War in Syria: U.S. Government Arms Syrian Rebels; Will Damascus Become a Heap of Ruins?

The main Western-backed Syrian opposition group has welcomed the decision by the Obama administration to send arms to rebels fighting to topple President Bashar Assad's regime. The Syrian National Coalition says it's a "move forward." President Barack Obama opposed providing any lethal assistance to Syria's rebels until last month. The U.S. administration is now moving ahead with sending weapons to vetted rebels after securing the approval of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.[Fox News, July 25, 2013]

Syrian troops consolidate gains in Homs region

July 28, 2013

AP - Syrian government forces backed by Lebanese Hezbollah militants were consolidating their control over a key rebel district in central Syria Sunday, activists said.

The military moves came a day after they expelled rebels from a 13th century landmark mosque they controlled for more than a year.

State-run Syrian TV broadcast live coverage from Khaldiyeh, an embattled northern neighborhood in Homs, where the army has been advancing. Video showed extensive destruction. Activists said most of the buildings in the mainly residential district were no longer fit to live in.

Elsewhere, an opposition group said the death toll from nearly two weeks of clashes between al-Qaida-linked fighters and Kurdish militiamen in northeastern Syria stands at 120. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the dead include 79 fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Jabhat al-Nusra, both al-Qaida-affiliated rebel groups. The group monitors the Syrian war through a network of activists on the ground.

This latest round of fighting flared in Ras al-Ayn on July 6 in the predominantly Kurdish Hassakeh province in the north, near the Turkish border. Kurdish gunmen are fighting to expel the militants, whom they see as a threat.

After capturing the strategic town of Qusair near the Lebanon border last month, government troops launched an offensive on rebel-held areas in Homs, Syria's third largest city, late in June. They have been pushing into Khaldiyeh and other neighborhoods in the Old City that have been under opposition control since 2011.

An unidentified Syrian army commander standing before a destroyed building in Khaldiyeh told an embedded state TV reporter that the military expected to "liberate" the last part of Khaldiyeh within the next two days.

Syrian government forces captured the ancient Khalid Ibn al-Walid Mosque in Khaldiyeh on Saturday. Syrian TV aired a report with video from inside the mosque, showing heavy damage. The video showed debris strewn on the floor and a portion of the mosque appeared to have been burned.

The mosque, famous for its nine domes and two minarets, has been a symbol for rebels in the city that is known as "the capital of the revolution." On Monday, government troops shelled the mosque, damaging the tomb of Ibn al-Walid, a revered figure in Islam. Video showed the tomb's roof knocked down.

The Observatory and other activists said government troops are backed by members of Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has been fighting alongside regime forces in their assault on rebel-held territory in the central region.

In addition to its symbolic value, Homs is a geographic lynchpin in Syria. The main highway from Damascus to the north and the coast, a stronghold of President Bashar Assad's Alawite sect, runs through Homs.

Also on Sunday, Syria's main exiled opposition group condemned the reported execution of scores of government soldiers by rebels in a northern Syrian village several days ago.

The Syrian National Coalition made up of exiled opposition leaders said in a statement that it was forming a commission of inquiry to investigate the incident in Khan al-Assal.

Syrian activists say rebels killed 150 government soldiers, some after they surrendered, on Monday and Tuesday in the village outside Aleppo, the country's largest city.

The state media said that 123 "civilians and military personnel" were killed in a "massacre" and others were still missing.

"Those involved in such crimes will be held accountable," the Coalition statement said.

The Coalition said initial reports showed "armed groups" not affiliated with the main rebel coalition were involved. It did not elaborate, but the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra says its fighters participated in the battle.

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said the crime "will not pass without punishment," vowing that the perpetrators will pay a "dear price."

In an interview with Syrian TV late Saturday, he said the "massacre" aimed to spread fear and panic among people at a time when the Syrian military was achieving significant progress on the ground.

In a separate statement, the Coalition urged Egypt to release dozens of Syrians it said were arrested last week allegedly for violating residency regulations.It said Egyptian police arrested at least 72 Syrian men and nine boys at checkpoints on main roads in Cairo. Some had valid visas or residence permits but were arrested "on the pretext of not having residence permits," it said.

The Coalition said regulations concerning Syrians' entrance into Egypt were changed. Since July 8, Syrians have been required to obtain entry visas and security clearance before they are allowed to enter Egypt.

It urged the Egyptian government not to deport Syrians, saying Cairo has an "ethical and humanitarian duty to protect the Syrian people fleeing the tyranny" at home.



Zidon = Sidon (marked by the capital "A" in the pink marker on the maps above): The names Tyre and Sidon were famous in the ancient Near East. They are also important cities in the Old and New Testaments. Both are now located in Lebanon, with Tyre 20 mi south of Sidon and only 12 mi north of the Israel-Lebanon border. Today each is just a shadow of their former selves. Sidon, called Saida today (Arabic for “fishing”), was named after the firstborn son of Canaan (Gn 10:15) and probably settled by his descendants.

"And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Zidon; and I will be glorified in the midst of thee: and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall have executed judgments in her, and shall be sanctified in her." - Ezekial 28:22

"The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." - Isaiah 17:1

"Concerning Damascus. Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea; it cannot be quiet. Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail. How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy! Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts. And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad." - Jeremiah 49:23-26

Amos Chapter 5

12 For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right.
13 Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time; for it is an evil time.
14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken.
15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
16 Therefore the LORD, the God of hosts, the Lord, saith thus; Wailing shall be in all streets; and they shall say in all the highways, Alas! alas! and they shall call the husbandman to mourning, and such as are skilful of lamentation to wailing.
17 And in all vineyards shall be wailing: for I will pass through thee, saith the LORD.
18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.
20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.
23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.
25 Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?
26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.
27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts.

Zechariah Chapter 9

1 The burden of the word of the LORD in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus shall be the rest thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the LORD.
2 And Hamath also shall border thereby; Tyrus, and Zidon, though it be very wise.
3 And Tyrus did build herself a strong hold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets.
4 Behold, the Lord will cast her out, and he will smite her power in the sea; and she shall be devoured with fire.
5 Ashkelon shall see it, and fear; Gaza also shall see it, and be very sorrowful, and Ekron; for her expectation shall be ashamed; and the king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited.
6 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.
7 And I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his abominations from between his teeth: but he that remaineth, even he, shall be for our God, and he shall be as a governor in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite.
8 And I will encamp about mine house because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth: and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now have I seen with mine eyes.
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;
13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.
14 And the LORD shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord GOD shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south.
15 The LORD of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.
16 And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.
17 For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.

Israel Blocks the European Union from Aiding Tens of Thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank

Israel blocks EU projects in West Bank

July 26, 2013

Reuters - Israel has blocked the European Union from aiding tens of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank, in retaliation for an EU ban on financial assistance to Israeli organizations in the occupied territories.

The EU imposed its restrictions last week, citing its frustration over the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in territory captured by Israeli forces in the 1967 Middle East War. The new guidelines render Israeli entities operating there ineligible for EU grants, prizes or loans, beginning next year.

An Israeli official said on Friday the Jewish state was compelled to respond to the EU's decision "to sanction or boycott the settlements".

"From our standpoint we cannot just ignore this or treat spitting in our face as though it is rain," the official said.

Settler leaders say the aid they receive from Europe is minimal. But many in Israel worry about knock-on effects the EU steps may have on individuals or companies based in Israel that might be involved in business in the settlements, deemed illegal by the international community.

The Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon had decided to suspend contacts with the EU in the West Bank.

Yaalon, a former army chief and a hardliner in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, has "frozen projects, canceled meetings, curtailed coordination and permits for Europe's operations" for Palestinians living in what is known as Area C, a West Bank area fully administered by Israel, he said.

EU CONCERN

In Brussels, Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, said: "The EU is concerned by reports in the Israeli media that the Israeli Minister of Defence has announced a number of restrictions affecting EU activities supporting the Palestinian people.

"We have not received any official communication from the Israeli authorities. Our delegations on the spot are seeking urgent clarifications," Kocijancic added.

A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that due to the Israeli measures, several European humanitarian aid staff had failed to receive permits to enter the Palestinian-ruled Gaza Strip.

Under the terms of a 1993 interim peace accord, some 150,000 Palestinians, many of them poor farmers and shepherds living in Area C, a West Bank zone where many settlements have been built, are fully under Israeli military control,

The Palestinians have limited self-rule over other parts of the West Bank, and share joint custody with Israel over yet other areas.

Some of Europe's assistance in the West Bank goes to Palestinians for building homes. But many have been designated illegal and demolished by Israel.

The Association of International Development Agencies, a coalition of 80 aid groups, said in a report in May that 600 settler houses had been built since mid-2012, while Israel demolished 535 Palestinian-owned homes and structures.

The United States, Israel's main backer, has been trying to revive peace talks that have been deadlocked for three years and are aimed at reaching an agreement for the Palestinians to establish a state alongside Israel.
After months of painstaking talks with both sides, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said two weeks ago they had laid the groundwork for a breakthrough.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators may meet in Washington as soon as on Tuesday, July 30, a senior Palestinian official told Reuters on condition of anonymity, after an Israeli minister's said on Thursday that talks were likely by next week.

For Those Over 50 and Unemployed, the Statistics are Grim

Unemployed and Older, and Facing a Jobless Future

July 26, 2013

New York Times - I was recently talking to a friend at a party whose husband — in his 60s — has been unemployed for more than two years. While there are many challenges, she said, one of the hardest things is trying to balance hope with reality.

She wonders how to support him in his continued quest to find a job in his field of marketing and financial services while at the same time encouraging him to think about what his life would be like if he never worked in that field or had a full-time job again.

“I wanted to move to what I thought was a healthier place. I wanted to turn the page,” said my friend, who asked to be identified by her middle name, Shelley, since she didn’t want to publicize her family’s situation. “He saw it as vote of no confidence.”

For those over 50 and unemployed, the statistics are grim. While unemployment rates for Americans nearing retirement are lower than for young people who are recently out of school, once out of a job, older workers have a much harder time finding work. Over the last year, according to the Labor Department, the average duration of unemployment for older people was 53 weeks, compared with 19 weeks for teenagers.

There are numerous reasons — older workers have been hit both by the recession and globalization. They’re more likely to have been laid off from industries that are downsizing, and since their salaries tend to be higher than those of younger workers, they’re attractive targets if layoffs are needed.

Even as they do all the things they’re told to do — network, improve those computer skills, find a new passion and turn it into a job — many struggle with the question of whether their working life as they once knew it is essentially over.

This is something professionals who work with and research the older unemployed say needs to be addressed better than it is now. Helping people figure out how to cope with a future that may not include work, while at the same time encouraging them in their job searches, is a difficult balance, said Nadya Fouad, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Psychologists and others who counsel this cohort need to help them face the grief of losing a job, and also to understand that jobs and job-hunting are far different now from how they used to be.

“The contract used to be, ‘I am a loyal employee and you are a loyal employer. I promise to work for you my entire career and you train, promote, give benefits and a pension when I retire.’ Now you can’t count on any of that,” she said. “The onus is all on the employee to have a portfolio of skills that can be transferable.”

People in their 20s and 30s know that they need to market themselves and always be on the lookout for better opportunities, she said, something that may seem foreign to those in their 50s and 60s.

If a counselor or psychologist “doesn’t understand how the world of work has changed, they’re not helping at all,” she said. “You can’t just talk about how it feels.”

In response to this concern, Professor Fouad and her colleagues have drawn up guidelines for the American Psychological Association to help psychotherapists better assist their clients with workplace issues and unemployment. It is wending its way through the association’s committees.

Of course, not everyone who is unemployed and over 50 is equal. For some, the reality is that they need to find another job — any job — to survive. Others have resources that can allow them to spend more time looking for a job that might have the salary or status of their former position.

In the first case, Professor Fouad said, “You need to decide what is the minimum amount of money you can make and how to go about finding it.” In the second case, she said, it’s necessary to examine what work means to you and how that may have to change.

Is it the high social status? The identity? The relationship with co-workers? It is important to examine these areas, perhaps with the help of a professional counselor, Professor Fouad said, to discover how to find such meaning or relationships in other areas of life.

Sometimes simply changing the way you look at your situation can help. My friend Shelley’s husband, Neal, who also asked that I use his middle name, said the best advice he received from a friend was “don’t tell people you’re unemployed. Tell them you’re semiretired. It changed my self-identity. I still look for jobs, but I feel better about myself.”

He also has friends facing the same issues, who understand his situation. Such support groups, whether formal or informal, are very helpful, said Jane Goodman, past president of the American Counseling Association and professor emerita of counseling at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich.

“Legitimizing the fact that this stinks also helps,” she said. “I find that when I say this, clients are so relieved. They thought I was going to say, ‘buck up.’ ”

And even more, “they should know the problem is not with them but with a system that has treated them like a commodity that can be discarded,” said David L. Blustein, a professor of counseling, developmental and educational psychology at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College, who works with the older unemployed in suburb of Boston. “I try to help clients get in touch with their anger about that. They shouldn’t blame themselves.”

Which, of course, is easy to say and hard to do.

“I know not to take it personally,” Neal said, “but sure, I wonder at times, what’s wrong with me? Is there something I should be doing differently?”

It is too easy to sink into endless rumination, to wonder if he is somehow standing in his own way, like a cancer patient who is told that her attitude is her problem, he said.

Susan Sipprelle, producer of the Web site overfiftyandoutofwork.com and the documentary “Set for Life” about the older jobless, said she stopped posting articles like “Five Easy Steps to get a New Job.”

“People are so frustrated,” she said. “They don’t want to hear, ‘Get a new wardrobe, get on LinkedIn.’ ”

As one commenter on the Facebook page for Over Fifty and Out of Work said, “I’ve been told to redo my résumé twice now. The first ‘expert’ tells me to do it one way, the next ‘expert’ tells me to put it back the way I had it.”

Some do land a coveted position in their old fields or turn a hobby into a business. Neal, although he believes he’ll never make as much money as in the past, recently has reason to be optimistic about some consulting jobs.

But the reality is that the problem of the older unemployed “was acute during the Great Recession, and is now chronic,” Ms. Sipprelle said.

“People’s lives have been upended by the great forces of history in a way that’s never happened before, and there’s no other example for older workers to look at. Some can’t recoup, though not through their own fault. They’re the wrong age at the wrong time. It’s cold comfort, but better than suggesting that if you just dye your hair, you’ll get that job.”

Snowden's Father Criticizes Congress for Failing to Rein in a Sweeping Surveillance Program

Snowden's father criticizes Congress, Obama over spy programs

July 26, 2013

Reuters - The father of fugitive U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden on Friday criticized Congress for failing to rein in a sweeping surveillance program made public by his son and accused the Obama administration of pursuing him with a "zeal to punish."

Lonnie Snowden has not had direct communication with his son since he fled to Hong Kong and then Russia, but sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Friday defending his son's actions as similar to acts of civil disobedience.

"We thus find your administration's zeal to punish Mr. Snowden's discharge of civic duty to protect democratic processes and to safeguard liberty to be unconscionable and indefensible," the letter to Obama said.

"We are also appalled at your administration's scorn for due process, the rule of law, fairness, and the presumption of innocence as regards Edward," he wrote in the letter posted on MSNBC's website.

Lonnie Snowden, in an interview with NBC's "Today" show, said lawmakers were "complicit or negligent" in allowing the National Security Agency's massive electronic surveillance program to continue.

"I am extremely disappointed and angry," he said. "The American people - at this point, they don't know the full truth, but the truth is coming."

NBC polling showed that more than half of Americans are worried about the vast operation that sweeps up information on phone calls, emails and other communications, but just 11 percent support Edward Snowden's decision to flee the United States and release details about the effort to the media.

Lonnie Snowden said those findings show "a concerted effort" by lawmakers and Obama "to demonize my son, to focus the issue on my son, and not to talk about the fact that they had a responsibility to ensure that these programs were constitutional."

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday narrowly rejected a plan to limit the NSA's ability to collect electronic information, including phone call records.

About half of Americans support the data collection program while about 44 percent do not, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Friday.

'JUST LAUGHABLE'

Edward Snowden was working at the National Security Agency as a contractor from Booz Allen Hamilton before he released details about the spying programs to U.S. and British media that were published in early June.

Russia has so far refused to hand over Snowden, who has remained in a Moscow airport since June 23, to the United States, and is considering a temporary asylum request.

On Friday Russia said its officials and the FBI were discussing the matter, and the U.S. Department of Justice said it had assured Russian counterparts that Snowden would not be tortured or face the death penalty if he was returned.

"Wow that's a real concession, they won't torture him and send him to the guillotine," Bruce Fein, Lonnie Snowden's lawyer, told Reuters, adding that such assurances were "just laughable."

He also said he had not received a response from the Justice Department over an earlier letter outlining possible conditions for his client to return to the United States.

Lonnie Snowden told NBC he was confident in his son's actions.

"I believe that my son, when he takes his final breath whether it's today or 100 years from now, he will be comfortable with what he did because he did what he knew was right."

Detroit's Historic Bankruptcy Filing is Major Setback for Public Employee Unions

Detroit bankruptcy another setback for unions

July 27, 2013

AP - Detroit's historic bankruptcy filing is a major setback for public employee unions that have spent years trying to ward off cuts to the pensions of millions of government workers around the country.

If the city's gambit succeeds, it could jeopardize an important bargaining tool for unions, which often have deferred higher wages in favor of more generous pensions and health benefits.

It also could embolden other financially troubled cities dealing with pension shortfalls to consider bankruptcy, or at least take a harder line with their unions in negotiating cuts.

"This is essentially the union's worst nightmare, said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "It means that the most sacred of sacred things they've negotiated for, the pensions of their retired members, are going to be severely cut."

Detroit's bankruptcy filing comes on the heels of some public unions losing most of their collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin. At the same time, the unions have shed thousands of members as state and local governments shrink public payrolls. The crisis of underfunded public pensions could further erode union clout.

From Chicago to Cincinnati to Santa Fe, N.M., dozens of cities and counties are struggling with massive debt linked to pension liabilities. Critics say state and city employees won generous defined benefit pensions and lifetime health care from elected officials trying to curry favor with public sector unions.

Unlike private employers that must fund such defined benefit pensions under the Employee Retirement Security Act, government employers are not covered by that statute. As a result, many elected officials approved such plans, leaving the financial consequences for future leaders to handle.

If cities such as Detroit can use bankruptcy or other tactics to reduce pension obligations, government employees could become less interested in union membership, said Charles Craver, a George Washington University law professor specializing in labor relations. That would be another dose of bad news for the steadily shrinking labor movement, especially because public employees now make up over half of all union members. 

"Union leaders should go to the bargaining table and try to address this issue through negotiations, but they fear being thrown out of office if they agree to any cutbacks," Craver said, referring to pensions.

Detroit's financial woes were aggravated by widespread corruption, financial mismanagement, the auto industry collapse and a dramatically shrunken tax base as people moved out. The city has long-term debts of at least $18 billion, including $3.5 billion in unfunded pensions and $5.7 billion in underfunded health benefits for about 21,000 retired workers. The rest is owed to bondholders and other unsecured creditors.

About 7.3 million government workers belong to a union. The union membership rate for public sector workers is about 40 percent, much higher than the 6.6 percent rate in the private sector.

The fallout from Detroit could lead to more acrimonious contract negotiations between cities and union, said John Beck, a professor of labor relations at Michigan State University.

"If I'm a union and bargaining, where I used to be willing to defer wages in form of pensions, I'm going to bargain for what I can get right now because I can't be sure whether those future wages are going to be protected," Beck said.

Unions, led by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have launched a furious legal challenge to the Detroit's bankruptcy petition, arguing that Michigan's constitution law does not allow public pension obligations to be diminished. But a federal bankruptcy judge dealt a blow to that tactic last week, halting any state lawsuits that would interfere with the bankruptcy proceeding.

"Government entities declaring bankruptcy, it's really a government going to war with its own people," said Steven Kreisberg, director of collective bargaining for AFSCME.

He said trying to reduce pensions is unfair to those who worked for years in good faith and expected to depend on those benefits in old age.

The average pension for retired city employees other than firefighters and police officers is quite modest, Kreisberg said, at about $19,000 annually. Retired fire and police get about $30,000 in pension benefits, higher since they are not part of the Social Security system.

While other cities in financial trouble might be willing to follow Detroit's lead, Kreisberg said the stigma of bankruptcy and its long-term damage to a city's financial future make that unlikely. But if there is a national epidemic of pension defaults, it could change what unions would demand in terms of funding levels.

"We may seek legislation to guarantee that employers are making their payments," Kreisberg said.

The AFL-CIO has called on President Barack Obama and Congress to offer immediate financial aid to Detroit.

The labor federation also wants any federal aid to be matched by the state of Michigan. 

"As the nation emerges from the worst of the Great Recession, it is time for Congress and the White House to make it clear they will not turn their backs on our urban centers," said Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME and chairman of the AFL-CIO's political committee.

But the White House appears reluctant to intervene. White House spokesman Jay Carney has said the city's insolvency should be resolved by local leaders and creditors and that the Obama administration has no plans to provide a federal bailout.

Carney said the administration was ready to provide other forms of assistance, such as investment opportunities or help for blighted neighborhoods hit hard by the recession.

How Does Obamacare Work? 11 Questions, 11 Unbiased Answers

You may receive a penalty if not insured by March 31, 2014. If you are required to purchase health insurance and have not done so by March 31, 2014, you will receive a penalty on your 2014 tax return (filed in 2015). The penalty in 2014 is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, and the fee is capped at $285 or 1 percent of household income. Each year the penalty increases; in 2016, the fine rises to $695 per adult and will be capped at $2,085 or 2.5 percent of income. There is no penalty for a gap in coverage for less than three months.

When will it actually kick in? Who qualifies for a subsidy? And what does it mean for indoor tanning addicts? We have answers from Kamy Akhavan, president of ProCon.

July 26, 2013 

Minyanville - If you’re still scratching your head about what the Affordable Care Act means or doesn’t mean or does or doesn’t do, you’re far from alone. With so many cherry-picking pundits, politicians, and media sources perpetuating the spinsanity, it’s hard to know how to get agenda-free information. Depending on where you get your news, opinions about Obamacare run the gamut from a step in the right direction to the savior of the American economy to the complete unraveling of democracy to the second coming of Karl Marx.

When Minyanville was searching for an unbiased take on this labyrinth of a law, we turned to an organization with only one dog in the health-care fight: the truth. ProCon is an award-winning nonprofit charity that operates with the explicit purpose of helping the public make informed decisions about complex social issues. For its 15.7 million readers, ProCon pores through volumes of legislation (in Obamacare’s case, 900 pages worth) and weighs -- in equal measure -- the pros and cons from experts on both sides of the political aisle.

We spoke with Kamy Akhavan, the president and managing editor of ProCon to see what he found out when his reference site posed the core question: Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act good for America?

The answer is a resolute, unequivocal, and thundering... “Eh, we don’t know.”

Unfortunately, the jury is still out on certain nuts and bolts of the bill. Some questions about Obamacare fall into ProCon’s “debated” territory and will likely remain in a sort of speculative limbo until the law’s final implementation. Only then, when it’s laid bare before us in full effect, will we be able to dig in with that scalpel, dissect all its parts, and -- depending on our respective political bents -- either marvel at the innards or run for the restroom.

The good news is, ProCon does have definitive answers right now to many of our burning queries. Following are a sampling with clear-cut yes or no replies that we thought most relevant to Minyanville readers.

1. Can this thing still be repealed?

The big challenge to this came from the constitutional question -- which was answered 5-4 -- so it’s not going to get repealed by the Supreme Court. The other place it could’ve been axed was in Congress. The House of Representatives has voted over 30 times to get rid of Obamacare but it’ll never happen without passing the [Democrat-controlled] Senate. And even if it did pass the Senate, there’s no way Obama would sign it. So, between the Supreme Court, the legislature, and then the president all saying “no,” it looks like Obamacare is here to stay.

2. What parts of the Affordable Care Act have already taken effect?

In September of 2010 we started having coverage for young adults up to age 26 on their parents’ plan. We’ve had free preventative care for services such as mammograms and colonoscopies, being done without a deductible, copay, or coinsurance. Insurance companies can’t rescind your coverage if you make some kind of technical mistake on your form (like forgetting to put your middle initial). If your insurer says, “We don’t approve your new heart valve, our policy doesn’t cover it” you can appeal that. The lifetime limits on insurance coverage were lifted. And this is all nationwide, as federal law. In 2011 we started seeing more services for senior citizens. They can now get free wellness visits and free personalized prevention plans on Medicare.

Also, insurance premium rebates took effect if health insurers profit by more than 15%; so at least 85% of all the premium dollars they collect have to be spent on health-care services and health-care quality improvement. If they spend less than that they have to give back rebates to their members. Here at ProCon, we have received checks from our insurer because they were compelled to do so as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

3. So what’s left to kick in?

January 1, 2014 is when a lot of the meat of Obamacare takes effect. The big ones are the establishment of state-run health insurance exchanges and the individual insurance mandate that requires every single person in the United States to have insurance coverage. If you’re not insured, you have to pay a fine.

4. Is anyone off the hook for buying coverage?

There are literally some exceptions to the mandate. If someone already has insurance through Medicaid, Medicare, an employer, or a veterans health program, they don’t have to buy insurance because they already have it.

Prisoners, undocumented immigrants, some religious groups -- those who have been historically exempt from the Social Security system such as the Old Order Amish and religious groups whose members pay for one another’s health care. Also, if you’re an American Indian and subject to the sovereign laws of your tribal community.

5. How will the fines work for not buying coverage?

It’s a little bit complicated. First, they give you a year and they shake their finger at you. [Referencing the Cleveland Plain Dealer] in 2014, the penalty is either $95 for every adult and $47.50 for every child under the age of 18 in the household, or 1% of taxable income for the household, whichever is larger. And then it gets worse.

In 2015, they start shaking their fist. It's $325 for every adult and $162.50 for every child (up to $975 for a family), or 2% of taxable income, whichever is larger.

In 2016, that fist turns into a foot and it goes up to $695 for every adult and $347.50 for every child (up to $2,085 for a family), or 2.5% of income, whichever is higher. After 2016, the penalty increases annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.

6. How will the subsidies work for those who can’t afford coverage, and what kind of criteria need to be met to qualify?

There will be no penalty for those who can't afford insurance, including those who don't make enough to file federal taxes or whose insurance premiums will cost more than 8% of their household income. The government will help them pay for it and try to do what it can to make that insurance affordable.

The White House says broadly that there will be tax credits for middle class families, small businesses, and millions of Americans will soon be eligible for tax credits, and if you can’t afford insurance, it basically says don’t worry about it, we’ll help you.

The way Consumer Reports describes it, if you buy insurance on an exchange as an individual, you may qualify for a subsidy in the form of a tax credit if your household income is between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level.

7. How does the mandate work for employers?

The way the Affordable Care Act is written, the term “applicable large employer” means a company that employed an average of at least 50 workers during the preceding calendar year. They’ll have to pay a fine of $2,000 per full-time worker if any of their employees turn around and get premium tax credits through the new health insurance exchanges. So if the small business has 51 workers and one of those workers gets a tax credit to help them buy insurance, even though they’re already getting insured through their company, then the business has to pay a $2,000 fine per employee, per year.

8. So the mandate doesn’t apply at all to companies with under 50 employees?

No, and there’s no debate.

9. Can you keep your current coverage?

The White House says yes, and the answer is technically true, but -- and this is a big but -- a lot of the insurance providers will no longer be offering the exact plan. Part of the reason is that Obamacare mandates a certain level of quality and a certain number of services to be offered in their insurance packages. So if the insurance package you currently have doesn’t perform a certain service that Obamacare requires, that insurance plan will likely become a different plan. So your exact same plan may no longer exist because now they have to comply with some of the requirements of Obamacare, which are the ones intended to increase quality coverage.

Whether the forced, low-tier plans will cost more is still subject to debate because -- and this is one of the main theories of the Affordable Care Act -- by mandating that everyone get insurance, they are creating this big carrot for the insurance company. They’re saying we’ll give you 30 million more customers and that will help your bottom line. In exchange for doing that, we’re going to ask that you provide them a little more coverage. And in effect we hope that, on net, it’s a plus for all because more people are insured, you have more customers, they are still profitable, everyone’s happy. That’s the theory.

Whether it increases premiums or not, we won’t know until the mandate has kicked in. I can tell you that [at ProCon] for our particular company plan, our premiums have not gone up. In fact we’ve received rebates. Other people will say the opposite, that their premiums have gone up. So the bottom line is to be determined on that one.

10. Will Obamacare raise my taxes?

There will be 19 new taxes in the form of brand new taxes, fees, and penalties that have never existed and in the elimination of tax deductions. For example, we’ll see a $50,000 tax penalty on charitable hospitals that fail to meet five new requirements, a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers, and a removal of executive salary tax deductions for health insurance companies that compensate executives over 500,000 a year.

For individuals and families, an increased penalty of 20% will apply to early withdrawals from health or medical savings accounts, and people who buy indoor tanning products will incur a 10% excise tax.

11. What if I have [insert chronic disease]? Will I get to participate in the exchange? Will there be a limit on how much carriers can increase my premium, and how can they afford to cover me anyway?

A press release from the Department of Health and Human Services said that under the Affordable Care Act , in 2014, Americans with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage, cannot be charged significantly higher premiums, be subject to an extended waiting period, or have their benefits curtailed by an insurance company.

There’s specific language to the effect that increases have to be reasonable. The government will help subsidize what it calls “high-risk pools” so that it is not as cost-prohibitive for the insurers to offer those types of plans. But the law is very specific in that it says they cannot be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. No debate.

What have we learned today?

For starters, those of us carelessly carting around health insurance ID cards with no middle initial have been getting away with murder. So let’s all breathe a collective “Whew!” for that unwitting feat.

Although tan mom will certainly take a hit from Obamacare, even those among us without home tanning beds can likely expect raised taxes passed down from the companies and hospitals, directly incurring the $1 trillion increase between the 2013 and 2022 budget periods. We also know much of the revenue will be squeezed out of a 0.9% payroll tax and a 3.8% tax on investment income for couples earning over $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000.

Some health-care companies are expected to benefit from the act, however, including the nation's largest hospital operator, HCA Holdings (NYSE:HCA), the largest insurer, UnitedHealthGroup (NYSE:UNH), drug companies like Merck (NYSE:MRK) and pharmacy manager Express Scripts (NASDAQ:ESRX), and drug retailers like CVS (NYSE:CVS) and Walgreen (NYSE:WAG).

Fingers crossed, you’re not doing as well, financially, as you thought. Check out the Department of Health and Human Services poverty level guidelines. If you’re a single earning $44,680, a couple earning $60,520, or a family of four earning $92,200, congratulations, the government thinks you’re just poor enough for a subsidy!

The rise and/or fall of insurance premiums under Obama’s signature law varies by state. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says New Yorkers will see their premiums drop by 50%. So, if rates where you live go up, just move to New York. There’s plenty of room.

Since companies with less than 50 employees are exempt from the mandate, Michael Moore may soon have new fodder for a Downsize This! sequel.

If repealing Obamacare is a matter left to the legislative and executive branches, it seems anti-health-care reformers needn’t despair just yet. The 2014 midterm elections -- when all 435 seats in the House and 33 in the Senate go up for grabs -- are a mere doctor’s checkup away. A mammogram or prostate exam later, and America will have a brand-new president.

And if the White House’s own decision to delay the employer mandate provision is any indication, it may very well be the Obamacare enthusiasts who are left waiting.

Finally, the success of the Affordable Care Act hinges on the participation of the young and the healthy. If this demographic opts out and instead takes the penalty, insurance companies won’t be able to mitigate the cost of the “high-risk pools,” and we can basically count this whole thing as kaput.

IRS Employees Union 'Very Concerned' About Being Required to Enroll in Obamacare

IRS Employees Union Is 'Very Concerned' About Being Required To Enroll In Obamacare's Health Insurance Exchanges

July 27, 2013

Forbes - In the private sector, many workers are concerned about losing their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, and being dumped into Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges. Two weeks ago, representatives of three large labor unions fired off a harsh letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, complaining that Obamacare would “shatter…our hard-earned health benefits” and create “nightmare scenarios” for their members. Today, we learn that the National Treasury Employees Union—the union that includes employees of the Internal Revenue Service—is asking its members to write letters to their Congressmen, stating that they are “very concerned” about legislative efforts requiring IRS and Treasury employees to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges.

“I am a federal employee and one of your constituents,” the letter begins. “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”

Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.), the representative referred to in the letter, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee in the House that is responsible for tax legislation. (Obamacare’s insurance subsidies are technically tax credits.) In April, Camp introduced legislation to put all federal employees on the exchanges, in response to reports that members of Congress and their staff were seeking an exemption from the provision in Obamacare that requires them to enroll in the exchanges.

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement at the time.

There is one legitimate issue regarding members of Congress and their staff enrolling in the exchanges. Today, federal employees are offered subsidies, or vouchers, which they can use to shop for insurance on the popular federal employees’ exchange, called the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. Because Obamacare was drafted so hastily, it’s not clear whether the law allows similar subsidies to flow to federal employees on the Obamacare exchanges.

We’re still awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on that front. For inexplicable reasons, OPM has not clarified whether or not the government will be allowed to funnel subsidies through the Obamacare exchanges.

Nonetheless, it would be a very good thing for some federal employees to eat their own cooking, especially those who work for Congress, the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. They’re the ones who are writing the Obamacare regulations; they’re the ones who, in many cases, wrote the law itself. The IRS enforces Obamacare’s individual mandate and eligibility for the exchange subsidies, among other provisions.

They should be required to enroll in the same Obamacare exchanges that tens of millions of private citizens will have to. They should have to experience the same premium increases and limited flexibility that other Americans will endure there. Maybe then, we’ll start to build a constituency for market-based reform.

House Passes Defense Bill - Surveillance of U.S. Citizens by the NSA will Continue

House narrowly rejects effort to halt NSA program

July 24, 2013

AP - The House narrowly rejected a challenge to the National Security Agency's secret collection of hundreds of millions of Americans' phone records Wednesday night after a fierce debate pitting privacy rights against the government's efforts to thwart terrorism.

The vote was 217-205 on an issue that created unusual political coalitions in Washington, with libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats pressing for the change against the Obama administration, the Republican establishment and Congress' national security experts.

The showdown vote marked the first chance for lawmakers to take a stand on the secret surveillance program since former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden leaked classified documents last month that spelled out the monumental scope of the government's activities.

Backing the NSA program were 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who typically does not vote, and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Rejecting the administration's last-minute pleas to spare the surveillance operation were 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats.

It is unlikely to be the final word on government intrusion to defend the nation and Americans' civil liberties.

"Have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly that we forgot what happened on Sept. 11?" Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said in pleading with his colleagues to back the program during House debate.

Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, chief sponsor of the repeal effort, said his aim was to end the indiscriminate collection of Americans' phone records.

His measure, offered as an addition to a $598.3 billion defense spending bill for 2014, would have canceled the statutory authority for the NSA program, ending the agency's ability to collect phone records and metadata under the USA Patriot Act unless it identified an individual under investigation.

The House later voted to pass the overall defense bill, 315-109.

Amash told the House that his effort was to defend the Constitution and "defend the privacy of every American."

"Opponents of this amendment will use the same tactic that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of rights: Fear," he said. "They'll tell you that the government must violate the rights of the American people to protect us against those who hate our freedom."

The unlikely political coalitions were on full display during a spirited but brief House debate.

"Let us not deal in false narratives. Let's deal in facts that will keep Americans safe," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a member of the Intelligence committee who implored her colleagues to back a program that she argued was vital in combatting terrorism.

But Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who helped write the Patriot Act, insisted "the time has come" to stop the collection of phone records that goes far beyond what he envisioned.

Several Republicans acknowledged the difficulty in balancing civil liberties against national security, but expressed suspicion about the Obama administration's implementation of the NSA programs — and anger at Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

"Right now the balancing is being done by people we do not know. People who lied to this body," said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.

He was referring to Clapper who admitted he gave misleading statements to Congress on how much the U.S. spies on Americans. Clapper apologized to lawmakers earlier this month after saying in March that the U.S. does not gather data on citizens — something that Snowden revealed as false by releasing documents showing the NSA collects millions of phone records.

With a flurry of letters, statements and tweets, both sides lobbied furiously in the hours prior to the vote in the Republican-controlled House. In a last-minute statement, Clapper warned against dismantling a critical intelligence tool.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress has authorized — and a Republican and a Democratic president have signed — extensions of the powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

Two years ago, in a strong bipartisan statement, the Senate voted 72-23 to renew the Patriot Act and the House backed the extension 250-153.

Since the disclosures this year, however, lawmakers have said they were shocked by the scope of the two programs — one to collect records of hundreds of millions of calls and the other allowing the NSA to sweep up Internet usage data from around the world that goes through nine major U.S.-based providers.

Although Republican leaders agreed to a vote on the Amash amendment, one of 100 to the defense spending bill, time for debate was limited to 15 minutes out of the two days the House dedicated to the overall legislation.

The White House and the director of the NSA, Army Gen. Keith Alexander, made last-minute appeals to lawmakers, urging them to oppose the amendment. Rogers and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., leaders of the House Intelligence Committee, implored their colleagues to back the NSA program.

Eight former attorneys general, CIA directors and national security experts wrote in a letter to lawmakers that the two programs are fully authorized by law and "conducted in a manner that appropriately respects the privacy and civil liberties interests of Americans."

White House press secretary Jay Carney issued an unusual, nighttime statement on the eve of Wednesday's vote, arguing that the change would "hastily dismantle one of our intelligence community's counterterrorism tools."

Proponents of the NSA programs argue that the surveillance operations have been successful in thwarting at least 50 terror plots across 20 countries, including 10 to 12 directed at the United States. Among them was a 2009 plot to strike at the New York Stock Exchange.

Rogers joined six GOP chairmen in a letter urging lawmakers to reject the Amash amendment.

"While many members have legitimate questions about the NSA metadata program, including whether there are sufficient protections for Americans' civil liberties," the chairman wrote, "eliminating this program altogether without careful deliberation would not reflect our duty, under Article I of the Constitution, to provide for the common defense."

The overall defense spending bill would provide the Pentagon with $512.5 billion for weapons, personnel, aircraft and ships plus $85.8 billion for the war in Afghanistan for the next budget year.

The total, which is $5.1 billion below current spending, has drawn a veto threat from the White House, which argues that it would force the administration to cut education, health research and other domestic programs in order to boost spending for the Pentagon.

In a leap of faith, the bill assumes that Congress and the administration will resolve the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that have led the Pentagon to furlough workers and cut back on training. The bill projects spending in the next fiscal year at $28.1 billion above the so-called sequester level.

By voice vote, the House backed an amendment that would require the president to seek congressional approval before sending U.S. military forces into the 2-year-old civil war in Syria.

Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla., sponsor of the measure, said Obama has a "cloudy foreign policy" and noted the nation's war weariness after more than 10 years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration is moving ahead with sending weapons to vetted rebels, but Obama and members of Congress have rejected the notion of U.S. ground forces.

The House also adopted, by voice vote, an amendment barring funds for military or paramilitary operations in Egypt. Several lawmakers, including Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, who heads the panel overseeing foreign aid, expressed concerns about the measure jeopardizing the United States' longstanding relationship with the Egyptian military.

The sponsor of the measure, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., insisted that his amendment would not affect that relationship.

The overall bill must be reconciled with whatever measure the Democratic-controlled Senate produces.

Private Owners of Greek Debt Forced to Swallow Losses But Not the European Governments or the European Central Bank

Greek social security funds and other state organisations - holding about €22bn of the bonds, most managed by the country's central bank -- signed up for the Greek debt deal in March 2012. While most Greek pension funds holding Greek sovereign debt have agreed to take part, four have refused to do so having come under pressure from workers' unions worried the writedown on Greek debt holdings will affect the viability of their funds.[Source]


 [2011 Source]

Rival accuses Germany's Merkel of deceit over euro zone bailouts

Private owners of Greek debt were forced to swallow significant losses on their holdings in 2012, but European governments and the European Central Bank, which bought up Greek bonds at the height of the crisis, have refused to take a hit.

July 21, 2013

Reuters - Germany's main opposition leader Peer Steinbrueck accused Chancellor Angela Merkel of covering up the likelihood that German taxpayers will have to fund further euro zone bailouts due to a looming election.

Steinbrueck, who is lagging Merkel in the run-up to the September 22 vote, was quoted by a German magazine on Saturday as saying a fresh writedown on Greek debt would mean losses for public creditors, in other words taxpayers.

"As such, the illusion about not being a union of joint liability would burst like a bubble - possibly even before the federal elections," Steinbrueck told Wirtschaftswoche.

He added it could "not be excluded in any way" that other countries might need further financial help after the election.

Many debt experts believe Europe will have to write off some bailout loans to Greece if the country is to make a successful return to capital markets.

The International Monetary Fund said last month Athens may require additional debt relief as early as next year, although it did not specify what the relief might look like.

Merkel and her government have in recent weeks repeatedly ruled out a further writedown of Greek debt.
An open debate about loan losses could damage Merkel in the run-up to the vote. She is tipped to win a third term, in part because voters believe she has shielded them from such losses during a debt crisis that first erupted in Greece in late 2009.

Private owners of Greek debt were forced to swallow significant losses on their holdings last year, but European governments and the European Central Bank, which bought up Greek bonds at the height of the crisis, have refused to take a hit.

Germany has insisted a writedown of Greek debt held by euro zone governments would be illegal, although Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble suggested late last year that such losses might be considered once Greece achieves a primary surplus.

Who Holds Greek Debt?

April 24, 2011

GreekDefaultWatch.com - As talk grows of Greece restructuring its debt, it is important to take a look at who really holds Greek debt and who will be affected by a potential restructuring. At the end of 2010, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) reported that the Greek government had an outstanding public debt of €340 billion, of which €286 billion was in the form of bonds and short-term notes and €54 billion in the form of loans (see here). Dissecting who holds that debt, however, is a murky exercise. Below is my effort to reconcile the numbers – these are estimates at best and I hope to revisit these numbers as better information becomes available (the graph shows Q3 2010 because that is the last date for which all data is reported).

 Domestic vs. Foreign

The main source for separating domestic versus foreign debt is the Bank of Greece (BoG). The BoG reports the country’s International Investment Position (IIP), which is effectively the country’s assets versus its liabilities (here). At the end of 2010, the BoG reported external liabilities for the General Government of €149 billion (lines 2.2.2.1 + 2.2.2.2). There is also the debt to the Troika under the bail-out plan, which at the end of 2010 was valued at €40 billion (line 4.2.2.3 in the IIP, which also covers some other small liabilities).

There is another tranche, which is less clear cut: bank borrowing from the European Central Bank (ECB). Greek banks borrow from the BoG by posting collateral, including Greek government securities or loans; in turn, the BoG borrows from the ECB. Since these assets remain on Greek banks’ balance sheet, we can classify them as domestic liabilities. Therefore, foreign ownership of Greek debt equals €149 billion + €40 billion = €189 billion, or 56% of total government debt.

Foreign: Details

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes data on bank holdings of Greek public sector assets. So far, the BIS has only published data to Q3 2010, at which time foreign banks reported an ultimate exposure of $71 billion to public sector assets in Greece – or €53 billion (16% of total Greek public debt). The rest of Greek debt held abroad, therefore, belonged to non banks.

Looking at bank claims on the Greek economy, however, it is important to recognize that exposure to the public sector made up just 42% of the total. Exposure to banks was just 8%, while the rest was to the non-bank private sector (50%). Foreign banks also have exposures, comprising of ~$110 billion in derivatives, guarantees extended and credit commitments. If we add these to foreign claims, Greek government debt made up 26% of the total. Foreign banks, therefore, stand to lose more from the ripple effects of a default than from the mere write-down of Greek debt.

Domestic: Details

Domestic: The BoG publishes the Financial Soundness Indicators for Greek credit institutions, which measures, among others, the holdings of Greek securities and loans. At the end of 2010, these amounted to €63 billion, or 12.6% of total assets, which is important but not extreme, leaving €80 billion in the hands of non-credit domestic entities. Although exposure by credit institutions has remained fairly constant since July 2010, given the deteriorating position of Greek banks (see here), government assets form an increasing share of the overall portfolio: from 8.5% in January 2009 to 10% in January 2010 and 12.7% in January 2011. Any restructuring would have an increasingly significant impact on Greek banks.

Conclusions

So what does all this mean? At a high level, bank impairment is less of a risk than the overall balance sheet deterioration that would result from a default. In the foreign sector, claims on Greek government debt are important, but they are only a fourth of overall claims and other exposures on the Greek economy. Importantly, credit to the non-banking private sector is bigger than ownership of government securities.

In the domestic economy, government securities and loans form an ever increasing share of total assets for local banks, and they also form a main pillar of banks’ borrowing strategy. To put these numbers in context, the Greek banking sector has lost €26 billion in deposits since December 2009 – so a €63 billion write-down, even partial, would be big. Even so the non-banking sector would suffer even greater losses, further impairing the balance sheets of households, corporations and other institutions.

Who Owns The Greek Debt Anyway? A List of Banks and Institutions

October 18, 2011

TheDisciplinedInvestor - Bloomberg has scrubbed through statements and reports to put together some of the top holders of Greek debt. If you were wondering who are the parties at most risk, here you have it.

This may not be the total parties that hold the debt as there are countries as well as private investors that are hanging on to a piece of this pie as well.

Israelis, Palestinians Skeptical About Peace Talks

Israelis, Palestinians skeptical about peace talks

July 21, 2013

AP - Israeli and Palestinian officials voiced skepticism Sunday that they can move toward a peace deal, as the sides inched toward what may be the first round of significant negotiations in five years.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced late last week that an agreement has been reached that establishes the basis for resuming peace talks. He cautioned that such an agreement still needs to be formalized, suggesting that gaps remain.

In his first on-camera comment Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to lower expectations by saying the talks will be tough and any agreement would have to be ratified by Israelis in a national referendum.

Netanyahu pledged to insist on Israel's security needs above all — saying his main guiding principles will be to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel and avoid a future Palestinian state in the West Bank becoming an Iranian-backed "terror state."

A lifelong hawk, Netanyahu has been a reluctant latecomer to the idea of Palestinian statehood, and his critics say he uses the pretext of security to avoid engaging in good-faith negotiations.

"I am committed to two objectives that must guide the result — if there will be a result. And if there will be a result, it will be put to a national referendum," he said at the start of his weekly Cabinet meeting. "It won't be easy. But we are entering the talks with integrity, honesty, and hope that this process is handled responsibly, seriously and to the point."

Hardliners have floated referendum proposals before, usually as an attempt to add an additional obstacle to any efforts to cede war-won territories as part of a future peace agreement.

Palestinian officials were silent Sunday.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has not spoken about the possible resumption of negotiations since Kerry's announcement Friday. In an attempt to restrict official Palestinian comment, Abbas' office said only two top aides, Nabil Abu Rdeneh and Yasser Abed Rabbo would be allowed to speak to reporters. Neither was available Sunday.

Abbas had previously refused to negotiate with Israel so long as settlement construction continued in part of his hoped-for state. Netanyahu countered by saying he would only enter talks without preconditions.

The two sides are now set to hold more talks in Washington in coming days or weeks on the framework of negotiations, meaning a resumption of talks is not yet assured.

Gaps remain on three issues Palestinians say need to be settled before talks can begin — the baseline for border talks, the extent of a possible Israeli settlement slowdown and a timetable for releasing veteran Palestinian prisoners.

The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast War. Abbas seeks a commitment from Netanyahu that Israel's pre-1967 border will serve as a baseline for negotiations, but the Israeli leader has refused to do so. Previous rounds of negotiations were conducted on those lines.

Two Palestinian officials said Saturday that Abbas agreed to resume talks only after Kerry gave him a letter guaranteeing that the pre-1967 borders would serve as a baseline. The officials, privy to internal discussions, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media.

A Western official denied the 1967 borders would be the starting point for negotiators.

Israel has said it will release some Palestinian prisoners as a good will gesture, but there are few other official details to emerge about the framework of the talks.

The actual talks are to produce a deal on the borders between Israel and a future Palestine, a partition of Jerusalem, the fate of refugees and security arrangements.

While a majority of Israelis support a two-state solution with the Palestinians, polls suggest there is less support for a partition of Jerusalem.

The Palestinians want east Jerusalem as their future capital. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and the territory has since been taken over by the Islamic militant Hamas group that does not accept Abbas' authority.

Israel and the Palestinians have engaged in several rounds of negotiations since Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized each other in 1993.

At least twice, in 2001 and in 2008, the two sides reportedly made significant progress. Since then, many on both sides have become skeptical about a possible deal.

Palestinians suspect Netanyahu is interested in the process of negotiations, as a diplomatic cover, but not in an actual deal. Israelis fear territory they hand over to a weak Abbas could quickly turn into a staging ground for attacks on them by Palestinian militants, as happened in Gaza.

"The chances for a permanent solution are not high," Interior Minister Gideon Saar told Israel Radio. "The Palestinians are not ready to make the historic decision to end the conflict between them and us."

The Palestinians, too, were hardly optimistic.

"We are skeptical about these talks because the Israelis are not going to stop building in the settlements and because they didn't accept the '67 borders," said Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of Abbas' Fatah Party. "What we got in return for going back to negotiations is an American pledge that the talks will be on the '67 borders, and historically the Americans always gave us such pledges but they never abided by these pledges."

Unions Say Obamacare Will Shatter Backbone of Middle Class

Unions: Obamacare Will Shatter Backbone of Middle Class

July 17, 2013

Wall St Cheat Sheet - The Affordable Care Act now has a formidable opponent in U.S. labor unions. The unions were a key ally in the law’s passage: They spent a large sum of money on the congressional campaigns of Democrats in 2006 and 2008, and union leaders lobbied in favor of health care reform in 2009 and 2010. But with growing worries that the legislation will disrupt the health benefits of its members, America’s largest unions are asking Congress to step in.
 

Representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions sent a letter to Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Nancy Pelosi of California on Thursday.

“When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat,” letter said. 

“Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

The letter was written by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald Taylor, the president of Unite-Here, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.

Their letter noted that their respective unions have long been supporters of the idea that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. 

“We have also been strong supporters of you,” the three union presidents wrote. “In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.”

But the problem is that “this vision has come back to haunt us.”

The union leadership is seeking “reasonable regulatory interpretations” to the Affordable Care Act that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. However, according to the letter, earlier requests for government action have been “disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies.” In their opinion, this disregard compares unfavorably with how the administration responded to requests made by other so-called stakeholders, citing the government’s decision to make a “huge accommodation” for the employer community by extending the deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

“Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it,” wrote the union leaders. “The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.”

The letter lists three complaints. First, that the law creates an incentive for employers to keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week. Second, that millions of Americans, including a great majority of union members, are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans. But with the implementation of Obamacare, union workers will be “treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens.” Finally, the letter argued that while union, nonprofit plans will not receive the same subsidies, they will be taxed to pay for those subsidies.

Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor believe that there are “common-sense” fixes that can be made to the legislation that will allow union members to keep their current plans and benefits as Congress and President Barack Obama promised. Unless the changes are made, they said that pledge is hollow.

“We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions,” the letter concluded.

Thousands Lost Their Savings in Two Major Banks in Cyprus

IMF, EU inspectors start quizzing Cyprus on bailout progress

July 17, 2013

Reuters - Cyprus's international lenders began reviewing how the island is meeting the conditions of it 10 billion euro bailout on Wednesday, looking to see whether it should get the next tranche of aid.

The appraisal is the first since Cyprus secured a deal with the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank in March, pulling the cash-starved country away from the brink of financial meltdown.

It dealt a harsh blow to thousands who lost their savings in two major Cypriot banks, however.

Nicosia received a first tranche of aid in June worth 3 billion euros and euro zone finance ministers will decide on whether to issue the next tranche in mid-September, the size of which is yet to be determined.

Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades said last month that some provisions of the bailout deal needed tweaking to address problems in the island's battered banking sector.

Cyprus had to wind down one lender, Laiki Bank, and use customer deposits exceeding 100,000 euros to prop up another, Bank of Cyprus, as part of the bailout agreement.

One area of focus for the so-called troika of lenders during the two-week review will be why the central bank has yet to finalize how much equity Bank of Cyprus shareholders will receive in exchange for giving up their deposits, a process known as a bail-in.

Finance Ministry officials are keen to see the resolution settled, worried that the uncertainty it is causing is preventing an easing of capital controls, introduced to prevent a cash flight after the bailout was agreed in March.

"Swiftly exiting the resolution status would allow us to take new steps to further ease, and ultimately eliminate capital controls," Finance Minister Harris Georgiades said on Tuesday.

An independent audit of Bank of Cyprus assets is under way, which would define precisely how much of depositors' cash would be seized.

The island has promised its lenders that it would consider the option of selling some of its gold reserves to help pay down its debt but Georgiades said on Tuesday that that was only one option under consideration.

Under the bailout, Cyprus has agreed to cut its budget deficit to 2.4 percent of GDP in 2016, from an estimated 5.9 percent this year.

Although foreign banks on the island were exempt from most restrictions imposed under the bailout, customers at banks in Cyprus are limited to withdrawals of up to 300 euros a day, cheques cannot be cashed and bank transfers are vetted.

Those restrictions are adding to an acute credit crunch caused by financial institutions which are jittery about their balance sheets in a rapidly deteriorating economy and have put the brakes on lending, economists say.

"Banks aren't lending," said economist Yiannis Tirkides, who did not wish to disclose the name of his company. "A lot has to do with expectations, and that contributes to the uncertainty," he said.