Mumbai: One sector that can hope to get some clarity from the new government on the foreign direct investment (FDI) front perhaps immediately is retail.
With the opponents of organised retail, i.e. the Left and BJP, biting the dust, players in retail are looking forward to furthering their interests through expansions and foreign investments.
In 2006, the UPA had encouraged organised retail by opening up FDI in single brand outlets up to 51%. The same is not permitted for multi brand outlets. The previous government, heavily dependent on the Left parties, was, however, forced to go slow on this front. All this might change now.
The sector could witness some policy decisions by the Congress-led UPA regime, including higher FDI, feel industry observers.
Future Group CEO Kishore Biyani said: “The government has been talking of a calibrated approach towards FDI. The time has come. The boost to the economy, expected after the Congress sweep, will generate further consumption. They could be announcing some more measures to generate growth in the retail sector.’’
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Auto cos want new govt to rationalise excise structure
New Delhi: The Indian automobile ind u s t r y wants the new government to c o n t i nu e promoting the sector as a key economic driver and has asked for removal of differential excise structure for different size of vehicles.
“First and foremost (there should be) no reversal of financial stimulus packages announced over the last six months,’’ Mahindra & Mahindra president, automotive sector, Pawan Goenka said.
He said the government must also “review and amend large differences in excise duty on different sizes of vehicles’’.
At present, passenger vehicles above 1,500cc engine size attract additional excise duty of Rs 15,000-20,000 over and above the 20% excise they attract. Maruti Suzuki India MD Shinzo Nakanishi, who had already stated the government should not hike excise duty, said: “Backed with this verdict I am sure the new government will re-enforce its initiatives to promote the automobile industry as a key economic driver.’’
Congratulating the UPA on its decisive victory, Hero Honda Motors MD and CEO Pawan Munjal said: “This mandate will strengthen the hand of the central government to unlock long awaited reforms in multiple sectors for the feel good factor to return to the economy.’’
Goenka also said the government should focus on demand generation via a series of initiatives suggested by the industry at various times.
SIAM had said that had it not been for the stimulus packages, passenger vehicle sales would have been down 3% or no growth, while commercial vehicles would have had a decline of 30-40%. AGENCIES
“First and foremost (there should be) no reversal of financial stimulus packages announced over the last six months,’’ Mahindra & Mahindra president, automotive sector, Pawan Goenka said.
He said the government must also “review and amend large differences in excise duty on different sizes of vehicles’’.
At present, passenger vehicles above 1,500cc engine size attract additional excise duty of Rs 15,000-20,000 over and above the 20% excise they attract. Maruti Suzuki India MD Shinzo Nakanishi, who had already stated the government should not hike excise duty, said: “Backed with this verdict I am sure the new government will re-enforce its initiatives to promote the automobile industry as a key economic driver.’’
Congratulating the UPA on its decisive victory, Hero Honda Motors MD and CEO Pawan Munjal said: “This mandate will strengthen the hand of the central government to unlock long awaited reforms in multiple sectors for the feel good factor to return to the economy.’’
Goenka also said the government should focus on demand generation via a series of initiatives suggested by the industry at various times.
SIAM had said that had it not been for the stimulus packages, passenger vehicle sales would have been down 3% or no growth, while commercial vehicles would have had a decline of 30-40%. AGENCIES
Tech cos say govt’s IT thrust to reboot sector
Mumbai/Bangalore: The new dispensation at the Centre has come as a ray of hope for the Indian IT sector, which expects a renewed thrust towards the field by a stronger, reform-oriented government. This comes at a time when the Obama administration plans tax clampdown that could hurt Indian players.
The software services and outsourcing industry expects the UPA government to increase spending on IT initiatives, education and infrastructure, fuelling growth, which lost steam because of the global financial crisis. The meltdown has forced many US, Europe and Japanese companies to pare their IT budgets, hitting Indian firms.
From TCS, Wipro, Infosys to HCL, Patni and Cognizant, companies are now scrambling to raise their share in the domestic software and IT services pie, valued at Rs 58,000 crore. Their earnings from the domestic market has been less than 10%. Additionally, government contracts have become more important because of their sheer size and long tenure besides being credible and financially stable.
Tata Consultancy Services MD S Ramadorai says, “Given the proven benefits of technology usage in programs like NREGA to speed up development and enable efficient public administration as well as deliver government services to the citizens’ doorsteps, the new government should embark on a $5-10 billion investment programme in e-governance initiatives.’’
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the flagship job guarantee programme, had been one of the major initiatives that worked in favour of UPA.
The industry hopes the government should leverage its capabilities to catalyse development programmes in education, healthcare as well as implementing unique identity card for each citizen.
The knowledge incentive industry, which generates the highest number of jobs, expects the Centre to increase its budgets to improve job skills and education in the country.
Avinash Vashistha, CEO of Tholons, an offshoring advisory firm, says, “Drawing examples from China, the new government should invest significantly in education and training. SMEs are going to drive the next-gen growth of the country, therefore the government should give them better growth incentives.’’
The software services and outsourcing industry expects the UPA government to increase spending on IT initiatives, education and infrastructure, fuelling growth, which lost steam because of the global financial crisis. The meltdown has forced many US, Europe and Japanese companies to pare their IT budgets, hitting Indian firms.
From TCS, Wipro, Infosys to HCL, Patni and Cognizant, companies are now scrambling to raise their share in the domestic software and IT services pie, valued at Rs 58,000 crore. Their earnings from the domestic market has been less than 10%. Additionally, government contracts have become more important because of their sheer size and long tenure besides being credible and financially stable.
Tata Consultancy Services MD S Ramadorai says, “Given the proven benefits of technology usage in programs like NREGA to speed up development and enable efficient public administration as well as deliver government services to the citizens’ doorsteps, the new government should embark on a $5-10 billion investment programme in e-governance initiatives.’’
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the flagship job guarantee programme, had been one of the major initiatives that worked in favour of UPA.
The industry hopes the government should leverage its capabilities to catalyse development programmes in education, healthcare as well as implementing unique identity card for each citizen.
The knowledge incentive industry, which generates the highest number of jobs, expects the Centre to increase its budgets to improve job skills and education in the country.
Avinash Vashistha, CEO of Tholons, an offshoring advisory firm, says, “Drawing examples from China, the new government should invest significantly in education and training. SMEs are going to drive the next-gen growth of the country, therefore the government should give them better growth incentives.’’
UK govt ready to guarantee loans for cash-strapped JLR
London: The British government has said it is ready to guarantee loans to Indian conglomerate Tata group-owned Jaguar Land Rover, for which it is talking with European banks on the behalf of the cashstrapped carmaker.
While making it clear that the primary financial responsibility of JLR rests with the Tatas, the UK continues to hold “confidential discussions’’ over both short and long-term financing and business plans, an official at the British government’s department of business, enterprise and regulatory reform (BEFR) said. JLR, acquired by the Tatas in April last year for £1.15 billion from US auto giant Ford, has faced financial trouble due to the global economic slowdown, and the company had sought assistance from the government.
Earlier in a media interview, Tata Sons chairman Ratan Tata had said he only wanted the UK government to facilitate access to credit and not a bailout for JLR. Besides, some other media reports have said recently that talks between the Tatas and the UK government have hit an impasse.
“The government wants to see JLR safely through difficult trading times and provide stability for the company and its employees. We regard JLR as a visible company with good long-term prospects,’’ the BERR spokesperson said. “That is why the government is having confidential discussions with JLR and its parent company over both short and long-term financing and business plans. These negotiations are continuing,’’ BERR said. It further said the government has actively encouraging Tatas “for the last six months to put together a long-term funding package’’. AGENCIES
While making it clear that the primary financial responsibility of JLR rests with the Tatas, the UK continues to hold “confidential discussions’’ over both short and long-term financing and business plans, an official at the British government’s department of business, enterprise and regulatory reform (BEFR) said. JLR, acquired by the Tatas in April last year for £1.15 billion from US auto giant Ford, has faced financial trouble due to the global economic slowdown, and the company had sought assistance from the government.
Earlier in a media interview, Tata Sons chairman Ratan Tata had said he only wanted the UK government to facilitate access to credit and not a bailout for JLR. Besides, some other media reports have said recently that talks between the Tatas and the UK government have hit an impasse.
“The government wants to see JLR safely through difficult trading times and provide stability for the company and its employees. We regard JLR as a visible company with good long-term prospects,’’ the BERR spokesperson said. “That is why the government is having confidential discussions with JLR and its parent company over both short and long-term financing and business plans. These negotiations are continuing,’’ BERR said. It further said the government has actively encouraging Tatas “for the last six months to put together a long-term funding package’’. AGENCIES
Saturday, May 16, 2009
World Watches for U.S. Shift on Mideast
WASHINGTON — Five weeks ago, President Obama stood before the Turkish legislature in Ankara and said many Americans had Muslims in their families or had lived in a Muslim-majority country. “I know,” he said, “because I am one of them.”
Skip to next paragraph
Blog
The Caucus
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
* More Politics News
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
* Post a Comment »
But will that exposure lead Mr. Obama to take a different tack from his predecessors in his dealings with Israel?
That question, which has captivated a wide spectrum of people, from America’s Israel lobby to Palestinian-Americans to the Muslim world, will take center stage on Monday, when Israel’s hawkish prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has his first face-to-face meeting with Mr. Obama since he became president.
In an interview broadcast Saturday on Israeli television, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said he believed that in the meeting, Mr. Netanyahu would signal a significant policy shift for his new government and endorse the creation of a Palestinian state — perhaps reflecting uncertainty about whether Mr. Obama would accept an Israeli hard line.
“This is a piece of the cloud that’s hovering over this meeting: is this man different?” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator at the State Department and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.” “The fact that he’s African-American. The fact that his middle name is Hussein. The fact that the world for him is not black or white, that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not black and white, there is gray, and in that gray lies the ability of this president to understand the needs and requirements of Palestinians. Is that on Benjamin Netanyahu’s mind? There’s no question that that’s there.”
Mr. Obama’s past suggests why, four months into his presidency, the answer to the question remains elusive. His first book, “Dreams From My Father,” delves deeply into matters of race and nationality and the need to belong somewhere, issues that permeate the Arab-Israeli conflict. But in the book Mr. Obama does not address specifically how he views Israel and the plight of the Palestinians.
As a state senator in Chicago, Mr. Obama cultivated friendships with Arab-Americans, including Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American scholar and a critic of Israel. Mr. Obama and Mr. Khalidi had many dinners together, friends said, in which they discussed Palestinian issues.
During the 1990s, Mr. Obama also attended tributes to Arab-Americans, where he often seemed “empathetic” to the cause of Palestinians, said Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American journalist in Chicago.
This contrasts with the more “tabula rasa” image of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that many of Mr. Obama’s predecessors brought to their presidencies — a blank slate that was then shaped by the strong alliance with Israel that is a fixture of politics in the United States, many Middle East experts say.
“I think this president gets it, in terms of the suffering of the Palestinians,” said Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “He gets it, which is already light years ahead of the average elected American politician.”
Mr. Obama’s predecessors, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, came of age politically with the American-Israeli viewpoint of the Middle East conflict as their primary tutor, said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. While each often expressed concern and empathy for the Palestinians — with Mr. Clinton, in particular, pushing hard for Middle East peace during the last months of his presidency — their early perspectives were shaped more by Israelis and American Jews than by Muslims, Mr. Levy said.
“I think that Barack Obama, on this issue as well as many other issues, brings a fresh approach and a fresh background,” Mr. Levy said. “He’s certainly familiar with Israel’s concerns and with the closeness of the Israel-America relationship and with that narrative. But what I think might be different is a familiarity that I think President Obama almost certainly has with where the Palestinian grievance narrative is coming from.”
None of this necessarily means that Mr. Obama will chart a course that is different from his predecessors’. During the campaign he struck a position on Israel that was indistinguishable from those of his rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, going so far as to say in 2008 that he supported Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. (He later attributed that statement to “poor phrasing in the speech,” telling Fareed Zakaria of CNN that he meant to say he did not want barbed wire running through Jerusalem.)
Still, many Palestinian-Americans who hoped that Mr. Obama would come into office and quickly seek to press the Israeli government on Palestinian issues have been disappointed.
“In practice, despite the hype, there is much more continuity with previous administrations,” Mr. Abunimah said. “People get carried away with the atmospheric change, but the substance of the U.S. policy towards Israel has been the same policy.”
Last year, for instance, Mr. Obama was quick to distance himself from Robert Malley, an informal adviser to his campaign, when reports arose that Mr. Malley, a special adviser to Mr. Clinton, had had direct contacts with Hamas, the militant Islamist organization that won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and that controls Gaza. Similarly, he distanced himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser who was often critical of Israel, after complaints from some pro-Israel groups.
And Mr. Obama offered no public support for the appointment of Mr. Freeman to a top intelligence post in March after several congressional representatives and lobbyists complained that Mr. Freeman had an irrational hatred of Israel. Mr. Freeman angrily withdrew from consideration for the post.
But Mr. Freeman, in a telephone interview last week, said he still believed that Mr. Obama would go where his predecessors did not on Israel. Mr. Obama’s appointment of Gen. James L. Jones as his national security adviser — a man who has worked with Palestinians and Israelis to try to open up movement for Palestinians on the ground and who has sometimes irritated Israeli military officials — could foreshadow friction between the Obama administration and the Israeli government, several Middle East experts said.
The same is true for the appointment of George J. Mitchell as Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the region; Mr. Mitchell, who helped negotiate peace in Northern Ireland, has already hinted privately that the administration may have to look for ways to include Hamas, in some fashion, in a unity Palestinian government.
Mr. Obama’s meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, while crucial, may only preview the beginning of the path the president will take, Mr. Freeman said.
“You can’t really tell anything by what happened to me and the fact that he didn’t step forward to take on the skunks,” he said, referring to his own appointment controversy and Mr. Obama’s silence amid critics’ attacks. “The first nine months, Nixon was absolutely horrible on China. In retrospect, it was clear that he had every intention to charge ahead, but he was picking his moment. He didn’t want to have the fight before he had to have the fight.”
“I sense that Obama is picking his moment,” Mr. Freeman said.
Skip to next paragraph
Blog
The Caucus
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
* More Politics News
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
* Post a Comment »
But will that exposure lead Mr. Obama to take a different tack from his predecessors in his dealings with Israel?
That question, which has captivated a wide spectrum of people, from America’s Israel lobby to Palestinian-Americans to the Muslim world, will take center stage on Monday, when Israel’s hawkish prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has his first face-to-face meeting with Mr. Obama since he became president.
In an interview broadcast Saturday on Israeli television, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said he believed that in the meeting, Mr. Netanyahu would signal a significant policy shift for his new government and endorse the creation of a Palestinian state — perhaps reflecting uncertainty about whether Mr. Obama would accept an Israeli hard line.
“This is a piece of the cloud that’s hovering over this meeting: is this man different?” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator at the State Department and the author of “The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.” “The fact that he’s African-American. The fact that his middle name is Hussein. The fact that the world for him is not black or white, that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not black and white, there is gray, and in that gray lies the ability of this president to understand the needs and requirements of Palestinians. Is that on Benjamin Netanyahu’s mind? There’s no question that that’s there.”
Mr. Obama’s past suggests why, four months into his presidency, the answer to the question remains elusive. His first book, “Dreams From My Father,” delves deeply into matters of race and nationality and the need to belong somewhere, issues that permeate the Arab-Israeli conflict. But in the book Mr. Obama does not address specifically how he views Israel and the plight of the Palestinians.
As a state senator in Chicago, Mr. Obama cultivated friendships with Arab-Americans, including Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American scholar and a critic of Israel. Mr. Obama and Mr. Khalidi had many dinners together, friends said, in which they discussed Palestinian issues.
During the 1990s, Mr. Obama also attended tributes to Arab-Americans, where he often seemed “empathetic” to the cause of Palestinians, said Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American journalist in Chicago.
This contrasts with the more “tabula rasa” image of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that many of Mr. Obama’s predecessors brought to their presidencies — a blank slate that was then shaped by the strong alliance with Israel that is a fixture of politics in the United States, many Middle East experts say.
“I think this president gets it, in terms of the suffering of the Palestinians,” said Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “He gets it, which is already light years ahead of the average elected American politician.”
Mr. Obama’s predecessors, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, came of age politically with the American-Israeli viewpoint of the Middle East conflict as their primary tutor, said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. While each often expressed concern and empathy for the Palestinians — with Mr. Clinton, in particular, pushing hard for Middle East peace during the last months of his presidency — their early perspectives were shaped more by Israelis and American Jews than by Muslims, Mr. Levy said.
“I think that Barack Obama, on this issue as well as many other issues, brings a fresh approach and a fresh background,” Mr. Levy said. “He’s certainly familiar with Israel’s concerns and with the closeness of the Israel-America relationship and with that narrative. But what I think might be different is a familiarity that I think President Obama almost certainly has with where the Palestinian grievance narrative is coming from.”
None of this necessarily means that Mr. Obama will chart a course that is different from his predecessors’. During the campaign he struck a position on Israel that was indistinguishable from those of his rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, going so far as to say in 2008 that he supported Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. (He later attributed that statement to “poor phrasing in the speech,” telling Fareed Zakaria of CNN that he meant to say he did not want barbed wire running through Jerusalem.)
Still, many Palestinian-Americans who hoped that Mr. Obama would come into office and quickly seek to press the Israeli government on Palestinian issues have been disappointed.
“In practice, despite the hype, there is much more continuity with previous administrations,” Mr. Abunimah said. “People get carried away with the atmospheric change, but the substance of the U.S. policy towards Israel has been the same policy.”
Last year, for instance, Mr. Obama was quick to distance himself from Robert Malley, an informal adviser to his campaign, when reports arose that Mr. Malley, a special adviser to Mr. Clinton, had had direct contacts with Hamas, the militant Islamist organization that won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and that controls Gaza. Similarly, he distanced himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser who was often critical of Israel, after complaints from some pro-Israel groups.
And Mr. Obama offered no public support for the appointment of Mr. Freeman to a top intelligence post in March after several congressional representatives and lobbyists complained that Mr. Freeman had an irrational hatred of Israel. Mr. Freeman angrily withdrew from consideration for the post.
But Mr. Freeman, in a telephone interview last week, said he still believed that Mr. Obama would go where his predecessors did not on Israel. Mr. Obama’s appointment of Gen. James L. Jones as his national security adviser — a man who has worked with Palestinians and Israelis to try to open up movement for Palestinians on the ground and who has sometimes irritated Israeli military officials — could foreshadow friction between the Obama administration and the Israeli government, several Middle East experts said.
The same is true for the appointment of George J. Mitchell as Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the region; Mr. Mitchell, who helped negotiate peace in Northern Ireland, has already hinted privately that the administration may have to look for ways to include Hamas, in some fashion, in a unity Palestinian government.
Mr. Obama’s meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, while crucial, may only preview the beginning of the path the president will take, Mr. Freeman said.
“You can’t really tell anything by what happened to me and the fact that he didn’t step forward to take on the skunks,” he said, referring to his own appointment controversy and Mr. Obama’s silence amid critics’ attacks. “The first nine months, Nixon was absolutely horrible on China. In retrospect, it was clear that he had every intention to charge ahead, but he was picking his moment. He didn’t want to have the fight before he had to have the fight.”
“I sense that Obama is picking his moment,” Mr. Freeman said.
Economy Woes Shake Up Campaign for California Governor as Voters Seek Answers
17th May, 2009
LOS ANGELES — If a campaign consultant were in search of a billable candidate in the inchoate race to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it might seem sensible to seek out a Democrat.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Vying for California Governor’s MansionGraphic
Vying for California Governor’s Mansion
Democrats hold a whopping advantage in registered voters in California, and President Obama beat Senator John McCain here by 24 percentage points last fall. Republicans seeking statewide office have largely gotten clobbered in recent years, and the party’s standard-bearer — Mr. Schwarzenegger, barred by term limits from running for re-election — has one of the lowest approval ratings for a governor in nearly 25 years.
But the dynamics of the 2010 race, which has come into full swing in recent weeks, are already proving to be topsy-turvy, with Democrats trying to buck a gubernatorial slump against a millionaire-peppered group of moderate Republicans.
Many voters in California, despondent over the state’s dire fiscal straits, high unemployment and stream of businesses flowing to other states, say they value competence and solutions more than party affiliation or celebrity.
“What the voters will be looking for in this election is someone who has some answers,” said Bruce E. Cain, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. “I do not remember the morale of the state being so low.”
That malaise seems to infuse even those running for governor, a job whose innate challenges (including a population of nearly 39 million) are made all the more difficult by a State Constitution that requires a two-thirds vote by lawmakers to pass a budget or a tax increase and by a ballot initiative system that allows voters to set their own rules with just a simple majority.
“It’s not much of career builder; it’s more of a career ender,” said Jerry Brown, 71, the state’s attorney general, who was governor from 1975 to 1983. “But I feel I could bear that better than the other candidates.”
In addition to Mr. Brown — who has yet to declare his candidacy formally but has not been shy about his desire to run — the Democratic field includes Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, who is madly trying to Twitter his way beyond the single issue of same-sex marriage, which has so far defined him. His friendly counterpart to the south, meanwhile, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, has been coy about his intentions — he ducked the state party’s convention this month — but has a reputation for jumping into races at the last minute. (State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has been floated as a possible dark horse.)
Mr. Brown, Mr. Newsom and Mr. Villaraigosa all have high-profile jobs but an uphill battle in front of them. Democrats have lost six of the last eight races for governor, including a 2003 recall, despite having a lock on most other statewide offices.
“Any Democrat who thinks that Republicans have no chance in this race should take a look at recent history,” said Garry South, a Democratic consultant who is working on the Newsom campaign.
On the Republican side are two Silicon Valley millionaires — a former eBay chief executive, Meg Whitman, and the state’s insurance commissioner, Steven Poizner, the only Republican to win a statewide office in the last election. They are joined by Tom Campbell, a former congressman who flies below most voters’ radar screens.
The Republicans have been focused on taxes and the state’s regulatory environment, which they suggest combine to drive companies out of the state, as well as on job creation, though they have offered few specific plans. They are also presenting themselves as a check on the power of the Democrats, who control both houses of the State Legislature.
“In the general election our point will be, ‘Do you want just one party in charge?’ ” Mr. Campbell said.
Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Mr. Obama’s popularity here and on his campaign’s inroads in drawing young people to the polls. Mr. Newsom, 41, in particular, has been angling for younger voters, announcing his candidacy via Twitter. (He claims 400,000 followers and says he posts “90 percent” of his own tweets.)
At the same time, Mr. Newsom, who made a tidy fortune as the founder of Plumpjack, a wine, lodging and restaurant group, is also looking to pump up his moderate, pro-business credentials with more conservative voters who might be skeptical of his well-publicized embrace of same-sex marriage and his liberal San Francisco pedigree.
“I’m a pro-job Democrat,” he said. “I’ve been very progressive when it comes to social issues and pragmatic when it comes to business.”
Most of the candidates agree that social issues will probably play only a small role in the election because of the state’s economic plight.
“I don’t think social issues are the core burning problem facing the state,” Mr. Poizner said.
Candidates from both parties also seem to agree that it is a good idea to distance themselves from Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose popularity has slipped as the state has been buffeted by recession, high foreclosure rates and chronic budget battles. That includes Mr. Villaraigosa, even though he continues to make appearances with Mr. Schwarzenegger.
“He is doing as good a job as he can do,” said Mr. Villaraigosa, adding that the only way to get California back on track is “to make fundamental changes to the way we govern.”
That might include seemingly radical solutions like calling a constitutional convention to consider changing some provisions, including the two-thirds rule in the State Legislature.
Republicans are also looking to present themselves as reformers.
Mr. Poizner, for example, who got rich running technology companies, is positioning himself as the only Republican with business credentials who has demonstrated that he can win statewide office. Mr. Poizner is also pushing education reform, favoring a large expansion of charter schools. “I am going to be very specific,” he said. “And it will drive my political consultants nuts.”
Likewise, Ms. Whitman seems to be striking an outsider attitude, saying she wants to bring her experiences at eBay to bear on the state’s budget.
“I want to run Sacramento a bit more like a business,” she said. “We have a government we can’t afford.”
Mr. Campbell, a business professor at the University of California, Berkeley, seems to strike a more placid tone and says he can easily work with a Democratic-controlled Legislature. “Oh gosh, yes I can!” he said.
Such post-partisanship was supposed to be a hallmark of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s second term, which he began in 2007 with a call for “the party of California” to come together to fix the state. Two years later, however, the consensus is that despite all the potential takers, running the State of California is a miserable job.
“Most governors leave discredited and unpopular,” said Mr. Brown, who at this early point in the contest is leading among Democrats in most polls.
LOS ANGELES — If a campaign consultant were in search of a billable candidate in the inchoate race to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it might seem sensible to seek out a Democrat.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Vying for California Governor’s MansionGraphic
Vying for California Governor’s Mansion
Democrats hold a whopping advantage in registered voters in California, and President Obama beat Senator John McCain here by 24 percentage points last fall. Republicans seeking statewide office have largely gotten clobbered in recent years, and the party’s standard-bearer — Mr. Schwarzenegger, barred by term limits from running for re-election — has one of the lowest approval ratings for a governor in nearly 25 years.
But the dynamics of the 2010 race, which has come into full swing in recent weeks, are already proving to be topsy-turvy, with Democrats trying to buck a gubernatorial slump against a millionaire-peppered group of moderate Republicans.
Many voters in California, despondent over the state’s dire fiscal straits, high unemployment and stream of businesses flowing to other states, say they value competence and solutions more than party affiliation or celebrity.
“What the voters will be looking for in this election is someone who has some answers,” said Bruce E. Cain, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. “I do not remember the morale of the state being so low.”
That malaise seems to infuse even those running for governor, a job whose innate challenges (including a population of nearly 39 million) are made all the more difficult by a State Constitution that requires a two-thirds vote by lawmakers to pass a budget or a tax increase and by a ballot initiative system that allows voters to set their own rules with just a simple majority.
“It’s not much of career builder; it’s more of a career ender,” said Jerry Brown, 71, the state’s attorney general, who was governor from 1975 to 1983. “But I feel I could bear that better than the other candidates.”
In addition to Mr. Brown — who has yet to declare his candidacy formally but has not been shy about his desire to run — the Democratic field includes Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, who is madly trying to Twitter his way beyond the single issue of same-sex marriage, which has so far defined him. His friendly counterpart to the south, meanwhile, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, has been coy about his intentions — he ducked the state party’s convention this month — but has a reputation for jumping into races at the last minute. (State Treasurer Bill Lockyer has been floated as a possible dark horse.)
Mr. Brown, Mr. Newsom and Mr. Villaraigosa all have high-profile jobs but an uphill battle in front of them. Democrats have lost six of the last eight races for governor, including a 2003 recall, despite having a lock on most other statewide offices.
“Any Democrat who thinks that Republicans have no chance in this race should take a look at recent history,” said Garry South, a Democratic consultant who is working on the Newsom campaign.
On the Republican side are two Silicon Valley millionaires — a former eBay chief executive, Meg Whitman, and the state’s insurance commissioner, Steven Poizner, the only Republican to win a statewide office in the last election. They are joined by Tom Campbell, a former congressman who flies below most voters’ radar screens.
The Republicans have been focused on taxes and the state’s regulatory environment, which they suggest combine to drive companies out of the state, as well as on job creation, though they have offered few specific plans. They are also presenting themselves as a check on the power of the Democrats, who control both houses of the State Legislature.
“In the general election our point will be, ‘Do you want just one party in charge?’ ” Mr. Campbell said.
Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Mr. Obama’s popularity here and on his campaign’s inroads in drawing young people to the polls. Mr. Newsom, 41, in particular, has been angling for younger voters, announcing his candidacy via Twitter. (He claims 400,000 followers and says he posts “90 percent” of his own tweets.)
At the same time, Mr. Newsom, who made a tidy fortune as the founder of Plumpjack, a wine, lodging and restaurant group, is also looking to pump up his moderate, pro-business credentials with more conservative voters who might be skeptical of his well-publicized embrace of same-sex marriage and his liberal San Francisco pedigree.
“I’m a pro-job Democrat,” he said. “I’ve been very progressive when it comes to social issues and pragmatic when it comes to business.”
Most of the candidates agree that social issues will probably play only a small role in the election because of the state’s economic plight.
“I don’t think social issues are the core burning problem facing the state,” Mr. Poizner said.
Candidates from both parties also seem to agree that it is a good idea to distance themselves from Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose popularity has slipped as the state has been buffeted by recession, high foreclosure rates and chronic budget battles. That includes Mr. Villaraigosa, even though he continues to make appearances with Mr. Schwarzenegger.
“He is doing as good a job as he can do,” said Mr. Villaraigosa, adding that the only way to get California back on track is “to make fundamental changes to the way we govern.”
That might include seemingly radical solutions like calling a constitutional convention to consider changing some provisions, including the two-thirds rule in the State Legislature.
Republicans are also looking to present themselves as reformers.
Mr. Poizner, for example, who got rich running technology companies, is positioning himself as the only Republican with business credentials who has demonstrated that he can win statewide office. Mr. Poizner is also pushing education reform, favoring a large expansion of charter schools. “I am going to be very specific,” he said. “And it will drive my political consultants nuts.”
Likewise, Ms. Whitman seems to be striking an outsider attitude, saying she wants to bring her experiences at eBay to bear on the state’s budget.
“I want to run Sacramento a bit more like a business,” she said. “We have a government we can’t afford.”
Mr. Campbell, a business professor at the University of California, Berkeley, seems to strike a more placid tone and says he can easily work with a Democratic-controlled Legislature. “Oh gosh, yes I can!” he said.
Such post-partisanship was supposed to be a hallmark of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s second term, which he began in 2007 with a call for “the party of California” to come together to fix the state. Two years later, however, the consensus is that despite all the potential takers, running the State of California is a miserable job.
“Most governors leave discredited and unpopular,” said Mr. Brown, who at this early point in the contest is leading among Democrats in most polls.
EBRD Board Says Ready to Consider Raising Capital
May 16 (Bloomberg) -- The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s board of governors is willing to discuss raising capital, Board Chairman Brian Lenihan said, as the global crisis means more banks and businesses in former communist states need loans and investment.
“The governors of the bank expressed broad openness to discuss enhanced capital needs of the EBRD,” Lenihan, who is also Ireland’s finance minister, said in a statement in London after a board meeting today. “However, this was combined with the strong view that there should be a real necessity for extra capital and that the case has to be made convincingly.”
The former communist countries in Europe and central Asia that the London-based EBRD invests in are struggling through the deepest recession since shaking off communist regimes. The financial crisis that left banks with more than $2 trillion in losses worldwide has led to a dearth of credit and investment in the region.
The governors warned that allocating more resources in response to the crisis “will inevitably expose the bank to high risks, and a sizeable contribution to recovery may test the bank’s capital,” according to Lenihan.
The EBRD posted a loss last year as declines in equity markets eroded the value of its assets. The bank’s capital resources review, which follows this week’s annual meeting, is the right forum in which to discuss capital needs, the governors concluded, Lenihan said.
Strategy
EBRD President Thomas Mirow yesterday called on governors to start addressing the bank’s capital needs as part of talks on its medium-term strategy for the period between 2011 and 2015. The board should reach a decision when the bank holds its next annual meeting in Zagreb a year from now, he said.
“There have been, as I had hoped for, some preliminary debates about what is the sustainable business volume for this bank, how do we cope with risks, and what should this mean in terms of a possible capital increase,” Mirow told reporters today.
“In this field, we didn’t have all shareholders on the same line” with some preferring to stay within the existing capital limits, he said, adding that “there was no divisive debate.”
Australia will remain a shareholder of the EBRD, reversing an earlier decision, lawmaker Peter Reith, who headed the country’s delegation, told the board meeting today.
‘Systemically Important’
The London-based bank will probably invest between 7 billion euros ($9.5 billion) and 8 billion euros in the region next year, compared with this year’s record 7 billion euros, Mirow said in a May 12 Bloomberg interview. The EBRD is focusing its efforts on 12 “systemically important” western parent banks, such as units of Italy’s UniCredit SpA, and some large local lenders, including Latvia’s Parex Banka AS and Hungary’s OTP Bank Nyrt., he said.
The EBRD has lent 2.3 billion euros ($3.13 billion) to the region so far this year. Funding rose by more than half from the same period last year. The EBRD in the whole of last year invested 5.1 billion euros.
Eastern Europe has probably seen the worst of the economic crisis, Mirow told reporters today. He predicted there will be a “very cautious recovery” from next year, while the region’s banks also will be further hit through the economy, he said.
‘Bottoming Out’
“We see signs of a bottoming out this year,” Mirow said. “There will be further hits, also to the financial sector through the real economy” and people will not immediately feel the improvement as a recovery in employment will lag behind.”
The slump in the last two quarters prompted the EBRD last week to revise its average 2009 forecast for the economies to a contraction of more than 5 percent, after still predicting growth in early January. Expansion will return next year at a rate of 1.4 percent, the bank estimates. Mirow said today he doesn’t expect the bank’s forecast to “deteriorate.”
The development bank teamed up in March with the World Bank, and European Investment Bank to extend a 24.5 billion-euro aid package over two years for the region’s banks and companies.
The EBRD was created in 1991 to invest in former communist countries from the Balkans to Asia to help them transform their economies. Since its formation, the bank has invested 41.7 billion euros, or 134.8 billion euros including contributions from private partners.
“The governors of the bank expressed broad openness to discuss enhanced capital needs of the EBRD,” Lenihan, who is also Ireland’s finance minister, said in a statement in London after a board meeting today. “However, this was combined with the strong view that there should be a real necessity for extra capital and that the case has to be made convincingly.”
The former communist countries in Europe and central Asia that the London-based EBRD invests in are struggling through the deepest recession since shaking off communist regimes. The financial crisis that left banks with more than $2 trillion in losses worldwide has led to a dearth of credit and investment in the region.
The governors warned that allocating more resources in response to the crisis “will inevitably expose the bank to high risks, and a sizeable contribution to recovery may test the bank’s capital,” according to Lenihan.
The EBRD posted a loss last year as declines in equity markets eroded the value of its assets. The bank’s capital resources review, which follows this week’s annual meeting, is the right forum in which to discuss capital needs, the governors concluded, Lenihan said.
Strategy
EBRD President Thomas Mirow yesterday called on governors to start addressing the bank’s capital needs as part of talks on its medium-term strategy for the period between 2011 and 2015. The board should reach a decision when the bank holds its next annual meeting in Zagreb a year from now, he said.
“There have been, as I had hoped for, some preliminary debates about what is the sustainable business volume for this bank, how do we cope with risks, and what should this mean in terms of a possible capital increase,” Mirow told reporters today.
“In this field, we didn’t have all shareholders on the same line” with some preferring to stay within the existing capital limits, he said, adding that “there was no divisive debate.”
Australia will remain a shareholder of the EBRD, reversing an earlier decision, lawmaker Peter Reith, who headed the country’s delegation, told the board meeting today.
‘Systemically Important’
The London-based bank will probably invest between 7 billion euros ($9.5 billion) and 8 billion euros in the region next year, compared with this year’s record 7 billion euros, Mirow said in a May 12 Bloomberg interview. The EBRD is focusing its efforts on 12 “systemically important” western parent banks, such as units of Italy’s UniCredit SpA, and some large local lenders, including Latvia’s Parex Banka AS and Hungary’s OTP Bank Nyrt., he said.
The EBRD has lent 2.3 billion euros ($3.13 billion) to the region so far this year. Funding rose by more than half from the same period last year. The EBRD in the whole of last year invested 5.1 billion euros.
Eastern Europe has probably seen the worst of the economic crisis, Mirow told reporters today. He predicted there will be a “very cautious recovery” from next year, while the region’s banks also will be further hit through the economy, he said.
‘Bottoming Out’
“We see signs of a bottoming out this year,” Mirow said. “There will be further hits, also to the financial sector through the real economy” and people will not immediately feel the improvement as a recovery in employment will lag behind.”
The slump in the last two quarters prompted the EBRD last week to revise its average 2009 forecast for the economies to a contraction of more than 5 percent, after still predicting growth in early January. Expansion will return next year at a rate of 1.4 percent, the bank estimates. Mirow said today he doesn’t expect the bank’s forecast to “deteriorate.”
The development bank teamed up in March with the World Bank, and European Investment Bank to extend a 24.5 billion-euro aid package over two years for the region’s banks and companies.
The EBRD was created in 1991 to invest in former communist countries from the Balkans to Asia to help them transform their economies. Since its formation, the bank has invested 41.7 billion euros, or 134.8 billion euros including contributions from private partners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
