Obama Open to Debt-Cap Deal

The White House encouraged congressional leaders to reach a major deficit-reduction deal by offering them a little more time, as they scrambled to find a way to prevent a government default in less than two weeks.

President Barack Obama would accept a short-term increase in the federal government's $14.29 trillion borrowing limit if congressional leaders reach agreement on a "significant" deficit-reduction plan before Aug. 2 but need more time to pass legislation, a White House spokesman said Wednesday.

The move reflects Mr. Obama's desire to keep alive hopes that Democrats and Republicans can achieve a far-reaching agreement. Mr. Obama has made clear his desire for the largest deal possible, perhaps along the lines of a new proposal to shrink the deficit by $3.7 trillion over 10 years that was unveiled this week by a bipartisan group of senators known as the "Gang of Six."

Mr. Obama's willingness to entertain a short-term extension also suggests rising doubt in the White House that Democrats and Republicans can agree on and pass such a sweeping deficit-reduction plan by the Aug. 2 deadline.

"If both sides agree to something concretely significant, we will support the measures needed to finalize the details," White House press secretary Jay Carney said, later clarifying that he meant a "very" short-term extension, such as a few days.

"We believe a short-term extension, absent an agreement to a larger deal, is unacceptable," Mr. Carney said.

Mr. Carney's comments come as numerous budget proposals are being debated in Washington, all of which have critics. Treasury Department officials say that Congress must boost the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling before Aug. 2, or the government will run out of cash to pay its bills. Many lawmakers say they will not vote to increase the debt cap without a significant deficit-reduction plan.

It was unclear Wednesday exactly what type of agreement would be needed to get Mr. Obama's blessing on a temporary extension. If lawmakers can't reach a deal in the range of $4 trillion, Mr. Obama has said he prefers one closer to $2.5 trillion. He summoned Democratic congressional leaders and the top two House Republicans to the White House Wednesday for separate meetings, but they broke up without any signs of major progress. The White House and leaders declined to discuss the sessions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) have both said there may not be enough time for lawmakers to agree on and pass a major deal by Aug. 2. At the same time, the president has said he and congressional leaders must prepare a backup plan to ensure the government does not default on its obligations.

One measure being pursued by Mr. Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion in three installments, unless two-thirds of Congress votes to block it. House Republicans came out strongly against the McConnell-Reid idea, saying it gives too much power to the president and does too little to cut spending. Some senators have also said they won't support it.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), who is joined by other conservative senators, made it clear he would try to block or delay consideration of Plan B in the Senate. "What Republicans need to acknowledge is that as long as we talk about these alternative plans, we are playing into the president's hands," said Mr. DeMint. "My job with the Republican conference is to get them to stop talking about distractions."

Still, Senate leaders of both parties view the McConnell-Reid approach as the only plan, for now at least, that has a chance of passing Congress in some form and raising the debt limit. The plan could include $1 trillion or more in spending cuts and could become the vehicle for a broader plan. Mr. Obama has described the McConnell-Reid plan as a last resort.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D.N.D.), a member of the Gang of Six, said he had discussed with Mr. Reid options for advancing the group's proposal through Plan B, which calls for setting up a special committee to recommend a deficit-reduction plan. Mr. Conrad suggested Plan B could include a provision guaranteeing a vote on the Gang of Six proposal if the special committee deadlocks.

Source http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576458180747131242.html

Obama Hints Boeing, Union Should Settle Their Differences

After weeks of silence on the NLRB-Boeing fight, President Barack Obama strongly hinted that Boeing Co. and its union in Washington state should settle their differences for the sake of jobs and corporate investment.

Boeing plans to build the 787 Dreamliner, shown above in Washington state in March, at a non-union plant.

When asked about it at his Wednesday press conference, Mr. Obama first repeated much of what his aides have been saying for weeks. “Essentially, the NLRB made a — a finding that Boeing had not followed the law” when deciding where to locate its second 787 Dreamliner production line, Mr. Obama said. “It’s an independent agency. It’s going before a judge. So I don’t want to get into the details of the case. I don’t know all the facts,” he added.

But he didn’t stop there.

Offering an insight into his view on corporate relocations and the related management-labor disputes, he said: “As a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate – they have to follow the law, but that’s part of our system. And if they’re choosing to relocate here in the United States, that’s a good thing. What I think defies common sense would be a notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to a sensible agreement.”

And he wrapped up his answer with a pitch for keeping jobs in the U.S. “My hope is that even as this thing is working its way through, everybody steps back for a second and says: Look, if jobs are being created here in the United States, let’s make sure that we’re encouraging that. And we can’t afford to have labor and management fighting all the time, at a time when we’re competing against Germany and China and other countries that want to sell goods all around the world. And obviously, the air — airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage. I want to make sure that we keep it.”

Regarding Mr. Obama’s hint that he’d prefer to see a settlement between Boeing and the union, a White House official said, “Just as the White House had no role in the NLRB’s independent enforcement action, the president was not weighing in on this specific case.”

Quick recap: The NLRB filed a complaint in April alleging Boeing illegally shifted unionized aircraft production work from Washington state to a new, nonunion plant in South Carolina, siding with union members who said Boeing was punishing them for past strikes. NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon wants Boeing to move the work back to Washington state. Boeing says the charges are groundless. And an NLRB administrative law judge began hearing the case June 14.

In his remarks Wednesday, Mr. Obama avoided picking sides, irritating some who think he should denounce the NLRB.

A spokesman for the conservative Workforce Fairness Institute said Mr. Obama “pled ignorance about the job-killing policies being pursued by his regulatory agencies, while claiming to be concerned with turning the economy around and creating jobs.”

Glenn Spencer, an executive director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said, “The president couldn’t be more right that creating jobs ought to be the focus. Unfortunately, it is his nominee [Lafe Solomon] that has created the distraction by filing the unwarranted complaint against Boeing.’’

Spokesmen at Boeing and the International Association of Machinists said they are open to settling the case, but each blamed the other for offering settlement proposals that weren’t serious.

A Boeing spokesman said the company had nothing to add to its previous comments. The union’s settlement proposal to the company in May “went well beyond what we would consider reasonable as it sought various production guarantees, including a commitment by the company to place our next new program and its related supply chain work in Puget Sound” area of Washington, the spokesman said.

A spokeswoman for the International Association of Machinists union said, “The Machinists have been open and have encouraged that [a settlement] all along as well, but Boeing broke the law and needs to be bringing forth settlements. To date, they have been unwilling to bring any serious proposals forward or willing to enter into serious dialogue on it.”

Source http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/29/obama-hints-boeing-union-should-settle-their-differences/

CBC prepares to defend its finances

When Jim Flaherty's ministry released the federal budget in Ottawa last week, the Finance Minister was resolute in his belief that about $4-billion in savings from program spending should be easily found.

It was, Mr. Flaherty told reporters packed into a steamy room in Centre Block, kind of odd that something as massive as the federal government -"the largest enterprise in Canada," he called it -had not undergone a thorough spending review in several years. Private-sector companies have all done it, he said. Now Ottawa will do its part. The savings "shall be found," he said, in a tone that sounded a lot like a decree.

No one from the CBC gulped or gasped audibly. But they might have. If Reaper Jim is sharpening his scythe, could the public broadcaster possibly avoid a swipe?

It is in this environment that the CBC on Wednesday released a study on the economic impacts of the CBC (and its French-language counterpart, Radio-Canada). In what will not come as a shock to anyone, the study the CBC commissioned found that the CBC has a significant positive impact on the Canadian economy.

Deloitte & Touche, the study's authors, estimate that the CBC contributed $3.7-billion in "gross value added" to the Canadian economy in 2010, based on expenses of $1.7-billion, of which $1.1-billion was direct government funding. The good news goes even further: the study estimates that the CBC contributes an additional "net value added" of $1.3-billion, a figure at which it arrives by estimating the economic benefits of spending the CBC's $1.1-billion on alternative government measures. Ten per cent on health, 30% on social services, 0.2% on gazebos in Muskoka, that kind of thing.

The general conclusions are fairly obvious -not only does every dollar invested in the CBC generate significant positive dollars worth of economic activity, but spending it elsewhere would have less of an impact.

As Hubert T. Lacroix, the president and CEO of the CBC, said in a conference call with reporters yesterday, he's often asked about that $1.1-billion figure wherever he goes.

These takeaways, though, come with a couple of boulders of salt. First is the very nature of a study like this. The economic impacts are essentially an elaborate piece of guesswork that measures both the direct impact of investment and the indirect impact "across CBC's supply chain and more widely as money continues to flow through the economy." So, the authors take a dollar spent in one area, add something called a Type II output multiplier, and end up with a larger number. A dollar spent on television programming in British Columbia, for example, has a multiplier of 2.3. (The authors use Statistics Canada multipliers; they aren't plucked from the air.)

The projected impacts are just that, in other words: projections. It's not unexpected that they would be rather rosy, especially when it is the CBC that paid for the study. (Mr. Lacroix said the cost of the study is confidential.) When Quebec City commissioned a study last year into the economic impact of a government-funded arena, the report (also from Deloitte) found that such a stadium would be profitable even in the absence of an NHL franchise. It also assumed, rather optimistically, that the "surrounding region" of Quebec City, from which it would draw attendees to Disney on Ice and the like, includes Charlottetown and Moncton.

The rather large assumption in the CBC study is the two scenarios it assesses: one with the current funding model, and one in which the CBC is solely financed by commerical revenues. This anti-CBC, the study suggests, "makes commercially motivated decisions regarding its content, target audience, regional presence," and other factors. In that world, it would abandon businesses that are not commericially viable, and it would compete with private broadcasters in areas where it does not currently do so. If it, say, dumped the CBC-produced Republic of Doyle, filmed in St. John's, and replaced it with NCIS: Los Angeles, it's easy to see how the latter scenario wouldn't be as good for the Canadian economy.

But the "counterfactual" CBC that the study presents is simply a straw man. The CBC may not be beloved within the Harper government, and a chunk of the Conservative base will rail against it at the first opportunity, but only those few Canadians who believe the "state broadcaster" is run by Maoists truly want to see its subsidy eliminated. What the CBC might have to confront is not a world without public funding, but with less of it. Is it possible that a Tory spending review will determine an easy way to trim $100-million is to drop the CBC's direct funding to $1-billion? Does Don Cherry look like he's wearing drapes?

The public broadcaster conducts a perpetually tricky dance. When it announces a new show aimed at a broad audience and commercial advertisers, critics sniff that it's drifting from its public-service mandate. Give us interpretive dance, not hockey players! But if it directs too much programming into the nether regions of public interest, it will make less money and require more from Ottawa.

But $1.1-billion is a lot of money to protect. The CBC will have to erect some battlements. This study reads like a first shovel in the ground.

sstinson@nationalpost.com twitter.com/scott_stinson

Source http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/prepares+defend+finances/4953990/story.html

Tortoises can win the race as often as the hares

TIGER WOODS had been a professional golfer for just 10 months when he reached the top of the world rankings in June 1997.

It took Luke Donald 10 years to complete the same journey. And people still ask why his fellow players call him ‘Plod’.

Woods cut a swathe through golf with his stratospheric ascent, and had already won twice by the time he announced himself to the wider sporting world with his astonishing victory at the 1997 Masters by a record margin of 12 strokes.

Donald rose without trace, securing his first PGA Tour win, against a journeyman field, at the low-key and rain-shortened Southern Farm Bureau Classic in November 2002.

Yet while comparisons with the phenomenon that was the young Woods seem to do Donald few favours, there are few doubts in the minds of his fellow professionals that the 33-year-old Englishman is worthy of being regarded as the best player on earth right now.

Part of the fascination of golf is that there are so many different ways to win, so many routes to the top. The tortoises can win the race just as often as the hares.

It was ever thus with Donald. The world of golf sat up and took note when he won the NCAA Individual championship, the highest accolade in US college golf, in 1999, beating Woods’ scoring record in the process, but in almost every other regard his career has been a slow-burning fuse.

Peter McEvoy, Donald’s captain in two Walker Cups, once recalled that he had to battle to persuade officials in charge of selecting the England amateur team that the player was worthy of a cap, so little impact had he made until then.

“There were a lot of votes against him and I had to push for his inclusion,” said McEvoy. “After two years he proved to be the best of his generation. The same thing happened when he went to college in America; after two years, he was again the best.”

In a world of brash wannabes, Donald has always been distinguished by his calm, a sense of serene self-containment. Many top players lurch between anguish and exultation as they make their way round a course, but Donald has an imperturbability that is almost other-worldly. He is no automaton, but neither is he the victim of his emotions.

We will never know whether the pressure of the occasion led to Lee Westwood dumping his ball in the water by the 18th green in his play-off against Donald on Sunday evening. But we can say with some confidence that Donald’s cool-headedness in the most ferociously demanding circumstances helped him place his ball five feet from the flag from an almost identical position.

It was a shot deserving of all the bounty that came his way. It won him a cheque for just over £650,000 and it leap-frogged him ahead of Westwood in the world rankings. It also confirmed beyond all doubt that the axis of world golf has tilted towards England.

When Donald turned professional in August 2001, there was just one English player – Westwood – in the world’s top 100; this morning, there are four in the top 12.

As Martin Laird, ranked 25th, is the highest-placed Scot, it is tempting to make much of the fact that Donald once claimed to be “half-Scottish” on the basis that his father was born in Stranraer.

Tempting, too, to forget the fact he has played down the connection on other occasions. In truth, he now occupies a realm where nationality becomes almost meaningless, save for its glorious expression at the Ryder Cup every two years.

With a stack of long-term sponsors’ contracts – it has been said that his Mizuno visor alone nets him £1m per year – the amiable Donald is almost a caricature of the golfer as the perfect commercial vehicle. In other regards, however, he is very different to his peers.

On the US Tour, the vast majority of players base themselves in the sunbelt states of the south, his main home is in Chicago, a city that suits his cosmopolitan tastes. He studied fine art at Chicago’s Northwestern University, is a gifted painter and avid collector of art.

Yet until now, he has been a less than avid collector of tournament wins. His stealthy rise to the top of the global game has been based on consistency, and his last strokeplay victory prior to Sunday’s win at Wentworth had been almost a year ago. Nor has he set the heather alight at major championships, finishing better than 10th just four times in 31 events.

But if self-doubt has played a part in that then it should have been obliterated by what happened at Wentworth. If taking the slow road to the top has been one consistent feature of Donald’s career, being the dominant figure once he got there has been another. On Sunday evening, he was asked whether he had set any goals for the year. “Yeah,” he said quickly, “to contend in all four majors.

“I have a lot more to accomplish,” he continued. “And hopefully many more victories in me. Hopefully, I can be a worthy No.1 for a few weeks.”

Source http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/golf/tortoises-can-win-the-race-as-often-as-the-hares-1.1104355

Westwood Wins Again

Lee Westwood came through Sunday with a final-round, 5-under 67 to win the Ballantine's Championship. The 38-year-old Brit ended up at 12-under 276. The event, co-sponsored by the Asian and European tours, was held at Blackstone Golf Club near Seoul, South Korea.

The win was the second straight for the No. 1-ranked player in the world following his victory in the Indonesia Masters last week. Westwood needed to finish in the top-five in Korea to prevent Martin Kaymer from overtaking him in the World Golf Rankings.

"It feels great," Westwood told Sky Sports. "I must admit it was fairly nerve-wracking sitting in there watching people play. I know how my parents, wife and family feel now at home when I'm playing.

"Obviously you never wish ill on anyone but I'm delighted to have won the tournament because it was [a] good, solid round this afternoon and put pressure on everyone else," he added.

"The world rankings are a reflection of how you play. I've been playing well this year but not producing the results until the last two weeks. The last two weeks I've started making some putts and stayed calm under pressure, doing the things I needed to do at the right time.

"I've won two in a row before but it's still very special," he added. "It is tough to come down from a win and get yourself refocused. But the more experienced you get and the more you put yourself in those positions, the easier it is to do."

Finishing a shot behind was Spain's Miguel Angel Jimenez (71), who had a chance to force a sudden-death playoff but missed his 15-foot birdie try. Another stroke back was Korean Sang-Hyun Park. American Dustin Johnson (69) ended up in solo fourth.

Source http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/westwood_wins_again

Golf World: Avoiding three-putts

With yet another Masters now history, it again becomes apparent how important putting is to become a prolific scorer. The greens at Augusta were very fast and very undulating.

Most of us average 32 to 36 putts a round. If you averaged 28 putts a round like the PGA Tour players do, you would immediately cut six strokes from your score. The amateur's problem is those pesky three-putt greens. So, the question is, how do you become a better long putter?

First of all, becoming a good long putter is a combination of good feel and good mechanics. To be a good long putter, you must have good pace and rhythm to your stroke. There should be no "hit" in your stroke. The backswing and the follow-through should be the same distance.

For example, if you go back 20 inches, then you should come through 20 inches. This ensures a pendulum stroke. Equal distance back and through gives you a very symmetrical stoke. In addition to this, the pace of the stroke should be the same speed in both directions.

Count to yourself when practicing long putts. Say "One and two" for good tempo. Some of the things I see in poor long putters is off-center hits. For example, if you hit the ball toward the toe of the putter, you will lose compression of the face to the ball, and you will most likely come up short of the hole.

Most long putts come up short. I think a good rule of thumb is to try to keep the ball on the high side of the hole, and try to hit the putt a foot past the hole. Most three-putt greens take place because you come up short of the hole and the ball finishes on the low side of the hole.

Another problem when we come up short of the hole is an "open" clubface at impact. This problem will cause a left-to-right spin on the ball, plus additional loft at impact. Try getting more weight on your front leg at address to offset this problem.

Most amateurs move their head and body too much on the long putts. Keep your head and body as still as you can on these long ones, and you are more likely to hit the ball in the center of the face with good speed. After all, speed is the most important element in becoming a good long putter.

To be a good long putter, light grip pressure is a must along with keeping that pressure constant throughout the stroke. Poor putters are always tightening their hands on the club as they go through the stroking process. Of course, this causes the dreaded "yips.''

Two drills that would be beneficial:

-- The right hand and arm only drill. To do this drill, just putt several balls with your right hand and arm only. This will give you the feel of the distance.

-- Putting at different distances with clubs on the ground. Do these drills and then practice trying to put that 40-footer inside an imaginary, two-foot circle.

Work on the pace and tempo of your putting stroke, and you will soon start becoming a good "lag" putter. You wouldn't mind taking six strokes off your next round? Just ask Charl Schwartzel, the new Masters champion.

Source http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/glf-golfworld041811/glf-golfworld041811/

Europe poised for another run at green jacket

A green jacket defined the golden era of European golf.

For the better part of two decades, Europeans seemed to have part-ownership of Augusta National by winning the Masters six times in a seven-year stretch, and 11 times in the 1980s and 1990s. Seve Ballesteros was the first European in a green jacket. Nick Faldo won three times. Ballesteros, Bernhard Langer and Olazabal each won twice.

Perhaps it was only fitting that when the world ranking made its debut in 1986 at the Masters, the top three were Europeans.

"It would be nice to recreate some of that magic," Justin Rose said Monday under the large oak tree next to the Augusta National clubhouse. "And I think this is as good a time as any."

On paper, European golf has never been stronger.

They have won two of the last three majors — Martin Kaymer in a playoff at the PGA Championship, Graeme McDowell at Pebble Beach in the U.S. Open. Padraig Harrington was the last player to win successive majors, at the end of 2008.

And then there's the world ranking.

Europe would have had the top five spots except for Phil Mickelson winning the Houston Open to go to No. 3. As it is, Kaymer and Westwood are Nos. 1 and 2, with Luke Donald, McDowell and Paul Casey at Nos. 4-5-6. Tiger Woods is at No. 7.

About the only thing missing from this new era of European dominance is a green jacket.

"It's been too long," said Ian Poulter, among those determined to change this trend. "There's more guys with more chances."

Olazabal was the last European to win the Masters, holding off Greg Norman in the final round in 1999. A year later, no Europeans were among the top 10 at the Masters, and none came particularly close to winning except for Westwood last year when he was runner-up by three shots to Mickelson.

Europe now seems more poised than ever.

In the middle of that great European run from two decades ago, they had four of the top 10 in the world. Now there are six Europeans in the top 10, and nine of the top 20.

"If you look at the guys who compete week in and week out, we've got more now than what we had 15 years ago," Poulter said. "There's definitely more of a chance now. But you've got a lot of good players to go up again. Tiger and Phil have won quite a few of these jackets over the last few years."

Woods and Mickelson have combined to win six of the last 10 times at the Masters, although it's Mickelson who comes into the first major as the biggest favorite. Not only is he the defining champion, Mickelson made 18 birdies on the weekend to win in Houston.

For a tournament that had lacked a clear favorite, it has one now.

"It seems that everyone has pretty much got Mickelson in the green jacket Sunday evening and there's not much use in turning up at this point," McDowell said with a grin. "He's a great player around Augusta, and if you finish ahead of him, you've got a decent chance."

All McDowell wants is a shot on the back nine Sunday.

That would be a good starting point for Europe to win the only major that has eluded him over the last 12 years.

Westwood was just starting to get good as a junior when Faldo won the Masters in back-to-back years. Then came Woosnam in 1991, winning with a par on the 18th hole in a year in which Olazabal and Tom Watson were tied for the lead going to the last hole.

Francesco Molinari remembers Olazabal coming back from a career-threatening injury to win in 1999.

"For every European, it was inspiring," Molinari said. "It's been awhile, but I think we're ready for another run."

Poulter was folding shirts and selling candy bars in a golf shop in England toward the end of the European run. He remembers Woosnam winning, and Langer and Olazabal in back-to-back years. And no one could forget Faldo winning his last green jacket in 1996 when he rallied from a six-shot deficit against Greg Norman.

"They were just so strong," Poulter said. "They were on the board every year. They were the best in the game around that era. I guess it's been a while since you've had those guys back in that position. But if you look at Europe in the world ranking now, we've filled that back with guys who are definitely going to have a chance."

Poulter and Westwood shared the 36-hole lead a year ago. Westwood fought to the end, while Poulter faltered.

It would be surprising if Europe didn't show itself when the Masters begins on Thursday. Donald, Casey and Rose each have flirted with contention over the years, and Harrington appeared to take a step forward last week with his play in Houston.

The best proof is not the names, but the numbers.

Beyond the ranking, Europeans keep showing up at the top of World Golf Championships — Donald, Molinari and Poulter have won three of the last five. And then there was that little exhibition at Celtic Manor last October, with Europe winning the Ryder Cup again.

Now comes the first major of the year. What once were hopes for Europe now are expectations.

"There's no shortage of great players, especially in Britain and Ireland," said McDowell, who played a full practice round Monday with Poulter and Rose. This current crop of European players has been compared with Woosie, Ollie, Ballesteros, Lyle, Faldo and Langer. I think if you compared them with this crop, yeah, you've got to start suggesting that it's time to start winning the Masters.

"There's no doubt we've got the talent. We've got the players," he said. "But it's tough to win."

Source http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGtSCZ1NpT8HOGIag8lEc1dtFUXw?docId=ee1720644b994a808c2cbad4f8a311b8