Carlos Chirinos
BBC Mundo, Caracas
Una rutinaria reunión de consulta en Manaos podría servir para repasar temas más complejos de la coyuntura global y hemisférica, y para que Brasil y Venezuela pongan en práctica toda su influencia diplomática.
Este martes se reúnen en Manaos, ciudad de la Amazonia brasileña, los presidentes Hugo Chávez de Venezuela; Evo Morales de Bolivia y Rafael Correa de Ecuador, con el anfitrión brasileño, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
En principio se trata de una reunión de consulta para evaluar el desarrollo de varios planes regionales de integración.
El más importante de ellos es el Eje Multimodal que unirá la Amazonia brasileña con la ciudad portuaria ecuatoriana de Manta mediante un sistema de vías terrestres y fluviales que facilite el comercio.
Pero más allá del papel, la agenda del encuentro promete ser más amplia y polémica.
Y también podría ser un nuevo escenario en el pulso entre los dos estilos diplomáticos que influyen en la región: el moderado brasileño y el más radical venezolano.
Se da por descontado que los presidentes hablen de la crisis financiera global, profundizada la víspera por el rechazo en el Congreso estadounidense al paquete de rescate de US$ 700.000 millones presentado por el presidente George W. Bush.
También está de fondo el deterioro de las relaciones de Venezuela y Bolivia con Estados Unidos y la expulsión de sus embajadores de La Paz y Caracas, así como la persistencia de la inestabilidad política boliviana, pese al triunfo de Morales en el referéndum revocatorio.
De Venezuela preocupa a algunos en la región la profundización de los vínculos militares con Rusia, y el anuncio de un plan de cooperación para desarrollar un programa nuclear con fines pacíficos.
Además hay un punto de roce bilateral con Ecuador por la reciente decisión del presidente Correa de expropiar los bienes del gigante de la construcción brasileña Oderbrecht.
Moderador continental
Círculos diplomáticos consultados por BBC Mundo consideraron que la compleja coyuntura forzará a Brasilia a usar la cumbre para tratar de moderar lo que algunos laman la "hiperactividad internacional" de los gobiernos de Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador.
"Brasil se ha autocalificado como una bisagra entre Estados Unidos y estos países (...) una especie de apagafuegos", le aseguró a BBC Mundo el internacionalista Carlos Romero, quien considera que el interés brasileño es evitar un mayor deterioro en las relaciones hemisféricas.
Según Romero aunque la crisis financiera global podría tardar en impactar a la región, exigiría una respuesta coordinada, pero las diferencias de enfoque ideológico complican cualquier eventual respuesta conjunta sudamericana.
"Hay un exceso de confianza en la posibilidad de esos países de imponer una agenda radical en América Latina (...) que está hiriendo las posibilidades de unidad en la región" afirmó Romero.
Romero considera que la diplomacia de Brasilia está trabajando en un espacio que debería estar ocupando Organización de Estados Americanos, OEA, a la que considera que ha manejado muy bajo perfil en este tiempo.
Queda por verse el poder real que puede ejercer el presidente Lula sobre los colegas a quienes ha invitado a Manaos.
Cada uno de los líderes políticos tiene razones para sentirse confiado en la bondad de sus respectivos enfoques políticos y económicos, domésticos e internacionales.
Y aunque el mandatario ecuatoriano no tiene la virulencia antiestadounidense de Chávez o Morales, su retórica se ha ido radicalizando en los últimos meses.
El boliviano Evo Morales también logró despejar las dudas sobre la legitimidad de su mandato, gracias a su triunfo en el referéndum revocatorio del mes pasado.
Sin embargo, el panorama doméstico tuvo que negociar con los departamentos opositores para garantizar la gobernabilidad del país.
El presidente Chávez llega a la cumbre con elecciones regionales en puertas y como suele hacer cuando se aproximan elecciones, ha radicalizado su retórica anti-estadounidense, como demuestra la expulsión del embajador Patrick Duddy.
De hecho, el mandatario venezolano plantea estos comicios locales como parte de la lucha de su llamada revolución bolivariana contra el imperio y sus factores.
El colapso económico estadounidense -que ve como la manifestación de la "fase terminal" del capitalismo- ratifica a Chávez en la validez de las tesis económicas de lo que llama el "socialismo del siglo XXI".
Al final, en círculos diplomáticos se estima que Manaos será una oportunidad para ver un pulso entre los dos estilos diplomáticos entre los que se define la región: el radical venezolano y el moderado brasileño.
Esos dos polos consideran muchos analistas que se debaten las definiciones políticas de una buena parte del resto del continente.
BBC Mundo
terça-feira, 30 de setembro de 2008
Câmara dos EUA rejeita pacote de Bush
A Câmara dos Estados Unidos rejeitou nesta segunda-feira (29) o plano de socorro de US$ 700 bilhões aos bancos norte-americanos, proposto pelo presidente norte-americano George W. Bush. Com isso, o temor tomou conta do mercado financeiro no mundo todo, que registrou serveras quedas no dia.
A Bolsa de Valores de São Paulo (Bovespa) teve a maior queda desde de janeiro de 1999, recuando 9,36%. O indicador-referência para o mercado de Nova York, o Dow Jones fechou em queda de quase 7%, ou 777 pontos, um recorde que superou as perdas do dia 17 de setembro de 2001, quando a Bolsa de Nova York voltou a operar após os ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro.
Para ser aprovada, a medida precisava de 218 votos. No entanto, o projeto recebeu o "sim" de apenas 205 deputados, enquanto outros 228 parlamentares foram contra o pacote financeiro.
A apuração preliminar tinha apontado 226 votos contrários à proposta e 207 favoráveis. Depois disso, os líderes partidários tiveram tempo para convencer outros congressistas a mudar de opinião. Apenas dois mudaram, e passaram do voto favorável para o contrário.
De acordo com o jornal "The New York Times", uma segunda votação sobre o tema está planejada, embora ainda não haja detalhes de quando ela acontecerá. A situação pode ficar mais complicada por causa do Ano Novo judeu comemorado nesta segunda-feira, pois muitos legisladores podem deixar o plenário em função do feriado. O objetivo do governo seria conseguir os 13 votos faltantes para a aprovação do pacote de ajuda aos bancos.
Leia a íntegra clicando no link:
http://www.globo.com/
A Bolsa de Valores de São Paulo (Bovespa) teve a maior queda desde de janeiro de 1999, recuando 9,36%. O indicador-referência para o mercado de Nova York, o Dow Jones fechou em queda de quase 7%, ou 777 pontos, um recorde que superou as perdas do dia 17 de setembro de 2001, quando a Bolsa de Nova York voltou a operar após os ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro.
Para ser aprovada, a medida precisava de 218 votos. No entanto, o projeto recebeu o "sim" de apenas 205 deputados, enquanto outros 228 parlamentares foram contra o pacote financeiro.
A apuração preliminar tinha apontado 226 votos contrários à proposta e 207 favoráveis. Depois disso, os líderes partidários tiveram tempo para convencer outros congressistas a mudar de opinião. Apenas dois mudaram, e passaram do voto favorável para o contrário.
De acordo com o jornal "The New York Times", uma segunda votação sobre o tema está planejada, embora ainda não haja detalhes de quando ela acontecerá. A situação pode ficar mais complicada por causa do Ano Novo judeu comemorado nesta segunda-feira, pois muitos legisladores podem deixar o plenário em função do feriado. O objetivo do governo seria conseguir os 13 votos faltantes para a aprovação do pacote de ajuda aos bancos.
Leia a íntegra clicando no link:
http://www.globo.com/
Transformações políticas na Bolívia, na Venezula e no Equador
Segue o texto publicado no jornal Correio Braziliense
Venezuela, Equador e Bolívia assistem a uma série de modificações em seus cenários políticos, não raras vezes envolto em graves crises estruturais. Em 1º de dezembro de 1999, o presidente venezuelano, Hugo Chávez, conseguiu uma expressiva vitória no Congresso, com a aprovação da Carta Magna de 350 artigos, 100 a mais que os contidos na Constituição brasileira. A nova Carta adotada por Caracas mudaria o nome do país para República Bolivariana da Venezuela, passaria o mandato do presidente de cinco para seis anos -- com direito a reeleição --, dissolveria a instituição do Senado e criaria a figura de um vice-presidente executivo, uma espécie de premiê escolhido por Chávez. A exploração e o refino de petróleo se manteriam sob monopólio estatal. O mandatário tentou encampar uma nova reforma constitucional, aproveitando a popularidade em alta, mas sofreu derrota no referendo realizado em 2 de dezembro de 2007. A proposta previa a ampliação dos poderes do Executivo e a eliminação de limites para a reeleição presidencial. Caso fosse aprovada, Chávez poderia se reeleger quantas vezes quisesse.A reforma constitucional adotada pelo governo do presidente Evo Morales, na Bolívia, defende mais poder para os indígenas e determina que os hidrocarbonetos (petróleo e gás) são "propriedade" dos bolivianos e que as empresas petroleiras são "prestadoras de serviços".A Carta também permite a reeleição do presidente por um mandato maior que cinco anos, mediante a realização de um referendo revogatório. A aprovação da Constituição se deu "a toque de caixa", durante sessão que durou toda a madrugada em Oruro e não contou com a participação da oposição.
Após promover um referendo revogatório em que Morales saiu vencedor, a Bolívia se prepara para submeter a reforma da Carta Magna à vontade popular -- é provável que o referendo constitucional ocorra em 7 de dezembro. A oposição acusa Evo de centralizar poderes.
No último fim de semana, o Equador aprovou, com folga, a nova Constituição defendida pelo presidente Rafael Correa. O texto amplia os direitos das comunidades indígenas, concede à Presidência da República o direito de dissolver a Assembléia Nacional e dá acesso gratuito à saúde e à educação básica e fundamental.
A Carta foi ratificada pela população com 64% dos votos.
Clique no link:30/09/2008 - Transformações políticas na Bolívia, na Venezula e no Equador
segunda-feira, 29 de setembro de 2008
President Bush spoke about the economic bailout plan on Monday at the White House
Carl Huls and David Herszenhorn Published: September 29, 2008
President Bush made a televised statement at the White House early on Monday urging Congress to act quickly, as the House of Representatives braced for a difficult vote on a $700 billion rescue of the financial industry.
The vote, expected sometime after 12:30 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, will come after a weekend of tense negotiations produced a rescue plan that Congressional leaders said was greatly strengthened by new taxpayer safeguards. The House began taking procedural steps toward the vote on Monday morning, opening a debate that was scheduled to last three hours.
“If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the economy,” Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said as the debate began and the stock market opened sharply lower. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index was down almost 3.4 percent at midmorning.Calling the rescue bill “bold,” Mr. Bush praised lawmakers “from both sides of the aisle” for reaching agreement, and said it would “help keep the crisis in our financial system from spreading throughout our economy.”
He said the vote would be difficult, but he urged lawmakers to pass the bill promptly. “A vote for this bill is a vote to prevent economic damage to you and your community,” he said.
“We will make clear that the United States is serious about restoring stability and confidence in our system,” he said, speaking at a lectern set up on a path on the White House grounds.
He addressed concerns about the high cost of the legislation to taxpayers, but he said he expected that “much if not all of the tax dollars will be paid back.”
Despite Mr. Bush’s urgings, investors around the world continued to demonstrate doubts that the bill would pass, or if it does, whether it would fully address the financial crisis. European and Asian stock markets declined sharply on Monday, especially in countries where major banks have had significant problems with mortgage investments, like Britain and Ireland. In the credit markets, investors once again bid up prices of Treasury securities and shunned more risky debt. The 110-page rescue bill, intended to ease a growing credit crisis, was shaped by a frenzied week of political twists and turns that culminated in an agreement between the Bush administration and Congressional leaders early Sunday morning.
The measure still faced stiff resistance from Republican and Democratic lawmakers who portrayed it as a rush to economic judgment and an undeserved aid package for high-flying financiers who chased big profits through reckless investments.
Early in the House debate, Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said he intended to vote against the package, which he said would put the nation on “the slippery slope to socialism.” He said that he was afraid that it ultimately would not work, leaving the taxpayers responsible for “the mother of all debt.”
Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, whom he called “King Henry.”
A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had “never seriously considered any alternative” to the administration’s plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.
With the financial package looming as a final piece of business before lawmakers leave to campaign for the November elections, leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intensified their efforts to sell reluctant members of Congress on the legislation.
All sides had to surrender something. The administration had to accept limits on executive pay and tougher oversight; Democrats had to sacrifice a push to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages; and Republicans fell short in their effort to require that the federal government insure, rather than buy, the bad debt.
Even so, lawmakers on all sides said the bill had been significantly improved from the Bush administration’s original proposal.
The final version of the bill included a deal-sealing plan for eventually recouping losses; if the Treasury program to purchase and resell troubled mortgage-backed securities has lost money after five years, the president must submit a plan to Congress to recover those losses from the financial industry. Presumably that plan would involve new fees or taxes, perhaps on securities transactions.
“This is a major, major change,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday evening as she declared that negotiations were over and that a House vote was planned for Monday, with Senate action to follow.
The deal would also restrict gold-plated farewells for executives of companies that sell devalued assets to the Treasury Department.
House Republicans had threatened to scuttle the deal, and proposed a vastly different approach that would have focused on insuring troubled debt rather than buying it. In the end, the insurance proposal was included on top of the purchasing power, but there is no requirement that the Treasury secretary use it, leaving them short of that goal.
It is virtually impossible to know the ultimate cost of the rescue plan to taxpayers, but Congressional leaders stressed that it would likely be far less than $700 billion. Because the Treasury will buy assets with the potential to resell them at a higher price, the government might even turn a profit.
That provision, pushed by House Democrats, was the last to be agreed to in a high-level series of talks that had top lawmakers and White House economic advisers hustling between offices just off the Capitol Rotunda until midnight on Saturday, scrambling to strike an agreement before Asian markets opened Sunday night.
The bill calls for disbursing the money in parts, starting with $250 billion followed by $100 billion at the discretion of the president. The Treasury can request the remaining $350 billion at any time, and Congress must act to deny it if it disapproves.
Ms. Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and others taking part in the talks announced that they had clinched a tentative deal at 12:30 a.m. Sunday, exhausted and a little giddy after more than seven hours of sparring. There were several tense moments, none more so than when Mr. Paulson, a critical player, suddenly seemed short of breath and possibly ill. He was tired, but fine.
Trying to bring around colleagues who remained uncertain of the plan, its architects sounded the alarm about the potential consequences of doing nothing. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee and the lead Senate negotiator, raised the prospect of an economic catastrophe.
“If we don’t pass it, we shouldn’t be a Congress,” Mr. Gregg said.
Both major presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic candidate, gave guarded endorsements of the bailout plan. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama had dipped into the negotiations during a contentious White House meeting on Thursday.
On Sunday evening, both parties convened closed-door sessions in the House to review the plan, and conservative House Republicans remained a potential impediment.
But the party leadership was circulating information aimed at refuting some of the main criticisms of the bailout, indicating they were poised to support it. “I am encouraging every member of our conference whose conscience will allow them to support this bill,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
A series of business-oriented trade associations with influence with Republicans also began weighing in on behalf of the plan.
The United States Chamber of Commerce issued a statement on Sunday night that said it “believes the legislation contains the necessary elements to successfully remove the uncertainty and stem the turmoil that has plagued financial markets in recent weeks.”
Members of the conservative rank and file remained unconvinced.
“While it creates a gimmicky $700 billion installment plan, attempts to improve transparency, and has new provisions cloaked as taxpayer protections, its net effect is still a huge bailout of the financial sector that will snuff out the free market system,” said Representative Connie Mack, Republican of Florida.
Some Democrats bristled that they were now being called on to do the financial bidding of an administration they had viewed as previously uncooperative in dealing with executives who had performed irresponsibly or worse.
“Financial crimes have been committed,” said Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio. “Now Congress is being asked to bail out the culprits.”
Throughout Sunday, small groups of lawmakers could be found around the Capitol exchanging their views on the plan. Some said they were willing to take a political risk and back it.
One, Representative Jim Marshall, a Georgia Democrat facing a re-election contest, told colleagues in a private meeting that he would vote for the measure to bolster the economy. “I am willing to give up my seat over this,” Mr. Marshall said, according to another person who was there.
The architects of the plan said they realized they were calling on Congress to cast a tough vote since lawmakers might not get credit for averting a financial crisis since some constituents will not believe one was looming.
“Avoiding a catastrophe won’t be recognized,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee. “This economy is not going to have a blossoming on Wednesday.”
But he and others said the support from the two presidential contenders, Senators McCain and Obama, should provide some comfort to nervous lawmakers.
While the House was planning to act Monday, the Senate schedule was uncertain. A vote might not occur until Wednesday or later because of the Jewish holidays and possible procedural obstacles. But Senate vote-counters were confident they could get the needed support.
One of the more contentious issues was how to limit the pay of executives whose firms seek government aid, a top priority for Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers. But it was a concern for Mr. Paulson, who worried about discouraging firms from participating in the rescue plan, which seeks to convince companies to sell potentially valuable assets to the government at relatively bargain prices.
In the end, they settled on different rules for different companies depending on how they participate in the bailout. Firms that sell distressed debt directly to the government will be subject to tougher pay limits, including a mechanism to recover any bonuses or other pay based on corporate earnings that turn out to be inaccurate or fraudulent, and a ban on so-called “golden parachute” severance packages as long as the government has a stake in the firm.
Companies that participate in auctions, or other market-making mechanisms, and sell more than $300 million in troubled financial instruments to the government, will be barred from making any new employment contract with a senior executive that provides a golden parachute in the event of “involuntary termination, bankruptcy filing, insolvency or receivership.”
While some critics said the limits did not go far enough, lawmakers described the provision as a historic first step by Congress to limit exorbitant pay of corporate titans. “I think we wrote it as tight as we can get it in here,” Mr. Dodd said.
Reporting was contributed by Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong, Robert Pear from Washington and Graham Bowley from New York.
The vote, expected sometime after 12:30 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, will come after a weekend of tense negotiations produced a rescue plan that Congressional leaders said was greatly strengthened by new taxpayer safeguards. The House began taking procedural steps toward the vote on Monday morning, opening a debate that was scheduled to last three hours.
“If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the economy,” Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said as the debate began and the stock market opened sharply lower. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index was down almost 3.4 percent at midmorning.Calling the rescue bill “bold,” Mr. Bush praised lawmakers “from both sides of the aisle” for reaching agreement, and said it would “help keep the crisis in our financial system from spreading throughout our economy.”
He said the vote would be difficult, but he urged lawmakers to pass the bill promptly. “A vote for this bill is a vote to prevent economic damage to you and your community,” he said.
“We will make clear that the United States is serious about restoring stability and confidence in our system,” he said, speaking at a lectern set up on a path on the White House grounds.
He addressed concerns about the high cost of the legislation to taxpayers, but he said he expected that “much if not all of the tax dollars will be paid back.”
Despite Mr. Bush’s urgings, investors around the world continued to demonstrate doubts that the bill would pass, or if it does, whether it would fully address the financial crisis. European and Asian stock markets declined sharply on Monday, especially in countries where major banks have had significant problems with mortgage investments, like Britain and Ireland. In the credit markets, investors once again bid up prices of Treasury securities and shunned more risky debt. The 110-page rescue bill, intended to ease a growing credit crisis, was shaped by a frenzied week of political twists and turns that culminated in an agreement between the Bush administration and Congressional leaders early Sunday morning.
The measure still faced stiff resistance from Republican and Democratic lawmakers who portrayed it as a rush to economic judgment and an undeserved aid package for high-flying financiers who chased big profits through reckless investments.
Early in the House debate, Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said he intended to vote against the package, which he said would put the nation on “the slippery slope to socialism.” He said that he was afraid that it ultimately would not work, leaving the taxpayers responsible for “the mother of all debt.”
Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, whom he called “King Henry.”
A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had “never seriously considered any alternative” to the administration’s plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.
With the financial package looming as a final piece of business before lawmakers leave to campaign for the November elections, leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intensified their efforts to sell reluctant members of Congress on the legislation.
All sides had to surrender something. The administration had to accept limits on executive pay and tougher oversight; Democrats had to sacrifice a push to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages; and Republicans fell short in their effort to require that the federal government insure, rather than buy, the bad debt.
Even so, lawmakers on all sides said the bill had been significantly improved from the Bush administration’s original proposal.
The final version of the bill included a deal-sealing plan for eventually recouping losses; if the Treasury program to purchase and resell troubled mortgage-backed securities has lost money after five years, the president must submit a plan to Congress to recover those losses from the financial industry. Presumably that plan would involve new fees or taxes, perhaps on securities transactions.
“This is a major, major change,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday evening as she declared that negotiations were over and that a House vote was planned for Monday, with Senate action to follow.
The deal would also restrict gold-plated farewells for executives of companies that sell devalued assets to the Treasury Department.
House Republicans had threatened to scuttle the deal, and proposed a vastly different approach that would have focused on insuring troubled debt rather than buying it. In the end, the insurance proposal was included on top of the purchasing power, but there is no requirement that the Treasury secretary use it, leaving them short of that goal.
It is virtually impossible to know the ultimate cost of the rescue plan to taxpayers, but Congressional leaders stressed that it would likely be far less than $700 billion. Because the Treasury will buy assets with the potential to resell them at a higher price, the government might even turn a profit.
That provision, pushed by House Democrats, was the last to be agreed to in a high-level series of talks that had top lawmakers and White House economic advisers hustling between offices just off the Capitol Rotunda until midnight on Saturday, scrambling to strike an agreement before Asian markets opened Sunday night.
The bill calls for disbursing the money in parts, starting with $250 billion followed by $100 billion at the discretion of the president. The Treasury can request the remaining $350 billion at any time, and Congress must act to deny it if it disapproves.
Ms. Pelosi, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and others taking part in the talks announced that they had clinched a tentative deal at 12:30 a.m. Sunday, exhausted and a little giddy after more than seven hours of sparring. There were several tense moments, none more so than when Mr. Paulson, a critical player, suddenly seemed short of breath and possibly ill. He was tired, but fine.
Trying to bring around colleagues who remained uncertain of the plan, its architects sounded the alarm about the potential consequences of doing nothing. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee and the lead Senate negotiator, raised the prospect of an economic catastrophe.
“If we don’t pass it, we shouldn’t be a Congress,” Mr. Gregg said.
Both major presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic candidate, gave guarded endorsements of the bailout plan. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama had dipped into the negotiations during a contentious White House meeting on Thursday.
On Sunday evening, both parties convened closed-door sessions in the House to review the plan, and conservative House Republicans remained a potential impediment.
But the party leadership was circulating information aimed at refuting some of the main criticisms of the bailout, indicating they were poised to support it. “I am encouraging every member of our conference whose conscience will allow them to support this bill,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
A series of business-oriented trade associations with influence with Republicans also began weighing in on behalf of the plan.
The United States Chamber of Commerce issued a statement on Sunday night that said it “believes the legislation contains the necessary elements to successfully remove the uncertainty and stem the turmoil that has plagued financial markets in recent weeks.”
Members of the conservative rank and file remained unconvinced.
“While it creates a gimmicky $700 billion installment plan, attempts to improve transparency, and has new provisions cloaked as taxpayer protections, its net effect is still a huge bailout of the financial sector that will snuff out the free market system,” said Representative Connie Mack, Republican of Florida.
Some Democrats bristled that they were now being called on to do the financial bidding of an administration they had viewed as previously uncooperative in dealing with executives who had performed irresponsibly or worse.
“Financial crimes have been committed,” said Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio. “Now Congress is being asked to bail out the culprits.”
Throughout Sunday, small groups of lawmakers could be found around the Capitol exchanging their views on the plan. Some said they were willing to take a political risk and back it.
One, Representative Jim Marshall, a Georgia Democrat facing a re-election contest, told colleagues in a private meeting that he would vote for the measure to bolster the economy. “I am willing to give up my seat over this,” Mr. Marshall said, according to another person who was there.
The architects of the plan said they realized they were calling on Congress to cast a tough vote since lawmakers might not get credit for averting a financial crisis since some constituents will not believe one was looming.
“Avoiding a catastrophe won’t be recognized,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee. “This economy is not going to have a blossoming on Wednesday.”
But he and others said the support from the two presidential contenders, Senators McCain and Obama, should provide some comfort to nervous lawmakers.
While the House was planning to act Monday, the Senate schedule was uncertain. A vote might not occur until Wednesday or later because of the Jewish holidays and possible procedural obstacles. But Senate vote-counters were confident they could get the needed support.
One of the more contentious issues was how to limit the pay of executives whose firms seek government aid, a top priority for Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers. But it was a concern for Mr. Paulson, who worried about discouraging firms from participating in the rescue plan, which seeks to convince companies to sell potentially valuable assets to the government at relatively bargain prices.
In the end, they settled on different rules for different companies depending on how they participate in the bailout. Firms that sell distressed debt directly to the government will be subject to tougher pay limits, including a mechanism to recover any bonuses or other pay based on corporate earnings that turn out to be inaccurate or fraudulent, and a ban on so-called “golden parachute” severance packages as long as the government has a stake in the firm.
Companies that participate in auctions, or other market-making mechanisms, and sell more than $300 million in troubled financial instruments to the government, will be barred from making any new employment contract with a senior executive that provides a golden parachute in the event of “involuntary termination, bankruptcy filing, insolvency or receivership.”
While some critics said the limits did not go far enough, lawmakers described the provision as a historic first step by Congress to limit exorbitant pay of corporate titans. “I think we wrote it as tight as we can get it in here,” Mr. Dodd said.
Reporting was contributed by Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong, Robert Pear from Washington and Graham Bowley from New York.
Avião de premier francês evitou por pouco colisão com outra aeronave
O avião em que o primeiro-ministro francês François Fillon viajava no domingo (28/09) teve que realizar uma manobra de urgência para evitar uma colisão com um avião de turismo, informou nesta segunda-feira a equipe do chefe de Governo. O avião Falcon 900 do premier voava de Angers (oeste) ao aeroporto militar de Villacoublay, ao sul de Paris, quando evitou por muito pouco a colisão com um avião que estava fora de sua rota.
Fonte:France Press-Correio Braziliense
Fonte:France Press-Correio Braziliense
Nova Constituição tem 64% dos votos no Equador
O projeto governista de nova Constituição para o Equador recebeu 64% dos votos, após a apuração de 80% das urnas do referendo de domingo (28/09), informou nesta segunda-feira (29/09) o Tribunal Supremo Eleitoral (TSE).
A corte informou que após a contagem de 31.213 (80%) das 38.901 urnas, 3.737.397 eleitores (64%) votaram 'Sim', 1.655.624 (28%) votaram 'Não', 39.762 (0,7%) em branco e 419.716 (7%) anularam o voto.
Para que a proposta seja aprovada são necessários metade mais um do total de votos (Sim contra Não, brancos e nulos). Duas pesquisas de boca-de-urna e a estimativa de uma ONG anteciparam uma vitória do 'Sim' com entre 63% e 70% dos votos. Um total de 9,7 milhões de equatorianos estavam registrados para votar no referendo de domingo.
Fonte:France Press-Correio Braziliense
A corte informou que após a contagem de 31.213 (80%) das 38.901 urnas, 3.737.397 eleitores (64%) votaram 'Sim', 1.655.624 (28%) votaram 'Não', 39.762 (0,7%) em branco e 419.716 (7%) anularam o voto.
Para que a proposta seja aprovada são necessários metade mais um do total de votos (Sim contra Não, brancos e nulos). Duas pesquisas de boca-de-urna e a estimativa de uma ONG anteciparam uma vitória do 'Sim' com entre 63% e 70% dos votos. Um total de 9,7 milhões de equatorianos estavam registrados para votar no referendo de domingo.
Fonte:France Press-Correio Braziliense
domingo, 28 de setembro de 2008
Ecuador decide su futuro en las urnas
Tomás Ciuffardi
Quito, Ecuador
Este domingo los ecuatorianos se acercan a las urnas para dar su voto de aprobación o rechazo a la nueva Constitución redactada por la Asamblea Constituyente e impulsada por el presidente Rafael Correa.
Los electores tendrán que responder con un Sí o un No al proyecto que cuenta con 444 artículos junto a una serie de disposiciones transitorias y al establecimiento de un Régimen de Transición.
La jornada electoral durará 10 horas y se prevé que los resultados se den a conocer inmediatamente después del cierre de las mesas de votación gracias a las encuestas a boca de urna, aunque los resultados oficiales podrían tardar hasta 24 horas, según informó el Tribunal Supremo Electoral.
De acuerdo a últimos sondeos realizados por empresas encuestadoras el Sí tendría una eventual ventaja de entre el 55% al 60%. Para triunfar necesita una ventaja del 50% de votos más uno.
BBC
Quito, Ecuador
Este domingo los ecuatorianos se acercan a las urnas para dar su voto de aprobación o rechazo a la nueva Constitución redactada por la Asamblea Constituyente e impulsada por el presidente Rafael Correa.
Los electores tendrán que responder con un Sí o un No al proyecto que cuenta con 444 artículos junto a una serie de disposiciones transitorias y al establecimiento de un Régimen de Transición.
La jornada electoral durará 10 horas y se prevé que los resultados se den a conocer inmediatamente después del cierre de las mesas de votación gracias a las encuestas a boca de urna, aunque los resultados oficiales podrían tardar hasta 24 horas, según informó el Tribunal Supremo Electoral.
De acuerdo a últimos sondeos realizados por empresas encuestadoras el Sí tendría una eventual ventaja de entre el 55% al 60%. Para triunfar necesita una ventaja del 50% de votos más uno.
BBC
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
