reforms to the nation's education system, big spending on clean energy, and significant expansions of antipoverty programs. He shepherded through the Dodd-Frank Act, the first significant crackdown on Wall Street's power in a generation, which has been far more successful than commonly acknowledged.
He used executive action to enact bold regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and to protect nearly 6 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. He ended the ban on gay and lesbian service in the military, made it easier for women and minorities to fightwage discrimination, cut out wasteful private sector involvement in student loans, and hiked the top income tax rate. Hereprofessionalized the Department of Justice and refashioned the National Labor Relations Board and the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department into highly effective forces for workers' rights.
His presidency holds massive symbolic value as proof that the reign of white men over American government can be halted and America as a whole can be represented. And while he was too slow in announcing support for same-sex marriage, he appointed two of the justices behind the Supreme Court's historic decision that legalized it nationwide, and enlisted his Justice Department on the side of the plaintiffs.
There are obviously places Obama fell short. I think he didn't take monetary policy nearly seriously enough, that he's fallen short on combating HIV/AIDS and other public health scourges abroad, that his early push to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants was indefensible, and that perpetrators of torture and other war crimes from the Bush administration should have been criminally prosecuted. But while Obama could have accomplished more, it could never be said that he accomplished little.
"When you add the ACA to the reforms in the stimulus package, Dodd-Frank, and his various climate initiatives," Pierson says, "I don't think there is any doubt: On domestic issues Obama is the most consequential and successful Democratic president since LBJ. It isn't close."

Obama's foreign policy was a new direction for the Democratic Party — and the country


And on foreign issues, Obama's record is perhaps the most successful of any Democratic president since Truman. He has reestablished productive diplomacy as the central task of a progressive foreign policy, and as a viable alternative approach to dealing with countries the GOP foreign policy establishment would rather bomb.
He established a viable alternative to the liberal hawks that dominated Democratic thinking during the Bush years, and held positions of influence on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. And he developed a cadre of aides who can carry on that legacy to future Democratic administrations and keep a tradition of dovishness alive.
To understand how this happened, it's worth going back to 2008, when YouTuber Stephen Sorta asked the most important question of the Democratic primary debates: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
The safe, reserved thing to do would be to say no: Sure, diplomacy's great, but obviously there will be "preconditions." This was the response of future Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called the idea "irresponsible and frankly naive" following the debate. It was also the response of future Vice President Joe Biden, who said, "World leaders should not meet with other world leaders unless they know what the agenda is, so you don’t end up being used."
This was, famously, not the response of future President Barack Obama. "I would," he replied. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous."
At the time, Obama's statement was treated like a gaffe. Today it feels more like a statement of purpose. Obama did correspond with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. His secretary of state met for weeks at a time with Rouhani's foreign minister to hammer out a deal. And the result is a historic accord with Iran that, if successful, will stop Iran from developing a nuclear device for at least 10 years. More important than that, it eliminates the odds of a war between the US and Iran in the near future.
And of course, Iran isn't the only country on Sorta's list with whom Obama has engaged in direct talks. He also did away with America's failed policy of isolating Cuba, ending the embargo and allowing for a rapprochement after more than 50 years. His radical openness to dialogue abroad got results in the form of two of the biggest American diplomatic breakthroughs since the Oslo Accords in 1994, perhaps since Camp David in 1978.
But the Iran and Cuba deals were of a different nature than those accords, or similar breakthroughs by Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush. From Watergate through 2009, America's major diplomatic breakthroughs were generally either arms control deals with the Soviet Union or Russia, or trilateral agreements meant to protect Israel's long-term security, like Camp David and Oslo.
Those are important steps, but they solidified America's existing relationships. Obama, by contrast, achieved two huge openings to countries the US had previously counted as enemies for decades. They are achievements more like Nixon's opening to China than, say, the SALT accords. And, of course, Obama has a major Russian arms control deal under his belt in the form of New START, as well.
In December 2015, Obama added the climate deal in Paris to the list. This wasn't a traditional agreement, as it was not legally binding. But nonetheless, 195 countries agreed to submit plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's an astonishing degree of global consensus, even without a legally binding treaty.
And with luck, the Paris deal, for which the Obama administration fought hard, will encourage a flurry of bilateral or multilateral binding agreements between its signatories, creating a virtuous cycle in which nations pressure each other to cut emissions further and further. It may not be enough to stop catastrophic warming — but with 195 nations, it's likely the best anyone could've hoped for.
Obama's decisions haven't been perfect. He revived Clinton-style militarism in the Middle East, where periodic airstrikes and special ops missions take the place of Bush-style invasion and occupation. The drone war is a moral catastrophe, and the 2009 surge in Afghanistan was a mistake. Syria remains a morass with no good options, though arguably Obama had no better choice than to muddle through. But certainly compared to his predecessors, Obama was a model of restraint, prudence, and openness in foreign policy.
You can generally divide American presidents into two camps: the mildly good or bad but ultimately forgettable (Clinton, Carter, Taft, Harrison), and the hugely consequential for good or ill (FDR, Lincoln, Nixon, Andrew Johnson). Whether you love or hate his record, there's no question Obama's domestic and foreign achievements place him firmly in the latter camp.

Watch: President Obama explains why he is so polarizing

BUFFETT: Berkshire's profit fell because of oil and hailstorms

BUFFETT: Berkshire's profit fell because of oil and hailstorms

Warren Buffett walks out to tour the exhibit hall during the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting at the CenturyLink Center in Omaha, Nebraska, U.S. April 30, 2016. REUTERS/Ryan HenriksenThomson ReutersWarren Buffett walks out to tour the exhibit hall during the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting at the CenturyLink Center in Omaha, Nebraska
OMAHA, Neb. (Reuters) - Warren Buffett on Saturday said preliminary first-quarter profit at his Berkshire Hathaway Inc fell about 12 percent, hurt by weaker performance in its railroad and insurance operations.
Quarterly operating profit for the Omaha, Nebraska-based insurance and investment conglomerate probably fell to $3.73 billion from $4.24 billion.
Net income probably rose to $5.59 billion from $5.16 billion, helped by a gain from the swap of Procter & Gamble Co stock for the Duracell battery business.
Buffett said insurance underwriting suffered from hailstorm claims. Railroads have been hurt by declining oil shipments.
Buffett disclosed the results at Berkshire's annual meeting. Final results are due on May 6.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in Omaha, Nebraska; Editing by Nick Zieminski)
Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2016. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

Halliburton's megamerger with Baker Hughes is officially over

Halliburton's megamerger with Baker Hughes is officially over

Various Halliburton equipment being stored at the equipment yard in Alvarado, Texas June 2, 2015.  REUTERS/Cooper NeillThomson Reuters

Current Prices

SymbolPrice+/-%
BHI47.12-1.31-2.70
HAL42.52+1.19+2.90
Disclaimer
The $28 billion merger between Halliburton and Baker Hughes is officially over. 
The companies announced Sunday that they terminated their merger agreement after it faced opposition from US and European antitrust regulators.
Reuters earlier reported that it would be called off as soon as Monday. The deal was valued at $35 billion when it was first announced in November 2014. 
"While both companies expected the proposed merger to result in compelling benefits to shareholders, customers, and other stakeholders, challenges in obtaining remaining regulatory approvals and general industry conditions that severely damaged deal economics led to the conclusion that termination is the best course of action," Halliburton CEO Dave Lesar said in a statement
Halliburton will pay Baker Hughes a termination fee of $3.5 billion by Wednesday. 
"This was an extremely complex global transaction, and, ultimately, a solution could not be found to satisfy the antitrust concerns of regulators, both in the United States and abroad," Baker Hughes CEO Martin Craighead said. 
The contract governing Halliburton's acquisition of Baker Hughes expired Saturday without an agreement by the companies to extend it, Reuters reported. 
The US Department of Justice moved to block the proposed merger in April, and the deal also faced pressure from regulators in Europe
Here's the full statement:
Halliburton Company (NYSE:HAL) and Baker Hughes Incorporated (NYSE:BHI) today announced that the companies have terminated the merger agreement they entered into in November 2014, effective April 30, 2016.
"While both companies expected the proposed merger to result in compelling benefits to shareholders, customers and other stakeholders, challenges in obtaining remaining regulatory approvals and general industry conditions that severely damaged deal economics led to the conclusion that termination is the best course of action," said Dave Lesar, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton. "I sincerely thank both our employees as well as the Baker Hughes employees for their tireless efforts throughout the regulatory review process. While disappointing, Halliburton remains strong. We are the execution company – our strategy, technologies and service quality are focused on helping customers maximize production at the lowest cost and driving industry leading growth, margins and returns."
"Today's outcome is disappointing because of our strong belief in the vast potential of the business combination to deliver benefits for shareholders, customers and both companies' employees," said Martin Craighead, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Baker Hughes. "This was an extremely complex, global transaction and, ultimately, a solution could not be found to satisfy the antitrust concerns of regulators, both in the United States and abroad. As we turn the page on this chapter, I want to thank our customers for their patience and continued loyalty over the past 18 months. I also want to thank the entire Baker Hughes team for their unwavering dedication and commitment during this process. Baker Hughes is strongly positioned to build on its foundation and heritage as a technology innovator that differentiates for our customers and delivers compelling value to shareholders."
In connection with the termination of the merger agreement, Halliburton will pay Baker Hughes the termination fee of $3.5 billion by Wednesday, May 4, 2016.
Halliburton will discuss the termination of the merger agreement during its previously scheduled conference call on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, at 8:00 AM Central Time (9:00 AM Eastern Time). Please visit the website to listen to the call live via webcast. Interested parties may also participate in the call by dialing (888) 793-5581 within North America or (973) 935-8723 outside North America. A passcode is not required. Attendees should log in to the webcast or dial in approximately 15 minutes prior to the call's start time.
(Reuters editing by Andrew Hay)

Craig Wright claims he created Bitcoin

Craig Wright claims he created Bitcoin

The Australian IT executive who late last year was engulfed by rumours that he invented Bitcoin has claimed he really is behind the digital currency.
Craig Steven Wright came to prominence as a strong contender for being the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious figure behind the creation of Bitcoin, in December 2015.
He disappeared from public view at the time but has now re-surfaced, claiming he wants to “set the record straight”.
Wright gave access to the BBC, The Economist, and GQ ahead of going public with his claim that he is Nakamoto. Here’s part of how he proved his identity, as reported by the BBC:
… Mr Wright digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of Bitcoin’s development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or “mined” by Satoshi Nakamoto.
“These are the blocks used to send 10 bitcoins to Hal Finney in January [2009] as the first bitcoin transaction,” said Mr Wright during his demonstration.
Wright said he planned to release information that would allow others to cryptographically verify that he is Nakamoto, the pseudonym attached to the Bitcoin inventor ever since the crypto-currency came into being in 2008.
Since then the hunt for the person behind the pseudonym has garnered global attention.
Bitcoin uses cryptography to move money and records it in a ledger without the need of a bank.
In December as a number of reports claimed Wright could be Nakamoto, Australian federal authorities raided his home, sifting through his garbage. The tax office said at the time the raids had nothing to do with his reported association with Bitcoin, although they were carried out within hours of the publication of the investigative stories.
Business Insider discovered that a company linked to Wright was in a significant dispute with authorities over its use of tax credits.
Read the original article on Business Insider Australia. Copyright 2016. Follow Business Insider Australia on Twitter.

Puerto Rico says it will default on Monday

Puerto Rico says it will default on Monday

puerto ricoReuters/Ana Martinez
Puerto Rico is going to default.
In a television address made Sunday, Puerto Rican Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla said the island's Government Development Bank would not make a $422 million payment due to its creditors by the end of business on Monday, according to Bloomberg.
Reuters report ahead of Padilla's address released Sunday evening said the GDB was "expected to skip at least the principal portion of its payment to hedge funds, credit unions, and other bondholders."
Like many financially distressed governments around the globe — think Greece, for example — Puerto Rico has been faced with demands from creditors and their consultants that the island undertake drastic spending cuts to create surpluses large enough to meet debt obligations.
The Padilla government has resisted these proposals.
And so Padilla's announcement, while not entirely unexpected, does reinforce the position from which the island will continue negotiations with its creditors over this specific debt. ZeroHedgereported Sunday that the price of the bonds on which Padilla said Puerto Rico would default had plummeted to 20 cents on the dollar.
In the financial world, Puerto Rico's distress does not come as a great shock, and many hedge funds have made considerable bets that the island will eventually reach agreements to pay back its creditors.
And in January 2015, Business Insider's Linette Lopez went so far as to argue that Puerto Rico in effect belonged to Wall Street. John Oliver did the same, more or less, last week.
Sunday's announcement is also certainly not the end of Puerto Rico's fiscal dilemma. Here's more from Reuters' overview of the situation facing Puerto Rico in the coming months:
GDB has held talks with groups holding some of its $4 billion in bonds to try to restructure the debt consensually.
Some creditors who are frustrated with Garcia Padilla's administration — which has not issued audited financial statements since fiscal year 2013 — say government reforms could allow the island to pay its debts without hurting its people. Garcia Padilla insists the U.S. territory needs relief from debt payments.
A default would ratchet up pressure on the U.S. Congress to find a legislative solution for Puerto Rico, which enters a key stretch in its fiscal saga, owing another $1.9 billion of debt on July 1, including about $777 million in general obligation debt backed by its constitution.
U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan initially called for a plan by March 31. However, draft legislation from the House Natural Resources Committee, which would put Puerto Rico's finances under federal oversight and allow it to restructure debt through a bankruptcy-like process, has faced opposition from liberal and conservative wings of both parties.
More: Puerto Rico

728 X 90

336 x 280

300 X 250

320 X 100

300 X600