July 15, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-the-government-do-to-improve-cybersecurity/

What can the government do to improve cybersecurity?
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
July 15, 2015

Play VIDEO -- OPM director resigns after hacking fallout
Play VIDEO -- McCaul: OPM data hack “most significant” government breach ever


Nearly 22 million Americans had their personal information stolen in a major breach of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) databases, the federal government acknowledged this week.

The Obama administration insists it's already taking steps to respond to the massive hack and to lessen the risk of future breaches. For starters, the administration is replacing the head of the OPM. Even so, some members of Congress say Mr. Obama isn't off the hook just yet.

"We will hold the president accountable for restoring the public's confidence," House GOP leaders said in a group statement Friday.

The administration can indeed take concrete steps to improve the government's cybersecurity and restore public confidence -- but so could Congress.

For starters, Congress can reform the Computer Security Act of 1987, Jim Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told CBS News.

"The problem here is really Congress," Lewis said. "Because in 1987, Congress passed a law that said [the National Security Agency] can't protect civilian agencies. It's got to be one of the world's dumbest laws, but it's still on the books, and so OPM was not being protected by NSA."

That limitation is "a lot of the reason" this OPM hack succeeded, he said, "because you did not have the best defenders able to work with a civilian agency. That needs to change."

On top of that Congress, needs to streamline its oversight of cybersecurity measures, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, told CBS.

"There's something like over 80 different committees or subcommittees that have a role in cyber," he said. "Is that the most effective way to proceed?"

He noted that the Defense Department has already taken steps to consolidate its cyber efforts. "I think that's something I'm going to be looking at... moving forward with ways to consolidate 82 different subcommittees into a group that actually understands all elements," he said.

In the meantime, as the slow-moving legislative body considers its next steps, the administration is implementing basic security measures -- like two-step authentication -- to prevent further cyber attacks.

"There is an ongoing effort to... accelerate reforms that need to be adopted... One of those is two-factor authentication," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday. He called it a security measure that is becoming "more and more common" and that OMB " is trying to accelerate all across the government."

Additionally, he said the government is reassessing the number of "privileged users" who have greater access to government databases.

"One of the things our experts tell us is that it's important to limit the number of privileged users," Earnest said. "It's also important to think about the capability given to those privileged users. It's possible and important to closely monitor the activity of privileged users."

On top of that Congress, needs to streamline its oversight of cybersecurity measures, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, told CBS.

"There's something like over 80 different committees or subcommittees that have a role in cyber," he said. "Is that the most effective way to proceed?"



“The administration can indeed take concrete steps to improve the government's cybersecurity and restore public confidence -- but so could Congress. For starters, Congress can reform the Computer Security Act of 1987, Jim Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told CBS News. "The problem here is really Congress," Lewis said. "Because in 1987, Congress passed a law that said [the National Security Agency] can't protect civilian agencies. It's got to be one of the world's dumbest laws, but it's still on the books, and so OPM was not being protected by NSA." …. On top of that Congress, needs to streamline its oversight of cybersecurity measures, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, told CBS. "There's something like over 80 different committees or subcommittees that have a role in cyber," he said. "Is that the most effective way to proceed?" …. On top of that Congress, needs to streamline its oversight of cybersecurity measures, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, told CBS. "There's something like over 80 different committees or subcommittees that have a role in cyber," he said. "Is that the most effective way to proceed?"

Two factor identification and “privileged users”? The first sounds like Username and Password to me? The second brings up more questions – who are they, how did they come to be so privileged, and what are they able to do? Is it possible that our basic policies haven’t changed since 1987? Third, exactly what data was hacked in this case? Finally, neither President Obama nor any recently amended set of procedures was involved, so this 1987 law rules the day. Also mentioned in the article is the fact that a whopping 82 subcommittees have control over cybersecurity, which means that nobody does. One of my favorite old jokes is “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.” Eighty-two committees in control of the situation is even worse. It’s nobody’s personal responsibility that way, and undoubtedly very difficult to find out exactly what all the rules are. Yet, the Congressional Republicans jumped on Obama to blame him personally even before any problems have actually occurred. That’s just like the recently planned Iran nuclear reduction plan, with Congress saying it’s a huge mistake before anyone has even read it, and declaring that Iran can’t be trusted to abide by the agreement. The whole goal is making brownie points with the “conservative” citizenry here in the US and with Netanyahu in Israel. That’s the same people who have commented on a recent poll in favor of Donald Trump for president. I don’t see how anyone could have much respect for him. He's sleazy and not overly bright.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jade-helm-15-army-war-simulation-decried-by-archconservatives-begins-in-texas/

Army war simulation decried by archconservatives begins in Texas
CBS/AP
July 15, 2015

Photograph -- Jade Helm 15 will extend across seven Southwestern states.
KEYE

BASTROP, Texas -- A summer military training exercise that has aroused alarm among archconservative Texans begins Wednesday outside the Central Texas town of Bastrop.

Summer military training exercises are common, and Jade Helm 15 will extend across seven Southwestern states.

However, marking Texas one of two "hostile" territories for training purposes prompted conspiracy theories of martial law and firearms confiscations. Gov. Greg Abbott gave a nod to the panic when he directed the Texas State Guard to monitor the operation.

On Tuesday, Abbott's staff said monitoring will consist of daily briefings in Austin. However, civilian volunteers say they'll shadow military movements around Texas.

Training will occur in Camp Swift near Bastrop and 12 Texas counties, with airborne operations next month at Camp Bullis, near San Antonio. Jade Helm 15 wraps up in September.

Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique.

CBS affiliate KEYE reported that seven states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones.

In April, more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.

In a press release, the U.S. Army said that most of the training will be conducted in remote areas, so "the public can expect nothing much different from their day-to-day activities."




“However, marking Texas one of two "hostile" territories for training purposes prompted conspiracy theories of martial law and firearms confiscations. Gov. Greg Abbott gave a nod to the panic when he directed the Texas State Guard to monitor the operation. On Tuesday, Abbott's staff said monitoring will consist of daily briefings in Austin. However, civilian volunteers say they'll shadow military movements around Texas. …. Such war simulations aren't unusual, though the Army has acknowledged that the size and scope of Jade Helm makes it unique. CBS affiliate KEYE reported that seven states are hosting the exercises on public and private lands. The Army says the terrain and topography in the areas selected are ideal to replicate foreign combat zones. …. In April, more than 200 people packed a meeting in rural Bastrop County and questioned a U.S. Army commander about whether the government was planning to confiscate guns or implement martial law. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said "conspiracy theorists" and "fear mongers" had been in a frenzy.”

A number of local Floridians in the Jacksonville area have been disturbed over these various “conspiracy theories,” the case I remember being about fifteen years ago when two women in my apartment neighborhood were venting about “black helicopters” which they had seen in the area. I had seen army helicopters and said so. At the time there was a rumor that the UN was somehow active in our US government, and they were thought to be piloting the “black helicopters.” There are two military bases in Jacksonville, both of which use troop carrying helicopters that are black or dark colored, and very large. They are not however involved in martial law or the confiscation of guns. The amount of “conservative” hysteria in the South and West is, in and of itself, more than a little scary to me. Perhaps we may end up needed martial law after all at this rate. I know. I know. I shouldn’t have said that!!





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-will-an-iran-deal-mean-for-global-oil-prices/

What will an Iran deal mean for global oil prices?
By BRUCE KENNEDY
MONEYWATCH
July 13, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Iran nuclear deal finally within reach?

After weeks of negotiations, deadline extensions, threats to walk away from the talks and promises to work out the sticking points, a long-sought-after international agreement with Iran could be within reach.

Six nations, including the United States, have been working with Iranian officials on a deal that would end most economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Tehran freezing its nuclear program.

And while the geopolitical impact of such a deal is still being considered, global oil prices have been reacting for days, now: falling steadily in anticipation of a possible accord at the talks in Vienna.

Of course the price of crude oil has been declining for months. Higher global supplies, due in part to the North American shale oil boom, have been pressuring the market for more than a year now, while the slowing-down of economic growth in China and ongoing concerns over Greece and the eurozone's future are also contributing to the overall drop.

And now analysts are seriously contemplating what the introduction of more Iranian crude oil to the global market might mean for both businesses and consumers.

Iran currently exports about 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, down from its 2.2 million bpd level ten years ago, before sanctions were imposed.

And last month Iran's oil minister said his nation could produce an extra 500,000 extra bpd within a month of the current sanctions being lifted, and an additional one million bpd within six months of that time. And he added that the additional production would "not have a negative impact" on the global oil market.

Jeff Mower, director of Americas Oil News for the Platts energy and commodities information firm, says there are too many unresolved variables to consider for anyone to exactly predict what the markets will do, if and when an Iran agreement is reached.

For example, would OPEC consider shaving back its production numbers if member-nation Iran is given the go-ahead? "So far they don't seem too interested in that," says Mower, who also points to the news that Saudi Arabia increased its crude production to a record-high 10.56 million bpd last month.

And with prices on two benchmark crude oils approaching the $50 a barrel level, Bank of America Merrill Lynch recently projected that U.S. crude prices "could soon drop well below our $50 per barrel target" in the third quarter of this year.

Mower also wonders how much farther oil can drop before the markets see a further, substantial decline. But he reminds consumers that even if Iran starts adding more oil to the international crude oil market, there isn't a direct link between crude oil and prices at the gas pump.

"The gasoline market has its own fundamentals," he adds. "Even though crude prices were dropping we saw gasoline prices really holding up. You can have all sorts of other things playing into the gasoline market; (such as) higher demands for gasoline or supply disruptions."




“Of course the price of crude oil has been declining for months. Higher global supplies, due in part to the North American shale oil boom, have been pressuring the market for more than a year now, while the slowing-down of economic growth in China and ongoing concerns over Greece and the eurozone's future are also contributing to the overall drop. And now analysts are seriously contemplating what the introduction of more Iranian crude oil to the global market might mean for both businesses and consumers. …. Mower also wonders how much farther oil can drop before the markets see a further, substantial decline. But he reminds consumers that even if Iran starts adding more oil to the international crude oil market, there isn't a direct link between crude oil and prices at the gas pump.”

So I guess this price of oil is almost certainly yet another reason why Republicans and the infamous Kochs don’t want our relationship with Iran improved or normalized. The removal of the sanctions would be bad for business. That’s always what’s going on in Republican thought. Personally if it means that gasoline prices drop that can’t be a bad thing for me.





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/14/422881194/eric-garner-s-family-urges-justice-department-to-prosecute-officer

Eric Garner's Family Urges Justice Department To Prosecute Officer
Bill Chappell
July 14, 2015

Photograph -- Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner, speaks at a news conference at the National Action Network in New York a day after settling a $5.9 million wrongful death case with the city. At far right is Garner's widow, Esaw Garner.
Brendan McDermid/Reuters/Landov

Having reached a $5.9 million settlement with New York City over Eric Garner's death last summer, Garner's family says they want a federal indictment of a police officer who helped restrain him. A county grand jury previously opted not to indict officer Daniel Pantaleo, who had his arm wrapped around Garner's neck in a chokehold as Garner struggled to breathe.

"They deserve to be prosecuted. They treated my husband like an animal," Garner's widow, Esaw Garner, said of the police officers who were involved.

The U.S. Justice Department announced its own inquiry into Garner's death last December; that inquiry is ongoing.

Garner's family held a news conference alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton on Tuesday, the day after their settlement with the city was announced. In addition to calling for U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to prosecute Pantaleo, the family is planning a rally Saturday to mark the anniversary of Garner's death.

Noting the settlement, Garner's mother, Gwen Carr, said: "Don't congratulate us. This is not a victory. The victory will come when we get justice."

Sharpton said: "Money is not justice. Money is a recognition of the loss of the family. But it does not deal with the criminal wrong." He later added, "They want justice, and they want to fight for justice for others."

Garner died July 17 in Staten Island, N.Y., as the result of an encounter with police that was recorded on video. The widely seen footage showed Garner, who was accused of selling loose, untaxed cigarettes, being taken to the ground by a group of police officers, including Pantaleo.

In the video, Garner was heard saying repeatedly, "I can't breathe."

The New York Medical Examiner eventually ruled Garner's death a homicide, but a grand jury decided not to indict Pantaleo.

The Garner family also reached a settlement with Richmond University Medical Center, which sent responders to the scene. The amount of that settlement has not been publicly revealed.

As news site Staten Island Live reported earlier this year, Pantaleo has been named in several lawsuits, ranging from pending action by the Garner family to other cases. Those claims range from his alleged role in a 2014 car crash to a city settlement over the treatment of two suspects in 2012.




"They deserve to be prosecuted. They treated my husband like an animal," Garner's widow, Esaw Garner, said of the police officers who were involved. The U.S. Justice Department announced its own inquiry into Garner's death last December; that inquiry is ongoing. Garner's family held a news conference alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton on Tuesday, the day after their settlement with the city was announced. In addition to calling for U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to prosecute Pantaleo, the family is planning a rally Saturday to mark the anniversary of Garner's death. …. As news site Staten Island Live reported earlier this year, Pantaleo has been named in several lawsuits, ranging from pending action by the Garner family to other cases. Those claims range from his alleged role in a 2014 car crash to a city settlement over the treatment of two suspects in 2012.”

Pantaleo has a prior history of mistreating a suspect and has been “named in several lawsuits,” so maybe the Feds will prosecute him for a crime in this case. When careless or overly violent cops are removed from the force rather than merely reprimanded, the justice situation in the US will improve. As for right now, we wait to hear what will happen. Same song, second verse.





http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/07/14/422563704/would-banning-headers-in-soccer-solve-the-concussion-problem

Would Banning Headers In Soccer Solve The Concussion Problem?
Jessie Rack
July 14, 2015

Photograph -- Germany's Alexandra Popp and the U.S.'s Morgan Brian collide during a World Cup semifinal in June. Both were injured, but continued to play. Brad Smith//ISI/Corbis
Photograph -- Making and taking a hit chest to chest, instead of skull to skull, is easier to remember if you're not wearing a helmet, say University of New Hampshire Wildcat football players.
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS

Heading the ball in soccer has been accused of causing most concussions. But the hazard may be more due to rough play than to one particular technique, researchers say.

The risks involved in heading — when a player uses their head to keep the ball in play — are not new. But Dawn Comstock, an injury epidemiologist at the University of Colorado's School of Public Health, wanted to know if headers are indeed the chief cause of concussions.

She became curious after learning of the Safer Soccer Campaign, a collaboration between the Sports Legacy Institute and several former U.S. Women's soccer stars that was formed to try to ban heading in youth players under age 14. Though she respected their motives, Comstock wanted to be sure the changes the group proposed would really make a difference. "I like to see kids kept safe," she says, "but I like to see that the evidence is data-driven."

To find out the cause and frequency of concussions in youth soccer, Comstock and her colleagues looked at nine years of data on high school soccer players. They found that although heading is the phase of play most frequently associated with concussions, accounting for 30 percent of concussions in boys and 25 percent in girls, many concussions weren't coming from the impact of the player's head with the ball. Instead, most concussions, including those that happened while heading the ball, resulted from athletes colliding.

Concussions Can Be More Likely In Practices Than In Games

The study, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, showed that athlete-athlete contact was responsible for 69 percent of concussions in boys and 51 percent of concussions in girls.

"Our takeaway from that," Comstock says, "is yes, if you ban heading in soccer, you would prevent some concussions." But, she says, enforcing the rules of the game might make a bigger difference. "They're willing to completely eliminate a phase of play," she says, "But nobody is willing to address the elephant in the room, which is rough play."

A lot of the athlete-athlete contact is unnecessary and illegal, Comstock says, and can be controlled by playing by the rules. "Coach fair play, coach technique," she says, "And ensure officials enforce the rules of the game."

One problem is that this aggression plays out on the world stage—and on our TVs at home. Like that heart-stopping moment in the Women's World Cup semifinal game when Morgan Brian and Alexandra Popp collided in mid-air. Both women were attempting to head the ball; their heads cracked together and both crumpled to the ground. "Our children emulate what they see their sports stars do," Comstock says. "If they see the women in the World Cup playing so aggressively, they will translate that to the field." But we have the ability to stop it, she says. "We control the level of aggressiveness we see."

And if we are permissive about athlete-athlete contact, if we look the other way when the rules are broken, we foster an environment where players can get hurt, she says. In that case, a ban on heading would be better than nothing. "If we're not going to control the aggressive play, if we keep letting soccer evolve into a game that's starting to look like football, by all means ban heading," she says. "We will keep some kids safe."

Other studies have found similar results, including one by John O'Kane, a sports physician and professor at the University of Washington Medical Center who was not involved in the study. He, too, thinks that banning heading might not solve the whole problem. "Heading is part of the sport and while there is risk involved, no sport is completely safe," he says via email. "The question is how to make heading and soccer in general safer, especially for kids."

O'Kane agrees with the call to reduce contact between players. "I believe that we place an emphasis on winning over learning proper technique at too young an age," he says, "The result is teams with big, fast aggressive players that win by running over people instead of playing good soccer."

One concern O'Kane has with Comstock's study is that it relies on the players to report their own injuries to an athletic trainer, and not all players do. Comstock acknowledges that this is a limitation, but says concussions are tricky to diagnose conclusively. It's not like a broken bone, where a doctor can order an X-ray; most concussions are diagnosed based on self-reported symptoms. "This [study], we feel, is a reliable snapshot of what's actually happening to athletes in a high school setting across the U.S.," she says.

One thing Comstock doesn't want, she says, is for parents to see the results of her work and pull their kids out of sports. "I want more kids to play sports more often," she says. "I just want all adults around youth sports to keep them safe." And she thinks that controlling aggression might be the best way to do that.

"Every kid just wants to play," she says. "They'll play by whatever rules you tell them they have to."




“The risks involved in heading — when a player uses their head to keep the ball in play — are not new. But Dawn Comstock, an injury epidemiologist at the University of Colorado's School of Public Health, wanted to know if headers are indeed the chief cause of concussions. She became curious after learning of the Safer Soccer Campaign, a collaboration between the Sports Legacy Institute and several former U.S. Women's soccer stars that was formed to try to ban heading in youth players under age 14. Though she respected their motives, Comstock wanted to be sure the changes the group proposed would really make a difference. "I like to see kids kept safe," she says, "but I like to see that the evidence is data-driven." …. ." But, she says, enforcing the rules of the game might make a bigger difference. "They're willing to completely eliminate a phase of play," she says, "But nobody is willing to address the elephant in the room, which is rough play." A lot of the athlete-athlete contact is unnecessary and illegal, Comstock says, and can be controlled by playing by the rules. "Coach fair play, coach technique," she says, "And ensure officials enforce the rules of the game." …. "Our children emulate what they see their sports stars do," Comstock says. "If they see the women in the World Cup playing so aggressively, they will translate that to the field." But we have the ability to stop it, she says. "We control the level of aggressiveness we see." …. . In that case, a ban on heading would be better than nothing. "If we're not going to control the aggressive play, if we keep letting soccer evolve into a game that's starting to look like football, by all means ban heading," she says. "We will keep some kids safe." …. O'Kane agrees with the call to reduce contact between players. "I believe that we place an emphasis on winning over learning proper technique at too young an age," he says, "The result is teams with big, fast aggressive players that win by running over people instead of playing good soccer." One concern O'Kane has with Comstock's study is that it relies on the players to report their own injuries to an athletic trainer, and not all players do. …. One thing Comstock doesn't want, she says, is for parents to see the results of her work and pull their kids out of sports. "I want more kids to play sports more often," she says. "I just want all adults around youth sports to keep them safe." And she thinks that controlling aggression might be the best way to do that. "Every kid just wants to play," she says. "They'll play by whatever rules you tell them they have to."

I personally have never felt that sports should be placed on a pedestal above academic achievement in any phase of schooling. The idea used to be that it builds teamwork, but it also builds a lack of individuality that can have shocking results – a lynch mob some 50 years ago, or a group assault on some student who is perhaps small and/or mentally disturbed. Too often the participants in those activities are not punished. In the matter of “rough play,” it should not be condoned on the grounds that the victim by his appearance or behavior “caused” the attack. We are failing to build a strong and ethical individuality in this country. These things need to start in Junior High School or before, so that teens can grow into a benign appreciation of others needs and rights. Hopefully if that were to happen our society would have less violence of all kinds built into its structure.





Hillary vs Bernie


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-unveils-her-vision-for-the-economy/

Hillary Clinton unveils her vision for the economy
By HANNAH FRASER-CHANPONG, REBECCA KAPLAN
CBS NEWS
July 13, 2015

Photograph -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a campaign event in New York, Monday, July 13, 2015. SETH WENIG, AP

NEW YORK, New York -- Hillary Clinton unveiled her vision for the economy Monday, placing her focus squarely on boosting the middle class through a three-part plan to create jobs, reduce income inequality and hold financial institutions more accountable.

"Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead," she said in a speech at the New School, a progressive university in New York City. "But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to make it strong again."


Clinton, in the first major economic policy speech of her campaign, proposed expanding the workforce, especially for women, through both private and public investments, better benefits and lower healthcare costs for workers, and a reformed, more balanced tax code. Her goal, she said, was to create more "pathways" into the middle class.

"The defining challenge of our time is clear," she said. "We must raise incomes for hard working Americans so they can afford a middle class life."

Clinton drew a stark comparison with her counterparts on the Republican side of the race. She took aim first at Jeb Bush, who Clinton pounced on last week for saying that "people need to work longer hours" in an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader.

"Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day, or the teacher who in that classroom or the trucker who drives all night," she said. "They do not need a lecture, they need a raise."

But Bush was not talking about the work ethic of Americans. In a press conference with reporters after a town hall in Hudson, New Hampshire, he said that his words had been "taken out of context" and that he was referring to the need for people to have the opportunity for full-time work.


"If we're going to grow the economy people need to stop being part-time workers, they need to have access to greater opportunities to work," Bush said.

Clinton went on to attack by name Sen. Marco Rubio on his tax reform plan, calling it "bad economics" to cut taxes for the wealthy, and Gov. Scott Walker, whom she said has "made [his] name stomping on workers' rights." Walker will formally enter the race Monday night in Waukesha, Wisconsin, the site of his 2012 recall election victory.

Five things to know about Scott Walker
"I will fight back against these mean-spirited attacks," she said.

Though Clinton made Republicans her main foil as she laid out her plans, she also differentiated herself from Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who has recently been gaining on her in the polls. Sanders' arguments for promoting economic fairness -- in part by reducing the amount of wealth going to the richest Americans -- are helping him to draw crowds numbering in the thousands at his campaign rallies.

Sanders' definition of the "defining challenge" is different from Clinton's. He uses the phrase to describe the wealth gap between poor and working Americans and the wealthy and said in an interview with the Washington Post that he would sacrifice economic growth in favor of redistribution. Though narrowing that gap is part of the plan she described Monday, Clinton distinguished herself from Sanders by emphasizing that the middle class must rise along with corporate profits and executive compensation.

Clinton proposed measures like raising the minimum wage and investing in an infrastructure bank to create jobs, both which Sanders also supports, but also talked about immigration as an "engine of strong growth" and called on companies to expand profit-sharing programs. And while Sanders has called definitively for a breakup of the big banks, Clinton introduced a more nuanced plan to regulate the financial industry.

"We have to go beyond Dodd-Frank," she said. "Too-big-to-fail is still too big of a problem."

Clinton said major financial institutions today are still "too complex" and that a "shadow banking system" of hedge funds and high frequency trading is creating new threats to American consumers.

"While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases, admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences or none at all," she said. "This is wrong and under my watch, it will change."

Clinton laid the groundwork for a separate policy speech on Wall Street reform, as well as a series of more specific announcements in the coming weeks on other economic policies like wage growth, college affordability and paid leave. Clinton will travel to New Hampshire later this week, where she is expected to talk more about incentives to encourage corporate profit-sharing.






http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-bernie-sanders-plans-win-2016-change-washington/

Why Bernie Sanders thinks he'll succeed where Obama failed
By REBECCA KAPLAN
FACE THE NATION
July 12, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Sanders will not engage in personal attacks with Hillary Clinton

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, says he'll be able to build a giant grassroots movement of support to win the Democratic nomination and the 2016 election, but that he'll also go one step further than President Obama did successfully harness his grassroots support to change Washington.

In an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sanders said that the president ran "one of the great campaigns in the history of the United States of America" in 2008, but he also made a mistake by trying to negotiate fair compromises with Republicans and their leadership in Congress.


"The truth is Republicans never wanted to negotiate, all they wanted to do is obstruct," Sanders said. "What I have said throughout this campaign is electing Bernie Sanders as president is not enough. Not going to do it. We need a mass grassroots movement that looks the Republicans in the eye and says, 'If you don't vote to demand that your wealthy people start paying their fair share of taxes, if you don't vote for jobs, raising the minimum wage and expanding Social Security, we know what's going on, we're involved, we're organized, you are outta here if you don't do the right thing.'"

He plans to build that grassroots coalition by bringing more people into the political process and focusing heavily on poverty and income inequality.

"I'm going to be going around the country not only to blue states...but to red states, conservative states. We're going to go to Alabama, we're going to go to Mississippi," Sanders said. "I think the message that we have is resonating. People are going to get involved in the political process, we're going to drive turnout up and when we do that we win."


Sanders has been attracting thousands of people to his campaign events and gaining in the polls against Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination. He still resists personal attacks against Clinton, but is quick to draw differences in their positions. Sanders cites his commitment to breaking up large financial institutions on Wall Street, his vote against the Iraq War, and opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

In a separate interview on "Face the Nation," House Speaker John Boehner predicted that Sanders will give Clinton "a real run for her money" in the Democratic primary but said that both candidates are "out of step with mainstream America" because "there's no limit to the number of taxes that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want to raise."

Sanders responded by going after Boehner for refusing to bring up legislation to raise the minimum wage, which has broad support among the American people. He also said the Republican Party defies Americans' wishes by looking to privatize or cut Social Security benefits and being reluctant to spend any money to rebuild infrastructure.

"In terms, John, of who's out of touch with the American people I would say the Republican Party is," Sanders told host John Dickerson. "They want to give tax breaks to billionaires not help the middle class."

Play VIDEO -- Sanders: "I am a great fan of Pope Francis"In the interview, Sanders also declared himself "a great fan of Pope Francis" for his vocal criticism of income inequality in the U.S. "I think Pope Francis has played an extraordinary, extraordinary role. He has been a voice of conscience all over the world speaking out for those people who don't have a voice, those people who are suffering, and what he's saying is enough is enough," Sanders said. "Money cannot be the god of life...We have got to come together to create a new world and not a world in which a handful of people have so much wealth and so many other people are suffering."

Francis will address a joint session of Congress on Sept. 24 during his visit to the United States.




CLINTON -- “Hillary Clinton unveiled her vision for the economy Monday, placing her focus squarely on boosting the middle class through a three-part plan to create jobs, reduce income inequality and hold financial institutions more accountable. …proposed expanding the workforce, especially for women, through both private and public investments, better benefits and lower healthcare costs for workers, and a reformed, more balanced tax code. Her goal, she said, was to create more "pathways" into the middle class. "The defining challenge of our time is clear," she said. "We must raise incomes for hard working Americans so they can afford a middle class life." …. Sanders' definition of the "defining challenge" is different from Clinton's. He uses the phrase to describe the wealth gap between poor and working Americans and the wealthy and said in an interview with the Washington Post that he would sacrifice economic growth in favor of redistribution. Though narrowing that gap is part of the plan she described Monday, Clinton distinguished herself from Sanders by emphasizing that the middle class must rise along with corporate profits and executive compensation. …. Clinton proposed measures like raising the minimum wage and investing in an infrastructure bank to create jobs, both which Sanders also supports, but also talked about immigration as an "engine of strong growth" and called on companies to expand profit-sharing programs. And while Sanders has called definitively for a breakup of the big banks, Clinton introduced a more nuanced plan to regulate the financial industry. …. Clinton said major financial institutions today are still "too complex" and that a "shadow banking system" of hedge funds and high frequency trading is creating new threats to American consumers. "While institutions have paid large fines and in some cases, admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences or none at all," she said. "This is wrong and under my watch, it will change." …. other economic policies like wage growth, college affordability and paid leave. Clinton will travel to New Hampshire later this week, where she is expected to talk more about incentives to encourage corporate profit-sharing.”

SANDERS -- In an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sanders said that the president ran "one of the great campaigns in the history of the United States of America" in 2008, but he also made a mistake by trying to negotiate fair compromises with Republicans and their leadership in Congress. "The truth is Republicans never wanted to negotiate, all they wanted to do is obstruct," Sanders said. …. We need a mass grassroots movement that looks the Republicans in the eye and says, 'If you don't vote to demand that your wealthy people start paying their fair share of taxes, if you don't vote for jobs, raising the minimum wage and expanding Social Security, we know what's going on, we're involved, we're organized, you are outta here if you don't do the right thing.'" …. "I'm going to be going around the country not only to blue states...but to red states, conservative states. We're going to go to Alabama, we're going to go to Mississippi," Sanders said. "I think the message that we have is resonating. People are going to get involved in the political process, we're going to drive turnout up and when we do that we win." Sanders has been attracting thousands of people to his campaign events and gaining in the polls against Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination. He still resists personal attacks against Clinton, but is quick to draw differences in their positions. Sanders cites his commitment to breaking up large financial institutions on Wall Street, his vote against the Iraq War, and opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.”

Sanders, a self-declared Socialist, wants to diminish the gap between the very wealthy and the lower economic classes as his top priority, break up the big banks and increase regulations on the banking industry, expand profit sharing plans within large businesses; while Clinton, according to the above article, wants to have the Middle Class increase their income “along with corporate profits and executive compensation.” That sounds as though those who have criticized Clinton as being in the pockets of the very wealthy donors and therefore untrustworthy are accurate in their appraisal. She didn’t mention raising the Income Tax rate on the wealthy as Sanders did, but otherwise her plans are definitely progressive and similar to Sanders’. She did mention basic policies like raising the minimum wage and paid leave, however. “Investing in an infrastructure bank” sounds very useful. Maybe that would be like the present-day World Bank which sponsors projects in different parts of the world to increase the economy in those countries. It also resembles FDR’s infrastructure works around the country which not only improved roads, etc., but gave the jobless work to do. I’ve always thought that was one of his best plans, and we are in a dire condition of need for improvements on our roads and bridges here, according to a recent news article. I say we should elect both Clinton and Sanders as co-presidents – or President and Vice President. I am definitely ready for both of these candidates, though of course many in this country will hate Clinton for her feminism and fear Sanders for being a Socialist. I am waiting “with bated breath” for 2016 to roll around.



Just in case you question my spelling of “bated” in the sentence above, I give you the following article -- http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm. Words fascinate me as much as animals, plants and archaeology. There was a great radio talk show with a scholar who worked on the staff of a major dictionary, and this article reminds me of some of the things he said. See the text below:

Bated breath


Q From Steve Gearhart: Where does the term baited breath come from, as in: ‘I am waiting with baited breath for your answer’?

A The correct spelling is actually bated breath but it’s so common these days to see it written as baited breath that there’s every chance that it will soon become the usual form, to the disgust of conservative speakers and the confusion of dictionary writers. Examples in newspapers and magazines are legion; this one appeared in the Daily Mirror on 12 April 2003: “She hasn’t responded yet but Michael is waiting with baited breath”.

It’s easy to mock, but there’s a real problem here. Bated and baited sound the same and we no longer use bated (let alone the verb to bate), outside this one set phrase, which has become an idiom. Confusion is almost inevitable. Bated here is a contraction of abated through loss of the unstressed first vowel (a process called aphesis); it means “reduced, lessened, lowered in force”. So bated breath refers to a state in which you almost stop breathing as a result of some strong emotion, such as terror or awe.

Shakespeare is the first writer known to use it, in The Merchant of Venice, in which Shylock says to Antonio: “Shall I bend low and, in a bondman’s key, / With bated breath and whisp’ring humbleness, / Say this ...”. Nearly three centuries later, Mark Twain employed it in Tom Sawyer: “Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale”.

For those who know the older spelling or who stop to consider the matter, baited breath evokes an incongruous image; Geoffrey Taylor humorously (and consciously) captured it in verse in his poem Cruel Clever Cat:

Sally, having swallowed cheese,
Directs down holes the scented breeze,
Enticing thus with baited breath
Nice mice to an untimely death.

[I’m indebted to Rainer Thonnes for telling me about this little ditty, which appears in an anthology called Catscript, edited by Marie Angel. However, it was first published in 1933 in a limited edition of Geoffrey Taylor’s poems entitled A Dash of Garlic.]